alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Teshuah Fountain, an Infant, by Allan D. Fountain, Her Parent, et al., Appellants, v Village of Canastota, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 460]

Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Tait, Jr., J.), entered November 2, 1994 in Madison County, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.

On May 14, 1993, plaintiffs served a complaint alleging that, on February 15, 1992, members of the Village of Canastota Police Department executed a search warrant at the home of plaintiff Allan D. Fountain, during the course of which lead musket balls owned by Fountain were purportedly strewn about the residence. He claims that, while he and his wife were restrained by law enforcement officials, his two-year-old daughter, plaintiff Teshuah Fountain, obtained and ingested several of these lead objects, leading to severe lead poisoning. Issue was joined on May 24, 1993 and discovery demands were made. On June 9, 1994, defendant served a 90-day demand for *782resumption of prosecution pursuant to CPLR 3216. Although plaintiffs at this point made some efforts to complete their discovery obligations, no note of issue was filed. After the 90-day period expired, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. Supreme Court granted the motion and this appeal by plaintiffs followed.

We affirm. When a plaintiff neither files a note of issue nor moves for an extension of time to do so, a defendant’s motion to dismiss must be granted unless the plaintiff is able to demonstrate a "justifiable excuse for the delay and a good and meritorious cause of action” (CPLR 3216 [e]; *see, Anderson v Doten,*187 AD2d 893). Here, plaintiffs’ proof — an affidavit submitted by their attorney, which provides neither a coherent explanation for the delays in this case nor competent proof establishing the merits of plaintiffs’ claim — fails to meet this standard.

Even if we were to assume that Fountain’s verified bill of particulars could properly be considered an affidavit of merit (see, *Pastore v Golub Corp.,*184 AD2d 827, 828; *Key Bank v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*144 AD2d 847, 848), the record is nevertheless insufficient to establish a viable claim. Fountain was concededly not present in the house and was in police custody both during and after the time the search warrant was executed, and the bill of particulars gives no details, other than speculative ones, as to how the actions of defendant’s employees led to the child’s injuries. Further, there is no affidavit from the child’s mother, despite the fact that she apparently was in the house during the search and presumably possesses first-hand knowledge of the search and its aftermath. Beyond that, there is no fit proof verifying the child’s asserted injuries *(cf., Sortino v Fisher,*20 AD2d 25, 33).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
No. 85-6394.

#### Muralt *v.*North Dakota.

Sup. Ct. N. D. Certiorari denied.
Argued and submitted October 22,

reversed and remanded for resentencing November 26, 1979

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*KRIS D. HALLIN, *Appellant.*

(No. C 78-04-06295, CA 14421)

602 P2d 1134

Donald P. Roach, Portland, argued the cause and d the brief for appellant.

Douglas F. Foley, Certified Law Student, Salem, led the cause for respondent. With him on the brief [re James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Walter Barrie, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Joseph, Presiding Judge, and Lee and hardson, Judges.

*402JOSEPH, P.J.

*403JOSEPH, P.J.

On August 15, 1978, a judgment was entered on lefendant’s conviction on a charge of felony hit and un. He was sentenced to five years; execution of the entence was suspended and he was placed on proba-ion. On January 15, 1979, an order was entered reeking probation and directing execution of the senence previously imposed. On January 23, 1979, the ourt entered an "ORDER VACATING SENTENCE ’REVIOUSLY IMPOSED AND GRANTING NEW ’ROBATION,” which read in material part:

> "[T]he sentence previously imposed herein under date of September 15, 1978, and ordered executed by order of this court under date of January 15,1979, be and the same is hereby vacated.

> "It is adjudged that imposition of sentence is suspended and defendant placed on probation ***.”

On May 1, 1979, an order was entered revoking proba-on, imposing a five-year sentence and ordering execution of the sentence. The defendant urged upon the dal court that a new pre-sentence investigation was squired under ORS 144.790(1) because the 1978 sen-¡nce had been vacated.

Although the record is perfectly clear that the trial idge did not intend on January 23 to go beyond íerely reinstating defendant’s probation, the order hich he signed vacated the 1978 sentence. The order hich the judge signed is controlling *(State v. Swain-Goldsmith,*267 Or 527, 517 P2d 684 (1974)), and when the May order was made the court was acting as a sentencing court” within the meaning of ORS 14.790. *State v. Gustafson,*38 Or App 437, 590 P2d 733 (1979). The court was, therefore, required to order new pre-sentence report.

Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,641
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,197
<PP&E>                                           1,896
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,613
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,713
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,598
<SALES>                                          7,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,362
<CGS>                                            4,313
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (25)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    242
<INCOME-TAX>                                        21
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                221
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       221
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Statement from the U.S. Forces Japan Commander, Lt. Gen. Jerry P. Martinez Commencement of Exercise Keen Sword 19

U.S. Forces, Japan, Public Affairs Office

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 11-1

11-i
CHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 METHODOLOGY

The consumer subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups or 

consumers who may be disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation

standard. DOE will conduct this analysis in preparation for the notice of proposed rulemaking.

DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the LCC and payback periods (PBPs) for those 

consumers that fall into any identifiable groups. DOE plans to evaluate variations in regional 

energy prices and variations in energy use that might affect the net present value of a standard to 

consumer subpopulations. To the extent possible, DOE will obtain estimates of each input 

parameter’s variability and will consider this variability in its calculation of consumer impacts.

DOE will determine the impact on consumer subgroups using the LCC Spreadsheet 

Model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard LCC analysis (described in chapter 

8) focuses on the households that use miscellaneous refrigeration products. DOE can use the 

LCC Spreadsheet Model to analyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup.

(Chapter 8 explains in detail the inputs to the model used in determining LCC and PBPs.) In the 

case of miscellaneous refrigeration products, possible subgroups DOE may choose to consider 

are: (1) low-income households, and (2) senior citizens.

DOE will be especially sensitive to increases in the purchase price of the product due to 

amended standards, to avoid negative impacts on identifiable population groups that may not be 

able to afford significant increases in product price.

11-1
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 JULIE PEREZ,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 33,470

5 PAUL MAES and CHRISTUS ST. 

6 VINCENT REGIONAL MEDICAL

7 CENTER,

8 Defendant-Appellant.

9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

10 Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge 

11 Branch Law Firm

12 Margaret Moses Branch

13 Turner Branch

14 Albuquerque, NM 

15 Gorence & Oliveros, P.C.

16 Robert J. Gorence

17 Louren M. Oliveros

18 Albuquerque, NM 

19 for Appellee

20 Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, LLP

21 William P. Slattery

22 Zachary T. Taylor
2

1 Santa Fe, NM 

2 for Appellants

3 MEMORANDUM OPINION

4 FRY, Judge.

5 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

6 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

7 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

8 {2} AFFIRMED.

9 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 __________________________________

11 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

12 WE CONCUR:

13 _________________________________

14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge

15 _________________________________

16 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**

**PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-112735, 333-122016, 333-130402 and 333-131060)pertaining to the Anesiva, Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2003 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the Non-Plan Option Grants of our reports dated March 8, 2007 with respect to theconsolidated financial statements of Anesiva, Inc. , Anesiva, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Anesiva, Inc.,included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

Palo Alto, California 

March 8, 2007
Order filed, August 3, 2018

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00627

- CV

____________ G&A OUTSOURCING, INC .; G&A OUTSOURCING I I, L.L.C.; AND G&A

OUTSOURCING III, L.L .C. , Appellant

V.

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMM ISSION , Appell ee

On Appeal from the 98th District Court

Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 14

- 005431



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due August 2, 2018

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the r ecord. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order LaSonya Thomas , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 15 days of the date of this order

. PER C URIAM
U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 

### Application toAmend Section 333 Exemption No. 11306 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-1023 October 14, 2015 

### Petitioner: Hawk Aerial, LLC Kevin J. Gould, CEO 114 Homesteads Rd. Placitas, NM 87043 Cell: 425-218-3723 Email: kevin.gould@hawkaerial.com Website: www.hawkaerial.com
Greetings, By letter from the FAA dated April 8, 2015, an exemption was granted to Hawk Aerial for relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 11306 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-1023. Hawk Aerial hereby requests thatthe exemption so granted be amended to include the Airborne Robotics GmbH AIR6 model:

'• The AIR6 is an "flat-6" multi-rotor unmanned aircraft (UA), an electric vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) platform with a maximum gross weight of 5750 grams (12.7 pounds), diagonal width dimension of 91 em and aircraft height of 43 em.


### • It uses GPS for navigational guidance.
• In the event ofa loss ofcommunication link, the AIR6 automatically returns to home and lands.
• In the event offlight beyond range, the AIR6's flight termination system automatically returns the aircraft home and lands.
• The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA's Exemption No. 11306 apply without modification to this application to include the Airborne Robotics AIR6 model in Exemption No. 11306. Copies ofthe Aircraft Flight Manual and Users Guide have been mailed tothe FAA atthe cc address shown below. Thank you for your consideration ofthis important request. Please advise us of any additional information that is required. Sincerely,

Kevin J. Gould Airman Certificate #2830326 CEO, Hawk Aerial LLC

cc: ATTN: The Office of Rulemaking FAA Headquarters, Building lOA 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20951
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 93582-93583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27732]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-12428-01-R6]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program: Order on Petitions for 
Objection to State Operating Permit for Flint Hills Resources Ingleside 
LLC, San Patricio County, Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed 
an Order dated November 14, 2024, granting in part and denying in part 
two petitions dated July 10, 2024 (collectively the Petitions), from 
the Environmental Integrity Project, Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch 
Association, and TCHD Consulting LLC (the Petitioners). The Petitions 
requested that the EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V 
operating permit issued by the Texas Commission on

[[Page 93583]]

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to Flint Hills Resources LLC, for its 
Ingleside Terminal located in San Patricio County, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Ehrhart, EPA Region 6 Office, 
Air Permits Section, (214) 665-2295, [email protected]. The 
final order and petitions are available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA received two petitions from 
Environmental Integrity Project, Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch 
Association, and TCHD Consulting LLC dated July 10, 2024, requesting 
that the EPA object to the issuance of operating permit No. O3454, 
issued by TCEQ to Flint Hills Resources LLC, for its Ingleside Terminal 
located in San Patricio County, Texas. On November 14, 2024, the EPA 
Administrator issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the 
petitions. The order itself explains the basis for the EPA's decision.
    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner 
may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny 
issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the 
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later 
than January 27, 2025.

    Dated: November 21, 2024.
David Garcia,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2024-27732 Filed 11-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Wayne R. Hellman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Lighting Technologies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on suchevaluation: and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter on the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:January 25, 2006   /s/ Wayne R. Hellman   Wayne R. Hellman  Chief Executive Officer
#### In re Peter J. MULLEN, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 2-80-01356.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S. D. Ohio, E. D.

March 13, 1981.

Kenneth A. Bauman, Columbus, Ohio, for debtor.

*39Albert R. Ritcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT

GRADY L. PETTIGREW, Bankruptcy Judge.

From the evidence presented, this Court finds as follows:

1. Debtor, Peter J. Mullen, filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy on April 24, 1980.

2. Debtor entered the U.S. Air Force in 1953 and was honorably discharged in 1957. He completed college in 1962, having served in the Air Force Reserves. In 1964, debtor returned to active duty status and completed Officer Training. On July 31, 1975, debtor was subject to a reduction in force and released from the Air Force. He was paid $15,000 readjustment pay at the time he was released because of the reduction in force. August 1, 1975, was debtor’s re-enlistment date, on which he was given the rank of sergeant. On March 1,1980, debtor retired from active duty in the Air Force.

3. Under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 687, debtor agreed that he would receive no retired pay, 10 U.S.C. § 8911, until he had repaid 75% of the $15,000.

4. The 75% of the $15,000 had not been paid when debtor filed his motion for civil contempt.

5. Debtor is entitled to receive retired pay subject to the duty to repay the 75% of the readjustment pay.

*Conclusion of Law*

From the foregoing, this Court concludes as follows:

1. Debtor has failed to carry the burden of proof and persuasion that the U.S. Air Force is liable for civil contempt.

2. This Court does not conclude that 11 U.S.C. § 362 compells a finding of civil contempt in light of the mandatory provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 687.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael A. Martino, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 of Ambit Biosciences Corporation; and

 

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.

 
|   | /s/   MICHAEL A. MARTINO                |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Michael   A. Martino                    |
|   | President   and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date: August 8, 2014

 

----