alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Howard S. Sanford, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of St. Lawrence Marine Repair Dock Corporation, Respondent, *v.*John J. Boland, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Submitted March 8, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

Motion for reargument denied with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 287 N. Y. 431.)
#### Cleangen Corp., Appellant, v Filmax Corp. et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 692]

In an action, inter alia, seeking to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated August 15, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 1, 2001, the parties entered into an agreement, whereby the plaintiff agreed to sell its laundromat business to the defendant Philip Noble for the sum of $275,000. Under the terms of the sales agreement, the buyer agreed to pay the sum of $30,000 upon execution, the sum of $90,000 at closing, and the balance of $180,000 at closing through the execution of a promissory note. Subsequently Noble, president of the defendant Filmax Corp. (hereinafter Filmax) assigned his interest in the agreement to Filmax. Noble also personally guaranteed payment of the promissory note.

After Filmax ceased making payments under the promissory note, the plaintiff commenced this action and moved for summary judgment. Filmax opposed the motion, claiming that it ceased making payments under the note after it discovered that the underground water filtration system at the laundromat business was inoperable and that the business was operating in *469violation of state environmental regulations. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs motion.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the general language of the disclaimer clause in the sales agreement did not preclude Filmax’s defense of fraud in the inducement or preclude its introduction of parol evidence to establish its reliance on certain representations made by the plaintiff *(see Sabo v Delman,*3 NY2d 155, 161 [1957]; *DiFilippo v Hidden Ponds Assoc.,*146 AD2d 737, 738 [1989]). Although the plaintiff met its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the defendants, in opposition to the motion, raised issues of fact as to whether the condition of the filtration system was peculiarly within the plaintiffs knowledge and whether Filmax could have discovered the condition of such system through means of “ordinary intelligence” *(Black v Chittenden,*69 NY2d 665, 669 [1986]; *cf. DiFilippo v Hidden Ponds Assoc., supra).*

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
August 26 , 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GIAO Q. NGUYEN AND H IEU T. NGUYEN , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 13

- 01017

- CV V.

SEPHORA USA , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed November 5, 2013 in favor of appellee Sephora USA, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected t he record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for proceedin gs in accordance with the court’ s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee Sephora USA.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS AT AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,585
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,970
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,273
<PP&E>                                         177,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,142
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 340,301
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          182,607
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   340,301
<SALES>                                        170,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,061
<CGS>                                          144,773
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (299)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,333
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (158)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,276
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,820
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,456
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,456
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
Order entered October 25, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00841
- CV
JAYSON HOWARD MOORE , Appellant

V. DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC., KEVIN KRAUSE , Appellee
On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 21
- 06923

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s October 22, 2021 unopposed motion for
extension of time to file his principal brief

. In light of the Court’s lette r of that same date questioning the Court’s jurisdiction and suspending the deadline for the brief, we DENY the motion as moot.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
Edgardo J. TORRES-NEVAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2643

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Daniel C. Bacon *versus*William Otis and Others.

Upon a bond given to prosecute a writ of error in the Supreme Court of the *United States,*upon a judgment rendered in this Court, the obligee will recover the amount for which judgment was given in the Court of Error, on affirmation of the former judgment.

This was an action of debt upon a bond, given by the defendants upon suing a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the *United States,*upon a judgment rendered against the said *Otis*in this Court, which had been affirmed.

The condition of the bond was in the form prescribed in the 22d section of the act of Congress establishing the courts of the *United States,*— *“*that the plaintiff in error should prosecute his writ to effect, and answer all damages and costs, if he failed to make his plea good.”

The plaintiff having obtained judgment of forfeiture upon demurrer, the defendants prayed for a hearing in equity.

*Whitman,*for the plaintiff,

contended that he was entitled to recover, besides the costs allowed in the Court of Error, the amount of all expenses incurred by him in defending against the writ of error, including his travelling expenses to the seat of government, foes to counsel, *&c.*That this was the intention of the legislature, he argued from the provision of an additional act of Congress, passed December 12, 1794, directing that, where a writ of error shall not. be a *supersedeas*and stay execution, the se- [ * 410 ] curity to be taken * shall be sufficient only to answer the costs that may be taxed upon an affirmance of the judgment.

*By the Court.*

The judicial act of the *United States*(section 23) *371authorizes the Supreme Court of the *United States,*when a judgment is affirmed in that court upon error, to allow to the defendant in error “just damages for his delay, and single or double costs, at their discretion.” It is to be presumed that they have allowed, in this case, what was fit and reasonable ; and the plaintiff is entitled to recover, on the bond sued in this action, the amount for which judgment was given- in the Court of Error, on affirmation of the judgment, and nothing more.

*Sproat*for the defendants.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6345 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6345

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the work 
    opportunity tax credit with respect to hiring veterans who are 
    receiving educational assistance under laws administered by the 
               Secretary of Veterans Affairs or Defense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 2023

Ms. Lee of Nevada (for herself and Mrs. Steel) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the work 
    opportunity tax credit with respect to hiring veterans who are 
    receiving educational assistance under laws administered by the 
               Secretary of Veterans Affairs or Defense.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hire Student Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR HIRING VETERANS RECEIVING 
              EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED BY THE 
              SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OR DEFENSE.

    (a) In General.--Section 51(d)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by 
striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and inserting ``, or'', 
and by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(v) attending an educational institution 
                        by means of educational assistance provided 
                        under chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, or 34 of title 
                        38, United States Code, or chapter 1606 or 1607 
                        of title 10, United States Code.''.
    (b) Modification of Minimum Employment Period.--Section 51(i)(3)(A) 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(other 
than a qualified veteran described in subsection (d)(3)(A)(v))'' after 
``In the case of an individual''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to individuals who begin work for the employer after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.01
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  (1)
    
    on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (Nos. 333-123299, 333-132398,
333-141115, and 333-149533), the iPlace, Inc. 2001 Equity Incentive Plan, iPlace 2000 Stock
Option Plan, ConsumerInfo.com, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan, eNeighborhoods, Inc. 1998 Stock
Option Plan, QSpace, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan (No. 333-72192), the HomeWrite
Incorporated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan (No. 333-58510), the Move.com, Inc. 2000 Stock
Incentive Plan (No. 333-55828), the Homestore.com, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
and Homestore.com, Inc. 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (Nos. 333-54886, 333-46252, 333-89170,
333-113662), the Hessel Group, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan Options Granted Under the Hessel
Group, Inc. 2000 Stock Option and Assumed by Homestore.com, Inc. (No. 333-48582), the
Homestore.com 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Homestore.com 1999 Equity Incentive Plan,
NetSelect 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, SpringStreet 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, NetSelect 1996
Stock Incentive Plan (No. 333-84545), Homestore.com, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (No.
333-89172);(2)
    
    on Form S-3 filing Nos. 333-107963, 333-72746 and 333-61410; and(3)
    
    on Form S-1 filing No. 333-80419
  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron Vince SILAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10174

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*397Submitted May 31, 2017 *

Filed June 02, 2017

Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Two Renaissance Square, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Eric W. Kessler, Kessler Law Offices, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Aaron Vince Silas, Pro Se

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Aaron Vince Silas appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his 84-month sentence for aggravated sexual assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(a)(1), and 2246. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Silas’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Silas the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Silas has waived his right to appeal. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 99.5







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard B. Clark, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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





|By: | /s/
        Richard B. Clark_____________________
        Richard
        B. Clark
        Chief
        Executive Officer
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 
| | 



| | 
| | 

March 30, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements of Jungle Street, Inc., for the
quarter ended December 31, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
thereto.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          51,943
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  305,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,354
<INVENTORY>                                      9,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               547,453
<PP&E>                                       1,083,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                 159,842
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,812,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,509,157
<BONDS>                                        290,263
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,685
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,027,167)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,812,944
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               625,153
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  534,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               881,261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (561,589)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (561,589)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (561,589)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
# Jf**ottrtlj Court** **of Antonio,** **September 09.** **2013 No.** **04-12-00826-CR Alonzo** **Ilelmkc.**

### Appellant**v. The** **State of** **Texas, Appellee** **Trial Court** **Case No.** **2012CR3874**

## D E**The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this appeal** **and the** **majority of** **the judges** **have determined** **thai oral** **argument will** **not significantly** **aid il** **in determining** **the legal** **and factual** **issues presented** **in the** **appeal. See** **TEX. R.** **App. P.** **39.8. Therefore,** **all requests** **for oral**

### argument**arc denied,** **and the** **cause is** **advanced for** **ON BRIEFS** **submission on** **Tuesday. Oeiober** **08. 2013.** **10 the** **following panel:** **Chief Justice** **Stone. Justice** **Marion, and Justice** 

### Alvarez.**All parties** **will be** **notified of** **the Court's** **decision in** **this appeal** **in accordance** **with Tex.** **R. API'.** **P. 48.** 

### Either party**may file** **motion requesting** **the Court** **to reconsider** **its determination** **that oral** **argument will** **not significantly** **aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **See TEX.** **R. App.** **P, 39.8.** **Such motion** **should be filed** **within ten** **(10) days** **from the** **dale of** **this order.** **It is** **SO ORDERED** **on Monday.** **September 09.** **2013. Catherine/itone,** **Chief Justice** 

## IN**WITNESS WHEREOF,** **have hereunto** **set my** **hand and** **a/fixed the** **seal of** **the said** **court on** **this Monday,** **September 09,2013.** **/^)**
Omar SANDERS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5121

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6254 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review 

on the Public Buildings Service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. VAN ORDEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct a review on the Public Buildings Service, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Buildings Ac5 countability Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE. 

7 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

8 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

9 shall conduct a review of the Public Buildings Service and 

10 submit to the Committee on Transportation and InfraVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:50 Nov 09, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6254.IH H6254

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6254 IH

1 structure of the House of Representatives and the Com2 mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

3 a report containing the results of such review, including— 

4 (1) a review of the administration and manage5 ment of all Public Buildings Service real estate pro6 grams and activities, including— 

7 (A) a review and accounting of the number 

8 of employees and contract workers, including 

9 functions and the sources of funding (for exam10 ple building operations, reimbursable work, 

11 project-specific funding) categorized by region 

12 and organizational, management, and oversight 

13 structure within the Public Building Service, in14 cluding identification of components, programs, 

15 and reporting structures; 

16 (B) an accounting of in-person attendance 

17 by employee category and function; 

18 (C) an analysis, trends, and comparisons 

19 of staffing numbers and associated costs and 

20 other administrative costs over the 10 years 

21 preceding the review; and 

22 (D) an analysis of the effectiveness of or23 ganizational structure, management, and over24 sight in carrying out the mission of the Public 

25 Buildings Service; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6254 IH

1 (2) a review of the building operations account 

2 of the Federal Buildings Fund established by section 

3 592 of title 40, United States Code, including activi4 ties and costs associated with conferences, training, 

5 and travel and transportation. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB