alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1051 

CAF 15-00987 

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF NICOLE M. HONSBERGER, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH R. HONSBERGER, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

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

SUSAN GRAY JONES, ESQ., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, 

APPELLANT. 

 

SUSAN GRAY JONES, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, CANANDAIGUA, APPELLANT PRO

SE. 

MULDOON GETZ & RESTON, ROCHESTER (MARGARET M. RESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

WHITCOMB LAW FIRM, P.C., CANANDAIGUA (DAVID J. WHITCOMB OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Ontario County (Stephen

D. Aronson, A.J.), entered March 9, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded

the parties joint custody of the subject child with primary physical 

placement to respondent. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act

article 6, the Attorney for the Child (AFC) appeals from an order that

awarded petitioner mother and respondent father joint custody of the

subject child, with primary physical residence to the father and

visitation to the mother. Contrary to the AFC’s contention, there is

a sound and substantial basis in the record for Family Court’s

determination that awarding the father primary physical residence of

the child is in the child’s best interests (see generally Eschbach v

Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-174). Although the court found that both

parents were fit and that the mother had been the child’s primary

caretaker since birth, the record supports the court’s determination

that the father had the financial resources to support the child, had

a stable residence with a room for the child, and had the “convincing

edge” in fostering a relationship between the child and the mother

(see Matter of Tuttle v Tuttle, 137 AD3d 1725, 1726; Matter of Martin 
-2- 1051 

CAF 15-00987 

J.R. v Kimberli A.K., 45 AD3d 1358, 1359). 

Entered: November 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 16, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D15-2105; 3D15-1984; 3D15-1967

Lower Tribunal Nos. 10-54870, 14-32672

________________

Pierre Philippe, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Michael Weiner, M.D., P.A. Profit Sharing Plan,

Appellee.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Daryl Trawick and

Thomas J. Rebull, Judges.

Raven Ramona Liberty, for appellants.

Paul M. Kade, for appellee.

Before WELLS, SHEPHERD and SALTER, JJ.

SALTER, J.

These three consolidated appeals involve post-final-judgment actions by the

appellants as judgment debtors. The appeals constitute a collateral attack on a final
deficiency judgment entered in 2012 and affirmed by this Court in July 2014. 

Philippe v. Weiner, 143 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Our prior opinion,

though requiring recomputation of the total amount due (based on the effective

date of liquidation of the deficiency, exclusion of certain real estate taxes and

insurance costs, and an adjustment to the prejudgment interest due), became law of

the case as to the issues now sought to be raised by the appellants. Fla. Dept. of

Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105-06 (Fla. 2001).

The appellants did not directly appeal the post-remand, recomputed final

judgment itself, which was entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the original

deficiency judgment. Further, the appellants did not offer evidence that the

amended final judgment should reflect a credit for the market value of stock

obtained by the appellee through execution and a sheriff’s sale, and they did not

seek or obtain a stay to pursue a review of either the original or amended

judgment. No error having been shown, the orders below are affirmed in each of

the three consolidated cases.

Affirmed.

2
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05934]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9922-70-OEI]


Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) responses to Agency clearance requests in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations are listed 
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney Kerwin (202) 566-1669, or 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cba0aeb9bca2a5e5a8a4beb9bfa5aeb28baebbaae5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d4bfb1a6a3bdbafab7bba1a6a0bab1ad94b1a4b5fab3bba2">[email protected]</span></a> and please refer to the appropriate 
EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR Number 0976.17; 2015 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification 
of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit 
Application and Modification (Renewal); 40 CFR parts 262, 262.41, 263, 
264, 264.75, 265, 266, 270, 273, and 279; 42 CFR parts 262, 263, 264, 
265, 266, 270, 273, and 279; was approved with change on 1/28/2015; OMB 
Number 2050-0024; expires on 1/31/2017.

Comment Filed

    EPA ICR Number 2465.02; NSPS for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New 
Electric Utility Generating Units (40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT) 
(Proposed Rule); 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT; OMB filed comment on 1/
20/2015.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-05934 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
.. .. REF ID :A67300 e $lE~~Jmr 

From: Berlin (GMBRK) To: Tokyo (Summer) 4 August 1943 

JCP 

#464 

According to a report received from the 

German Army, after the talks between America 

and Russia are finished, special representative DAVIES will leave from Moscow for Alaskao (On his way he will visit the air fields that have 

been built in Eastern Siberia, through assistance 

given by the United Stateso The whole trip will 

take about five days)o 

--u--a Colonel UEROUSUKib as chairman of the 

committeeo Theyc will be distributed at Fair~ 

banks, Nome, White Horse and Point Barrowo 

a - Twelve groupsa 

b - As spelled in text. 

c - The antecedent is in the unrecovered groups~ 

~~~~~$~~~ ~ ~~ U'"): -r -?' \: W& ~· ~ -~ ~ tfn 5 Aug 43 ( 1) Japanese D-3229 

· -~ ec'1d 6 Aug 43 

1) . ~!Eh(C~!Eh'lr V Declassifi_ed and approved for release by NSA on 05-09-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

This sheet of paper and all of its contents must be safeguarded with the greatest care. Utmost secrecy is necessary to prevent drying up this sort of vital intelligence at its source.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

The Board of Directors
of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-39257) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-29885, 333-81813, and 333-54688) on Form
S-8 of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp. of our report dated March 8, 2002,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Hungarian Telephone and Cable
Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss),
stockholders' equity (deficiency), and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2001, and the related financial statements
Schedules I and II which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report
on Form 10-K of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp.

KPMG Hungaria Kft.


Budapest, Hungary
March 28, 2002
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                   CHEVY CHASE PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                   AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS
               --------------------------------------------------

    For the Period from Inception (November 5, 1996) through December 31, 1996
                         (in thousands, except ratio)


                Net income                              $1,832

                Fixed charges                                -
                                                        ------
                Earnings before fixed charges           $1,832
                                                        ======

                Fixed charges, as above                 $    -

                Preferred stock dividend requirements    1,254
                                                        ------
                Fixed charges including preferred
                   stock dividends                      $1,254
                                                        ======
                Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
                   and preferred stock dividend
                   requirements                            1.46
nvstrr_ex10-5





  Exhibit 10.5







 


NOVUSTERRA
INC


 


This
Carbon Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “Agreement”) is
made as of this 24th day of April 2021, by and between Novusterra
Inc., a Florida corporation (“the “Company”), and
American Resources Corporation (“ARC”) a Carbon making
company, which are made party hereto (ARC and the Company, the
“Parties” and each a “Party”) pursuant a
joint venture agreement the parties signed on 31st day of March 2021
for the Company to make Graphene using Carbon as the major raw
material using technology and patented rights ARC has acquired from
a third party.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration
of the promises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, and
for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Company hereto agree to buy, and ARC
agree to sell Carbon to the Company at a 5% discount to the last
published Platts High Vol A Hard Coking Coal FOB US East Coast
index price based on the time of such purchase to be used as such
raw material for Graphene production.

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto
have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth
below.


 


 


	


/s/ I Andrew Weeraratne

	


/s/ Mark Jensen


	

Andrew
Weeraratne

	

Mark
Jensen


	

Chief
Executive Officer

	

Chief
Executive Officer


	

Novusterra
Inc.

	

American
Resources Corp


	

7135
Collins Ave N. 624

	

12115
Visionary Way


	

Miami
Beach Fl 33141

	

Fishers,
IN 46038
#### Philip Meyer Company, Appellant, vs. Sheboygan Chair Company, Respondent.

*March 14*

April 4, *1899.*

*Appeal: Findings of fact*

Findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless against the clear preponderance of the evidence.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Sheboy-gan county: N. S. G-ilson, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to recover for castings alleged to have been made especially for defendant. The defendant had judgment, from which the plaintiff appealed.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Benfey &*Benfey, and oral argument by *Theodore Benfey.*

*Tronéis WilUams,*for the respondent.

Dodge, J.

No advantage can be gained from a discussion in the opinion of the facts in this case. Suffice it to say that, after a careful examination, we do not find any clear preponderance of evidence against the finding of the court that “ the plaintiff did not manufacture for the defendant, in accordance with its order and agreement, the articles sued for, and did not deliver the same to said defendant in accordance with any agreement to purchase the same by said defendant,” whether that finding is intended to repudiate the making of an agreement in fact by defendant’s foreman, or his authority on their behalf. That finding sustains the judgment.

*By the*Court.— Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7064

GEORGE H. SPIKER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. 

(7:15-cv-00379-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George H. Spiker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George H. Spiker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and 

denying his motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-

85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Spiker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.3


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
              ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350,
                   CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,
Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

         (1)  the Company's Quarterly Annual on Form 10-K for the year ended
              December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
              requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
              Act of 1934; and
         (2)  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.

Dated:    March 27, 2003          /s/ Michael G. Long
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                  Name: Michael G. Long
                                        Chief Financial and Accounting Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), in accordance with
the procedures provided for by the Securities and Exchange Commission in
Release No. 33-8212 for treatment as a document "accompanying" the Annual
Report on Form 10-K to which it relates, and is not being filed as part of the
Report or as a separate disclosure document. This certificate shall not be
deemed incorporated by reference into any registration statement of the Company
filed under the Securities Act.

         A signed original of this written statement required by section 906
has been provided to Edge Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Edge
Petroleum Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
24-Hour Future Design Value Estimation Bakersfield - California Street

4-km CMAQ simulation for the SJV domain

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 98% DV

2011 53.4 38.4 25.9 65.5 65.5

2012 56.4 27.6 14.5 54.1 56.4

2013 67.6 24.9 39.1 71.8 71.8 65

RRF NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST

Q1 0.84 0.82 0.93 0.74 0.85 0.96

Q2 0.75 0.69 0.97 0.80 0.86 0.96

Q3 0.74 0.67 0.97 0.85 0.86 0.97

Q4 0.76 0.73 0.95 0.81 0.85 0.97

Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total

2011 0.14 0.36 0.08 0.28 0.04 0.02 0.07

2012 0.15 0.42 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.08

2013 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.33 0.04 0.03 0.07

2011 7.55 19.05 4.36 14.92 2.20 1.05 3.78 0.50 53.40

2012 8.19 23.69 2.00 11.20 1.97 4.34 4.51 0.50 56.40

2013 8.47 24.02 3.02 22.31 2.55 2.11 4.61 0.50 67.60

2018 6.35 15.68 4.06 11.05 1.87 1.00 3.14 0.50 43.65

2019 6.89 19.50 1.86 8.29 1.67 4.15 3.72 0.50 46.59

2020 7.12 19.77 2.82 16.52 2.17 2.02 3.81 0.50 54.73

Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total

2011 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.53 0.07 0.10 0.07

2012 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.56 0.04 0.15 0.06

2013 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.57 0.03 0.21 0.04

2011 1.94 0.00 6.93 20.03 2.75 3.76 2.48 0.50 38.40

2012 1.04 0.00 4.29 15.14 1.09 4.01 1.54 0.50 27.60

2013 0.66 0.00 2.86 13.96 0.73 5.17 1.02 0.50 24.90

2018 1.45 0.00 6.70 16.08 2.35 3.62 2.40 0.50 33.11

2019 0.78 0.00 4.14 12.16 0.93 3.87 1.48 0.50 23.85

2020 0.49 0.00 2.76 11.21 0.63 4.99 0.99 0.50 21.56

Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total

2011 0.02 0.00 0.13 0.28 0.06 0.45 0.05

2012 0.03 0.00 0.17 0.30 0.07 0.37 0.06

2013 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.26 0.06 0.43 0.06

Future Mass

Q3 Components:

Current Mass

Current Design Values

Q1 Components:

Current Mass

Future Mass

Q2 Components:
2011 0.57 0.00 3.42 7.14 1.49 11.56 1.23 0.50 25.90

2012 0.46 0.00 2.33 4.24 0.93 5.21 0.83 0.50 14.50

2013 1.10 0.00 6.02 10.12 2.51 16.70 2.16 0.50 39.10

2018 0.42 0.00 3.33 6.09 1.29 11.21 1.19 0.50 24.03

2019 0.34 0.00 2.27 3.61 0.80 5.06 0.81 0.50 13.39

2020 0.81 0.00 5.85 8.63 2.16 16.21 2.10 0.50 36.27

Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total

2011 0.14 0.41 0.04 0.22 0.04 0.07 0.08

2012 0.08 0.27 0.04 0.46 0.06 0.04 0.05

2013 0.12 0.36 0.04 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.07

2011 8.97 26.67 2.73 14.41 2.73 4.39 5.10 0.50 65.50

2012 4.38 14.64 2.13 24.44 3.14 2.04 2.83 0.50 54.10

2013 8.31 25.61 2.97 21.96 3.53 4.01 4.91 0.50 71.80

2018 6.84 19.46 2.60 11.73 2.32 4.26 3.75 0.50 51.45

2019 3.34 10.68 2.03 19.89 2.68 1.98 2.09 0.50 43.19

2020 6.34 18.68 2.83 17.87 3.01 3.89 3.61 0.50 56.73

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 98% DV

2018 43.65 33.11 24.03 51.45 51.5

2019 46.59 23.85 13.39 43.19 46.6

2020 54.73 21.56 36.27 56.73 56.7 51.59

Future Mass

Future Design Value

Current Mass

Future Mass

Q4 Components:

Current Mass
#### Treat and another, Appellants, vs. Hiles, Respondent. Treat and another, Respondents, vs. Hiles, Appellant.

*September 23*

*October 14, 1890.*

*Offsetting judgments: Stay of execution.*

A stay of execution upon a judgment is a protection against the collection of any part of it by legal process, and hence another judgment cannot be offset against it during such stay.

APPEALS from the Circuit Court for *MiT/wo/alcee*County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

The motion was submitted for the plaintiffs on the brief of *N. 8. Murphey,*and for the defendant on that of *John, W. Cary,*attorney, and *Bose & Bell,*of counsel.

Counsel for the plaintiffs cited *Taylor v. Williams,*14 Mis. 155; *Yorton v. M., L. 8. & W. B. Co.*62 id. 372; *Bosworth v. Tollman,*66 id. 533.

LyoN, J.

Motion by plaintiffs to offset judgments.

The case was in this court on three appeals from orders made therein by the circuit court. 75 Wis. 265. One of these appeals was by plaintiffs, the others by defendant. The plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed, with costs taxed at $45.25. One of the defendant’s appeals was also dismissed, with costs taxed at $46.85. On the remaining appeal of *476.defendant, the order appealed from was reversed, with costs taxed at $200.

The cause in which these appeals was taken was after-wards tried in the circuit court, and the plaintiff recovered judgment for $20,000 and costs.

The plaintiffs now move tins court to offset the judgments against them for costs, amounting to $215.25, and to apply the same in payment of the judgment for costs in their favor for $46.85 in this court, and the balance thereof, being $198.40, on the judgment recovered by them in the circuit court. The defendant consents that the judgment for $45.25 against the plaintiffs may be applied in part payment of the judgment against him for $46.85, and that the balance of the latter judgment, being $1.60, may be applied on the $200 judgment against the plaintiffs. But he objects to an offset of the residue of the $200 judgment, and its application upon the judgment against him in the circuit court, for the reason that on August 11, 1890, the circuit court granted a stay of execution upon that judgment for sixty days, to enable him to perfect an appeal therefrom, which stay was in full force when this motion was made.

We think this a conclusive answer to this motion, so far as the motion is contested. The order staying execution is a protection to the defendant against the collection of any part of the judgment by legal process. Were this motion granted, the effect of it would be to enforce collection of a portion thereof by such process. We cannot thus disregard the order of the circuit court in that behalf.

*By the*Court.— The motion, in so far as it affects the judgments in this court, is granted; but in so far as it affects the judgment in the circuit court, it must be denied. No costs are allowed to either party on the motion.