alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6215
DANNY LAMONT YARBOROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KRISTIN PARKS; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN; NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-31-5-H) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Lamont Yarborough, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(d) (West 1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find the appeal to be frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Yarborough v. Parks , No.CA-96-31-5-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Bowery Savings Bank, Respondent, v 130 East 72nd Street Realty Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leonard N. Cohen, J.), entered August 29, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s answer and for summary judgment in its entirety, and referred the matter to a Referee to ascertain and compute the amount due to plaintiff for principal and interest on a note or bond and mortgage set forth in the complaint, and for taxes, assessments, water rates and/or fire insurance premiums, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action to foreclose a mortgage, defendant 130 East 72nd Street Realty Corp. admitted the execution of the documents relied upon by plaintiff, the corporation’s obligation to pay, default in the payment of principal, interest, and taxes, and the existence of the mortgages giving a first lien upon the subject property. Based upon these admissions, which cured the deficiencies in plaintiff’s moving papers, the bank established a *prima facie*right to payment, which the defendant has failed to rebut by raising any material issue of fact for trial.

The fact that one of the shareholders is missing, or that she may or may not be a majority shareholder, absent more, does not raise a defense to the note, or a triable issue of fact. Nor is the public administrator, who was appointed to stand in the shoes of the missing shareholder, a necessary party to this action, since it is axiomatic that a corporation is a legal entity separate and distinct from its shareholders *(Matter of Total Care Health Indus. v Department of Social Servs.,*144 AD2d 678). Moreover, the reliance by other officers and/or principals of the corporation upon restraining orders issued by the Surrogate’s Court is misplaced, inasmuch as those orders merely restrained the transfer or encumbrance of the property by principals of the defendant corporation and did not prohibit such persons from carrying on the business of the corporation in the ordinary course, from paying the corporation’s debts, or restrain creditors from seeking to enforce their rights with respect to the valid and binding obligations of the corporation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

### OCT 1 4 ?009

The Honorable Raphael Bear Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation P. O. Box 17779 Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 Dear President Bear:
In December 2008, then EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson sent a letter informing you ofthe designations for the 2006 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2s). Yourreservation was located in an area that was designated as attainment/unclassifiablefor that standard. Those designation decisions were based onthe 2005-2007 air quality monitoring data, which were the most current data at that time. However, these designations were never finalized because they were not published in the Federal Register. Current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has reviewed the December 2008 decisions and has decided to promulgate area designations based on consideration ofnew 2006-2008 airquality monitoringdata, the most recent data available. I am writingto inform you that, based on consideration of2006-2008 air quality monitoring data, one additional area in Arizona, Pinal County, appears to be violatingthe 2006 24-hourPM2.s NAAQS. Because your reservation is located in an adjacent countywith emissions that couldpotentially contribute to violations in Pinal County, EPA is reviewing our initial recommendation for your reservation. EPA is deferring the area designation for Pinal County and the surroundingring ofcounties so that EPA and the tribes may collect sufficient information to assess these areas before promulgatingdesignations. As a first step in this process, EPA will gather and evaluate information. Once an evaluation is completed, we will notify you ofourintended designation for yourreservation. We plan to announce intended designations within the next several months and at least 120 days prior to promulgating final designations. You will have an opportunity to comment on EPA'sintended designation once it is announced.

Printed on Recycled PaperWelook forward to continuingto work with you and your staffto develop designations for the 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS in a timelymanner. Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contactme. Your air quality staffmay wish to contact Colleen McKaughan, Associate AirDivision Director at (520) 498-0118. Sincerely,

# Lf::d~ Acting Regional Administrator

cc: Mark Frank, Environmental Manager

2
# L_2006047EN.01002901.xml

| 17.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 47/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 47/29

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 276/2006

of 16 February 2006

fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds for skimmed milk powder (2) provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 14 February 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 14 February 2006.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 14 February 2006, the maximum amount of refund for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be 12,20 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 February 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 67. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1239/2005 (OJ L 200, 30.7.2005, p. 32).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1814/2005 (OJ L 292, 8.11.2005, p. 3).

3

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Theaola Robinson v. The Walt Disney Company; ABC 

Television Network, Inc.; CC Texas Holding Co., Inc.; and 

KTRK Television, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-14-00880-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-54895

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

On December 4, 2014, appellant, Theaola Robinson, filed an affidavit of indigence 

in this Court in the above-referenced appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a)(2). We referred 

the affidavit to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c)(1), (d), (h)(4). On December 

22, 2014, appellant filed an affidavit of indigence in the trial court. On December 23, 

2014, the District Clerk of Harris County filed a contest to the affidavit, and a motion for 

an extension of time for a hearing on the contest. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(e)(1). The trial 

court, therefore, was required to either conduct a hearing or sign an order extending the 

time to conduct the hearing by January 2, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(i)(2), (3). 

Further, to properly sustain the contest, the trial court was required to sign an order 

sustaining the contest within the prescribed period for the hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

20.1(i)(4). Neither the clerk’s record nor supplemental clerk’s record on indigence filed 

in this Court reflect that the trial court signed an order extending the period for the 

hearing or ruled on the contest by January 2, 2015. Accordingly, the allegations in the 

affidavit are deemed true, and appellant is entitled to proceed without advance payment 

of costs. See id.

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to make an entry in this Court’s records 

that appellant is indigent and is allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment 

of costs.

It is further ORDERED that the court reporter file with this Court, within 30 days 

of the date of this order and at no cost to appellant, the reporter’s record. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 20.1(k), 35.1(b).
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 24, 2014
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40705 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Alexander Nathan Barter,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:18

- CR

- 42

- 1

Before **Davis, Elrod,** and **Oldham,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Alexander Nathan Barter has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Barter has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 24, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40705 Document: 00515913777 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021No. 20

- 40705

2 developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Barter ’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewe d counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Barter ’s response. We concur with
counsel’s assess ment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , Barter’s pro se motion for the appointment of substitute
counsel is **DENIED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,
and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R**

. 42.2. Case: 20-40705 Document: 00515913777 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2150 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2150

 To suspend temporarily the duty on blocked polyisocyanate hardner; 2-
  Butanone, oxime, polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane and 2-ethyl-2-
                    (hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on blocked polyisocyanate hardner; 2-
  Butanone, oxime, polymer with 1,6-diisocyanatohexane and 2-ethyl-2-
                    (hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BLOCKED POLYISOCYANATE HARDNER; 2-BUTANONE, OXIME, POLYMER 
              WITH 1,6-DIISOCYANATOHEXANE AND 2-ETHYL-2-
              (HYDROXYMETHYL)-1,3-PROPANEDIOL.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Blocked             Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        polyisocyanate                                                     31/2011.......
                        hardner; 2-
                        Butanone, oxime,
                        polymer with 1,6-
                        diisocyanatohexan
                        e and 2-ethyl-2-
                        (hydroxymethyl)-
                        1,3-propanediol
                        (CAS No. 72968-62-
                        8) (provided for
                        in subheading
                        3911.90.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2030 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Methyl cinnamate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. MENENDEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Methyl 

cinnamate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. METHYL CINNAMATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.04 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Methyl cinnamate) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2030 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 20, 2018

NO. 03-17-00722-CV

Appellants, Raymond Boytim, Hugh Duncan, Walter Schwimmer, the Edward J. Goodman 

Life Income Trust and the Edward J. Goodman Generation Skipping Trust, Jeffrey 

Whalen, and Howard Weissberg // Cross-Appellants, Brigham Exploration Company, Ben 

M. Brigham, David T. Brigham, Harold D. Carter, Stephen P. Reynolds, Stephen C. 

Hurley, Hobart A. Smith, Scott W. Tinker, Statoil ASA, and Fargo Acquisition, Inc.

v.

Appellees, Brigham Exploration Company, Ben M. Brigham, David T. Brigham, Harold D. 

Carter, Stephen C. Hurley, Stephen P. Reynolds, Hobart A. Smith, Scott W. Tinker, Statoil 

ASA, and Fargo Acquisition, Inc. // Cross-Appellees, Raymond Boytim, Hugh Duncan, 

Walter Schwimmer, the Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust and the Edward J. 

Goodman Generation Skipping Trust, Jeffrey Whalen, and Howard Weissberg

APPEAL FROM 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on October 19, 2017.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s interlocutory order.

Appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
**EXHIBIT3.2****AMENDED AND RESTATED****BYLAWS****OF****CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**
 

 
**TABLE OF CONTENTS**               **PAGE**ARTICLE I. OFFICES  1            Section 1. REGISTERED OFFICES  1   Section 2. OTHER OFFICES  1          ARTICLE II. MEETINGS OF STOCKHOLDERS  1            Section 1. PLACE OF MEETINGS  1   Section 2. ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS  1   Section 3. QUORUM; ADJOURNED MEETINGS AND NOTICE THEREOF  1   Section 4. VOTING  1   Section 5. PROXIES  2   Section 6. SPECIAL MEETINGS  2   Section 7. NOTICE OF STOCKHOLDERS’ MEETINGS  2   Section 8. FIXING DATE FOR DETERMINATION OF STOCKHOLDERS OF RECORD  3   Section 9. NOTICE OF STOCKHOLDER BUSINESS AND NOMINATIONS  3   Section 10. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF STOCKHOLDER LIST  6   Section 11. STOCKHOLDER ACTION BY WRITTEN CONSENT WITHOUT A MEETING  6          ARTICLE III. DIRECTORS  6            Section 1. THE NUMBER OF DIRECTORS  6   Section 2. VACANCIES  6   Section 3. POWERS  7   Section 4. PLACE OF DIRECTORS’ MEETINGS  7   Section 5. REGULAR MEETINGS  7   Section 6. SPECIAL MEETINGS  7   Section 7. QUORUM  7   Section 8. ACTION WITHOUT MEETING  7   Section 9. TELEPHONIC MEETINGS  8   Section 10. COMMITTEES OF DIRECTORS  8   Section 11. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS  8   Section 12. COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS  8          ARTICLE IV. OFFICERS  8            Section 1. OFFICERS  8   Section 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  9  i
 

 
           **Page**  Section 3. SUBORDINATE OFFICERS  9   Section 4. COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS  9   Section 5. TERM OF OFFICE; REMOVAL AND VACANCIES  9   Section 6. POWERS AND DUTIES OF OFFICERS  9          ARTICLE V. INDEMNIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS  9          ARTICLE VI. CERTIFICATES OF STOCK  10            Section 1. CERTIFICATES  10   Section 2. SIGNATURES ON CERTIFICATES  10   Section 3. STATEMENT OF STOCK RIGHTS, PREFERENCES, PRIVILEGES  10   Section 4. LOST CERTIFICATES  10   Section 5. TRANSFERS OF STOCK  10   Section 6. REGISTERED STOCKHOLDERS  11          ARTICLE VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS  11            Section 1. CHECKS  11   Section 2. FISCAL YEAR  11   Section 3. CORPORATE SEAL  11   Section 4. MANNER OF GIVING NOTICE  11   Section 5. WAIVER OF NOTICE  11          ARTICLE VIII. AMENDMENTS  11  ii
 

 
**AMENDED AND RESTATED**
#### Richard C. Smith, Respondent, v Angel Comas et al., Defendants, and Arnaldo J. Comas, Jr., Appellant.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant Arnaldo J. Comas, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), entered November 28, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant’s principal contention is that because of his mental condition he lacked the capacity to enter into the contract for the sale of the real property at issue. The burden of proving mental incompetence is on the party asserting it *(see, Feiden v Feiden,*151 AD2d 889, 890; *Matter of Gebauer,*79 Misc 2d 715, 719, *affd*51 AD2d 643). We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant failed to sustain his burden. The focus of the inquiry was whether the appellant was capable of comprehending and understanding the nature of the transaction at issue *(see, Ortelere v Teachers’ Retirement Bd.,*25 NY2d 196, 202; *Aldrich v Bailey,*132 NY 85, 89), or whether the appellant, due to his mental illness, was unable to control his conduct *(see, Ortelere v Teachers’ Retirement Bd., supra,*at 203). The appellant’s medical expert was unable to state with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the appellant at the time of the transaction at issue would have been unable to understand the nature of the transaction and the consequences of his signing of the contract of sale. Furthermore, the Trial Judge found the appellant’s testimony as to his mental condition lacked credibility. Due deference must be given to the Trial Judge’s assessment of credibility as he is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and the credibility of witnesses *(see, Matter of Liccione v John H.,*65 NY2d *536826, 827; *Roache v City of Mount Vernon,*160 AD2d 863). We perceive no basis in the record to disturb his findings and, accordingly, adopt the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the burden of proving incompetency was not sustained. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 24.1 POWER OF ATTORNEY  Know all
persons by these presents that the undersigned have made, constituted and
appointed, and BY THESE PRESENTS make, constitute and appoint Marc T.
Tanenberg, Kenneth Batko and Linda R. Witte, true and lawful ATTORNEYS for
himself and in his name, place and stead to sign that certain Annual Report on
Form 10-K, including all exhibits thereto, which Form 10-K is to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about March 29, 2002, to be
executed by the undersigned in his capacity as a Director of APAC Customer
Services, Inc., and to perform any and all other acts necessary in order to
consummate such transaction, giving and granting unto Marc T. Taneneberg,
Kenneth Batko and Linda R. Witte, said ATTORNEYS full power and authority to do
and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever, requisite and necessary to
be done in and about the premises, as fully, to all intents and purposes, as
the undersigned might or could do if personally present at the doing thereof,
with full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming
all that Marc T. Tanenberg, Kenneth Batko and Linda R. Witte, said ATTORNEYS or
their substitutes shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.     /s/ Theodore S. Schwartz/s/ Robert F. Bernard/s/ Thomas M. Collins/s/ John W. Gerdelman/s/ Clark E. McLeod/s/ Paul G. Yovovich