alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Rose Tabak, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding in which the petitioner sought appointment as guardian ad litem for her adult son and leave to serve a late notice of claim in his behalf pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bellard, J.), dated October 25, 1988, which denied her application.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

*548Since the petitioner never demonstrated that the failure to serve a timely notice of claim was caused by her son’s physical or psychological disability, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying her application *(see, Matter of Albanese v Village of Floral Park,*128 AD2d 611). Significantly, the proposed notice of claim submitted to the Supreme Court was signed by the son. Further, under the facts of this case, we find that the respondents would be prejudiced if the application were granted. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Fiber, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph A. Demarco, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered October 20, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted forgery in the second degree.

We reject defendant’s contention that his prosecution for forgery was barred by the double jeopardy provisions of CPL 40.10 and 40.40. Although the two crimes (burglary and forgery) could be said to have arisen out of one criminal transaction (CPL 40.10 [2]), they were comprised of substantially different elements and were still separate crimes *(see,*CPL 40.20 [2] [a]; *People v Hopkins,*95 AD2d 870). Additionally, the People established that at the time of the previous prosecution for burglary, they did not possess legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction for forgery against defendant (CPL 40.40 [2]; *see. People v Lindsly,*99 AD2d 99). Therefore, separate prosecutions were permissible and County Court’s refusal to dismiss the forgery indictment was proper.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5305 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on aqueous emulsion of a modified aliphatic amine mixture of: decanedioic acid, compounds with 1,3- 

benzenedimethanamine- bisphenol A-bisphenol A diglycidyl 

etherdiethylenetriamine glycidyl phenyl ether reaction product 

epichlorohydrinformaldehyde- propylene oxidetriethylenetetramine polymer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Ms. SCHWARTZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on aqueous 

emulsion of a modified aliphatic amine mixture of: 

decanedioic acid, compounds with 1,3- 

benzenedimethanamine- bisphenol A-bisphenol A 

diglycidyl etherdiethylenetriamine glycidyl phenyl ether 

reaction product epichlorohydrinformaldehyde- propylene 

oxidetriethylenetetramine polymer. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5305 IH

1 SECTION 1. AQUEOUS EMULSION OF A MODIFIED ALI2 PHATIC AMINE MIXTURE OF: DECANEDIOIC 

3 ACID, COMPOUNDS WITH 1,3-BENZENEDIME4 THANAMINE- BISPHENOL A-BISPHENOL A 

5 DIGLYCIDYL ETHERDIETHYLENETRIAMINE 

6 GLYCIDYL PHENYL ETHER REACTION

7 PRODUCT EPICHLORO8 HYDRINFORMALDEHYDE- PROPYLENE 

9 OXIDETRIETHYLENETETRAMINE POLYMER. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.40.02 of the Har11 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

12 aqueous emulsion of a modified aliphatic amine mixture 

13 of: decanedioic acid, compounds with 1,3- 

14 benzenedimethanamine- bisphenol A-bisphenol A 

15 diglycidyl etherdiethylenetriamine glycidyl phenyl ether re16 action product epichlorohydrinformaldehyde- propylene 

17 oxidetriethylenetetramine polymer) is amended by striking 

18 the date in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/ 

19 31/2015’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

21 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

22 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

23 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|Louisiana - South Onshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|Louisiana - South Onshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 383    | 524    | 416    | 166    | 250    | 208    | 523    | 358    | 134    | 48    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 243    | 367    | 100    | 272    | 286    | 53     | 53     | 165    | 5      | 95    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 193    | 1      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Exhibit 99.4
Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distributions toCertificateholders as of December 31,2005
STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATIONMORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATESSeries 2005-RMSI
Original
Beginning
Ending
Class
Balance
Balance
Principal
Interest
Loss
Balance
A1
204,572,000.00
204,572,000.00
88,538,862.34
4,669,972.56
0.00
116,033,137.66
A2
103,580,000.00
103,580,000.00
0.00
2,944,132.43
0.00
103,580,000.00
A3
49,126,000.00
49,126,000.00
0.00
1,434,145.06
0.00
49,126,000.00
M1
23,350,000.00
23,350,000.00
0.00
712,204.28
0.00
23,350,000.00
M2
11,985,000.00
11,985,000.00
0.00
368,324.07
0.00
11,985,000.00
M3
3,100,000.00
3,100,000.00
0.00
97,654.75
0.00
3,100,000.00
M4
5,166,000.00
5,166,000.00
0.00
168,699.34
0.00
5,166,000.00
M5
3,719,000.00
3,719,000.00
0.00
125,738.89
0.00
3,719,000.00
M6
2,480,000.00
2,480,000.00
0.00
90,527.24
0.00
2,480,000.00
M7
2,066,000.00
2,066,000.00
0.00
80,978.89
0.00
2,066,000.00
M8
2,066,000.00
2,066,000.00
0.00
92,092.69
0.00
2,066,000.00
X
2,066,526.55
2,066,526.55
0.00
7,966,068.23
0.00
2,066,526.55
R
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
P
100.00
100.00
0.00
2,095,654.35
0.00
100.00
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4543 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4543

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain acrylic staple 
                                fibers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2012

  Mr. Jones introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain acrylic staple 
                                fibers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.40.06 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain acrylic staple 
fibers) is amended by striking ``12/31/2012'' and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
PER CURIAM

	Relator National Western Life Insurance Company has filed a petition for writ ofmandamus.  We deny the petition.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

	Is is ordered July 30, 2001.

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Do Not Publish

PER CURIAM

	Relator National Western Life Insurance Company has filed a petition for writ ofmandamus.  We deny the petition.  Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

	Is is ordered July 30, 2001.

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5115 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5115

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on resin cement based on 
                 calcium carbonate and silicone resins.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

Mr. Huelskamp introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on resin cement based on 
                 calcium carbonate and silicone resins.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RESIN CEMENT BASED ON CALCIUM CARBONATE AND SILICONE RESINS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.62 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to resin cement based on 
calcium carbonate and silicone resins) is amended by striking the date 
in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0251 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT RONALD BRADY,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 13 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 6 2023

10/06/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0251
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-8 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-8 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 32-8 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 3
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 13, 2017

NO. 03-16-00788-CV

Thomas A. Jamison and Thomas E. Lowe, Appellants

v.

Lake Travis Inn and RV Park, Brenda Horton, Ronnie March, and Suzy March, Appellees

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES FIELD AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on August 31, 2016. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because appellants are 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**Officer Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of SPS on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(Form 10-Q), each of the undersigned officers of the SPS certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(1)                      TheForm 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                       Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of SPS as of thedates   and for the periodsexpressed in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Date: April 27, 2007                       |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                       |
| /s/ DAVID L. EVES                          |   |
| David L. Eves                              |
| President and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                                       |
| /s/ BENJAMIN G.S. FOWKE III                |   |
| Benjamin G.S. Fowke III                    |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                            |  |  |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to SPS and will be retained by SPS andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
GOOGLE’S RESP. TO CYWEE REQUEST -1- Case No. 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

CYWEE GROUP LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. 

GOOGLE LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM 

DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 

Judge Manske was correct to deny Plaintiff CyWee Group Ltd. jurisdictional discovery 

and recommend dismissal of CyWee’s common law fraud complaint. CyWee’s assertion that 

Judge Manske’s order denying jurisdictional discovery is “inconsistent” with the Court’s 

November 19, 2020 “Standing Order Regarding Venue and Jurisdictional Discovery Limits For 

Patent Cases” is flatly wrong. First—and most obviously—this is a fraud case, not a patent case, 

and the Standing Order thus does not apply. Dkt. 1 at 1, ¶¶ 52-57 (complaint alleging lone claim 

for common law fraud). Second, the Standing Order on its face relates to limits on ordered venue 

and jurisdictional discovery (such as “the number of interrogatories, requests for production, 

requests for admission, depositions, and/or deposition hours”). It does not apply to the situation, 

as here, in which Judge Manske exercised his broad discretion to find jurisdictional discovery 

inappropriate altogether, as such discovery would not resolve the issues in Google’s motion to 

dismiss. Dkt. 29 at 4-7; e.g., Freeman v. U.S., 556 F.3d 326, 342 (5th Cir. 2009) (discovery must 

be “likely to produce the facts needed to withstand” dismissal). CyWee’s request for a hearing 

based on a misguided view of the Court’s Standing Order should therefore be rejected. 

Case 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM Document 32 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 of 2
GOOGLE’S RESP. TO CYWEE REQUEST -2- Case No. 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM 

 

Dated: November 24, 2020 /s/ Paige Arnette Amstutz 

Luann L. Simmons (Pro Hac Vice) 

lsimmons@omm.com 

Adam M. Kaplan (Pro Hac Vice) 

akaplan@omm.com 

Bill Trac (Pro Hac Vice) 

btrac@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 

Telephone: 415-984-8700 

Facsimile: 415-984-8701 

Paige Arnette Amstutz 

State Bar No. 00796136 

pamstutz@scottdoug.com 

SCOTT DOUGLASS & McCONNICO LLP 

303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 

Austin, TX 78701-2589 

Telephone: (512) 495-6300 

Facsimile: (512) 495-6399 (fax) 

Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify 

that, on November 24, 2020, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served 

with a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Paige Arnette Amstutz 

 Paige Arnette Amstutz 

Case 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM Document 32 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 2
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 23352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09575]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9910-07-OSWER]

Santa Fe Springs Drums Site, Santa Fe Springs, CA; Notice of 
Proposed CERCLA Settlement Agreement for Recovery of Past Response 
Costs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as 
amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a 
proposed administrative settlement with two parties for recovery of 
response costs concerning the Santa Fe Springs Drums Superfund Site in 
Santa Fe Springs, California. The settlement is entered into pursuant 
to Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h)(1), and it requires 
the settling parties to pay $90,000 to the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (Agency). The settlement includes a covenant not to 
sue the settling parties pursuant to Sections 106 or 107(a) of CERCLA, 
42 U.S.C. 9606 or 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of 
publication of this Notice in the Federal Register, the Agency will 
receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will 
consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent 
to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations 
which indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or 
inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be 
available for public inspection at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
CA 94105.

DATES: Pursuant to Section 122(i) of CERCLA, EPA will receive written 
comments relating to this proposed settlement until May 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. A 
copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Thanne Berg, EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, ORC-3, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
telephone number 415-972-3908. Comments should reference the Santa Fe 
Springs Drums Superfund Site, Santa Fe Springs, California and should 
be addressed to Thanne Berg at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thanne Berg, Assistant Regional 
Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3908; fax: 
(417) 947-3570; email: berg.elizabeth@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parties to the Proposed Settlement: Cindy 
Lee Bosshard and the Richard P. Harbaugh Living Trust UTD October 21, 
2005.

    Dated: April 16, 2014.
Enrique Manzanilla,
Director, Superfund Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-09575 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

DROPBOX, INC.,

Plaintiff/CounterDefendant,

v.

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Defendant/CounterPlaintiff.

Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00251-ADA

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DROPBOX, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 6:21-cv-758-ADA

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ADDITIONAL COUNSEL

Notice is hereby given of the entry of the undersigned as additional counsel for Dropbox, 

Inc. (“Dropbox”) in the above-referenced consolidated cases. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, all 

further notice and copies of pleadings, papers, and other material relevant to this action should be 

directed to and served upon:

Jennifer J. John

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400

Palo Alto, CA 94306

Tel: (650) 858-6000

Fax: (650) 858-6100

Email: Jennifer.John@wilmerhale.com

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 121 Filed 03/28/22 Page 1 of 2
2

Dated: March 28, 2022

OF COUNSEL:

Gregory H. Lantier (Pro Hac Vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE

& DORR LLP

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC 20006

Tel: (202) 663-6327

Email: gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com

Liv Herriot (Pro Hac Vice)

Jennifer J. John (Pro Hac Vice filed)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE

& DORR LLP

2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400

Palo Alto, California 94306

Tel: (650) 858-6138

Email: liv.herriot@wilmerhale.com

Email: Jennifer.John@wilmerhale.com

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Texas State Bar No. 16584975

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP

303 Colorado, Suite 2000

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel: (512) 495-6429

Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com

Attorneys for Dropbox, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing document 

via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system on March 28, 2022.

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 121 Filed 03/28/22 Page 2 of 2