alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nancyanne F. Humes, Appellant, v Michael T. Humes, Respondent.

[64 NYS3d 557]

Appeals by the plaintiff from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Maria S. Vazquez-Doles, J.), dated June 18, 2015, and (2) a judgment of divorce of that court dated April 4, 2016. The order denied the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the parties’ separation agreement and for an award of an attorney’s fee, and directed the entry of a judgment of divorce which incorporated, but did not merge, the separation agreement. The judgment of divorce, insofar as appealed from, was entered upon the order.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment of divorce is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment of divorce in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered *605on the appeal from the judgment of divorce *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

In this matrimonial action, the plaintiff moved to set aside the parties’ separation agreement on the grounds of overreaching and fraud, and for an award of an attorney’s fee. In an order dated June 18, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion and directed the entry of a judgment of divorce which incorporated, but did not merge, the separation agreement. A judgment of divorce was entered upon the order. The plaintiff appeals.

“An agreement between spouses which is fair on its face will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of unconscionability, or fraud, duress, overreaching, or other inequitable conduct” *(McKenna v McKenna,*121 AD3d 864, 865 [2014]; *see Christian v Christian,*42 NY2d 63, 73 [1977]; *Gardella v Remizov,*144 AD3d 977, 978-979 [2016]; *Hof v Hof,*131 AD3d 579, 579-580 [2015]; *Cioffi-Petrakis v Petrakis,*103 AD3d 766, 767 [2013]). “An agreement, however, is not unconscionable merely because, in retrospect, some of its provisions were improvident or one-sided” *(Ku v Huey Min Lee,*151 AD3d 1040, 1041 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Label v Label,*70 AD3d 898, 899 [2010]; *O’Lear v O’Lear,*235 AD2d 466 [1997]).

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to set aside the parties’ separation agreement, as she failed to demonstrate that the agreement, which was fair on its face, was the result of fraud or overreaching, or any other basis upon which the agreement could be set aside *(see Ku v Huey Min Lee,*151 AD3d at 1041; *Label v Label,*70 AD3d at 900).

The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in declining to award the plaintiff an attorney’s fee *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 237; *DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]; *Gottlieb v Gottlieb,*297 AD2d 620 [2002]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Dillon, J.R, Cohen, Connolly and Christopher, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6005.

#### Demarcus Fifer, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 943, 131 S. Ct. 365,

178 L. Ed. 2d 236,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7402.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 429.
# DLA Disposition Services scraps decommissioned ship

/ Published Jan. 4, 2016
New Orleans, Louisiana, 

A chapter in Navy and DLA Disposition Services history is ending in a trench dug off New Orleans’ Industrial Canal, less than three miles from the French Quarter.The remains of the destroyer USS Forrest Sherman litter the sides of the trench, and in mid-December only its half-submerged props and propeller shafts remained in the water. The ship had on June 2 reached New Orleans, where a DLA scrap contractor began tearing the 418-foot, 4,600-ton vessel to pieces. The scrap metal will be sold at auction, with the proceeds returned to the U.S. taxpayers.Commissioned in 1955, the Forrest Sherman was the namesake lead ship of the first post-WWII destroyer class. She sailed for 30 years before DoD sold her as scrap to a North Carolina firm in the 1990s. That company went bankrupt before it could destroy the vessel, and the U.S. Navy reacquired her. The service prepared to sink the destroyer during an exercise in 2001, but the ship got a stay of execution when a non-profit group petitioned Naval Sea Systems Command for permission to bring the Forrest Sherman to Delaware for use as a floating museum.But the group’s financing fell through, so in 2011 the ship was removed from museum hold. Before the vessel hit the scrap-auction block yet again, Naval History and Heritage Command personnel boarded her and pulled key items to use in rebuilding the bridge of a Cold War-era ship.The Forrest Sherman is the first ship scrapped through a DLA contract since the late 1990s. Nine Forrest Sherman-class ships are at the bottom of the sea, and three made the transition to museum status (including the ex-USS Barry, a display ship at the Washington Navy Yard that will also soon be destroyed). Out of all 18 in the class, the Forrest Sherman was the first built and the last to have its ultimate fate decided.
# DLA to hold Restoration Advisory Board meeting Jan. 11 in Chesterfield

/ Published Jan. 6, 2016
RICHMOND, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency officials from Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia will host a Restoration Advisory Board meeting at 7:30 p.m., Jan. 11, 2016 at the Bensley Community Center located at 2900 Drewry's Bluff Rd., North Chesterfield, Virginia 23237. The meeting is open to the public.   

As part of ongoing evaluation and cleanup, DLA has established a citizen advisory committee called a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB).  The RAB comprises members from the community, DLA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The meeting will cover the DLA Installation Support at Richmond, Environmental Office's ongoing groundwater testing results and remediation activities for operable units on center.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGISTER VOL. 62 • NO. 20 MAY 15,2015

DISTRICTDEPARTMENT OFTHEENVIRONMENT SUBMITTAL OF A NEGATIVEDECLARATION TO EPAAS A SIP REVISION

Public CommentPeriod and Hearing on Interstate TransportProvisions for the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006FineParticulateMatter Standards Notice is hereby giventhatapublic hearing willbe held on June 22, 2015, at 5:00p.m. in Room 555 at 1200 First Street, N.E., 5th Floor, in Washington, D.C. The District is proposing to submit a negative declaration to the U.S
. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the interstate transport of pollution to meet "infrastructure" requirements ofthe 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.s) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The District Department of the Environment (DDOE) will accept comments on the proposed negative declaration until the public hearing date on June 22, 2015. This hearing provides interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed negative declaration as well as the proposed submittal of the negative declaration to EPA as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. Once finalized, the negative declaration will be submitted to the EPA as a SIP Revision in accordancewith 40 C.F.R. Part 5l. The proposed negative declaration is available for public review during normal business hours at the offices ofthe District Department ofthe Environment (DDOE), 1200 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20002, and on-line at http://ddoe.dc.gov
. Interestedparties wishing to testify at this hearing must submitin writing theirnames, addresses, telephone numbers, and affiliation, ifany, to Mr. William Bolden at DDOE by 4:00p.m. on June 22, 2015. Interested parties may also submit written comments to Ms. Jessica Daniels, DDOE Air Quality Division, at 1200 First Street, NE, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20002, or by email at jessica.daniels@dc.gov. No written or email comments will be accepted after June 22, 2015. For more information or to find out ifthe public hearing has been canceled, contactMs. JessicaDaniels at 202-741-0862 orby email.

006156
MEMORANDUM 

To: Debbie Ottinger, U.S. EPA

From: MarianVan Pelt, Toby Krasney, ICF International

Date: May 20, 2008 

Re: ICF Research on U.S Other Anesthetics Industry 

Per your request, this memo summarizes ICF’s research on the anesthetics Sevoflurane, 

Isoflurane, and Desflurane. In summary, there are six primary producers in the United States. In 

addition, six additional companies were identified as suppliers or distributors. Production or 

capacity levels by corporation, and sales documents by gas were not found in our research. 

The table below summarizes the companies identified within the supply chain. 

Company Gas Descriptor 

Abbott Laboratories Sevoflurane (28523-86-6) Producer 

AirGas Sevoflurane (28523-86-6) Producer/Distributor 

Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Producer/Distributor 

Desflurane (57041-67-5) Producer/Distributor 

Baxter Healthcare Corporation Sevoflurane (28523-86-6) Producer 

Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Producer 

Desflurane (57041-67-5) Producer 

Halocarbon Corporation Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Producer 

MINRAD Incorporated Sevoflurane (28523-86-6) Producer/Distributor 

Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Producer/Distributor 

Rhodia Inc., Perfumery Performance & Agro Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Producer 

Aceto Corporation Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Distributor 

AK Scientific, Inc. Sevoflurane (28523-86-6) Distributor 

Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Distributor 

LGM Pharmaceuticals Inc Sevoflurane (28523-86-6) Distributor 

Matrix Scientific Sevoflurane (28523-86-6) Supplier 

Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Supplier 

Desflurane (57041-67-5) Supplier 

Minneapolis Oxygen Company Sevoflurane (28523-86-6) Supplier 

Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Supplier 

Desflurane (57041-67-5) Supplier 

 Xenos BioResources Sevoflurane (28523-86-6) Supplier

Isoflurane (26675-46-7) Supplier 

Two of the companies identified in the above table also produce an additional fluorinated 

anesthetic: MINRAD incorporated produces Enflurane, which is an isomer of isoflurane, and 

Rhodia, Inc. produces Halothane which has a bromine atom.

Please feel free to contact Toby Krasney (tkrasney@icfi.com) or Marian Van Pelt 

(mvanpelt@icfi.com) with comments or questions.
# MDE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard. Baltimore MD 21230 410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101
Martin O ' Malley Governor Anthony G. Brown Lieutenant Governor

Donald S

. Welsh Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Dear Mr. Welsh : 

# JUN - 42007 Shari T. Wilson Secretary Robert M. Summers , Ph.D. Deputy Secretary

The purpose ofthis letter is to submit copies ofthe Cecil County, Maryland 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan and Base Year Inventory (SIP# 07-05). This air quality plan shows how Cecil County, Maryland expects to meet the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). A public hearing for this submission was held in Elkton, Maryland on May 24, 2007. All required administrative procedures were followed throughout the hearing process. If you have any questions concerning these submissions , please feel free to call George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr. , Director of the Air and Radiation Management Administration at (410) 537-3255. Very truly yours,

Shari T. Wilson Secretary Enclosures

cc: Judy Katz, Director, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III George (Tad) Aburn, Jr. , Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration, MDE Diane Franks , Program Manager, Air Quality Planning, MDE Brian Hug, Deputy Program Manager, Air Quality Planning, MDE**~** Recycled Paper www.mde.state.md.us TTY U sers 1-800

-735-2258 Via Maryland Rel a y Service
# Yokosuka distribution center’s Sasebo detachment wins Patricia A. Kuntz Distribution Center of the Year award

/ Published Aug. 23, 2016
YOKOSUKA, Japan, 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Yokosuka, Japan, Sasebo Detachment, has been awarded the Global Distribution Excellence: Patricia A. Kuntz Distribution Center of the Year award in the small category for its support to the warfighter in the Pacific Command Area of Responsibility.

The detachment processed almost 20,000 Material Release Orders, including more than 12,000 high priority shipments during the reporting period.  Although closed on weekends and holidays, the team sill averaged less than 22 hours of processing time.

As the central receiving and shipping point to Commander, Fleet Activities Sasebo, the detachment played a significant role in ensuring warfighter readiness. The team averages more than 6,900 receipts per month, including 6,300 for local deliver and Direct Turn Over customers, and another 600 for stock.  The transportation team services eight homeported ships, several transiting units, and 51 shore customers.

During a recent USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) battle group deployment, Sasebo was designated as the AOR logistical support location.  During this surge of warfighter material, the detachment’s Material Processing Center and delivery teams processed over 620 pallets of material consisting of more than 3,800 line items.  

The team also coordinated the movement of two 20-foot containers from Sasebo to Singapore in support of expeditionary maintenance for the USS Fort Worth (LCS 3).

During the reporting period, members of the detachment participated in a community relations event in downtown Sasebo.  Two Navy Petty Officers donned their dress blues and participated in a community parade to show U.S. support for the start of the Sasebo city-view safety campaign.  Several hundred people from around the area cheered and saluted the sailors, showing the detachment’s great partnership with the Japanese community.

The team also had its first opportunity in its 15-year history to introduce DLA’s mission and operations to Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force Ship Repair and Supply Facility Sasebo personnel. This visit produced priceless and rewarding outcomes for each organization through the exchange of ideas and processes, built a strong bond between the two organizations, and strengthened the partnership of the two countries.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2603 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure that the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands is eligible for certain Small Business 

Administration programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2019 

Mr. SABLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure that the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is eligible 

for certain Small Business Administration programs, 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 ‘‘Northern Mariana Is5 lands Small Business Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2603 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 

2 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS FOR CERTAIN 

3 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION PRO4 GRAMS. 

5 The Small Business Act is amended— 

6 (1) in section 7(m)(7)(B) (15 U.S.C. 

7 636(m)(7)(B))— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘and American Samoa’’ 

9 each place such term appears and inserting 

10 ‘‘American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 

11 the Northern Mariana Islands’’; and 

(B) in clause (i)(I)(bb), by striking ‘‘1 12 ⁄55’’ 

and inserting ‘‘1 13 ⁄56’’; 

14 (2) in section 21(a) (15 U.S.C. 648(a))— 

15 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before 

16 ‘‘The Administration shall require’’ the fol17 lowing new sentence: ‘‘The previous sentence 

18 shall not apply to an applicant that has its 

19 principal office located in the Commonwealth of 

20 the Northern Mariana Islands.’’; and 

21 (B) in paragraph (4)(C)(ix), by striking 

22 ‘‘and American Samoa’’ and inserting ‘‘Amer23 ican Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 

24 Northern Mariana Islands’’; and 

25 (3) in section 34(a)(9) (15 U.S.C. 657d(a)(9)), 

26 by striking ‘‘and American Samoa’’ and inserting 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2603 IH

1 ‘‘American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 

2 Northern Mariana Islands’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 1, 2014

s0325 

# Order

Clerk April 1, 2014

148576

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 148576

COA: 318777

Wayne CC: 13

- 001653

- FC

CYNTHIA ILENE FLEMING,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2015007EN.01003202.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2014 — Evonik Oil Additives v OHIM — BRB International (VISCOTECH)

(Case T-138/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VISCOTECH - Earlier national and international word marks VISCOPLEX - Evidence of the territorial extent and validity of an earlier international trade mark - Rule 19(2) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) 2868/95 - Relative grounds of refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 007/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evonik Oil Additives GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: BRB International BV (Ittervoort, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 December 2012 (Case R 1565/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Evonik Degussa GmbH and BRB International BV

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evonik Oil Additives GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evonik Oil Additives GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1

---
#### People v Garcia

1st Dept: 146 AD3d 503 (Bronx)

denied 3/9/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Texas Tax Solutions, LLC

. ,

Appellant

,

v.

City of El Paso

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 126

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2014DTX0412 )

O R D E R

On July 27, 2018 this Court issued an order for mediation referral. The order

required the parties to make any objection to referral within ten days of the order. On August 2

,

2018 Appellees timely filed their objection s . The Court finds Appellees’ objection s persuasive.

Therefore the Court ORDERS this appeal to continue, the appellate timetable suspension

is lifted and the Record is now due in this Court on or before September 1, 201 8 . If no

Reporter’s Record will be filed for this appeal then the Appellant’s brief shall be due in this

Court thirty days after the Clerk’s R ecord is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 nd day of August , 201 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
No. 09-10943.

#### James Earl Kittrell, Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 856, 131 S. Ct. 123,

178 L. Ed. 2d 75,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5965.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 473.
EXHIBIT 10.5

                    CHINAGROWTH NORTH ACQUISITION CORPORATION




                                                               ________ __, 2006

Global Vestor Capital Partners, LLC
1818 Canggong Road, Fengxian
Shanghai Chemical Industry Park
Shanghai, China 201417


Gentlemen:

         This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the
effective date ("Effective Date") of the registration statement for the initial
public offering ("IPO") of the securities of ChinaGrowth North Acquisition
Corporation ("ChinaGrowth North") and continuing until the earlier of the
consummation by ChinaGrowth North of a "Business Combination" or ChinaGrowth
North's liquidation (as described in ChinaGrowth North's IPO prospectus) (the
"Termination Date"), Global Vestor Capital Partners, LLC shall make available to
ChinaGrowth North certain office space, utilities, administrative, technology
and secretarial services as may be required by ChinaGrowth North from time to
time. In exchange therefor, ChinaGrowth North shall pay Global Vestor Capital
Partners, LLC up to $7,500 per month on the Effective Date and continuing
monthly thereafter until the Termination Date.

                                      Very truly yours,


                                      CHINAGROWTH NORTH
                                       ACQUISITION CORPORATION



                                      By: ________________________________
                                          Name:
                                          Title:

AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:

GLOBAL VESTOR CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC


By: _____________________________
    Name:
    Title:
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Independent Auditor’s Consent**

 

The Board of Directors 

American Dental Partners, Inc.: 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements(Nos.: 333-50605, 333-59075, 333-59077, 333-59079, 333-34522, 333-98545 and 333-107795) on Form S-8 of our report dated February 25, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of American Dental Partners, Inc., as of December 31, 2001 and2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K ofAmerican Dental Partners, Inc. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 17, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v. ONE (1) JERSEY HOLD 'EM MACHINE SERIAL NO. DDGPA0003, ONE (1) RED, WHITE, & BLUE REEL GAMING MACHINE SERIAL NO. DDGPA0002 (IN RE: 2 GAMING MACHINES, DDGPA0003 & DDGLA0002) (MARTIN CAPLAN), Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 59 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 23rd day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.