alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CAROLE KING BOYD

 ATTORNEY AT LAW 

15751 HIGHWAY 16 NORTH 

 MEDINA, TEXAS 78055

 TEL: (830) 589-7587

 FAX: (830) 589-7598

 

 March 2, 2015 

Court of Appeal 

Fourth Court of Appeals District 

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 

300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037

Attention: Keith E. Hottle, Clerk 

 Re: Court of Appeals Numbers: 04-15-0006-CV

 04-14-00824-CV

 Trial Court Case No.: CV-13-0200356

 Style: Robert Tyson et als. v. Robert N. Freeman II et als. 

Dear Mr. Hottle: 

I was informed by the court that a second appeal needed to be filed and fee paid 

since the individual defendants in the underlying case were all severed from the suit. The 

three defendants are all agents of the corporate defendant in the district court 

case, and were severed by the court, not because they required a separate litigation 

independent from the main case, but solely to make the judgments final for appeal 

purposes. My initial appeal encompassed all three defendants. I cannot 

determine what the second appeal would achieve or which defendants it would include, 

nor has the court been able to give me this information. These defendants are not 

autonomous or unrelated. They all worked together and all of the same facts and 

circumstances apply to each of them. Boren and Yeates were agents of the 

corporation, taking direction from Freeman, the manager. There would be no benefit 

to two separate appeals and additionally, it would work a financial hardship on 

Appellants. 

 My motion for consolidation filed January 8th has had no disposition, 

yet I received an Order stating that the fee for the second appeal is due today. 

Please extend the time for payment until it is known whether a second appeal is 

called for and my motion is decided. In the alternative, if I do not hear back from the 

court today, I will send my check to the court for payment of the fee which I ask be held 

until disposition of my motion. 

ACCEPTED

04-14-00824-cv

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

3/2/2015 2:34:31 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 03/2/2015 2:34:31 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
I would very much appreciate the Court’s consideration in this matter, as the 

appeal is being handled by me without charge to my clients. Even for them to pay an 

additional appeals fee is a hardship for them. 

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Carole K. Boyd

CKB:hs

Cc: C. Dixon Mosty via e-filing

 Stephen Schulte via e-filing
#### Fifth Ave. Center, LLC, Appellant, v Dryland Properties, LLC, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 39]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered February 18, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action seeking a return of the security deposit, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

The parties’ lease provides that, in the event plaintiff tenant complies with the material terms of the lease, its security deposit will be returned after the date fixed as the end of the lease, i.e., June 12, 2028. Plaintiff alleges that it terminated the lease, or was constructively evicted, due to material breaches by defendant landlord, in 2015. To the extent plaintiff is able to show its entitlement to recover the security deposit in these circumstances, it need not wait until the date fixed at the end of the defunct lease to assert the claim, but may recover the security deposit at the time that the claims between the parties are resolved in this action *(see Meinken v Levinson,*239 AD 382, 392 [1st Dept 1933]; *Seafeld Realty Corp. v Thomas,*112 NYS2d 839 [App Term, 1st Dept 1952]).

Concur— *446Renwick, J.R, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Webber, JJ.
No. 10-5334.

#### Emajo Mayberry and Carol A. Clopton, Petitioners v. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.

562 U.S. 824, 131 S. Ct. 385,

178 L. Ed. 2d 20,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6556.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 907.
#### Cash and Carry Filing Service, LLC, Respondent, v Rehan Perveez et al., Appellants.

[50 NYS3d 277]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about November 6, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to vacate a judgment by confession entered May 1, 2015, or to schedule a plenary hearing to determine whether the underlying agreement leading to the judgment by confession is enforceable, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants may challenge the judgment by confession only by trial in a plenary action, and not by motion *(see Scheckter v Ryan,*161 AD2d 344, 345 [1st Dept 1990]). Moreover, defendants lack standing to challenge the affidavit of confession of judgment. An affidavit of confession of judgment pursuant to CPLR 3218 “is intended to protect creditors of a defendant,” not the defendant itself *(Giryluk v Giryluk,*30 AD2d 22, 25 [1st Dept 1968], *affd*23 NY2d 894 [1969]; *County Natl. Bank v Vogt,*28 AD2d 793, 794 [3d Dept 1967], *affd*21 NY2d 800 [1968]; *Regency Club at Wallkill, LLC v Bienish,*95 AD3d 879, 879 [2d Dept 2012]). In any event, the affidavit in this case is sufficient *(Giryluk,*30 AD2d at 25).

Defendants’ assertions of duress in executing the June 10, 2014 agreement leading to the judgment by confession are unavailing. In order to claim duress defendants had to show that plaintiff used a “wrongful threat” to force defendants to enter into the agreement, and defendants failed to make that showing *(Madey v Carman,*51 AD3d 985, 987 [2d Dept 2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 708 [2008]; *see Foundry Capital Sarl v International Value Advisers, LLC,*96 AD3d 620 [1st Dept 2012]). “Financial pressures, even in the context of unequal bargaining power, do not constitute economic duress” *(Grubel v Union Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*54 AD2d 686, 686 [2d Dept 1976], *lv*
      *579
      *denied*41 NY2d 807 [1977]; *see also Liberty Marble v Elite Stone Setting Corp.,*248 AD2d 302, 304 [1st Dept 1998]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00711-CV

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Appellant

v.

City of Cleburne, Texas, and Johnson County, Texas, Appellees

FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-16-005692, THE HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties before the Court have jointly filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for 

want of jurisdiction due to a settlement resolving all relevant issues. Having reviewed the 

motion and the record, we grant the motion and render judgment dismissing this appeal as moot.

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith

Dismissed on Joint Motion

Filed: February 6, 2020
---

---

Exhibit 15.8

# LETTER OF CONSENT

We hereby consent to the reference
to our study relating to the valuation report of options granted by Plaza centers N.V.(the
Company) to Elbit Imaging Ltd.s Vice Chairman of the Board in respect of the
Companys operations in India, dated October 2007, in the Annual Report on Form
20-F/A of Elbit Imaging Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2007 and to the
incorporation by reference of such 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.

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.

| |                                              
| | ---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
| | Very truly yours,                            
| | /s/ BDO Ziv Haft Consulting & Management Ltd.

November 17, 2008
Tel Aviv, Israel



---

---
#### Robert J. Marone, Respondent, v Francesca Marone, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 661]

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 9 to partition real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J.), dated October 6, 2015, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee in the sum of $6,000, payable from the net proceeds of the sale of the real property.

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

“[P]artition, although statutory *(see*RPAPL art 9), is equitable in nature, and the court may compel the parties to do equity between themselves when adjusting the distribution of the proceeds of a sale” *(Koniosis v Tsororos,*83 AD3d 665, 668 [2011]). In this case, the attorney’s fee award in the sum of $6,000, payable from the net proceeds of the sale of the real property at issue, was equitable and reasonable.

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
No. 09-1543.

#### Mealdey Suong, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 839, 131 S. Ct. 199,

178 L. Ed. 2d 44,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6075.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 708.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M I GU EL AN GEL ORT EGA- FI TZ , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70689 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 093- 651 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i gue l A nge l O rt e ga - F i t z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f orc anc e l l a t i on of re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al 

# FI LED MA R 01 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70689 2 e vi de nc e the a ge nc y ’ s c ont i nuous phy s i c a l pr e s e nc e de t e rm i na t i on, G ut i errez v . Mukasey , 521 F . 3d 1114, 1116 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e a g e n c y ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t O rte g a - F itz di d n otm ee tthe cont i nu ou s physi ca l pres ence re qu i re m entw here the re cord co n t ai n s a si g n edN o t i ce an dR eq u estfo r D i sp o si t i o n fo rm (“ I-8 2 6 ”) i n S p an i sh s t a t i ng tha tO rt e ga - F i t z w a s gi vi ng up hi s r i ghtt o ahe ar i ng be f or e a n I Ja nd a g r e e in g to r e tu rn to M e x ic o , s e e V a s q u ez -L o

p ezv . A s h c r o

ft , 343 F . 3d 961, 974 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( pe rc ur i a m ) , a nd O rt e ga - F i t z t e s t i f i e d tha tthe c ont e nt s of

the I - 826 w e r e e x p l a i n e dt o h i m, se e G ut i errez , 521 F . 3d a t1117- 18 ( pe t i t i one r ’ s t e s t i m ony th a t h e h a dth e o p p o rtu n ityto g o b e f o r e a n I Ja n dc h o s e to d e p art in s te a dis suff i ci entt o est abl i sh pres ence -bre aki ng vo l un t ary departure) . O rt e ga - F i t z ’ s r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons a r e una va i l i ng. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
# New video highlights Women’s History Day

/ Published Aug. 26, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Names of those who won women’s equality are lost to history, but the results of their actions are seen daily, the president of Federally Employed Women tells Defense Logistics Agency employees in a Women’s Equality Day video.

“American women advanced because courageous people, both men and women, refused to back down, refused to allow others to turn the clock back,” Karen Rainey says. Women gained the right to vote with the ratification of the 19th Amendment on Aug. 26, 1920, after the decades-long women’s suffrage movement. In 1917, women from across the country picketed the White House demanding their right to vote. Called Silent Sentinels, their protests were a political embarrassment to President Woodrow Wilson so they were arrested and locked in confinement. Some were beaten; others went on hunger strikes but were brutally force fed. 

“It is the first and only time in the United States where over half of the U.S. population won a fundamental, democratic right without the use of any violence, although violence was used against them,” Rainey says. 

The movement was a model for subsequent civil rights battles though women like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth and others never received the gratitude they deserved, adds DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic. “We should never take for granted what they fought for. We simply would not be where we are today without their vision, determination and sacrifice,” she says. 

The video also stars DLA Senior Enlisted Leader Army Command Sgt. Maj. Tomeka O’Neal, who believes women are still working to have their voices heard.

“Even within our agency, it has taken 60 years to have the first female director and senior enlisted leader,” she says.

View the video on DVIDS or below. 14:07VIDEO  | 14:07 |DLA, Honoring Women's Equality Day, August 26, 2021
No. 09-11126.

#### J. Doe, Petitioner v. Richard L. Duncan, et al.

562 U.S. 823, 131 S. Ct. 384,

178 L. Ed. 2d 18,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6553.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis *19denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
# Mission first, safety always

/ Published June 21, 2021
Naval Station Guam, 
Ensuring the safety of each team member of this year’s Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Contingency Operations Readiness Exercise is a shared responsibility of every participant and safety professional included in the annual field training.

                Pat Kaiahua, safety specialist out of Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickman, Hawaii, is onsite during the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Contingency Overseas Readiness Exercise points out safety concerns.                            COREX Safety                            Pat Kaiahua, safety specialist out of Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickman, Hawaii, is onsite during the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Contingency Overseas Readiness Exercise points out safety concerns.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Jeff LandenbergerVIRIN: 210618-D-YU183-047“I am here in Guam to make sure that the two-week COREX operations take place in a safe manner,“ said Pat Kaiahua, a DLA Indo-Pacific region safety specialist based out of Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii.

“My mission for COREX is to provide safety support, ensure that we look at all the hazards, and apply risk management in order to put controls to prevent our personnel from any injuries or property damage and ensure we have safe operations,” Kaiahua said.

On the first day of the exercise, Kaiahua conducted a safety brief for COREX participants.

“Mission first and safety always,” he said. Kaiahua then reminded them that the very nature of the work they do is hazardous, including the equipment they use. He talked about the need to stay hydrated and to work as a team to keep each other safe.

“Pat has provided outstanding support, not only as a safety officer, but as a member of the team,” said Navy Cmdr. Dustin Freeman, Officer in Charge of the COREX ‘21 “B Team” in Guam.

Freeman said that in addition to his safety duties, Kaiahua assisted the exercise team with equipment issues and erecting the Expeditionary Site Set.

“A hazard we are working with right now is the temperature in Guam, being ‘Black Flag’ conditions,” Kaiahua said. “That in itself changes the dynamics, as far as our work and rest cycle. We go into a 15-minute work and 45-minute rest.”

“Safety is a supervisory program,” Kaiahua said. “It is the supervisor’s responsibility to ensure that we put in risk management, that we use the deliberate risk assessment worksheets that identify our task, identify the hazards, identify the controls and how we are going to implement those controls.”

“Everyone here has been implementing safety,” Kaiahua said.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.







/s/ James H. Moore



James H. Moore

Chief Financial Officer

Date:  May 8, 2006









A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mines Management, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

























1
164 A.3d 407

#### NEW JERSEY HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENT ASSISTANCE AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. GENNIFER A. STRIBLING AND LURETHA M. STRIBLING, DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

March 23, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
No. 09-10481.

#### Michael Robinson, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 844, 131 S. Ct. 83,

178 L. Ed. 2d 53,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5939.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# DLA Distribution Commanding General, Brig. Gen. Reventlow, USMC, Marine Corps Birthday message

/ Published Nov. 10, 2020
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Today is the 245th Birthday of the United States Marine Corps; I would like to wish our current and former Marines as well as all DLA Distribution employees a Happy Marine Corps Birthday!

With many events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic this year, the over 200,000 Active Duty and Reserve Marines around the world will not be celebrating with traditional balls and birthday celebrations, but that doesn’t diminish the importance of the day.

This year’s Marine Corps Birthday message from the 38th Commandant, General David H. Berger, focuses on adapting to change and uncertainty. It’s a reminder to us that we must always be at the ready for whatever challenges confront us. The Commandant’s Birthday video message features a number of Marine Corps heroes who characterize the Marine Corps values of honor, courage, and commitment.

Hershel “Woody” Williams earned the Medal of Honor during World War II by using flame throwers and demolition charges to destroy Japanese positions on Iwo Jima in February 1945. Jim Capers, a Force Reconnaissance Marine, bravely led a nine-man team against hundreds of Vietnamese soldiers. Former Marine Juan Rodriguez-Chavez, received the Navy Cross in Afghanistan for repeatedly driving a gun truck into blistering enemy fire to rescue fallen teammates. James Stogner, a machine gunner in Vietnam, rescued a fellow Marine from the enemy with little more than a K-bar fighting knife. The video also features the oldest living Marine, Dorothy Cole, a former Sergeant and World War II veteran, who is 107.

These Marines are a testament of what it means to persevere against overwhelming odds and are shining examples to all of us during this year of crisis and uncertainty. I would like to thank all of you for your willingness to adapt to change and uncertainty — and for your service and continued commitment to our mission and the men and women we support who are out there answering the nation’s call, no matter what the crisis.

Semper Fidelis – and Happy Birthday Marines!
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Theodore Clarke, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 302]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at plea; Laura A. Ward, J., at re-plea and sentencing), rendered June 2, 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 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— Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
#### Luisa Flynn, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[61 NYS3d 483]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J-), entered September 13, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Upon defendants’ establishment that the City of New York had no prior written notice of the alleged depressed condition of a metal plate on the roadway (Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 [c] [2]), “the burden shift[ed] to the plaintiff to demonstrate the applicability of one of two recognized exceptions to the rule — that the municipality affirmatively created the defect through an act of negligence or that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the locality” *(Yarborough v City of New York,*10 NY3d 726, 728 [2008]; *see also Rosenblum v City of New York,*89 AD3d 439 [1st Dept 2011]). Plaintiff’s speculation that the City’s repaving work in the area, three *489and a half years earlier, immediately caused the alleged depressed and dangerous condition, is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact (see *Oboler v City of New York,*8 NY3d 888, 889 [2007]; *Rosenblum*at 440).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Singh and Moulton, JJ.