alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hillcrest Paper Company, Inc., Plaintiff, *v.*Jack Ohlstein et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 20, 1958.

*Harris Birnbaum*for plaintiff.

*Leibowitz & Fields*for Jack Ohlstein, defendant appearing specially.

*A. Bertram Roth*for Crestwood Paper Company, Inc., defendant appearing specially.

*287Irving H. Saypol, J.

Defendants, appearing specially, move for an order vacating the service of the summons and complaint. Actually they seek the dismissal of the complaint, contending that the institution of this suit is unauthorized, and that plaintiff lacks capacity to sue. In fact, that ground is urged for dismissal pursuant to rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Consequently the special appearance must be overruled (Civ. Prac. Act, § 237-a).

The person verifying the complaint is the sole officer and director of the plaintiff corporation. At the time of the verification the remaining officers and directors had resigned. No defendant is a stockholder of record. Upon this record it is established that the business and affairs of the plaintiff corporation were surrendered to and are now in the sole charge of the single remaining officer and director.

Defendants rely on *Tidy-House Paper Corp.*v. *Adlman*(4 A D 2d 619). That authority supports the plaintiff’s contention. There each of two individuals owned 50% of the stock of the corporation and the control of the board of directors was equally divided between them. While there it was stated that failure to seek approval of the directors for institution of suit is the same as though approval had been expressly refused, approval here if one there be, must rest in the action of the sole remaining officer and director, and the question is therefore raised whether authority to institute this suit may be thus presumed. Apparently no stockholders’ agreement exists for none is referred to which may have any effect upon the resolution of this issue. Since the entire management and operation of the company was left to the remaining officer and director, it was his authority and responsibility to institute suits for the protection and preservation of the business and assets of the company, and strangers to the corporation may not be permitted to question that authority *(Rothman & Schneider*v. *Beckerman,*2 N Y 2d 493; *Matter of Paloma Frocks [Shamokin Sportswear Corp.]*3 N Y 2d 572-575, 576). Since none of the defendants is an officer, director or stockholder of the corporation, the rule of equal control does not apply and the right to invoke the rule was voluntarily surrendered.

The motion is denied.
SYLVIA J. ROLINSKI*

DANIELLE M. ESPINET***

Sylvia J. Rolinski, Esq.

P: 301.987.0202 ext. 1

F: 301.263.7100

SJR@Rolinski.com

14915 River Road

Potomac, MD 20854

*Admitted in MD, DC and NY

***Admitted in NY, MD, DC and FL

Rolinski Law Group, LLC Longwood, FL

October 28, 2020

Submitted via ECF 

Hon. Robert W. Lehrburger

United States Magistrate Judge

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 

Pearl Street, Room 2260

New York, New York 10007

Re: Rudersdal, EOOD, et al. v. Harris, et al., 

1:18-cv-11072

Dear Magistrate Judge Lehrburger: 

Pursuant to the District Court for the Southern District of New York’s Local Rule 7.1, 

Magistrate Judge Lehrburger’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases Rule III G and related 

Appendix B 1, and Fed.R.Civ.P 5(d), Plaintiffs submit this letter motion to file under seal their

Reply to Defendant Harris’ Response, ECF 362, to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the 

Second Amended Complaint ECF 360 (“Reply”). As this motion concerns non-dispositive 

matters, it is appropriate for letter motion under the previously-cited rules.

Plaintiffs make sensitive representations in their Reply which warrants its filing under 

seal. 

Plaintiffs have not previously requested to file under seal, however due to the sensitive 

information contained therein, Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal their Reply to Defendant 

Harris’ Response ECF 362 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Second Amended 

Complaint ECF 360. No prejudice will inure to the parties or this Court by the grant of the 

instant relief. 

Respectfully Submitted,

/S/ Sylvia J. Rolinski

Sylvia J. Rolinski, Esq. 

CC: All counsel of record via ECF

10/29/2020

Case 3:22-cv-01219-X Document 377 Filed 10/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID 25524
Request to seal denied. The request does not provide any 

particularized basis for the request to justify sealing under the 

Second Circuit's standards and otherwise does not comply with this 

Court's individual rules of practice (see Rule IIIG and Appendix).

10/29/2020

Case 3:22-cv-01219-X Document 377 Filed 10/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID 25525
AFS-13-038-E

December 5, 2012

 Exemption No. 6034I

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2000-8428

Mr. David Stape

Manager – Regulatory Compliance

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

Post Office Box 20706

Atlanta, GA 30320-6001

Dear Mr. Stape:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 6034, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 25, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) for an extension of Exemption No. 6034, as 

amended. That exemption from §§ 25.791(a) and 121.317(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Delta to operate its McDonnell Douglas MD-90 aircraft with 

“No Smoking” signs that are always illuminated, provided Delta operates those aircraft in a 

manner that continues to prohibit smoking on board the affected aircraft at all times.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Delta.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6034, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 6034, as amended, to 

February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30157

Summary Calendar

__________________

MELVIN WASHINGTON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT J. BARNES, Doctor,

ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Milddle District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 94-CV-1706

- - - - - - - - - -

(May 23, 1995)

Before KING, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Melvin Washington's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on

appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing his civil

rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is DENIED. 

Washington has not provided a factual basis to support his

allegations that prison officials retaliated against him for

exercising his right of access to the courts or to complain of

official misconduct. See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1046 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1117 (1986); Whittington v.
No. 95-30157

-2-

Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 818, 819 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 840

(1988).

 On appeal, Washington can present no legal points arguable

on their merits, and the appeal is frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is

frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.
#### SMELKER v. STATE.

No. 22372.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1943.

No attorney for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault upon Luther Hill by inflicting upon the said Hill serious bodily injury. Punishment was assessed at 120 days’ confinement in the county jail.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in which condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          51,891                  51,891
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,803                  51,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                       842                     842
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,401                  98,401
<PP&E>                                       3,666,339               3,666,339
<DEPRECIATION>                                 268,700                 268,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,828,380               3,828,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,786                 111,786
<BONDS>                                      1,670,531               1,670,531
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    384,997                 384,997
<COMMON>                                     1,661,066               1,661,066
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,828,380               3,828,380
<SALES>                                        137,324                 272,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,114                 284,396
<CGS>                                           41,280                  80,619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,535                 138,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,148                  10,113
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (26,062)                (19,116)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,465                  54,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,904                  62,678
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,904                  62,678
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (839)                 (1,034)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,065                  61,644
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09                     .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09                     .66


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS PART OF THE
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,983
<PP&E>                                          96,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,334
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,962
<SALES>                                         79,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,769
<CGS>                                           20,661
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    86
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,840
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,286
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,554
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,554
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73
        

</TABLE>
# Enrolled Loan Data Tables

State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) ApplicationOMB Control # 1505-0227	CAP Enrolled Loan Tables	&P
Case 2:22-cr-00067-Z-BR Document 54 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 120
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

CARBONE’S FINE FOODS AND WINES, 

LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARBONE RESTAURANT LLC, 

CARBONE FINE FOOD LLC, THE 

MAJOR FOOD GROUP LLC AND MAJOR 

INTELLECTUAL LLC, 

 Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

 NO. 3:22-CV-1184-E 

DEFENDANTS’ DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 7.1 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, the undersigned counsel certifies the 

following: 

Defendant Major Food Group, LLC is a private non-governmental party, has no parent 

corporation, and no publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. 

Defendant Carbone Fine Food LLC is a private non-governmental party, has no parent 

corporation, and no publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. Carbone Fine 

Food LLC is an affiliate of Defendant Major Food Group, LLC. 

Defendant Major Intellectual LLC is a private non-governmental party, has no parent 

corporation, and no publicly-held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. Major Intellectual 

LLC is an affiliate of Defendant Major Food Group, LLC. 

Defendants are not aware of any entity called “Carbone Restaurant LLC”. 

Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 16 Filed 07/28/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 675
Dated: July 28, 2022 

/s/ Jeremy Fielding 

 Jeremy Fielding (TX Bar No. 17233700) 

Jon David Kelley (TX Bar No. 24092809) 

Ruben Alan Garcia (TX Bar No. 24101787) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

4550 Travis Street 

Dallas, Texas 75205 

Telephone: (214) 972-1770 

Facsimile: (214) 972-1771 

jeremy.fielding@kirkland.com 

jon.kelley@kirkland.com 

ruben.a.garcia@kirkland.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 16 Filed 07/28/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 676
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 28, 2022, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Texas, using the 

CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to counsel of record.

 

/s/ Jeremy Fielding 

 Jeremy Fielding 

Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 16 Filed 07/28/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 677
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             158
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                       219
<INVENTORY>                                     33,043
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,523
<PP&E>                                           1,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                     581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,031
<BONDS>                                          3,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,790
<SALES>                                          8,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,016
<CGS>                                            5,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 408
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,017
<INCOME-TAX>                                       408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                609
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       609
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of HepaLife Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel Rayat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  HEPALIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: March 28, 2008By:/s/ Harmel S. RayatHarmel S. Rayat
Chief Financial Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69297-69298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29340]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-40-000]


Quinnipiac Energy, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

November 9, 2000.
    Quinnipiac Energy, LLC (Quinnipiac) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Quinnipiac will engage in wholesale electric power 
and energy transactions at market-based rates. Quinnipiac also 
requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, 
Quinnipiac requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 
18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuance of securities and assumptions of 
liability by Quinnipiac.
    On November 3, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Quinnipiac should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

[[Page 69298]]

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Quinnipiac is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Quinnipiac's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is December 4, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29340 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M