alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Easton & Echtman, P.C., Respondent, v Joel M. Aurnou et al., Defendants, and Peretz Amir, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 462]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered on or about April 17, 2002, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and declared that defendant-appellant Peretz Amir was not entitled to share in legal fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings; appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July *18423, 2002, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew the underlying order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

On this record, there is sufficient evidence to raise triable factual issues regarding Amir’s relationship with plaintiff law firm, the nature of its financial arrangements with him should he introduce clients to the firm that led to it being retained, whether he did so in this case, and whether, as a result thereof, he was entitled to the fees which he claims. Although the record is less than clear in some regards, Amir’s name appears on the firm’s letterhead and in the firm’s Martindale-Hubbell listing, the latter in a manner that suggests a senior status within the firm. Moreover, Echtman’s own deposition testimony suggests that Amir enjoyed a senior status, although the time frame involved and the significance thereof remains unclear on this record. As such, it cannot be said as a matter of law at this juncture that Amir was not associated with plaintiff firm, rendering inapplicable for present purposes the bar imposed by Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-107 (22 NYCRR 1200.12). Alternatively, the record also precludes, at this time, a finding that Amir had not performed work on the underlying cases and would not be entitled to a fee predicated on services performed (DR 2-107; *Nicholson v Nason & Cohen,*192 AD2d 473 [1993], *Iv denied*82 NY2d 660 [1993]; *cf. Sable v Fuchsberg,*128 AD2d 692 [1987]). Rather, there is some suggestion in the record that plaintiffs principal had even directed Amir to cease work on one of the matters in anticipation of an imminent settlement. In either event, these unresolved factual controversies preclude summary dismissal. The record also plausibly supports Amir’s allegations that, while he was residing in Israel, his son, an attorney with another firm, had brought the underlying litigation to Amir’s attention and, acting solely on his father’s behalf, had contacted plaintiff law firm and referred the matters with instructions that they were being referred on Amir’s behalf pursuant to their existing agreement regarding apportionment of fees. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger and Marlow, JJ.
#### Williams v. Kerestes 6

10/14/2015

507 MAL (2015)

6

. Reconsideration Denied November 13, 2015.

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1141
#### Rodriguez v. State

CAAP-11-0000578

04/30/2014

Affirmed
No. 12-6485.

#### Srivastav *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
2017-1255.

#### State ex rel. Mathews v. Montgomery.

In Mandamus.
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this

Memorandum Decision shall not be

r egarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE : ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE :

ROY E. DISNEY GREGORY F. ZOELLER Westville , Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

CHANDRA K. HEIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ROY E. DISNEY

, ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) )

vs. ) No. 27A02

- 1403

- CR

- 178 ) STATE OF INDIANA

, ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff

. )

APPEAL FROM THE GRANT CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Mark E. Spitzer , Judge Cause No. 27C01

- 1305

- FC

- 32

D ecember 2, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION

– NOT FOR PUBLICATION



### BAKER, Judge

### 2

Roy Disney appeals the trial court’s denial of his “ Verified Order to be Released

Without Parole After Completed Term of Imprisonment. ” Appellant’s Br. p. 1. Because

Disney’ s violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedu re prevent us from reaching the

merits of his appeal, we find that he has waived the issues raised and affirm the judgment

of the trial court.

On October 1, 2013, Disney ple a d ed guilty to Operating a Motor Vehicle While

Privileges are Forfeited for Life, 1 

### a clas s C felony, as well as a violation of his probation.

Disney was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years. On March 5, 2014, Disney filed

his request to be released without parole after his completed term of imprisonment and

the trial court denie d this motion on March 7, 2014. Disney now appeals.

On appeal, Disney has committed numerous violations of the Indiana Rules of

Appellate Procedure. Perhaps most importantly, Disney has failed to include the trial

court’s order or the motion at issue in his appendix

— a violation of Appellate Rule

50(B)

. 2 

### As Disney also fails to provide a description of the contents of this motion in his

brief, we are unable to ascertain the nature of the argument he made before the trial court

.

While we often tolerate m inor infractions of the appellate rules so that we may decide

appeals on their merits, Disney’s noncompliance prevents us from reaching the merits of

1 Ind. Code § 9

- 30

- 10

- 17.

2 Disney has failed to comply with numerous other appellate rules, including Rule 46(A)(8)(a) regarding appellant ’s briefs

, which provides that “[t]he argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning.”

### 3

this appeal. Ramsey v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t. of Workforce Dev. , 789 N.E.2d 486,

490 (Ind. Ct. App. 20 03). H e has, therefore

, waived the issue.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

VAIDIK, C.J., and RILEY, J., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of China Technology Development Group
Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements and other financial
information included in this annual report fairly present in all material respects
consolidated the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the company and have:(a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Omitted pursuant to the guidance of Releases Nos. 33-8238 (May 27, 2003), 33-8392
(February 24, 2004), 33-8545 (March 2, 2005) and 33-8760 (December 15, 2006);(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over
financial reporting; and5.
    
    The companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):(a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal controls over financial reporting.
  /s/ Alan Li

Name: Alan LiTitle:  Chairman, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Gabriella RR. and Others, Alleged to be Neglected Children. Sullivan County Department of Family Services, Respondent; Tina SS., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 908]

*1428Garry, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (McGuire, J.), entered January 12, 2016, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act articles 10 and 10-A, extended the placement of the subject children.

Respondent Tina SS. (hereinafter the mother) is the mother of the four subject children (born in 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2014). The children were removed from the mother’s care and, in September 2015, were adjudicated to be neglected. Following a permanency hearing in October 2015, Family Court approved petitioner’s permanency plan to work towards reunification with the mother, to provide the mother certain supervised visitation, to continue the placement of the child born in 2011 with that child’s biological father, and to continue the placement of the other children with the maternal great-grandmother. A permanency hearing order to that effect was entered in January 2016. A dispositional hearing was held in November 2015, and the order of disposition, entered in February 2016, continued the placement of the children as provided in the permanency plan, but increased visitation to the mother.1 The mother appeals from the January 2016 permanency hearing order.2

Initially, as two subsequent permanency orders have been issued following the order appealed from, this appeal has been rendered moot *(see Matter of Lauren L. [Cassi M.],*79 AD3d 1172, 1172 [2010]; *Matter of Destiny HH.,*63 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 706 [2009]; *Matter of Ariel FF.,*63 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]). With specific regard to the child born in 2011, the mother’s appeal has also been rendered moot by a final order granting custody to the child’s biological father in February 2016 *(see Matter of Dezerea G. [Lisa G.],*97 AD3d 933, 935 [2012]; *Matter of Jacob SS.,*59 AD3d 825, 826 [2009]). To the extent that the mother presents due process challenges on the basis that she was absent from the permanency hearing *(see Matter of Damian D. [Patricia WW.],*126 AD3d 12, 16 n 3 [2015]; *Matter of Telsa Z. [Denise Z.],*84 AD3d 1599, 1600 n 2 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 708 [2011]), we find no merit in her allegations, as she was represented by counsel who actively participated in the proceedings and did not request an adjourn*1429ment *(see Matter of Paige WW. [Charles XX.],*71 AD3d 1200, 1205 [2010]; *Matter of Curtis N.,*288 AD2d 774, 775-776 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 610 [2002]).

Lynch, Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

1

. The dispositional hearing had been scheduled to occur simultaneously with the permanency hearing, but was adjourned due to the mother’s absence.

2

. Although both orders are addressed in the mother’s brief on appeal, her notice of appeal was confined to the January 2016 permanency hearing order.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Hoolae Paoa, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.
and Subsidiary (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15
U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Date: March 22, 2004

/s/ Hoolae Paoa
Hoolae Paoa
President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       20
# Black History Month Spotlight: Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Carisa Blanc

/ Published Feb. 24, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
Editor’s note: The Defense Logistics Agency recognizes February as Black History Month. To honor the contributions of African-American employees, DLA is highlighting those who work daily to support the agency’s global mission.

**My name is:** Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Carisa Blanc

**I am:** the DLA Joint Reserve Force Air Force senior enlisted leader

**Describe your job in a sentence:** I am responsible for planning, organizing and administering all personnel development and management for Air Force reservists assigned to DLA. More importantly, I also serve as the principal advisor responsible for overseeing and executing policies concerning the health, morale and welfare of Air Force reservists. 

**How long have you worked at DLA?** As a reservist, I have been assigned to DLA for about three years. I’m also a civilian employee with the DLA Logistics Operations Business Management Office. 

**What is your favorite thing about working for DLA?** The people and culture. DLA is a great place to work and the employees absolutely makes the workplace an enjoyable environment to thrive and develop.

**What are your best memories of working here?** My best memory of working at DLA is spending time with reservists in their respective work units. Having the opportunity to physically spend time with them and learn from them gives me the motivation and incentive to continue providing support to our soldiers, sailors, Airmen and Marines. 

**How do you make a difference?** Through hard work and determination both on duty and off duty. 

**What does Black History Month mean to you?** As the first member of my immediate family to earn a bachelor’s degree and dual master’s degree, Black History Month reminds me of our history and heritage. It’s about paying homage to those who paved the way for me to accomplish my goals and encourages me to set an example for others to emulate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRST
QUARTER REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                  0000065873
<NAME>                 ALLTEL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                 28,266
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         504,878
<ALLOWANCES>                                           21,376
<INVENTORY>                                            83,434
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      664,455
<PP&E>                                              5,168,188
<DEPRECIATION>                                      2,085,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      5,227,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 631,908
<BONDS>                                             1,698,913
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   6,413
<PREFERRED>                                             9,196
<COMMON>                                              186,544
<OTHER-SE>                                          1,857,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        5,227,170
<SALES>                                               158,491
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      784,305
<CGS>                                                 104,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         603,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          573
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     32,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       164,866
<INCOME-TAX>                                           63,158
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   101,708
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                          101,708
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0
        


</TABLE>
#### IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., Matter of, v Jagsarran

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 465

denied
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to India (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to India (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | W      | W      | --     | 5.57   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Michigan Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Biomass Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Michigan Natural Gas Supplemental Gas - Biomass Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 2      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### Hayes v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole

10/13/2015

125 MAP (2014)

Denied

No. 344 MD 2014