alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alex Sinclair, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[57 NYS3d 901]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Phyllis Orlikoff Flug, J.), entered June 17, 2015. The order denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer for failing to comply with discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is within the broad discretion of the motion court *(see Mears v Long,*149 AD3d 823 [2017]; *Parker Waichman, LLP v Laraia,*131 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2015]; *Lazar, Sanders, Thaler & Assoc., LLP v Lazar,*131 AD3d 1133 [2015]; *Wolf v Flowers,*122 AD3d 728 [2014]). The striking of a pleading may be appropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands or court-ordered discovery is willful and contumacious *(see Mears v Long,*149 AD3d 823 [2017]; *Lucas v Stam,*147 AD3d 921 [2017]; *Shah v Oral Cancer Prevention Intl., Inc.,*138 AD3d 722, 724 [2016]; *Lazar, Sanders, Thaler & Assoc., LLP v Lazar,*131 AD3d at 1133; *Brandenburg v County of Rockland Sewer Dist. #1, State of N.Y.,*127 AD3d 680, 681 [2015]). “The willful and contumacious character of a party’s conduct can be inferred from either the repeated failure to respond to demands or *877comply with discovery orders, without demonstrating a reasonable excuse for these failures, or the failure to comply with court-ordered discovery over an extended period of time” *(Wolf v Flowers,*122 AD3d at 729; *see Mears v Long,*149 AD3d 823 [2017]; *Lazar, Sanders, Thaler & Assoc., LLP v Lazar,*131 AD3d at 1134; *Brandenburg v County of Rockland Sewer Dist. #1, State of N.Y.,*127 AD3d at 681).

While there is no dispute that the defendants have failed to provide certain discovery, given the defendants’ explanation for the delay, we find that the defendants’ conduct was not willful and contumacious, and the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendants’ answer.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.
#### Francis McHugh, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[55 NYS3d 29]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered May 4, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answers for discovery violations, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to strike the answer of defendants the City of New York and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff allegedly was injured while working in a tunnel during construction of the Second Avenue Subway. He commenced an action against the City and the MTA in 2012, and those defendants failed to produce a witness for deposition, *562even after the issuance of three so-ordered discovery stipulations. In 2014, plaintiff commenced an action against defendant Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., which was consolidated with his action against the City and the MTA. After defendants failed to comply with two additional so-ordered discovery stipulations requiring them to produce witnesses for deposition, plaintiff moved to, among other things, strike their answers. That motion was resolved in July 2015 by a so-ordered stipulation providing for production of “[a] [d]efendant” witness “with knowledge,” with plaintiff reserving the right to depose additional defendants. Defendants eventually produced an employee of Parsons for deposition. The witness, however, was admittedly unprepared, could not answer a great number of questions posed to him, and could not answer any questions respecting the City and the MTA, or ownership of the tunnel and the ground on which it was built.

After the City and the MTA refused plaintiff’s request that they produce an additional witness with knowledge, plaintiff moved to, among other things, strike their answer. The motion court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to strike their answer. The City’s and the MTA’s unexplained noncompliance with a series of court-ordered disclosure mandates over a period of nearly three years constituted willful and contumacious behavior, warranting the striking of their answer *(see Henderson-Jones v City of New York,*87 AD3d 498, 504 [1st Dept 2011]; *Elias v City of New York,*87 AD3d 513, 514 [1st Dept 2011]). Defendants’ belated production of “a witness” for deposition on behalf of all three defendants failed to satisfy the requirements of the July 2015 order, since the witness produced was unprepared and had knowledge only on behalf of defendant Parsons. While the court thus providently exercised its discretion in declining to sanction Parsons, the order on appeal directing the City and the MTA yet again to produce a witness with knowledge was insufficient. Given the City’s and the MTA’s prolonged and willful failure to provide a “timely response and one that evinces a good-faith effort to address the requests meaningfully” *(Kihl v Pfeffer,*94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]), the striking of their answer is appropriate.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
No. 09-10925.

#### In re Vernon D. Carroll, Sr., Petitioner.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 120,

178 L. Ed. 2d 261,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7850.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2022

No. 04-22-00428-CR

Brent Eugene BAILEY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR7724

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 14, 2022, the district clerk filed a portion of the clerk’s record, which contains 

the trial court’s certification, stating this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right 

of appeal.” We therefore ORDER the district clerk to file, by July 25, 2022, an electronic 

clerk’s record containing the following documents:

1. All pre-trial orders and the related pre-trial motions;

2. The Court Admonishments, the Waiver, Consent to Stipulation of Testimony and 

Stipulations, and all other documents relating to the defendant’s plea bargain;

3. The judgment;

4. All post-judgment motions and orders;

5. The notice of appeal;

6. The Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.

All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court.
_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of July, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
No. 10-7119.

#### Efrem Rahoman Douglas, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1074, 131 S. Ct. 672,

178 L. Ed. 2d 500,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9065.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 10-592.

#### Michael D. Goodson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1102, 131 S. Ct. 805,

178 L. Ed. 2d 546,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9552.

December 6, 2010.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 358 Fed. Appx. 533.
# Susquehanna installation announced as National Night Out Military Award winner

/ Published Dec. 11, 2015
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 

The National Association of Town Watch has named Defense Distribution Center, Susquehanna, the 2015 National Night Out Military Award winner.  The installation also won the award in 2012. 

The honor was the result of the installation’s efforts during its Aug. 4 National Night Out celebration, which invited the local community to come together to promote neighborhood camaraderie through police-community partnerships, featuring games, entertainment and refreshments. 

The Susquehanna installation is one of many across the nation that celebrates the annual event.  According to the National Association of Town Watch, this summer’s 32nd Annual National Night Out was the largest ever, involving 38.3 million people in 16,728 communities in all 50 states, U. S. territories and military bases worldwide.  

Susquehanna was chosen for the award based on criteria including: overall campaign quality, neighborhood participation, law enforcement involvement, media and promotional campaign, special events and overall post project report. 

“This achievement is direct result of the hard work and dedication by all of the committee members, volunteers and attendees that helped make this event a success,” said DLA Susquehanna Chief of Police Douglas Schraeder.
# C_2015236EN.01003802.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — BP v FRA

(Case T-658/13) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period - Right to be heard - Reassignment to another department until expiry of the contract - Assessment of the facts - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 236/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: BP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. Kjærum, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2013 in BP v FRA (F-38/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:138), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

BP

FRA

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2013 in BP v FRA (F-38/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:138) in so far as it dismissed the application brought against the decision of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), contained in a letter of 27 February 2012, not to renew BP’s contract of service as a member of the contract staff; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2013 in BP v FRA (F-38/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:138) in so far as it dismissed the application brought against the decision of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), contained in a letter of 27 February 2012, not to renew BP’s contract of service as a member of the contract staff;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of the FRA, contained in a letter of 27 February 2012, not to renew BP’s contract of service as a member of the contract staff; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of the FRA, contained in a letter of 27 February 2012, not to renew BP’s contract of service as a member of the contract staff;

| 3. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders BP and the FRA to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders BP and the FRA to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6781

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MELVIN ANTONIO BURL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:99-cr-00176-RGD-1)

Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Antonio Burl, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Antonio Burl appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Burl, No.

2:99-cr-00176-RGD-1 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 2, 2008, entered Apr. 3,

2008). We deny Burl’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
**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 Patch International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Thomas K. Rouse, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: 
              October 12, 2007
            /s/
                Thomas K. RouseThomas
                K. Rouse, Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
No. 10-176.

#### Tracey Young, Petitioner v. Louisiana.

562 U.S. 1044, 131 S. Ct. 597,

178 L. Ed. 2d 434,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8859.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.

Same case below, 35 So. 3d 1042.
#### In the Matter of Johnathan Johnson, Petitioner, v Carmen R. Velasquez, Respondent.

[56 NYS3d 468]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent, Carmen R. Velasquez, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, from staying an action entitled *Johnson v R & G Gen. Constr. Co.,*pending in that court under index No. 20061/12, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear

legal right to the relief sought.

Eng, P.J., Roman, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.L., a child, * From the 326th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 9569-CX.

No. 11-20-00094-CV * September 17, 2020

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Constar International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Hoffman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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
results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  |                                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 31, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    MICHAEL J.
HOFFMAN
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                           |  | Michael J. Hoffman President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350 Certification of
the Chief Financial Officer

I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.

/s/ MICHAEL SMITHMichael Smith
March 15, 2010


---



QuickLinks
No. 10-7392.

#### Solomon Smith, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1097, 131 S. Ct. 810,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9517.

178 L. Ed. 2d 542,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-5231.

#### Dennis Adkins, Petitioner v. Scott Semple, Warden.

562 U.S. 953, 131 S. Ct. 262,

178 L. Ed. 2d 252,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7785.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 564.
No. 10-5875.

#### Debra Robertson, Petitioner v. Cree, Incorporated.

562 U.S. 940, 131 S. Ct. 354,

178 L. Ed. 2d 229,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7432.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 317.
No. 10-413.

#### Gabriel R. Contreras, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1005, 131 S. Ct. 539,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8489.

178 L. Ed. 2d 375,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied.

Same case below, 69 M.J. 120.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          16,871
<SECURITIES>                                     9,321
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                       761
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,216
<PP&E>                                          32,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,319
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 795,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          122,014
<BONDS>                                        505,012
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           336
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   795,080
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,348
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,930
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   456
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,227
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,319)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,908
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,908
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford Cudjoe, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 711]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (James Hubert, J.), rendered February 26, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Although we find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.