alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Claudia Beatriz Flores, an Attorney.

[51 NYS3d 904]

Per Curiam.

Claudia Beatriz Flores was admitted to practice by this Court in 2013 and lists a business address in Montgomery, Alabama with the Office of Court Administration. Flores now seeks leave to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department advises that it does not oppose Flores’ application.

Upon reading the affidavit of Flores sworn to October 5, 2016, and upon reading the correspondence in response by the Chief Attorney for the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined that Flores is eligible to resign for nondiseiplinary reasons, we grant her application and accept her resignation.

Garry, J.P., Egan Jr., Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that Claudia Beatriz Flores’ application for permission to resign is granted and her nondiseiplinary resignation is accepted; and it is further ordered that Claudia Beatriz Flores’ name is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court *(see generally*Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [b]); and it is further ordered that Claudia Beatriz Flores shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, surrender to the Office of Court Administration any Attorney Secure Pass issued to her.
No. 09-1313.

#### Haidar Muhsin Saleh, et al., Petitioners v. Titan Corporation, et al.

562 U.S. 821, 131 S. Ct. 379,

178 L. Ed. 2d 15,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6179.

October 4, 2010.

The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Same case below, 388 U.S. App. D.C. 114, 580 F.3d 1.
# MOU signed with George Mason University 

/ Published Jan. 9, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
A first-of-its-kind memorandum of understanding with an academic university was signed between Defense Logistics Agency Energy and George Mason University at the McNamara Headquarters Complex, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Jan. 8.

DLA Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Albert Miller and GMU Provost and Executive Vice President Dr. S. David Wu signed the groundbreaking agreement that will foster employment opportunities for Mason students under the DLA Pathways to Career Excellence Program, Pathways Intern Programs, or other DLA employment programs.

“This ceremony formalizes a relationship with a premier academic institution which will have long-lasting effects for the Energy workplace,” Miller said. “This MOU will allow us to leverage a mutually beneficial recruiting relationship and a pipeline of talent for the future.”

Wu agreed saying, “We are thrilled to have the honor of being the first institution in the region that DLA Energy is partnering with.”

DLA is committed to developing innovative recruitment strategies with a variety of career paths to attract, develop, and retain a diverse, skilled, and agile workforce. Various employment programs are designed to provide students and entry-level associates work experience and potential for subsequent advancement. Under the MOU, GMU students and applicants are given the opportunity to learn more about and apply for DLA Energy programs and, in return, DLA Energy will receive qualified applicants and an on-campus location to provide information regarding DLA employment opportunities.

Gabby Earhardt, director of DLA Energy Supplier Operations, is a PaCE graduate, GMU alumnus, and the architect of the idea.

“One of my most important responsibilities is to ensure DLA Energy builds a strong and capable acquisition workforce that can continue to provide unparalleled support to the Warfighter,” she said. “I feel incredibly fortunate that we are able to rely on George Mason to help provide us that much needed bench strength.”

GMU is the largest and fastest growing public university in Virginia. A research tier one university, it is noted for its strong education tradition and having a diverse student population.

“Fifty percent of the student population are minorities and a large number are the first generation to attend college,” Wu said.

Wu described Mason students as talented and not taking things for granted.

“Mason graduates are known to be hard workers and scrappy with Mason spirit,” Wu said. “I am happy for students to have this opportunity with DLA Energy.”

DLA Energy has 28 interns currently in the PaCE program.

“We are taking what was already a great relationship to the next level,” Miller said.
#### Com. v. Moore

11/17/2015

236 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 452
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 vs. NO. 31,846 4 RAY THOMAS, JR., 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Lisa C. Schultz, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Ray Thomas, Jr. 12 Las Cruces, NM 13 Pro se Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 GARCIA, Judge. 162 Summary dismissal was proposed for the reason stated in the notice of proposed 1 disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed, and the 2 time for doing so has expired. 3 DISMISSED

. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 7

WE CONCUR: 8

9 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 10

11 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 12
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 11

                   MOBILE AMERICA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                  UNAUDITED COMPUTATIONS OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                     QUARTERS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND 1996
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    1997           1996
                                                 ----------     ----------

<S>                                              <C>            <C>       
Net Income                                       $1,566,692     $1,433,390
                                                 ==========     ==========

Common shares outstanding                         6,236,316      6,260,040

Effect of weighting treasury stock acquired               0              0
                                                 ----------     ----------


Common and common equivalent shares
   used in computing earnings per share           6,236,316      6,260,040
                                                 ==========     ==========
                                                 





Earnings per share                                    $0.25          $0.23
                                                 ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-16-00136-CV

____________________

RICHARD F. BUNCH III AND MICHELLE BUNCH, ET AL, Appellants

V.

THE WOODLANDS LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LP, ET AL, 

Appellees

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-02-01950-CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The appellants, Richard F. Bunch III and Michelle Bunch, filed a motion to

sever that portion of the trial court’s judgment in favor of HVJ Associates, Inc., set 

aside the severed portion, and remand the severed portion of the case to the trial 

court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. None of 

the parties filed an objection to the appellants’ motion to sever, set aside, and 
2

remand. A severable portion of the appeal may be disposed of by agreement of the 

parties if it will not prejudice the remaining parties. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(b). 

We grant the motion, sever the Bunches’ appeal of the trial court’s summary 

judgment dismissing with prejudice the Bunches’ claims against HVJ Associates, 

Inc., vacate without regard to the merits the trial court’s judgment dismissing the 

Bunches’ claims against HVJ Associates, Inc., and remand that part of the case to 

the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(d). 

We direct the Clerk of the Court to change the style of the appeal to Richard 

F. Bunch III and Michelle Bunch, et al. v. The Woodlands Land Development 

Company, LP.

APPEAL SEVERED; VACATED AND REMANDED.

 

 PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 28, 2016

Opinion Delivered September 29, 2016

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Exhibit 15.12




LETTER OF CONSENT




We hereby consent to the reference to our studies relating to the valuation of an embedded derivative included in a loan agreement as of December 31, 2009 dated January 2010 prepared for Elbit Imaging Ltd. (the "Company"), in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009 and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820) filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd, as required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and in the Shelf Prospectus filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd. with the Israeli Securities Authority and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange on July 21, 2009.





This consent is not to be construed as an admission that we are an expert or that we are a person whose consent is required to be filed with the Annual Report under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.




/s/Giza Zinger Even

Giza Zinger Even





Tel Aviv, Israel


May 9, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Fernandez, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 275]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered June 25, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court gave him untimely and insufficient advice about the deportation consequences of his plea, and the narrow exception to the preservation requirement does not apply (see *People v Peque,*22 NY3d 168, 182-183 [2013]; *People v Tiburcio,*136 AD3d 584 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1140 [2016]; *People v Diakite,*135 AD3d 533 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1131 [2016]). We decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00520- CV

In re Ruben Guer rer o

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Ruben Gu err ero, an inmate in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice, has filed
a pro se petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court t o co m p el the court repor ter for the 390th district court in Travis County to prepa re a repor ter’s rec ord in trial court cause number D-1- DC-06-202366, i n wh i ch he was convicted of the offe nse of driving while intox icated, for the purpose of

filing a fede ral a pplication for wr it of habea s corpus. This Court’s m an d amus jurisdiction is g overne d by section 22.221 of the Texas Gover

nment Code. Section 22.221 expressly limit s our mandamus jurisdiction to: (1) writs ag ainst a district court judge or county court judge in this Court’s district, and (2) all writs nece ssary to enfor ce this Court’s jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). The issuance of
a writ ag ainst the court repor ter in this case is not nece ssary to enfor ce this Court’s jurisdiction. Acc ording ly , we de ny

Guer rer o’s petition for wr it of mandamus.__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: Aug ust 15, 2012

2
#### 644 BRDY Realty Inc., Appellant, v Bleecker Tower Tenants Corp., Respondent.

[53 NYS3d 31]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered October 2, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action, and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action for breach of contract and the fifth cause of action for declaratory relief, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of declaring that plaintiff’s obligation to pay rent is not suspended on the ground that defendant failed to perform its obligations under the lease including the making of structural repairs, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

The lease says, “ Aggregate Maintenance’ shall mean the sum obtained by adding the maintenance (rent) paid by all the ‘tenant-stockholders’ ... in the cooperative housing corporation which owns the Property, pursuant to the regular assessment, . . . but excluding any special, one-time or non-recurring assessments not related to the normal and recurring maintenance of the Building.” It does not say, “excluding capital expenditures.” Thus, the court properly rejected plaintiff’s interpretation of Aggregate Maintenance *(see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co.,*1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004]).

*539Under the circumstances of this case, where one person (the then-principal of both plaintiff-tenant and the original landlord) drafted the lease and executed it on behalf of both plaintiff and the original landlord, we are not persuaded by plaintiff’s arguments that a literal interpretation of Aggregate Maintenance conflicts with paragraph 6.2.2 of the lease, places plaintiff at defendant’s mercy, and violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of equitable estop-pel *(see BWA Corp. v Alltrans Express U.S.A.,*112 AD2d 850, 853 [1st Dept 1985]). Moreover, “[t]he circumstances set forth by plaintiff simply do not rise to a level of unconscionability warranting application of equitable estoppel” *(American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co.,*59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]).

Plaintiff failed to raise the statute of limitations below; hence, we decline to consider it on appeal *(see Matter of Rella,*67 AD3d 493 [1st Dept 2009]).

We modify to the extent indicated because it was error to dismiss plaintiff’s fifth cause of action seeking declaratory relief on the basis that plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration sought. The proper course is to issue a declaration *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], *cert denied*371 US 901 [1962]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1764 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1764

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To provide for the extension of certain authority for the Marshal of 
            the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police.
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1764

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To provide for the extension of certain authority for the Marshal of 
            the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 9(c) of 
the Act entitled ``An Act relating to the policing of the building and 
grounds of the Supreme Court of the United States,'' approved August 
18, 1949 (40 U.S.C. 13n(c)), is amended in the first sentence by 
striking out ``1993'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``1996''.

            Passed the Senate November 20 (legislative day, November 
      2), 1993.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1967

MICHAEL E. HARRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SPRINT UNITED MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

WILLIAM T. ESREY, CCEO; JIM KISSINGER, VP;

RONALD E. GIER, VP; NESA RAE HELM; STEPHANIE

BLAINE; NANCY PELFRESNE; CYNTHIA FISHER; LYNN

SMICHK,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-02-1239-A)

Submitted: January 21, 2004 Decided: February 10, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Frederick Walters,

SEYFARTH SHAW, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael E. Harris appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of Sprint United Management,

Inc., in this action filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, as amended. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Harris v. Sprint United Management, Inc.,

No. CA-02-1239-A (E.D. Va. filed June 19, 2003 & entered June 23,

2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Gary Meyers, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Synplicity, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Synplicity, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                 |  |                                                
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: March 3, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gary Meyers
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Name:           |  | Gary Meyers                                    
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Title:          |  | Chief Executive Officer, President and Director



I, Douglas S. Miller, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Synplicity, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Synplicity, Inc.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                                             
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: March 3, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Douglas S. Miller
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Name:                 |  | Douglas S. Miller                                           
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Title:                |  | Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
DLA Distribution celebrates 244th Marine Corps birthday
 
  By By Ed Shank, DLA Distribution Public Affairs
  To honor the United States Marine’s 244thbirthday, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution employees gathered in the Distribution headquarters lobby Nov. 13.  Following the 2019 Marine Corps birthday message video from Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger, DLA Distribution’s commanding officer Navy Rear. Adm. Kevin M. Jones thanked the Distribution workforce for the large number in attendance. In his remarks, Jones spoke of the professionalism displayed by Marines he has known throughout his career, particularly those during his deployment to Afghanistan. “I couldn’t be more proud to be surrounded by current and former Marines who exemplify the team that was referenced in the video,” Jones said. “Each of you, every day, fight, sustain and advance this organization forward and today we are here to celebrate you and all the Marines past, present and future.” Using a saber from his time on active duty, former Marine officer and current DLA civilian employee Paul Smith joined Rear. Adm. Jones in cutting a ceremonial birthday cake.
#### Hughes v Affordable Inflatables & Party Rentals, Inc.

2d Dept: 140 AD3d 731 (Action No. 2)

denied
**Exhibit
      32(b)**











**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 accompanying Quarterly Report of ALLTEL Corporation (the
      Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
      I, Sharilyn S. Gasaway, Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
      that:





(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.








/s/
      Sharilyn S. Gasaway


Sharilyn
      S. Gasaway


Executive
      Vice President - Chief Financial Officer


August 8,
      2007



































A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      ALLTEL Corporation and will be retained by ALLTEL Corporation and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### Com. v. Hollamon

09/30/2015

130 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1053