alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CBJ Properties et al., Appellants, v Stanley Magid et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered August 9, 1989, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to restore their action to the Trial Calendar upon payment of $3,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order of the same court and Justice entered April 5, 1990, granting defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ action with prejudice, unanimously reversed, without costs, and the motions to dismiss denied, on condition that plaintiffs’ counsel pay to defendants and their counsel $3,000, as required by the order of August 9, 1989, within 30 days of service upon plaintiffs of this order with notice of entry. If the condition is not so complied with, the order is affirmed.

In this action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, the parties were advised at a pretrial conference that a trial was to commence on May 25, 1989. Defendants and their counsel appeared in court at 9:30 a.m., but plaintiffs’ counsel did not appear, apparently because he had mistakenly entered 2:15 p.m. in his diary as the scheduled time. At 12:12 p.m., *216after efforts to reach counsel were unsuccessful, the court dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. By order entered August 9, 1989, the IAS court granted plaintiffs’ motion to restore the case conditioned upon plaintiffs and their counsel paying to defendants and their counsel $3,000 within 30 days as compensation for the time lost. We find the monetary sanction appropriate as a condition for restoring the case pursuant to CPLR 2005 *(see, Rutger Fabrics Corp. v United States Laminating Corp.,*111 AD2d 40).

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, but neglected to seek a stay to toll the 30-day period. By order entered April 5, 1990, the IAS court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice. Ordinarily, when an order grants requested relief to a party upon compliance with a condition, the party must comply with the terms within the specified period or lose the benefit of the order *(Lyons v Butler,*134 AD2d 576). Nevertheless, under the circumstances presented, absent prejudice, the plaintiffs are granted one final opportunity to pay the $3,000 in costs originally awarded as a condition for restoring the action to the Trial Calendar. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
Exhibit
      32





Certification
      Required by 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 Solitron Devices, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shevach Saraf, as
      Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial
      Officer of Solitron Devices, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that
      to
      my knowledge:





1.
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and





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




Date:
      June 26, 2008




/s/ Shevach SarafShevach
                SarafChairman,
                President,Chief
                Executive Officer,Treasurer
                and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Robert
J. Evans, director and secretary/treasurer of Silver Butte Co., Inc. (formerly
Silver Butte Mining Company) (the “Company”) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





1.
            This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      February 29, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      (the “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 report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Date:  April
14, 2008







By: /s/ Robert J.
Evans


Robert J.
Evans, Secretary/Treasurer and Director
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 186 (Monday, September 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 57619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24532]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-610-09-0777-42]


Meeting of the California Desert District Advisory Council

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 
and 94-579, that the California Desert District Advisory Council to the 
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, will 
participate in a field tour of the BLM-administered public lands on 
Friday, October 20, 2000, from 8:00 a.m to 4 p.m., and meet in formal 
session on Saturday, October 21, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Saturday 
meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, located 
at 220 East Mountain View, Barstow, California.
    The Council and interested members of the public will assemble for 
the field tour at the Holiday Inn parking lot at 7:45 a.m. and depart 
at 8 a.m. The hotel is located at 1511 East Main Street in Barstow. 
Tour stops will include sites along Route 66, Amboy Crater, Cadiz Land 
Company for a discussion on the proposed Cadiz-Metropolitan Water 
District (MWD) Groundwater and Dry-Year Supply Program, Camp Essex 
(Patton Camp), and Goffs. Members of the public are welcome to 
participate in the tour, but should plan on providing their own 
transportation, drinks, and lunch.
    The Council will meet in formal session on Saturday. Agenda items 
will include updates/briefings on the BLM National Off-Highway Vehicle 
Management Strategy, Route 66, and the California Desert District 
Recreation Fee District Policy. At 1:00 p.m. discussions will focus on 
the proposed Cadiz-MWD Groundwater Storage Project. The Council meeting 
also will serve as a public meeting during which BLM will accept and 
record public comment regarding the proposed project. Members of the 
public must register with the Council Chairman to speak. The time 
allotted each speaker will be based upon the number of people who 
register to speak.
    All Desert District Advisory Council meetings are open to the 
public. Time for public comment may be made available by the Council 
Chairman during the presentation of various agenda items, and is 
scheduled at the beginning of the meeting for topics not on the agenda.
    Written comments may be filed in advance of the meeting for the 
California Desert District Advisory Council, c/o Bureau of Land 
Management, Public Affairs Office, 6221 Box Springs Boulevard, 
Riverside, California 92507-0714. Written comments also are accepted at 
the time of the meeting and, if copies are provided to the recorder, 
will be incorporated into the minutes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doran Sanchez at (909) 697-5220, BLM 
California Desert District External Affairs.

Tim Salt,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-24532 Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jesus Garcia, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered on December 21, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of four years to life, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|No chart available.                                                     
|No chart available.                                                     
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Nebraska Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | NA     | NA     | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SABPREET SINGH
,

Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 71 306

Agency No. A205

- 937

- 152

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted June 15
, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST , Circuit Judges.

Sabpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigrati on Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 1 6

- 71 306

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for su bstantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir.

2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh failed to

establish the harm he experienced or fears in India was or would be on account of a

protected ground

. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”) ; see
also Pagayon v. Holder , 675 F.3d 118 2, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute,

standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground)

. Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief b ecause
Singh failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India

. See Wakkary v.

Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067

- 68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture)

. We reject as unsupported by the record Singh’s contention that the agency

failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claim s

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|New Mexico Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 77    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 67     | 92     | 151    | 188    | 203    | 378    | 329    | 166    | 346    | 516   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 802    | 391    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### GEORGE v. ELLEDGE.

No. 12581.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 9, 1953.

Cox, Wagner, Adams & Wilson, Brownsville, for appellant.

Sharpe, Cunningham & Garza, Brownsville, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

Appellee, Elledge, sued James I. George for damages to his automobile and recovered a judgment by default. George neither appeared nor answered, because the citation served upon him on May 1, 1952, recited that the plaintiff’s petition was filed on December 20, 1952. This Court has previously held that a citation which recites an impossible filing date for the plaintiff’s petition is fatally defective. Garza v. Garza, 223 S.W.2d 964.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350

I, David H. Fleischman, Chief
Financial Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TradeStation
Group, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 TradeStation Group, Inc.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|                 |  |                                        
|---------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|November 6, 2008 |  | /s/ David H. Fleischman                
|Date             |  | David H. Fleischman                    
|                 |  | Chief Financial Officer,               
|                 |  | Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
Exhibit 31
                                                                    ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION


I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of CWMBS, Inc.,
CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2005-6;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included
in these reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the master
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon
my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the master
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York, as
Trustee.


Date: March 24, 2006


                                                 /s/ Steve Bailey
                                                 ----------------
                                                 Steve Bailey
                                                 Senior Managing Director
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 D0 36 9 . LONNI E LOVE v . DESI REE HI NTON

Th e fat h er Lo n n ie Lo v e fi l ed t h i s ap pl i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap peal fro m t h e

t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er t h at ad j ud icat ed m o t h er Des i ree Hi n t on ’ s m o ti o n t o s et as i d e a

co n sen t o rd er g o v ern i n g ch i l d cu s t o d y b et ween t h e p art i es

. 1

Pu rs uan t t o OC G A § 5

- 6 -3 4 (a) (1 1 ), “ [a] l l ju d g m en t s o r o rd ers i n ch i ld

cu s t o d y cas es award i ng

, refu si n g t o ch an g e, o r m o d ify i n g ch il d cu s t od y ” are d i rect l y

ap p eal ab l e. Th u s

, wh en t h e i s s u e o n ap p eal p ert ai n s t o ch i l d cu s t o d y, t h e o r d er i s

d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e. See Vo yl es v. Vo yl es

, 3 0 1 Ga. 4 4

, 4 6 -4 7 (7 99 SE2 d 1 6 0 ) (2 0 1 7 ).

OCGA § 1 9-9 -4 1 (4 ) d efi n es a “ ch i l d cu st od y p ro ceed i n g” as “ a p ro ceed i n g i n wh i ch

l e g a l cu s t o d y

, p h y s i cal cu s t o d y

, o r v i s i t at i o n w i t h res p ect t o a ch i l d i s an i s s u e.”

Becau s e t h e ord er i n t h i s cas e m o d ifi ed l eg al cu s to d y o v er t h e m i n o r ch il d

, t h e o rd er

i s d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e u n d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a) (1 1 ).

Th is Co u rt wi l l g ran t an o t h erwi s e ti m el y d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat i on i f t h e l o wer

co u rt ’ s o rd er i s d i r e c t l y a p peal ab l e. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). Acco rd i ng l y

, t h i s

ap p li cat io n i s h ereb y GRANTED, an d Lo v e s h al l h av e t en d ay s fro m t h e d at e o f t h i s

o rd er t o fi l e a n o t i ce o f ap p eal wi t h t h e t ri al co u rt

. If, h o wev er, he h as al read y fi l ed

a n o t i ce o f ap p eal , h e n eed n o t fi l e a s eco n d n ot i ce.

1 In i t s o rd er, t h e tri al co u rt co n v ert ed t h e co n s en t o rd er t o a t em p o rary o rd er,

an d t ran s ferred t h e cas e fro m Gwi n n et t Co u n t y

t o Fu lt o n Co u n t y

. March 28, 2018Th e cl erk of t h e t ri al co u rt i s DIRECTED to in cl u d e a co p y o f t h i s o rd er i n t h e

reco rd t ran s m i t t ed t o t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/28/2018