alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[751 NYS2d 672]

#### Charles DeCook, Respondent, v Bruno G.M.C. Truck Sales Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendant. Bruno G.M.C. Truck Sales Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff, v New York City Department of Sanitation et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

September 18, 2002

*573APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Squires, Cordrey & Noble,*New York City, and *Carol R. Finocchio,*New York City *(Lisa Comeau*of counsel), for appellant and third-party plaintiff. *Oliveri & Schwartz, P.C.,*New York City, and *Jay L.T. Breakstone,*Bellmore, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order unanimously modified by granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

After receipt of a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216, plaintiff failed to comply by either moving to restore the case before the expiration of the 90-day period, or moving to vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period. Moreover, plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse to justify the delay in responding to the demand. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 was appropriate *(see Cascio v O’Daly,*221 AD2d 494). The striking of a case from the trial calendar in the Civil Court, unlike the Supreme Court, is deemed in essence as nullifying the notice of trial *(see*22 NYCRR 208.14; *Attilio v Gladstone,*174 Misc 2d 759; *cf. Basetti v Nour,*287 AD2d 126, 132 [“A case marked off pursuant to CPLR 3404 does not automatically result in the vacatur of the note of issue”]). Thus, in the Civil Court, the case is effectively returned to its prenotice of trial status and therefore subject to CPLR 3216 *(cf. Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv.,*282 AD2d 190).

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s cross motion to restore the case to the trial calendar was properly denied. We note that the court erroneously denied plaintiffs cross motion as moot on the ground that the action had been “restored” by plaintiffs filing of a notice of trial, after the case was struck from the calendar on October 19, 2000, upon plaintiffs failure to appear. The purported restoration of the case to the calendar upon plaintiffs mere filing of a notice of trial, without a court order granting restoration, was a nullity *(see*22 NYCRR 208.14 [c], [d]) and plaintiffs cross motion to restore was therefore not moot.

Pesce, P.J., Aronin and Patterson, JJ., concur.
Docket Number FAA-2012-0721 

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?
TITLE I 

THE STATE AND ITS GOVERNMENT 

CHAPTER 21-0 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

Section 21-0 :11 

21-0 :11 Air Resources Council. - 

1. There is hereby established an air resources council which shall be composed of 11 

members, including one representing the steam power generating industry; one 

representing the oil industry; one representing the natural gas industry; one representing 

the manufacturing component of industry; one representing the field of municipal 

government; and 6 members appointed at large who shall represent the public interest, 

one of whom shall be a licensed practicing physician or other health care professional 

possessing expertise in the field of public health and the health-related impacts of air 

pollution, one of whom shall represent the field of recreation, and at least one of whom 

shall represent environmental interests . The council members who shall represent the 

public interest may not derive any significant portion of their income from persons 

subject to permits or enforcement orders, and may not serve as attorney for, act as 

consultant for, serve as officer or director of, or hold any other official or contractual 

relationship with any person subject to permits or enforcement orders . All potential 

conflicts of interest shall be adequately disclosed . The members shall be residents of the 

state and shall be appointed by the governor with the consent of the executive council. 

Each member shall serve for a term of 4 years. 

Source. 1986, 202 :1 . 1994, 412 :10. 1995, 226 :12, eff. Aug. 13, 1995 ; 262:1, eff. Aug. 18, 

1995. 2006, 62:1, ef£ June 23, 2006. 2010, 354:6, eff. Sept. 18, 2010.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(A)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, D. Geoffrey Shulman,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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.


Date: May 8, 2007                       /s/ D. Geoffrey Shulman
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        D. Geoffrey Shulman, MD, FRCPC
                                        Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                        Executive Officer
                                        (principal executive officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# pennsyLvania

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SECRETARY November 15, 2013

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Dear Mr. Garvin: Enclosed for your approval is arevisionto Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP) pertaining to the adoption byAllegheny County Health Department (ACHD) in June 2013 of regulations implementing Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) promulgatedby the U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2008 for Miscellaneous Metal and/or Plastic Parts Surface Coating Processes; Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings; Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives; and Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. The CTGs constitute Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the covered processes. The revision is identified as revisionNo. 74 to the Attaimnent and Maintenance Planfor ACHD's internal tracking. The ACHD is a local health agency organized under Local Health Administration Law, Act 315 ofAugust 24, 1951, P.L. 1304, as amended, whose powers and duties include the enforcement of laws relating to publichealth within Allegheny County. The ACHD has an air pollution control program that has been approved by the Department ofEnviromnental Protection in accordance with Section 12 ofthe Air Pollution Control Act. I have enclosed a hard copy and a compact disc ofthe supplemental SIP submittal materials which consist ofthe Supplemental SIP submittal documents, documentation ofpublic hearing and commentperiod, and the comment and response document. I certifY that the electronic files are exact duplicates ofthe hard copies. The Commonwealth followed all ofthe proceduralrequirements ofthe State's laws and constitution inconducting and completing the adoption/issuance ofthe SIP revision. Thankyoufor your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions concerning this SIP revision, please contact Joyce E. Epps, Director ofAir Quality, bye-mail atjeepps@pa.govor bytelephone at 717.787.9702. You may also contact James E. Thompson, Manager, Air Quality Program ofthe ACHD, bye-mail atjthompson@achd.netorbytelephone at412.578.7963. Sincerely,



## .

# ~ (I 

# {J**~~**

E.

# Chris~e;Ab~:o 

# yy Acting Secretary Enclosures Rachel Carson State Office Building 1P.O. Box 2663·1 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 717.787.2814 

### en Printed on Recycled Paper

## \673 www.depweb.state.pa.usMr. Shawn M. Garvin

cc: Joyce Epps James Thompson, ACHD Diana Esher, EPA Region III -2-
# C_2019432EN.01004501.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/45

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2019 — Vans v EUIPO (ULTRARANGE)

(Case T-434/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ULTRARANGE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Costa Mesa, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch and M. Metzner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2018 (Case R 2544/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign ULTRARANGE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.

---
* 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WONSUN SUH; HAEHWA SUH; SEUNGMI SUH, a.k.a. Judy Mi Suh; SEUNGEUN SUH, a.k.a. Seung Fun Seo; SEUNGCHAN SUH, a.k.a. Seung Chan Seo; SEUNGYUN SUH, a.k.a. Seung Yun Suh, Petitioners,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 06-72984 Agency Nos. A072-970-598 A072-970-599 A072-970-600 A072-970-601 A072-970-602 A072-970-603

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 12, 2010 ** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. 

# FILED

MAR 17 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Wonsun Suh, Haehwa Suh, Seungmi Suh, Seungeun Suh, Seungchan Suh, and Seungyun Suh (together, “the Suhs”), a ll natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the decision of th e Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) ordering their removal. The Suhs numbe r among several individuals identified by the government as having allegedly recei ved their lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status through the fraudulent scheme of Leland Sustaire, a former Supervisory Adjudications Officer of th e Immigration and Naturalization Service. We deny the petition for review. First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding of removability by clear and convincing evidence. See Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft , 394 F.3d 674, 679 (9th Cir. 2005). Second, the BIA’s refusal to consider the Suhs’ green cards as “immigrant visas” for the purpose of seeking a wa iver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(k) does not violate equal protection. Rather, the government has proffered “facially legitimate and bona fide reason[ s]” for why Congress would treat LPRs, like the Suhs, who have adjusted status within the United States, differently from individuals holding immigrant visas and seeking admission from abroad. See Taniguchi v. Schultz , 303 F.3d 950, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).3 Third, because the Suhs did not raise their equitable estoppel claim in their opening brief, we deem it waived and d ecline to address it on the merits. See Collins v. City of San Diego , 841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir. 1998). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 21

Indevus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                       |  |                                    
|-------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|Name                                   |  | State of Incorporation/Organization
|CPEC LLC                               |  | Delaware (1)                       
|IPI Management Corp.                   |  | Massachusetts                      
|Ledgemont Royalty Sub LLC              |  | Delaware                           
|Valera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.           |  | Delaware                           
|Valera Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited |  | Ireland (2)                        



|(1) | Indevus owns approximately 65% of the outstanding membership interests in CPEC LLC.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Valera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. owns 100% of the outstanding membership shares in Valera Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

1800 Washington Boulevard -Baltimore MD 21230 

MDE 410-537 -3000 - 1-800-633-6101 

Martin O'Malley Shari T. Wilson 


Governor Secretary 


Anthony G. Brown Robert M. Summers, Ph .D. 

Lieutenant Governor Deputy Secretary 

DEC 1.~! 

k 2nn ' 

Mr. William C. Early 


Acting Regional Administrator (3RAOO) 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


Region III 


1650 Arch Street 


Philadelphia PA 19103-2029 


Dear Mr. Early: 

The purpose of this letter is to submit the enclosed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision 

# 09-04 concerning the establishment of NOx and S02 emission limits for R Paul Smith Power 

Station electric generating units. An annual emission cap has been set for NOx and S02. An 

ozone season emission cap has been set for NOx emissions. This SIP submittal includes 

amendments to Regulations .02 and .03 under COMAR 26.11.27 Emission Limitations for 

Power Plants. 

An Emergency Action for these amendments became effective on April 11 , 2009. The Notice of 

Proposed Action for this SIP Revision was published in the Maryland Register on April 24, 2009. 

A public hearing was held on May 28, 2009. The amendments were adopted on 

August 12, 2009. The Notice of Final Action was published on August 28, 2009 and the 

amendments became effective as permanent requirements on September 7,2009. All 

administrative procedures were properly followed throughout the adoption process. 

If you have any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please feel free to call me at (410) 537­

3084 or Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr. , Director of the Air and Radiation Management 

Administration, at (410) 537-3255. 

Si"it'j JiL­ Wilson Secretary 

STW:dhr 


Enclosures 


Recycled Pape, www.mdc.state.md.us TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 

Via Maryland Relay Servi ce
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2258** 

BETTE J.T. JONES , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv - 00170

- GCM )

Submitted : April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEE NAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Bette J.T. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Andrew Sack, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Bette J.T. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order s remanding her civil action to state court for further proceedings and denying her motions for reconsideration and for leave to file out of time . We dismiss the ap peal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice s of appeal were not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bow l e s v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ). The district court’s final order denying reconsideration was entered on the docket on September 10, 2015 . The notice s of appeal were filed on October 15, 2015 . Because Jones failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Jones’ motion to supplement the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Tom W. Ward, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this 10-K Report of Exabyte Corporation;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant’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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

Dated: March 18, 2005

| /s/ TOM W. WARD |
|-----------------|

Tom W. Ward

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Village of Indian Hill, Appellant, *v.*Atkins, Exr., et al., Appellees.

(No. 31959

Decided December 21, 1949.)

*Messrs. Steer, Strauss & Adair,*for appellant.

*Mr. Henry M. Bruestle,*city solicitor, and *Mr. James W. Farrell, Jr.,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Zimmerman, Stewart and Turner, JJ., concur.
This is an exemption request pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of 2012 for Brian

Austin Photography, where we request to perform Non
- Profit and Commercial aerial photography through the use of its small unmanned aircraft commercially in airspace regulated by the FAA. The owner and pilot has taken his passion for still photography and made it his career. The owner is a seasoned leader in unmanned aerial videography with over 2 years recreational/hobby experience in all aspects of small UAVs. As well as, has excellent abilities to safely operating small UAS within our airspace. **Description of Petitioner** Brian Austin is the sole owner of Brian Austin Photography which currently performs Real Estate Photography and Event Photography. The owner is looking to utilize their knowledge, skills and safety measures with drones for commercial Real Estate Photography, Event Photography and Nonprofits in the Greater Houston Area. As a seasoned professional, the owner always follows the AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code (Exhibit B), and the l atest FAA Rules and Guidelines. **Contact information:** Brian Austin Photography Brian Austin 302 Cobia Dr. Apt 11307 Katy TX, 77494 briancaustin@gmail.com (281) 961
- 6 324
**Please see attached Documents for the full exemption request** 1. Exhibit_A_Brian Austin Photography Pe tition_Exemption/Rule
- making.doc 2. Exhibit_B_sUAS_Safety_Program_web.pdf 3. Exhibit_C_PHANTOM2_User_Manual_V1.4_en.pdf 4. Exhibit_D_Phantom_2_Vision_Pilot_Traning_Guide_en.pdf 5. Exhibit_E_PHANTOM2_Quick_Start_Guide_en.pdf 6. Exhibit_F_Smart_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guid e lines.pdf 7. Exhibit_G_Monthly_Maintenance_Log. xlsx

Th ank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Brian Austin