alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Seaberg Elevator Co., Inc., Petitioner, against City Court of the City of New York, County of Kings et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Kings County,

August 24, 1956.

*Doherty Doherty (James A. Doherty, Jr.,*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Bernard Eefenstein*and *Abraham Richmond*for Harmas Holding Corporation.

Charles J. Beckinella, J.

This is an application, made pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, for an order in the nature of an order of prohibition. Petitioner seeks to restrain the City Court of the City of New York and a Justice of that court from continuing to assume jurisdiction in an *116action to recover damages for personal injuries. In that action petitioner, a defendant, moved to dismiss the complaint and the cross complaint of a codefendant. That motion was denied. Appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division were followed by affirmances. Another motion made in the Appellate Division to vacate its order of affirmance was denied. Petitioner now urges that the order of the City Court was void (a) “ for want of jurisdiction by reason of the failure of the complaint to show any actionable interest in either plaintiff as against the petitioner, which is a failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,” and (b) because the “Plaintiffs have in one cause pleaded two inconsistent causes.” The petitioner then alleges that the orders of affirmance of the Appellate Term and the Appellate Division are void because of the nullity of the City Court order. Petitioner further alleges that the ground for the motion made in the Appellate Division to vacate that tribunal’s order of affirmance was “lack of jurisdiction by reason of the failure of the complaint and cross-complaint to comply with sections 212(2), 258 and 264 of the Civil Practice Act respectively.” In *Matter of Culver Contr. Corp.*v. *Humphrey*(268 N. Y. 26, 39) it is stated: “ The writ [of prohibition] does not issue where the grievance can be redressed by ordinary proceedings at law or in equity or merely to prevent error which may be readily corrected on appeal [citing authority]. It is not available ordinarily as a method of premature appeal.” The various contentions which petitioner advances as challenges to the City Court’s jurisdiction are, in fact, merely questions of law frequently incidental to the trial of any lawsuit similar to the instant action. The proper tribunal for their adjudication, to the extent that they have not already been determined by the appellate courts, is the City Court. Any error committed there ‘ ‘ may be readily corrected on appeal.” Accordingly, petitioner’s application is denied and the petition is dismissed.

Settle order on notice.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jeffery Dwayne Benoit v. Brenda Faye Benoit

Appellate case number: 01-15-00023-CV

Trial court case number: E-140,080-D

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Orange County

On March 26, 2015, counsel for appellant, Jeffery Dwayne Benoit, filed 

appellant’s brief and appendices. However, after a preliminary review, the Court sua 

sponte directs the Clerk of this Court to STRIKE appellant’s brief and appendices for 

failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4 because the brief appears 

to have been illegibly scanned in rather than directly converted to portable document 

format (“PDF”), which is required if possible, and both the brief and appendices are not 

in a text-searchable PDF, as required. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(j)(1)-(2), (k). 

Accordingly, appellant’s counsel is ORDERED to file an amended appellant’s brief and 

appendices, without changing any of the substantive content of the brief or appendices, 

that comply with the Rule 9.4(j) within 5 days of the date of this order. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.9(a).

Although the content of the amended brief and appendices should not be changed, 

the current deadline for appellee’s brief, April 27, 2015, would be the same as the 

appellant’s amended brief and appendices deadline. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 

Consequently, appellee’s brief will be due within 10 days after appellant’s compliant 

amended brief and appendices are filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 9.4(j), 38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 21, 2015
P. 1



# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 210 ) IV-C-17

7 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:21:02 AM Sheet 210of 232P. 2 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y 

### A-Vl- W



## AU G 

## 2 2 199 1 "«f t

### • , Th e Honorabl e Michae l R . McNult y Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D.C . 2051 5 Dea r Mr . McNulty : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r lette r o f JU1^U1J6',*-199 T requestin

g tha t th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) addres s comment s fro mRichar d Warrender , Presiden t o f th e Ne w Yor k Associatio n o f Convenienc e Stores , concerning onboar d refuelin

g vapo r recoverysystems . W e welcom e th e opportunit yt o d o so . Mr . Warrender' s lette r expresse d concer n regarding EPA' s . complianc e t o the mandat e unde r th e 199 0 Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s t o issu e regulation s requiring onboar d vapo r recovery controls . A s he pointe d ou t i n hi s letter , th e Amendment s requir e EPAt o consul t wit h th e Secretaryo f Transportatio n regardin

g safet ybefor e issuing regulation s requiring onboar d controls . Thi s consultatio n i s wel l underway . Th e Nationa l HighwayTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA) , par t o f the Departmen t o f Transportatio n (DOT) , recentl y release d a

n update d stud

yo f onboar d safety . EPAi s currentl y preparin

g t o publis h a Federa l Registe r notic e announcing th e availabilit yo f the NHTS Astud yan d scheduling a publi c hearing t o receive comments . Awritte n commen t perio d wil l als o b e announced . W e wil l mak e th e fina l determinatio n o n ho w t o procee d wit h th e rul e base d o n DOT' S conclusion s regarding th e safet yrisk s o f onboar d system s an d o n th e record develope d durin g th e commen t period . Again , EPAappreciate s th e opportunit yt o respon d t o thes e comments . Theywil l b e include d i n th e publi c docke t fo r thi s rulemaking . Pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t m e i f yo u requir e an y additiona l information . Sincerel yyours , ORIGINA L SIGfcr- wu i 

### DONAL D E . ZINGE R Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s SDSB:Passavant:Harook:256 5 Plymout h Rd.:X-295:8/12/91:ID # 9754 W Las t Reviewe d B

yCharle s Gray : 8/12/9 1 Contro l No . A L 91308 6 Reviewe d b

yDZinger:BR:X27647:AR-455:8-13-91 : Wan g No . 2391 T

CONCURRBMCS S SYMOO L SURNAM E OAT E > 

# H yw* ; <*••*• •• ••>•••.••••••••«««•• •«•-•*«•••••••••••< • •••••••••••.<•••** • ••«•_-!•••••••••••• •

E P A For m 1320-1 A (1/90 ) Printed C M Recycled

Paper OFFICIA L FIL E COP Y
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

March 31, 2015

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Charles Randle Kay

v. Texas

No. 14-9113

(Your No. WR-49,997-05)

Dear Clerk:

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on

December 8, 2014 and placed on the docket March 31, 2015 as No. 14-9113.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

by 6U

Andrew Downs

Case Analyst

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 09 2015

Abel Acoeta, Clerk
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of KHD Humboldt Wedag International Ltd.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 87 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 87

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall for a ceremony as part of the 
 commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2020

  Mr. Schneider (for himself, Mr. Zeldin, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Kustoff of 
     Tennessee, and Mr. Lewis) submitted the following concurrent 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall for a ceremony as part of the 
 commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to 
be used on April 21, 2020, for a ceremony as part of the commemoration 
of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. Physical 
preparations for the ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with 
such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus II Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Anthony R. Moore, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                                  
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /S/ ANTHONY R. MOORE                             
|                         |  |  |  | Anthony R. Moore Chairman Chief Executive Officer
From: Carlson, Sara <Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 8:50 AM

To: Land, Eva

Subject: BlackHawk/BlacHornet

- Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Hey Eva,

Good morning. In regards to your questions on the BlackHawk/BlackHornet applications the emergency

air compressor is a 40CFR1039 Tier 4 engine. Also, the emission factors (NOx, PM, VOC and CO2) for the

main engines were based off of the worst case 50% load (engines 2

- 5 it were interpolated for 50%) for

al l engines that were stack tested.

If you have any other questions please let me know.

Thanks,

Sara Carlson

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

Sr HSE Representative, Gulf of Mexico

Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com

832

- 636

- 1273 (office)

832

- 506

- 0888 (cell)

Click here for Anadarko’s Electronic Mail Disclaimer
# EUR-Lex - 22004D0023 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22004D0023

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 23/2004 of 19 March 2004 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 127 , 29/04/2004 P. 0128 - 0129 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 23/2004

of 19 March 2004

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 3/2004 of 6 February 2004(1).

(2) Commission Directive 2003/94/EC of 8 October 2003 laying down the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice in respect of medicinal products for human use and investigational medicinal products for human use(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement.

(3) Directive 2003/94/EC repeals Commission Directive 91/356/EEC(3), which is incorporated into the Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

1. The following point shall be inserted after point 15s (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1085/2003):

"15t. 32003 L 0094: Commission Directive 2003/94/EC of 8 October 2003 laying down the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice in respect of medicinal products for human use and investigational medicinal products for human use (OJ L 262, 14.10.2003, p. 22)."

2. The text of point 15 (Commission Directive 91/356/EEC) shall be deleted.

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2003/94/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 20 March 2004, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(4).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. Westerlund

(1) OJ L 116, 22.4.2004, p. 44.

(2) OJ L 262, 14.10.2003, p. 22.

(3) OJ L 193, 17.7.1991, p. 30.

(4) No constitutional requirements indicated.
#### In the Matter of Joseph C., a Child Alleged to be Neglected.

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to respondents’ contention that this proceeding to terminate their parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect *(see,*Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [d]) was untimely. The child came into the care of petitioner on July 1, 1988, two days after his birth, upon his discharge from the hospital, pursuant to a preliminary order of Family Court *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1022). This proceeding was commenced on or about October 13, 1989, more than one year after the child came into petitioner’s care *(see, Matter of Mickey B.,*65 AD2d 603).

We reject respondents’ contention that petitioner failed to make diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage the parent-child relationship *(see,*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]). The record reflects that petitioner consulted with respondents in developing a plan for the eventual return of the child; scheduled regular and meaningful visits with the child and provided transportation to and from such visits; enrolled respondents in a parenting instruction class; provided homemaker services in an effort to ameliorate the housekeeping problems that impeded the child’s return; and offered to provide transportation to the utility company to obtain a restoration of respondents’ electric service. In our view, petitioner satisfied its statutory duty *(see,*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]; *see also, Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136; *Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368; *Matter of Michael W.,*149 AD2d 943, *lv denied*74 NY2d 608).

Respondents also challenge the determination made by the court at the conclusion of the dispositional hearing. The court properly accepted the written report and recommendation of the caseworker at the dispositional hearing *(see, Matter of*
      *1056
      *Star Leslie W., supra,*at 148). In our view, the evidence supports the court’s determination that the child’s best interests required termination of respondents’ parental rights and the transfer of custody and guardianship to petitioner to make the child available for adoption. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Family Court, Halpin, J.—Permanent Neglect.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
```

                                                          EXHIBIT 32.2

             CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL MANAGER

          Pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002
          (18 U.S.C. ss.1350)

          Pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002
          (18  U.S.C.  ss.1350),  the  undersigned,  Linda J.  Haines,
          Principal Financial Manager of Nutrition Management Services
          Company,  a Pennsylvania  corporation (the "Company"),  does
          hereby certify, to her knowledge, that:

          The  Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended
          December  31,  2005  of the  Company  (the  "Report")  fully
          complies with the  requirements  of section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
          of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
          contained  in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all material
          respects,  the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                             /s/ Linda J. Haines
                                            -----------------------------
                                            Linda J. Haines
                                            Principal Financial Manager

          March 8, 2006
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7984

GARCEL LAVAR CHRISTIAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

THEODIS BECK, Secretary of NC DOC; LANDAR CORPENING, 

Superintendent of Foothills CI,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00051-NCT-PTS)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hoang Van Lam, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC., 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Garcel Lavar Christian seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Christian

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT
      23**





**Consent
      Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**










We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
      333-119638, 333-111004, 333-109220, 333-70862, 333-45750, 333-88899, 333-43117,
      333-22323, 033-56145, and 033-56147 on Form S-8 and Registration Statements
      No.
      333-91966 and 333-98741 on Form S-3 of Charming Shoppes, Inc., of our reports
      dated April 3, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
      of
      Charming Shoppes, Inc., Charming Shoppes, Inc. management’s assessment of the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Charming Shoppes,
      Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February
      3,
      2007.




















****


**/S/ERNST & YOUNG LLP**





Philadelphia,
      Pennsylvania


April
      3,
      2007
#### Macmillan, Inc., Appellant, v Neil S. Hayden, Respondent.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered on or about January 28, 1991, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Irma Vidal Santaella, J., with costs. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.