alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Madeline Colombo, Respondent-Appellant, v Sharmas Realty, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Micciche, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents.

—Order and judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff, in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant Raymond Micciche was the broker of record for Sharmas Realty, Inc., during the time that plaintiff was associated with Sharmas Realty. Thus, defendant is obligated to pay the commissions earned by plaintiff and paid to Sharmas Realty *(see,*Real Property Law § 442-a; *Boxhoorn v C.P. Realty Assocs.,*145 Misc 2d 64, 66-67). The order and judgment must be modified, however, to grant only partial summary judgment to plaintiff because, on her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff failed to submit evidence that the sales she negotiated closed prior to the termination of her employment and that she negotiated gross sales totaling three million dollars during the year. Her contract with Sharmas Realty provided for payment to the salesperson of 70% of the commissions generated should she negotiate gross sales totaling three million dollars during the year, but "[i]f a salesperson leaves [the agency] for any reason, they will only receive a 50/ 50 commission split on any pending closings.” The amount awarded, $11,843.30, represents 70% of the commissions and, consequently, the order and judgment is modified by reducing the award to 50%. Whether any or all of the negotiated sales closed before plaintiff terminated her employment with Sharmas Realty, whether she generated gross sales totaling three *986million dollars during the year, and, thus, whether she is entitled to any greater award, are questions to be resolved at trial.

The court properly granted the motion of defendants Samuel and Sharon Pozzanghera and Sharmas Realty, Inc. They were not liable to plaintiff for the commissions earned by her because none of them was the broker of record with whom plaintiff associated *(see,*Real Property Law § 442-a). For the same reason, the court should have granted the motion of defendants Colleen Micciche and Micciche, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them and the order and judgment is modified accordingly. Plaintiff may not contravene the prohibition of Real Property Law § 442-a by characterizing the cause of action against defendants Colleen Micciche and Micciche, Inc., as one for conversion. The action remains one to recover compensation for commissions. There was no showing that the monies plaintiff seeks ever became her property and, thus, she could not maintain an action for their conversion *(see, Peters Griffin Woodward v WCSC, Inc.,*88 AD2d 883). (Appeals from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
# Fourth Co urt of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 1, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00461

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.K.K AND H.A.K. CHILDREN

,

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 2718

- CV

Honorable William Old, Judge Presi ding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

This appeal was dismissed on September 5, 2018, because appellant did not respond to

this court’s order regarding appellant’s failure to pay the filing fee for the appeal. In response to

a motion for rehearing, we again ordered appellant to show cause in writing by October 5, 2018,

that either: (1) the filing fee ha d been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying

the filing fee.

On October 5, 2018, appellant filed a response addressing the merits of his appeal.

Although appellant refers to his financial situation, he does not directly address whether he is

entitled to appeal without payi ng the filing fee. Although this court may permit a party to

proceed without payment of costs, appellant must file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment

of Court Costs in order to establish his indigence. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20 .1(c).

By order date d October 8, 2018, we again ordered appellant to show cause in writing by

October 23, 201 8 that either ( 1) the filing fee ha d been paid; or (2) appellant is claiming an

inability to pay the filing fee and other costs of appeal by filing a Statement of Inab ility to Afford

Payment of Court Costs in the form enclosed with th e order

. Our order cautioned that if

appellant failed to respond within the time provided, the motion for rehearing w ould be denied.

Appellant did not respon d to this court’s order. App ellant’s motion for rehearing is

DENIED. The motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s attorney is GRANTED.It is so ORDERED on November 1, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

________________ ___________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: February 21, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 2111 fEB 2~ p 3: 03 

DOCKET OPERATIONS 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

Redemption Air, Inc. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2013AL030106 

Respondent 

ORDER SETTING PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

On October 28, 2016, the undersigned judge issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the hearing 

to begin on April17, 2017. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(l) and (7), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The parties shall appear by telephone for a prehearing conference with the undersigned 

judge on March 31, 2017 at 2pm Eastern time. 

2. The parties shall access the conference by dialing telephone number 888-204-5984 and 

then inputting access code 6392406 when prompted. 

3. During the conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss their witness and exhibit 

lists, the issues in dispute, the status of any settlement negotiations, and any other related 

matters. 

Attachment: Service List 

::;;P~--___,..--.-.- DOUGLAS M. RA WALD 

Administrative Law Judge 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Brent R. Cole, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Office of Brent R. Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage AK 99501 

TEL: 907-277-8001 

FAX: 907-277-8002 

Glenn H. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Western Team 

222 West 7th A venue, # 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

PHILLIP DALE SELFA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10565

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00324-JAM-1

ORDER*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 13, 2015** 

San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and PONSOR,

*** Senior

 District Judge.

 

Defendant Phillip Selfa was indicted for bank robbery in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2113(a). He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior United States District

Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
the indictment for vindictive prosecution. We lack jurisdiction to consider his

appeal because the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for vindictive

prosecution is neither a "final decision" of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

nor a collateral order subject to interlocutory review. See United States v.

Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 264–70 (1982) (per curiam) ("We do not

reach the question of prosecutorial vindictiveness, for we hold that the Court of

Appeals was without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District

Court’s interlocutory order refusing to dismiss the indictment."); United States v.

McKinley, 38 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the

interlocutory appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for

prosecutorial vindictiveness). 

DISMISSED.

2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Harpreet S. Sangha, the Chief Executive Officer of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., and Antonia Bold-de-Haughton, the Chief Financial Officer of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the report on Form 10-QSB of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc.

Date:     October 19, 2007.

| | "Harpreet S. Sangha"                                                                                               
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Harpreet S. Sangha
President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director                  
| | "Antonia Bold-de-Haughton"                                                                                         
| | Antonia Bold-de-Haughton
Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and a director

__________
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
| The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of Boston Edison Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge: |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   (i)                                                                                                                                                                                                     | the enclosed Annual Report of Boston Edison Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|   (ii)                                                                                                                                                                                                    | the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Boston Edison Company. |
| Dated: March 1, 2004      |  | By:   | /s/ James J. Judge                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                         |  |                 | James J. Judge                                                                                                                                   |
|                                                         |  |                 | Senior Vice President,                                                                                                                           |
|                                                         |  |                 | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                            |
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-1086V

Filed: March 19, 2015

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MARILYN WITBRODT, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza or Flu Vaccine; 

* Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration; SIRVA; Special 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Processing Unit

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Alison Haskins, Esq., Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL for petitioner.

Linda Renzi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Vowell, Chief Special Master:

On November 7, 2014, Marilyn Witbrodt filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq,

2

[the 

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury

caused by the influenza vaccination she received on September 30, 2013.

3 The case 

was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 18, 2015, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

“compensation is appropriate” in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 3. 

Specifically, respondent “concludes that petitioner suffered a Shoulder Injury Related to 

Vaccine Administration, a non-Table injury, and that the preponderance of the medical 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend to 

post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 

note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2006).

3 Petition at 1, 3. Although the petition is titled “’On-Table’ Petition for Compensation,” petition alleges her 

injuries are causally related to her vaccination. 
2

evidence indicates that the injury was causally related to the flu vaccination” she 

received on September 30, 2013. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that 

petitioner is entitled to compensation.

s/Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief Special Master
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 86 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 86

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2020

  Mr. Timmons (for himself and Mr. Phillips) submitted the following 
 joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No person who has been a Senator for two consecutive 
terms shall again be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate 
until the date that is one year after the end of such second 
consecutive term.
    ``Section 2. No person who has been a Representative for six 
consecutive terms shall again be eligible for election to the House of 
Representatives until the date that is one year after the end of the 
sixth consecutive term.
    ``Section 3. For purposes of this article, any term a person serves 
as a Senator or Representative to fill a vacancy shall not be included 
in determining the number of consecutive terms that the person has been 
a Senator or Representative unless the period of time for which the 
person fills the vacancy is greater than three years in the case of a 
Senator or greater than one year in the case of a Representative.
    ``Section 4. For the purposes of this article, any term that began 
before the date of the ratification of this article shall not be 
included in determining the number of consecutive terms that a person 
has been a Senator or Representative.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHET MICHAEL WILSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JOAN COPPERWHEAT, Director of Lane

County Parole and Probation; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-35154

D.C. No. 6:12-cv-02149-KI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Garr M. King, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 7, 2015

Seattle Washington

Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Chet Michael Wilson filed a § 1983 claim in the District Court for

the District of Oregon alleging that his confinement in the Oregon state prisons

was extended in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court summarily

dismissed the action as untimely under Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations,

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
finding that Wilson knew of his claims more than two years before he filed his

complaint. 

Although Wilson may have known of his potential claim more than two

years before he filed his action, pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

486–87 (1994) and Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer, 753 F.3d 890, 896 (9th Cir. 2014),

Wilson’s claims may not have accrued until he was released from confinement. 

Accepting the district court’s determination that Oregon’s two-year statute of

limitations is applicable, Wilson’s complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 was filed within two years of his release from confinement.

Appellant’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The district court’s dismissal of Wilson’s § 1983 claims is VACATED and

the case is REMANDED to the district court.

2
Agricultural Livestock and Poultry Program G-81 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 September 13, 2021

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Fort Worth Meats Angus Program

G-81 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements:

a. Phenotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live Animal 

Specification.

b. Classed as [Steer and Heifer] carcasses only.

1. Angus Prime with a minimum marbling score of Slightly Abundant 00

2. Angus Premium Choice with a minimum marbling score of Modest 00

3. Angus Choice with a minimum marbling score of Small 00

4. Angus Select with a minimum marbling score of Slight 00

c. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for 

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for.

d. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height1

;

e. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle; 

and

f. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures.

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures.

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service.

1 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Livestock and Poultry Program G-81 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 September 13, 2021

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

___________________________________

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Standards and Specifications Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
National Organic Standards Board

Handling Subcommittee

Statement on proposed reclassification of xanthan gum 

September 6, 2016

The Handling Subcommittee requested an updated technical report on xanthan gum, focusing 

on the manufacturing process, to determine if it is synthetic or non-synthetic. After reviewing 

the information provided, it appears that there is more than one way to produce xanthan gum; 

some of the methods may be non-synthetic while others may lead to what the NOSB would 

classify as synthetic. Based on this determination, the Handling Subcommittee has concluded to 

take no further action on re-classification of xanthan gum at this time.