alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*September 1,*2017

2017-Ohio-7423.]

*14222017-0732.

#### In re Resignation of Pioch.

Sua sponte, Susan Marie Pioch, Attorney Registration No. 0012533, last known business address in Toledo, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file her certificate of admission and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before July 28, 2017.
EXHIBIT 32.1certification pursuant to 18 u.s.c. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of thesarbanes-oxley act of 2002The undersigned officer of Veridien Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies to my knowledgethat the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification isprovided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever.       Date: November 3, 2005 Name: /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton            Sheldon C. Fenton    Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Lawrence C., Respondent, v Anthea P. Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 344]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2014, which granted *599petitioner father’s petition for modification of custody, to the extent of awarding the father primary residential custody of the parties’ children, with parenting time to respondent mother, and awarding the father final decision-making authority in all areas of the children’s life, except religion, unanimously affirmed, without costs, as to the child Maria, and the appeal therefrom, as to the child Theo, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The Family Court’s determination was based upon an assessment of the parties’ credibility, and has a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]). The totality of the circumstances supports the determination that a change in custody to the extent indicated is in the children’s best interest *(id.*at 172, 174). As the court found, the children were not thriving in the mother’s home or in their former school. The mother also made unilateral decisions regarding the children without informing the father *(see Matter of Mildred S.G. v Mark G.,*62 AD3d 460, 461 [1st Dept 2009]). Although some concerns were validly raised by Dr. Cohen regarding how the father’s negativity toward the mother is impacting the children’s perception of her, the father provided a more nurturing home environment, where the children’s educational, emotional and social needs were better met *(see Matter of Louise E.S. v W. Stephen S.,*64 NY2d 946, 947 [1985]).

To the extent the mother argues that it was error to permit the children’s treating psychologist to testify as to confidential matters about the children in the absence of a knowing waiver from the children *(see*CPLR 4508 [a] [1]), the error was harmless *(see Matter of Rutland v O’Brien,*143 AD3d 1060, 1063 [3d Dept 2016]).

The appeal from the order as it pertains to the male child has been rendered moot by the mother’s subsequent consent to the father having custody of that child.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             241
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                       824
<INVENTORY>                                      9,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,109
<PP&E>                                          40,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,781
<BONDS>                                         11,987
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         14
<COMMON>                                         9,805
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,327
<SALES>                                         99,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,738
<CGS>                                           81,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,915
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   159
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,714
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,085)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (925)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,160)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (576)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,736)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.83)


</TABLE>
#### Board of Trustees of Village of Sackets Harbor, Appellant, v Sackets Harbor Leasing Company, LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[769 NYS2d 420]

— Appeal from those parts of an order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County (McGuire, J.), entered December 27, 2002, that denied the motion of plaintiff for a preliminary injunction, converted the cross motion of defendant. Sackets Harbor Leasing Company, LLC to dismiss the complaint against it into one seeking summary judgment and granted that defendant partial summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the cross motion is denied, the second cause of action against defendant Sackets Harbor Leasing Company, LLC is reinstated and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, *1352Jefferson County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a permanent injunction requiring Sackets Harbor Leasing Company, LLC (defendant) to remove two docks it built in conjunction with the construction of a yacht club, hotel and conference center, on the ground that the docks do not comply with the requirements of plaintiff’s Waterfront Management Law. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from using the docks pending determination of the action, converted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint into one seeking summary judgment, and granted defendant partial summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action against it. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court properly converted the cross motion to dismiss into one seeking summary judgment *(see*CPLR 3211 [c]; *see generally Carcone v D’Angelo Ins. Agency,*302 AD2d 963 [2003]), we conclude that defendant failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and thus the court erred in granting partial summary judgment to defendant *(see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). We therefore reverse the order, deny defendant’s cross motion, reinstate the second cause of action against defendant and remit the matter to Supreme Court, Jefferson County, for reconsideration of the merits of plaintiffs motion seeking a preliminary injunction *(see Six Nations Apt. Hous. Fund Dev. Co. v Six Nations Props.,*175 AD2d 567, 567-568 [1991]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Hayes, JJ.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

- 1 -

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 98-21150

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SIRVETUS LAMONT RATCLIFF,

 Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

(H-98-CR-245-1) 

_________________________________________________________________

October 20, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of

firearms and possession of firearms with altered or obliterated

serial numbers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) and (k),

Sirvetus Ratcliff contends that the district court violated FED. R.

CRIM. P. 32(c)(1) by overruling his objection to the presentence 

report’s (PSR) recommended increase of his offense level under

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). In this regard, Ratcliff maintains that
- 2 -

the court failed to make factual findings regarding whether he had

used the weapons in connection with another felony offense.

A court’s compliance with Rule 32 is a question of law,

reviewed de novo. United States v. Myers, 150 F.3d 459, 465 (5th

Cir. 1998). A court must resolve disputed facts at sentencing by

“mak[ing] either a finding on the allegation or a determination

that no finding is necessary because the controverted matter will

not be taken into account in, or will not affect, sentencing”. 

FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(1). But, Rule 32 does not “require a

catechismic regurgitation of each fact determined and each fact

rejected”. United States v. Sherbak, 950 F.2d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir.

1992); e.g., United States v. Gaytan, 74 F.3d 545, 557 (5th Cir.

1996). When the district court adopted the PSR’s findings,

Ratcliff was “provided adequate notice” of the resolution of the

factual dispute. See United States v. Mora, 994 F.2d 1129, 1141

(5th Cir. 1993).

The court implicitly relied on the PSR’s recommendation by

overruling Ratcliff’s objection, see Mora, 994 F.2d at 1141, and

expressly noted in its written judgment that it adopted the PSR’s

factual findings and guideline application. Therefore, the court

adopted the PSR’s finding that a preponderance of the evidence

demonstrated that the adjustment was warranted because Ratcliff had

used the firearms in connection with an aggravated robbery or an

aggravated kidnapping, thus satisfying Rule 32(c)(1). See United

States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 526 n.3 (5th Cir. 1999); Mora,

994 F.2d at 1141. 
- 3 -

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15922]


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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY


Overseas Private Investment Corporation Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment Corporation, IDCA.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to publish a Notice in the Federal 
Register notifying the public that the Agency is preparing an 
information collection request for OMB review and approval and to 
request public review and comment on the submission. Comments are being 
solicited on the need for the information, its practical utility, the 
accuracy of the Agency's burden estimate, and on ways to minimize the 
reporting burden, including automated collection techniques and uses of 
other forms of technology. The proposed form under review is summarized 
below.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the subject form and the request for review 
prepared for submission to OMB may be obtained from the Agency 
Submitting Officer. Comments on the form should be submitted to the 
Agency Submitting Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: Carol Brock, Records Manager, Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation, 1100 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20527; 202/336-8563.

summary of form under review

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously 
approved collection for which approval is expiring.
    Title: Application for Financing.
    Form Number: OPIC-115.
    Frequency of Use: Once per investor per project.
    Type of Respondents: Business or other institutions; individuals.
    Standard Industrial Classification Codes: All.
    Description of Affected Public: U.S. companies or citizens 
investing overseas.
    Reporting Hours: 3 hours per project.
    Number of Responses: 300 per year.
    Federal Cost: $14,796 per year.
    Authority for Information Collection: Sections 231 and 234(b) and 
(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
    Abstract (Needs and Uses): The application is the principal 
document used by OPIC to determine the investor's and project's 
eligibility, assess the environmental impact and developmental effects 
of the project, measure the economic effects for the United States and 
the host country economy, and collect information for underwriting 
analysis.

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
James R. Offutt,
Assistant General Counsel, Department of Legal Affairs.
[FR Doc. 98-15922 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M
#### Com. v. Sosa

08/23/2016

139 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 144 A.3d 186
# Aviation Hall of Fame nominations accepted through August 31

/ Published Aug. 3, 2020
Richmond, Va., 
Nominations for the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s annual Hall of Famefor 2020 are open through Aug. 31. The Aviation Hall of Fame honors former employees who have made significant and enduring contributions to DLA Aviation or Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia.

To be eligible, nominees must have been separated from DLA or the DLA Aviation community for at least one year from the date of their reassignment, retirement, discharge or death.

The DLA Aviation community is comprised of both military and civilian government employees from all DLA Aviation locations, or any DLA activity located on the Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. 

Former employees are defined as government civilians and military (active duty and reserve components). Nominees should not be in a position to return to employment with DLA. 

Nominees must meet at least one of the following criteria:

Accomplished an enduring achievement that has life-long specific benefits to the center and Defense Logistics Agency. 

Made a specific or continuous accomplishment positively affecting a large segment of DLA Aviation’s employees, customers and/or vendors.

Made a long-term contribution that has a lasting and positive impact on DLA Aviation’s mission and/or business practices.

Last year’s Hall of Fame inductee was Janet Price.

More details on the nomination criteria can be found in the Aviation Hall of Fame guidelines. 

Any current or former employee can complete their nomination online or email their completed nomination to the DLA Aviation Awards Coordinator Yolanda Adams-Hall at yolanda.adams-hall@dla.mil. For more information, call Adams-Hall at (804) 279-3664.
*September 13, 2017*

2017-Ohio-7567.]

2016-1394.

#### Johnson v. Shaker Hts. Mun. Court.

In Mandamus. On relator’s motion to join Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles as a party. Motion granted. Relator shall file an amended complaint in mandamus within 21 days that contains a specific statement of facts upon which the claim for relief is based as to the joined respondent. Joined respondent shall file an answer to the amended complaint or a motion to dismiss within 21 days of the filing of the complaint.

On respondent Shaker Heights Municipal Court’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed as to Shaker Heights Municipal Court.

O’Connor, C.J., and Kennedy, French, O’Neill, and Fischer, JJ., concur.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.

DeWine, J., dissents in part and would deny relator’s motion to join party.
---

---

# Exhibit 15.9

# LETTER OF CONSENT

We hereby consent to the reference to
our studies 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 as of December 31, 2008 dated April 2009
and as of December 31, 2007 dated March 2008, in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 and to the incorporation by reference of this
Annual Report in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No.
333-130852 and No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820 ) filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd, as required
by the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission.

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.
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

June 25, 2009Tel
Aviv, Israel



---

---
---

---

Exhibit 15.4

CONSENT

We hereby consent to the reference
to our Plaza Centers Portfolio Valuation report that contains the valuation of the Duna
Plaza, located at Váci út 178., H-1139 Budapest, Hungary in this 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 this Annual Report in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852 ,No. 333-136684 and NO. 333-152820)
filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd.

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

/s/ James Kinnell
BSc (Hons) Mphil, MRICS
Budapest, Hungary
November 17, 2008



---

---
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|Sweetgrass, MT Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|Sweetgrass, MT Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan   | Feb   | Mar   | Apr   | May   | Jun   | Jul   | Aug   | Sep   | Oct   | Nov   | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | -----
|2013                                                                                                                              |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       | 14.22 | 14.25
|2014                                                                                                                              | 15.01 | 15.61 | 15.61 | 14.97 | 15.10 | 14.88 | 14.94 | 14.34 | 14.48 | 14.42 | 14.07 | 14.93
|                                                                                                                                 
|2015                                                                                                                              | 13.77 | 13.30 | 13.27 |       | 12.89 | 13.25 | 14.56 |       |       |       |       |      
|- = 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
2017-0883.

#### State ex rel. Reichley v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 16AP-263, 2017-Ohio-2939.
2017-1795.

#### State ex rel. Richland Cty. Children Servs. v. Richland Cty. Court of Common Pleas.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. On relators’ application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Kenneth L. Hignett, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary of Morgans Foods, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (3) |  | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
ended May 23, 2004 (the Report), which this certification
accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (4) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.                                                                                      

Dated: July 7, 2004
    
    /s/
    
    Kenneth L. HignettKenneth L. Hignett, Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary


19