alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15281]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 1998 / 
Notices

[[Page 31409]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration

President's Export Council, Subcommittee on Encryption; Notice of 
Partially Closed Meeting

    A partially closed meeting of the President's Export Council 
Subcommittee on Encryption (PECSENC) will be held on June 22nd, 1998. 
The initial open session will convene at 9:00 a.m. in Hemisphere A of 
the Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 
DC. The initial open session is scheduled to adjourn at 11:00 a.m. The 
closed session will convene in Hemisphere A and continue at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4832, 14th 
Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW, Washington, 
DC. The PECSENC will reconvene in open session at 4:00 p.m. in Room 
4832. The Subcommittee provides advice on matters pertinent to policies 
regarding commercial encryption products.

Open Session

    1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
    2. Presentation of papers or comments by the public.
    3. Update on Bureau of Export Administration initiatives.
    4. Legislative Panel briefing.

Closed Session

    5. Discussion of matters properly classified under Executive Order 
12958, dealing with the U.S. export control program and strategic 
criteria related thereto.

Open Session

    6. Briefing by working groups.
    7. Open discussion.
    A Notice of Determination to close meetings, or portions of 
meetings, of the Subcommittee to the public on the basis of 5 U.S.C. 
522(c)(1) was approved May 7, 1998, in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act. A copy of the Notice of Determination is 
available for public inspection and copying in the Central Reference 
and Records Inspection Facility, Room 6020, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, Washington, DC. For further information, contact Ms. Lee Ann 
Carpenter on (202) 482-2583.

    Dated: June 3, 1998.
Iain S. Baird,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-15281 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-M
```
#### L.E.K. Consulting LLC, Respondent, v Menlo Capital Group, LLC, Appellant/Third-Party Plaintiff. (And a Third-Party Action).

[52 NYS3d 1]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 11, 2015, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of $699,479.09, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly considered plaintiff’s second summary judgment motion as plaintiff’s claims could be disposed of quickly without further burdening the resources of the court *(Varsity Tr. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*300 AD2d 38, 39 [1st Dept 2002]), and the court is free to “reconsider its [own] prior interlocutory orders during the pendency of the action, and may do so regardless of statutory time limits concerning motions to reargue” *(Kleinser v Astarita,*61 AD3d 597, 598 [1st Dept 2009] [internal citation and quotation marks omitted]; *see also Komolov v Segal,*101 AD3d 639, 639 [1st Dept 2012]).

The letter agreement, dated May 13, 2010, entered into by plaintiff and defendant was not ambiguous. It clearly provided that plaintiff would provide certain due diligence services and would receive payment from defendant for such services. *528Because the letter agreement is not ambiguous, there is no need to look to extrinsic evidence *(see Reiss v Financial Performance Corp.,*97 NY2d 195, 199 [2001]). While defendant may have had a side agreement with third-party defendant Citi Venture Capital International (CVCI) that CVCI was to ultimately bear the costs of plaintiff’s services, such agreement does not affect defendant’s liability under the May 13, 2010 letter agreement. Plaintiff also provided prima facie evidence that it performed the services detailed in the letter agreement, and that it has not been paid for such services. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. Defendant’s argument that it was acting as an agent of a disclosed principal, CVCI, is without merit as there is no evidence of such agency relationship in the contract. Indeed, there is evidence that defendant was the beneficiary of the letter agreement.

Plaintiff also established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on its account stated claim as it provided evidence of the invoices, receipt by defendant, and lack of objection by defendant for a substantial period of time *(see Matter of Lawrence,*24 NY3d 320, 343 [2014], citing *Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna, LLP v Oppitz,*105 AD3d 1162, 1163 [3d Dept 2013]).

Supreme Court should have dismissed the quantum meruit claim as plaintiff’s recovery on this claim is precluded by the fact that the letter agreement is a valid contract *(see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co.,*70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]; *Metro Found. Contrs., Inc. v Marco Martelli Assoc., Inc.,*145 AD3d 526, 526 [1st Dept 2016]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Sarah Elizabeth Hudleston, an Attorney.

[52 NYS3d 688]

*1613Per Curiam.

Sarah Elizabeth Hudleston was admitted to practice by this Court in 2004 and lists a business address in Orono, Minnesota with the Office of Court Administration. Hudleston has applied to this Court, by affidavit sworn to October 13, 2016, for 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 (hereinafter AGC) opposes the application, contending that Hudleston is ineligible for nondisciplinary resignation because she has failed to fulfill her attorney registration requirements for the 2014-2015 biennial period *(see*Judiciary Law § 468-a; *Matter of Lee,*148 AD3d 1350 [2017]; *Matter of Bomba,*146 AD3d 1226, 1226-1227 [2017]; Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1).

In reply to AGC’s opposition, however, Hudleston has submitted correspondence dated May 9, 2017 in which she indicates that she is now current in her New York attorney registration requirements. Furthermore, Office of Court Administration records likewise establish that Hudleston has duly registered and cured any preexisting registration delinquency. Accordingly, with AGC voicing no other substantive objection to her application, and having determined that Hudleston is now eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons *(compare Matter of Tierney,*148 AD3d 1457, 1458 [2017]; *Matter of Bomba,*146 AD3d at 1227), we grant the application and accept her resignation.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that Sarah Elizabeth Hudleston’s application for permission to resign is granted and her nondisciplinary resignation is accepted; and it is further ordered that Sarah Elizabeth Hudleston’s 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, effective immediately, Sarah Elizabeth Hudleston is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form in the State of New York, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and Hudleston is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, or to hold herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State; and it is further *1614ordered that Sarah Elizabeth Hudleston shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, surrender to the Office of Court Administration any Attorney Secure Pass issued to her.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 11729
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus RONALD LORENZO BROWN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:11

- cr

- 00001

- MW

- MAF

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11729 Date Filed: 02/08/2022 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 21

- 11729

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Megan Saillant , appointed counsel for Ronald Brown in this appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief prepared under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), following the revo cation of Brown ’s supervised release. Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Brown’s revocation of supervised release and sentence are AFFIRMED.

. USCA11 Case: 21-11729 Date Filed: 02/08/2022 Page: 2 of 2
#### McGrath v. McGrath

08/23/2016

166 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 144 A.3d 203
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We have issued our report dated February 4, 2005 (except for Note 16, as to which the date isFebruary 22, 2005), accompanying the financial statements and schedule of Health Grades, Inc.included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Company’s RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-36933, 333-42986, 333-61717, and 333-82398).
/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
Denver, Colorado
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamont Hesterbey, Also Known as Lamont Hersterbey, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 294]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered April 24, 2014, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *{see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
# DLA Troop Support honors Women’s Equality Day with awards, guest speaker

/ Published Aug. 28, 2020
Philadelphia, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support marked Women’s Equality Day with an awards ceremony and guest speaker during a virtual event held 26 August in Philadelphia.

Women’s Equality Day commemorates the passing of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants women the right to vote. This year marks 100 years since the amendment was passed.

“Ratifying this amendment enabled women to finally have their voices counted in voting booths, paving the way for greater female participation in all levels of government,” said Richard Ellis, Deputy Commander of DLA Troop Support.  “In the military especially, uniform and civilian women stand up to help defend and fight for the land of the free and home of the brave. Our country’s mothers, daughters, sisters and wives have played a vital role in serving as defenders of freedom, liberty and justice.”

Ellis introduced Noa Baum, an award-winning storyteller, author, coach and public speaker, as the keynote speaker for the event. Born and raised in Jerusalem and now living in the Washington, DC area, Baum has performed for audiences around the world on a variety of subjects.

She spoke about how growing up with her unique first name was difficult when she was young, but as she learned the history of her name from her mother, she learned the power behind its history and of being different.

“Discovering my strength and my resilience has been a journey, one that I’m still on,” she said.

While she said she isn’t a historian, she learned about various figures in women’s history through research for her stories and presentations.

“Life can knock us down, but it’s the getting up, it’s the stories that we create about what happened to us that make us resilient,” Baum said. “Women have been knocked down and getting up since the beginning of time, and today we are celebrating that kind of strength and resilience as we gather to honor the women that fought for equality and the women’s right to vote.”

DLA Troop Support’s celebration this year included an awards ceremony to recognize outstanding women in the workforce. These awards are usually given during a Women’s History Month event, which is held in March but was canceled this year due to COVID-19 precautions.

“Women in our organization play a pivotal role in our mission success,” Ellis said. “At all levels and in all offices throughout Troop Support, women continue to make significant contributions resulting in superior warfighter support.”

In honor of Women’s Equality Day and Women’s History Month, the following people received awards in these categories:
      - Non-Supervisory employees GS-09 and below – Marjorie Gram, Industrial Hardware
      - Non-Supervisory employees GS-11 and above – Jessica Sheaffer, Construction and Equipment
      - Military non-supervisory employee – SFC Nubia Simmons, DLA Troop Support Europe and Africa
      - Supervisor/Manager of the Year – Joanne Anello, Industrial Hardware
      - Military Supervisor/Manager of the Year – LTC Corinne Bell, J3/5 Operations and Planning
#### Nieve Betances, Respondent, v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority et al., Appellants. (Action No. 1.) Wilder Manrique, Respondent, v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

[767 NYS2d 790]—

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority and Roberto Perez, defendants in Action Nos. 1 and 2, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered September 9, 2002, as granted the respective motions of the plaintiffs in both actions pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict in their favor and against the plaintiffs in both actions as against the weight of the evidence, and Esparanza Cruz and Wilder Manrique, defendants in Action No. 1, also appeal from so much of the same order as granted the motion of the plaintiff in Action No. 1 pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict in their favor and against the plaintiff in Action No. 1 as against the weight of the evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly set aside the jury verdict. Under the circumstances of this case, the subject accident was not unavoidable, and at least one of the defendants was negligent. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict in favor of the defendants in both actions was against the weight of the evidence *(see Montero v Henriquez,*133 AD2d 677, 678 [1987]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15364]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts


Combined Arts Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Combined Arts Panel, Folk & Traditional Arts Section (Creation & 
Presentation/Planning & Stabilization Categories) to the National 
Council on the Arts will be held on June 30, 1998, from 9:00 a.m. to 
6:30 p.m. in Room 730 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506. A portion of this meeting, from 4:00 
to 5:30 p.m., will be open to the public for a policy discussion on 
field needs, Leadership/Millennium initiatives, and guidelines.
    The remaining portions of this meeting, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 
and from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., are for the purpose of Panel review, 
discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for 
financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in 
confidence to the agency by grant applicants. In accordance with the 
determination of the Chairman of May 14, 1998, these sessions will be 
closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(4), (6) and (9)(B) of 
section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and, if time allows, may be 
permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion 
of the panel chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal 
employee in attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-
TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, 
National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-
5691.

    Dated: June 4, 1998.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 98-15364 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
No. 12-307.

#### United States *v.*Windsor, Executor of the Estate of Spyer, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 1066.] Motion of former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft for leave to file brief as *amici curiae*out of time granted.
Exhibit 15.7




CONSENT




We hereby consent to the reference to our valuation report in respect of options granted by Plaza Centers N.V. ("the Company") on, March 23, 2010, May 25, 2010, August  23, 2010, November 18, 2010, August 23, 2011 and November 22, 2011 under the framework of ESOP 2008 , 2011 re-pricing valuation report, which we prepared for the Company, and March 14, 2012, May 22, 2012, August 21, 2012, November 20, 2012 and ESOP No. 1 re-pricing valuation on August 2012 under ESOP No. 2, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elbit Imaging Ltd. and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-172122) and 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.




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 under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





/s/ Financial Immunities Dealing Room Ltd.


Financial Immunities Dealing Room Ltd.





Ness Ziona, Israel


November 26, 2013
#### Com. v. Kulp

10/22/2015

379 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1137
No. 09-1424.

#### LinkCo, Inc., Petitioner v. Naoyuki Akikusa, et al.

562 U.S. 833, 131 S. Ct. 388,

178 L. Ed. 2d 33,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6447.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 180.
#### Bodum USA, Inc., Appellant, v Thomas Perez et al., Respondents.

[49 NYS3d 292]

*645Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 8, 2015, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint fails to adequately allege that plaintiff’s former chief executive officer Perez breached the noncompete clause set forth in section 11.1 (a) of the service agreement. A plaintiff alleging a competition-based claim must identify the relevant market with reference to the rule of reasonable interchangeability *(see Continental Guest Servs. Corp. v International Bus Servs., Inc.,*92 AD3d 570, 572 [1st Dept 2012]). Plaintiff has pleaded nothing hut conclusory statements without factual support for its claim that its products are competitive with those of defendant Alpha. The only allegation in the complaint concerning competition is that both plaintiff and defendant Alpha “market! ] [their] coffeemakers to commercial customers, such as hotels, restaurants and coffee specialty companies.” There are no allegations that Alpha’s products are sold to the same relevant market, for a similar purpose, let alone to the same customers. The complaint further fails to allege that plaintiff lost any customers to Alpha *(see Pitcock v Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP,*74 AD3d 613, 615 [1st Dept 2010] [“vague, boilerplate allegations of damages . . . insufficient to sustain the causes of action”]). At oral argument, more than a year after Perez joined Alpha, plaintiff conceded that it was not aware or, and could not allege, any lost business. The same remains true today, yet another year later. Given that plaintiff’s complaint is comprised solely of conclusory allegations of competition, the motion court properly dismissed the breach of contract claim as a matter of law.

Plaintiff’s remaining claims for breach of contract were also properly dismissed. Allegations that Perez will “inevitably” solicit defendant’s customers or disclose trade secrets are conclusory and insufficient to state a cause of action. The other tort claims were properly dismissed as conclusory and insufficient.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions, including its request for leave to amend the complaint, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.