alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Katherine Fekeith, Plaintiff, *v.*New York City Transit Authority, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

November 23, 1970.

*Carl A. Espach*and *Melvin J. Espach*for plaintiff. *Sidney Brandes*for defendant.

Arnold Gr. Fraiman, J.

Motion for an order pursuant to OPLB 3124 compelling defendant to produce certain records for inspection is granted. The notice for discovery and inspection, *315made pursuant to CPLR 3120, was served on defendant on August 20, 1970. No application for a protective order was made by defendant within the five-day period provided for in CPLR, 3122, and no satisfactory excuse has been offered for its failure to comply with the time requirements of that rule. Defendant is therefore barred from objecting to the production of the items sought in plaintiff’s notice. *(Coffey*v. *Orbachs, Inc.,*22 A D 2d 317.)

However, defendant claims that even if it is barred by its failure to comply with CPLR 3122, plaintiff should still be denied discovery and inspection because her notice was served more than 60 days after she had filed a note of issue. The note of issue was filed on January 28,1970 and, as previously indicated, the discovery notice was served on August 20, 1970. Section 660.4(d) (9) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, New York and Bronx Counties (22 NYCRR 660.4 [d] [9]), provides that “In any action in which a note of issue has been filed without a statement of readiness, any party who fails or omits to serve notice of examination before trial prior to the 60th day after the date of service of the note of issue shall be deemed to have waived all rights to such examination before trial, except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) of this subdivision [dealing with special circumstances].”

If we were here concerned with a notice of examination before trial, it would appear that even though defendant failed to move for a protective order within five days, it could still successfully preclude plaintiff from obtaining disclosure by reason of her own tardiness. (See, e.g., *Farone*v. *Korey Motors,*44 Misc 2d 565, and the commentary following CPLR 3122 in McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7B.) However, this motion does not involve a notice of examination before trial, but rather, a notice of discovery and inspection. The court rules refer only to the former. While I am aware that, in one case, section 660.4(d) (9) has been interpreted to include a notice for discovery and inspection as well as for an examination before trial *(Varchaver*v. *New York City Tr. Auth.,*N. Y. L. J., April 15,1968, p. 15, col. 6), I believe that if it had been intended that *all*disclosure notices were to be limited by the 60-day requirement of section 660.4(d) (9), the drafters of that section would have so specified, rather than limiting the section to notices of examination before trial. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff’s notice for discovery and inspection is not barred by section 660.4(d) (9), and she is entitled to have the items she seeks therein produced by defendant.
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Paul R. Flanders, Chief Financial Officer of
Carrols Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Annual Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    PAUL R.
FLANDERS                                                               
|Paul R. Flanders Vice President  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer March 31, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50087

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HECTOR BALDERRAMA-CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-2466-1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Hector Balderrama-Castro 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). Balderrama-Castro has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50087 Document: 00515108728 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2019
No. 19-50087

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-50087 Document: 00515108728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2019
SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

March 18, 1996

16208

#### Kepley v. Shults

Affirmed
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 28, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40381 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. GUADALUPE RANGEL-TREVINO Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-2039-ALL Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Having pleaded guilty to being an alien unlawfully found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, Guadalupe RangelTrevino contends the district court erroneously construed his prior Texas conviction for aggravated assault as a crime ofviolence and incorrectly applied a sentence enhancement under Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2. In the light of our court’s recent decision in United Statesv. Guillen-Alvarez, 489 F.3d 197, 199- 201 (5th Cir. 2007), Rangel’s assertion is unavailing.No. 06-40381

2 Citing Apprendi v. NewJersey, 530U.S. 466 (2000), Rangel challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements ofthe offense that must be found by a jury. Our court has held this issue “fully foreclosed from further debate”. U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). AFFIRMED.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply560Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Ryan Hill (not... (not verified)PermalinkAugust 2, 2017 - 10:08pmGreat piece! I, too, have had a bit of a fascination with Benjamin Franklin since childhood. After visiting DC for the first time last year and touring the Capitol, now I know a few more things to see on my next visit!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### Carrie L. M. Jones, Plaintiff, *v.*David L. Jones, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

April 7, 1959.

*Alvin Miller*for plaintiff.

*Robert F. Connelly*for defendant.

Julius J. Gans, J.

Upon the foregoing papers this motion for oral depositions outside the State is granted with respect to the adult witnesses and denied with respect to the infant witnesses. The infants are nine and six years of age, respectively. Their tender years make it mandatory for a court to require more than perfunctory procedures before their testimony will be compelled. However, since their attitude towards defendant has unfortunately been brought into issue in this action, their testimony would be material. Leave is therefore given to defendant to renew his motion upon proper showing of the conditions of the proposed deposition under which the children’s competency to testify could be determined by proper authority and safeguards taken for their protection (see *Palmieri*v. *Salsimo Realty Co.,*202 Misc. 251). Reasonable expenses for the deposition to be taken herein shall be borne by defendant. Unless stipulated to by the parties, such reasonable expenses will be determined by the court upon affidavits to be submitted by the parties along with the order to be settled herein.

Settle order.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply620Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Christle  (not... (not verified)PermalinkApril 19, 2019 - 9:27amCongratulations Anderson! Wow this is such a remarkable and inspiring story. I truly believe we all have a mark in this world. Through your drive and motivation I can see you have found yours. Thanks for you service and also sharing your story to let those know that while we may not always get it the first, second..... time always push through and keep going. Everyday is a learning experience to do better, to know better and I couldn‚Äôt agree more..... ‚Äúthe day we stop learning is the day we stop progressing‚Äù. I am extremely proud you. Continue to strive and climb that ladder of success. Blessings to you always!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
1 

BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

___________________________________________ 

Application of ) 

 ) 

VICTORY JET, LLC ) Docket OST-2011-0112 

 ) 

for a certificate of public convenience and necessity ) 

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41102 to engage in ) 

interstate charter combination air transportation ) 

 ) 

APPLICATION OF 

VICTORY JET LLC FOR A CERTIFICATE

 Victory Jet, LLC respectfully submits this application for a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity authorizing it to engage in interstate air transportation of 

persons, property, and mail on a charter basis pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41102 (“the 

Statute”). Victory Jet currently operates as a charter broker, catering to the air 

transportation needs of the VIP market, collegiate and professional sports teams. 

Though it currently books charters on certificated direct air carriers using its own 

Boeing 737-300, its plan is to inaugurate air carrier service of its own as soon as 

certificate authority from the Department and the Federal Aviation Administration can 

be obtained. The certification process is already well underway at the FAA, and the 

company is now instituting the DOT certification proceeding. 

Victory Jet has assembled a highly experienced and qualified management 

team to initiate and maintain its proposed operations. The Company has developed 

a sound business plan structured to take advantage of needs in the marketplace and
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6082

JOSEPH A. BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES RATLEDGE, Warden-USP Lee,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth K. Dillon, District 

Judge. (7:15-cv-00640-EKD-RSB)

Submitted: August 29, 2016 Decided: September 28, 2016

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph A. Brown appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice his complaint filed pursuant to 

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to comply with a court order. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Brown v. Ratledge, No. 7:15-cv-00640-EKD-RSD (W.D. Va. 

Dec. 18, 2015). We deny as moot Brown’s motion to expedite his 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply10779Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Bill Wood (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 31, 2022 - 12:42pm

              In reply to Thank you for your research... by Karen Anne Schmitt (not verified)Great article Bradley!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
_______________________________________ __ ________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 3, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 131879(80) Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

MARY MULLINS, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nina F. Mullins, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 131879 v COA: 263210 Washtenaw CC: 03-000812-NH ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL, d/b/a ST. JOSEPH MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, JASON WHITE, M.D., RAFAEL J. GROSSMAN, M.D., and KIMBERLY STEWART, M.D., Defendants-Appellees

and

JAMES R. BENGSTON, and WALTER WHITEHOUSE, M.D., Defendants.

On order of the Chief Justice, th e motion by the Mich igan Trial Lawyers Association for leave to filed a brief amicus curiae is considered and it is GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 3, 2007

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 165 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 165

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 24, 2015.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Appropriations: Mr. Palazzo.
    Committee on Armed Services: Mr. Russell.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Butler
Manufacturing Company Consolidated Statements of Operations for the year ended
December 31, 1998, and Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1998, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,260
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,791
<INVENTORY>                                     70,252
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               253,500
<PP&E>                                         243,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 393,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,130
<BONDS>                                         62,901<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,623
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     178,536<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   393,893
<SALES>                                        962,163
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               962,163<F3>
<CGS>                                          800,307
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  800,307
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               125,291<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                13,616<F5>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,696
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,979
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,979
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .92
<FN>
<F1>Reflects long-term debt, less current maturities.
<F2>Reflects other stockholders' equity before deduction of $40.9 million treasury
stock and foreign currency translation adjustments.
<F3>Reflects net sales plus net international joint venture income less net other
expense.
<F4>Consists of selling, general, and administrative expense.
<F5>Includes restructuring and asset impairment charges of $7.1 million and 6.5
million, respectively.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>