alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2011269EN.01003001.xml

| 14.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/30

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 10 October 2011

appointing an Irish member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2011/681/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Irish Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).

| (2) | A member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Jillian VAN TURNHOUT, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Jillian VAN TURNHOUT,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Seamus BOLAND, Chief Executive Officer, Irish Rural Link is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 10 October 2011.

For the Council

The President

A. KRASZEWSKI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.

1

---
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6274** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. WILLIAM TERRENCE CROSS, a/k/a Red , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. ( 2:03

- cr - 00010

- RBS

- 1; 2:06

- cv - 00457

- RBS )

Submitted : November 7, 2013 Decided: November 14, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. William Terrence Cross, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Cross seeks to appeal his conviction for tampering with a witness and retaliation against a witness
. Cross was sentenced in 2003 and received a fourteen

- year sentence. This c ourt summarily affirmed Cross’s convictions and remanded for resentencing after the Government cross

- appealed. United States v. Cross , 371 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2004). The c ourt affirmed the sentence imposed at resentencing. United States v.
Cross , No. 04

- 5030, 2005 WL 3452041 (4th Cir . Dec. 16, 2005) (unpublished). In January 2013, Cross filed another notice of appeal of the criminal judgment, specifically challenging a
pre - trial order denying Cross’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. However, because we have previously affirmed this criminal judgment, we dismiss the appeal as duplicative and untimely. 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. D ISMISSED
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 08

- 780 V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

*

Mr. and Mrs. CHARLIE JACOBS, *

as parents and legal representatives *

of M.A.J., a minor, *

*

Petitioner s

, *

* Filed: January 29, 2015

v. *

* Decision on Attorneys’

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION (ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 1 I is sued a

decision on June 13 , 2014 . On January 28, 2015 , the parti es filed a Stipulation Regarding Final

A ttorneys’ Fees and Litigation C osts in this matter. The parties’ stipulation re quests a total

payment o f $23,590.50 , representin g attorn e ys’ fees and costs of $23,260.00, and $330.5 0 of

costs expended by petitioner s

.

An award for fees and costs is appropriate at this time, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amounts seem reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly,

I hereby award the following attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 1 5(b) and

(e)(1):

• a lump sum of $23,260.00 , in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner s

and petiti on ers’ counsel, Clifford J. Shoemaker , on account of services performed

by counsel’s law firm.

1 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 10 et seq . (2006).• a lump sum of $330.5 0 , in the form of a che ck pay able to petitioners

, which represents petitioner s’ own litigation expenses in this case.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the co urt shall enter judgment in

accordance herewith. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED

/s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

George L. Hastings, Jr.

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the

right to seek review.
No. 09-10765.

#### Charles Cloyce Dick, Petitioner v. Joe Easterling, Warden.

562 U.S. 851, 131 S. Ct. 107,

178 L. Ed. 2d 66,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5839.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15950]



[[Page 33061]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-00525; FRL-5775-7]


Pesticide Product Label System; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the 1998 Pesticide 
Product Label System on CD ROM.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Yvonne Brown, Office of 
Pesticide Programs (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., 
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location for commercial courier 
delivery and telephone number: Rm. 238, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson 
Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-6473.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Pesticide Product Label System (PPLS), a software product 
developed by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), contains images 
of registered pesticide product labels submitted by pesticide 
registrants and accepted by the OPP since 1971. The 1998 PPLS replaces 
the 1997 PPLS in its entirety.
    The label images have been indexed by company, product, and date. 
The retrieval program allows the user to search by registration number, 
which is a combination of company number and product number. Searches 
can be conducted based on partial numbers if the complete number is 
unknown. Search results are displayed in full screen format and single 
or multiple pages can be printed.
    Some label amendments address only portions of the label and may 
not represent the complete label. Review of all updates for a single 
product may be necessary. The label images represent the product at the 
time the labeling was accepted. The product may have been transferred 
to another company or canceled since the date the label was accepted 
and such status information is not reflected in this system.
    The quality of the images varies greatly as it is dependent on the 
quality of the label submitted to and accepted by OPP. Since the 
initial version of the PPLS is the product of a conversion from images 
stored on microfiche, some oversized images are represented as two 
separate documents and will require retrieval of both to obtain the 
complete image.
    Regulations governing the labeling requirements of pesticide 
products are contained in 40 CFR Chapter 1.

II. Ordering Information

    The CD ROM collection is available as an ongoing subscription from 
the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), ATTN: Order Desk, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone: (703) 605-6060 
or (800) 553-NTIS (6847). When requesting the PPLS from NTIS, use the 
Order Number SUB-5404.

    Dated: April 24, 1998.

Richard D. Schmitt,

Acting Director, Information Resources Services Division, Office of 
Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 98-15950 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
#### Snyder v City of Buffalo

4th Dept: 141 AD3d 1130

denied
Exhibit 15.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-172122 on Form F-3 and on Registration Statements No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820 on Form S-8 filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd. of our report dated November 27, 2013 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Elbit Imaging Ltd. as of December 31, 2012, which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to: (i) substantial doubt about Elbit Imaging Ltd.'s ability to continue as a going concern; (ii) substantial doubt about Plaza Centers' (a substantial subsidiary, in which Elbit Imaging Ltd. is the holder of 62.5% of its outstanding share capital ) ability to continue as a going concern; (iii) claims that have been filed against Group companies for some of which petitions have been applied to certify as class actions suits, and one of which was certified as a class action; and (iv) a restatement to correct the classification of Elbit Imaging Ltd.'s trading property and associated borrowings as non-current assets and non-current liabilities, respectively, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Elbit Imaging Ltd., as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




/s/ Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.




Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.


Certified Public Accountants


A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu





Tel-Aviv, Israel


November 27, 2013
#### In the Matter of Keith Haywood, Petitioner, v Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., Respondent.

[60 NYS3d 831]

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is *452unanimously ordered, that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
No. 09-1553.

#### Claude D. Convisser, Petitioner v. Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

562 U.S. 840, 131 S. Ct. 204,

178 L. Ed. 2d 45,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6042.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Mexico denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0494 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. DAVID ALAN SPAGNOLO ,

Defendant and Appellant,

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 30 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 16 2021

06/16/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0494
#### In the Matter of Barney C. Custer, Respondent, v Paula N. Slater, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 854]

Mercure, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Assini, J.), entered March 21, 2002, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

Respondent appeals from an order entered after trial which, among other things, modified a prior custody order by awarding petitioner sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ seven-year-old child, requiring that respondent’s visits with the child be supervised, prohibiting respondent from having telephone contact with the child unless the child desired it and petitioner was on a telephone extension, and permitting respondent to petition for unsupervised visitation only upon recommendations *1228from her treating psychologist and primary care physician. Respondent concedes that the modification was appropriate insofar as Family Court awarded petitioner sole custody of the child. She asserts, however, that the court erred in requiring that her visits be supervised and limiting her telephone contact with the child. We disagree.

Initially, we note that “the determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to Family Court’s sound discretion . . . and its findings, to which deference is to be accorded, will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound basis in the record” *(Matter of Kryvanis v Kruty,*288 AD2d 771, 772 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, respondent violated the prior custody order on numerous occasions, broke into petitioner’s home and took an item, disparaged and physically attacked petitioner in front of the child, and either refused to attend coparenting sessions or failed to interact civilly with petitioner when she did attend. In addition to relying on the above factors, Family Court also noted respondent’s continued erratic behavior during trial, which included reacting to adverse testimony by plugging her ears and closing her eyes. Given this evidence and despite the Law Guardian’s recommendation that respondent be permitted unsupervised visitation, we find no basis to disturb Family Court’s conclusion that limiting respondent to supervised visitation was in the child’s best interest *(see Matter of Simpson v Simrell,*296 AD2d 621, 621-622 [2002]; *Matter of Bates v Bates,*290 AD2d 732, 733-734 [2002]; *Matter of Kryvanis v Kruty, supra*at 772-773).

Spain, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### Lorenzo v. Milner; Lorenzo, In re

03/30/2016

555 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 105
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew Pagan, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 810]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (George R. Vil-legas, J. at plea; Albert Lorenzo, J. at sentencing), rendered on or about April 29, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern and Singh, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TIMOTHY VERNON KASHNER, Petitioner

v. JOHN KERESTES, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 378 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 6th day of October, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00185-CV

Thomas W. Harrison

v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Successor by Merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A.

On Appeal from the

58th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-183,004

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 26, 2015
##### 



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 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Michigan Heritage Bancorp (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Anthony S. Albanese, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
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/Anthony S. AlbaneseAnthony S. AlbaneseActing Chief Financial OfficerMarch 8, 2004
 57
No. 10-5695.

#### Burl Washington, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 336,

178 L. Ed. 2d 218,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7462.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 596 F.3d 926.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE REGISTRANT'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,664
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (270)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,864
<PP&E>                                             365
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (53)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,768
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            48
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,910)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,724
<SALES>                                          8,825
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,825
<CGS>                                            8,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,090)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)



</TABLE>
No. 10-5319.

#### Jason P. Gold, Petitioner v. Linda Schuette.

562 U.S. 910, 131 S. Ct. 276,

178 L. Ed. 2d 182,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7103.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 863.
No. 09-11568.

#### Yunior Perez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 888, 131 S. Ct. 222,

178 L. Ed. 2d 133,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6524.

October 4, 2010.

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

*134Same case below, 356 Fed. Appx. 309.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2247

To amend the Fair Housing Act to modify the exemption from certain

familial status discrimination prohibitions granted to housing for older

persons, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mr. GORTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Fair Housing Act to modify the exemption

from certain familial status discrimination prohibitions

granted to housing for older persons, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing for Older Per5 sons Act of 1994’’.
2

•S 2247 IS

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS.

2 Subparagraph (C) of section 807(b)(2) of the Fair

3 Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(2)) is amended to read

4 as follows:

5 ‘‘(C) that meets the following requirements:

6 ‘‘(i) The housing is in a facility or commu7 nity intended and operated for the occupancy of

8 at least 80 percent of the occupied units by at

9 least one person 55 years of age or older.

10 ‘‘(ii) The housing facility or community

11 publishes and adheres to policies and proce12 dures that demonstrate the intent required

13 under clause (i), whether or not such policies

14 and procedures are set forth in the governing

15 documents of such facility or community.

16 ‘‘(iii) The housing facility or community

17 complies with rules made by the Secretary for

18 the verification of occupancy. Such rules shall

19 allow for that verification by reliable surveys

20 and affidavits and shall include examples of the

21 types of policies and procedures relevant to a

22 determination of compliance with the require23 ment of clause (ii). Such surveys and affidavits

24 shall be admissible in administrative and judi25 cial proceedings for the purposes of such ver26 ification.’’.
3

•S 2247 IS

1 SEC. 3. GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT AT COMPLIANCE DEFENSE

2 AGAINST CIVIL MONEY DAMAGES.

3 Section 813 of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.

4 3613) is amended by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(f) GOOD FAITH RELIANCE.—(1) A person shall not

6 be held personally liable for monetary damages for a viola7 tion of this title if such person relied, in good faith, on

8 the application of the exemption under section 807(b) re9 lating to housing for older persons.

10 ‘‘(2) For the purposes of this subsection, a person

11 engaged in the business of residential real estate trans12 actions is presumed to have relied, in good faith, on the

13 application of the exemption under section 807(b) if—

14 ‘‘(A) such person has no actual knowledge that

15 the facility or community is not, or will not, be eligi16 ble for such exemption; and

17 ‘‘(B) the facility or community certifies to such

18 person, in writing, that the facility or community

19 complies with the requirements for such exemp20 tion.’’.

Æ