alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6484.

#### Betsey Warren Lebbos, Petitioner v. Linda Schuette.

562 U.S. 1048, 131 S. Ct. 608,

178 L. Ed. 2d 443,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8952.

November 15, 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.
#### Paul Alicanti et al., Respondents, v William F. Bianco et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[767 NYS2d 815]—

*374In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants William F. Bianco and Bianco & Bianco appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an amended order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated July 25, 2002, as denied those branches of their motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first, second, and fifth causes of action asserted in the complaint.

Ordered that the amended order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the appellants’ motion which were to dismiss the first, second, and fifth causes of action asserted in the complaint are granted, and those causes of action are dismissed.

The statute of limitations in a legal malpractice action runs from the time of the alleged malpractice, not when it is discovered *(see McCoy v Feinman,*99 NY2d 295 [2002]; *Glamm v Allen,*57 NY2d 87 [1982]; *Kahn v Hart,*270 AD2d 231 [2000]). A client’s ignorance of the alleged wrong or injury has no impact upon when the cause of action accrues *(see McCoy v Feinman, supra; King v Albany County Pub. Defender’s Off.,*255 AD2d 770 [1998]).

In this case, the first and second causes of action purported to state legal malpractice claims against the appellants based on tort and contract theories, respectively. The appellants met their initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the applicable three-year statute of limitations expired before the commencement of this action *(see*CPLR 214 [6]; *Duran v Mendez,*277 AD2d 348 [2000]; *Savarese v Shatz,*273 AD2d 219 [2000]; *Assad v City of New York,*238 AD2d 456 [1997]; *Siegel v Wank,*183 AD2d 158 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of showing that their case falls within an exception to the statute of hmitations *(see Shumsky v Eisenstein,*96 NY2d 164 [2001]; *Duran v Mendez, supra; Savarese v Shatz, supra; Assad v City of New York, supra).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying those branches of the appellants’ motion which were to dismiss the first and second causes of action.

The Supreme Court also erred in denying that branch of the appellants’ motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s fifth cause of action, which, in effect, alleged that the appellants violated Judiciary Law § 487 *(see Henry v Brenner,*271 AD2d 647 [2000]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
# San Diego’s McVey celebrates 50 years of service

/ Published Nov. 12, 2015
SAN DIEGO, California, 
James E. McVey, a materials handler supervisor at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Diego, Calif., will celebrate a major accomplishment this month. He will have dedicated 50 years of his life to serving the United States of America. 
As a young American, McVey did what many young men did during the Vietnam era; he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. 

A radio-telegraph operator with the 1st Marine, 3rd Amphibious Tractor Battalion, McVey served two tours in Vietnam. His main function was to operate and keep the radiotelegraph equipment in working condition. He assisted in multiple operations, first in the Chu Lai area. During his second tour, the 3rd Amtracs relocated to support the Da Nang Area. 

Following his retirement in 1971, McVey made the decision to continue serving his country by entering the civil service. In the early years of his employment with the Navy Public Works Center he served as a labor union Vice President. “It is quite a learning process as you take on the challenge to represent bargaining unit personnel, as well as constant labor-management relations and negotiations.”

During his first 10 years of civil service, McVey worked full time while attending college through the GI Bill educational program in the evening. 

“My key to personal success has been my desire to learn and develop through self-improvement,” said McVey.

During the last five and a half years of his career, McVey has been employed by DLA. He was first employed with Aviation and then in 2012, due to realignment, his work center was converted to Distribution. 

“My years of federal service have allowed me to experience the satisfaction of knowing our military personnel are pleased with DLA’s constant support,” explained McVey. “The dedicated men and women of DLA are always striving to provide full support to our war fighters.”

“Mr. McVey’s can-do spirit instills confidence in our workforce,” said Greg Levardo, industrial support division director at DLA Distribution San Diego, Calif.

Having dedicated a majority of his life to his country, McVey describes his military and federal career as “one more way I can say I am supporting our U.S. Armed Forces. This is a form of dedication to our country, the United States of America.”
No. 10-6697.

#### Steve Northington, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1018, 131 S. Ct. 542,

178 L. Ed. 2d 398,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8378.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 919.
#### People v Romero

2d Dept: 143 AD3d 1003 (Queens)

denied 3/3/17 (Rivera, J.)
# DLA, Navy leaders discuss logistics, readiness during partnership meeting

/ Published Oct. 18, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency leaders and key members of the Navy discussed logistics, readiness and several other topics during a partnership meeting Oct. 11.

DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic and DLA Logistics Operations Director Navy Rear Adm. Doug Noble met with Navy leaders including Rear Adm. Ken Epps, commander of Naval Supply Systems Command. Representatives from DLA’s major subordinate commands also attended.

Topics discussed during the four-plus hour meeting included compliance and establishing agreements to work within the Treasury Department’s G-Invoicing program, auditability, subsistence support, material availability, and the transitioning of Navy fuel points from Naval Supply Systems Command to local commanders. There was also a presentation on the trilateral security partnership, known as AUKUS, between Australia, United Kingdom and the United States, and the sale of Virginia class submarines to Australia.

The meeting was an opportunity for DLA and Navy leaders to discuss the Navy’s key logistics issues and how DLA can help improve readiness, said Navy Capt. Patrick Kelly, DLA’s national accounts manager for the Navy.

“It’s the continued collaboration and communication between DLA and the service to ensure that we're working together to solve the issues that both the Navy and DLA face,” Kelly said.

The meeting led to a list of action items to be worked on over the next year, Kelly added.

“As DLA NAMs, our job is to make sure that the communication line stays open. If the service is having an issue, we're here to help the service and get the right DLA subject matter expert or MSC involved to help hopefully solve these problems,” he said.
#### Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Doing Business as America’s Servicing Company, Appellant, v Melida M. Pinargote, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[52 NYS3d 907]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated March 19, 2015, as denied those branches of its motion which were, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court dated September 24, 2013, which conditionally dismissed the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, and to restore the action to the calendar.

Ordered that the order dated March 19, 2015, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were, in effect, to vacate the order dated September 24, 2013, and to restore the action to the calendar are granted.

The plaintiff commenced this action to foreclose a mortgage. After the defendants failed to answer, the plaintiff obtained an order of reference dated December 17, 2007. In an order dated September 24, 2013, the Supreme Court conditionally dismissed the action for want of prosecution pursuant to CPLR 3216. The action was thereafter administratively dismissed on July 10, 2014. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, in effect, to vacate the conditional order of dismissal and to restore the action to the calendar. In an order dated March 19, 2015, the court denied the motion. We reverse insofar as appealed from.

CPLR 3216 permits dismissal of a party’s pleading where certain conditions precedent have been met. Here, issue was never joined and, thus, at least one such condition precedent was lacking *(see*CPLR 3216 [b] [1]). As a consequence, the Supreme Court was without authority to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3216 *(see Downey Sav. & Loan Assn., F.A. v Aribisala,*147 AD3d 911 [2017]; *U.S. Bank N.A. v Bassett,*137 AD3d 1109, 1110 [2016]).

Accordingly, those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were, in effect, to vacate the conditional order of dismissal dated September 24, 2013, and to restore the action to the calendar must be granted.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal, or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Chambers, J.P., Roman, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.

*1312Motion by the respondent Melida M. Pinargote to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kangs County, dated March 19, 2015, on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. By decision and order on motion dated November 30, 2015, the motion was held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied.
No. 10-6973.

#### Eddie James Pugh, IV, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1051, 131 S. Ct. 615,

178 L. Ed. 2d 447,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8834.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 386 Fed. Appx. 464.
No. 10-6072.

#### Roy Joe Ben Thurston, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 944, 131 S. Ct. 368,

178 L. Ed. 2d 237,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7541.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 752.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THERESA BROOKE, a married woman 

dealing with her sole and separate claim, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WESTCHASE MINI SUITES LLC, DBA 

Best Western Plus Thousand Oaks Inn, a 

California limited liability company, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-55855 

D.C. No. 2:22-cv-02943-MCS-PLA 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 18, 2023**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Theresa Brooke appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing for 

lack of standing her disability discrimination action alleging claims under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California’s Unruh Act. We have 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 7 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-55855 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. D’Lil v. Best W. Encina 

Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brooke’s ADA claim for lack of 

standing because Brooke failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that she 

planned to return to defendant’s hotel. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 

631 F.3d 939, 950 (9th Cir. 2011) (to establish Article III standing, an ADA 

plaintiff must show either an “inten[t] to return to a noncompliant accommodation” 

or that the noncompliant accommodation deterred the plaintiff from visiting and 

the plaintiff “plans to visit [the] noncompliant accommodation in the future”); see 

also Civ. Rts. Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. Hosp. Props. Tr., 867 F.3d 1093, 1100 (9th Cir. 

2017) (“[C]oncrete travel plans would be sufficient to show that a disabled plaintiff 

intends to visit a facility . . . .”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental 

jurisdiction over Brooke’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4); Vo v. 

Choi, 49 F.4th 1167, 1171-73 (9th Cir. 2022) (setting forth standard of review and 

explaining when a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh 

Act claims under § 1367(c)(4)).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2014282EN.01003602.xml

| 25.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 July 2014 — You-View.tv v OHIM — YouView TV (YouView+)

(Case T-480/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark YouView+ - Earlier Benelux figurative trade mark You View You-View.tv - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Concept of a ‘provision to the contrary’ - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

2014/C 282/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: You-View.tv (Anvers, Belgium) (represented by: S. Criel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: YouView TV Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 June 2013 (Case R 2112/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between You-View.tv and YouView TV Ltd.

| 2) | Dismisses the remainder of the heads of claim. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the remainder of the heads of claim.

| 3) | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 334, 23.11.2013.

1

---
June 10, 2015 

 

Mr. James Robesky 

710 N. 1850th Avenue 

Quincy, IL 62305 

Dear Mr. Robesky: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 19, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1787), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
# Matthew Sermon

/ Published Feb. 1, 2021

Matthew Sermon is the Executive Director of Program Executive Office Strategic Submarines. Previously, Sermon served as the Executive Director for Program Executive Office Columbia Class Submarine and as the Executive Director, Amphibious, Auxiliary and Sealift Office, Program Executive Office, Ships. In his current role, he provides executive leadership to the Columbia Class Submarine acquisition program and the In Service SSBN/SSGN program, while also being assigned responsibility for revitalization of the Submarine Industrial Base. In this portfolio, he provides enterprise leadership for more than 250 acquisition personnel and approximately $130 Billion in acquisition and sustainment programs.

Sermon entered the Senior Executive Service in February 2019, and has been in federal service for more than 20 years. He has served in a variety of key leadership positions throughout his career, including Deputy Program Manager for the Columbia Class Submarine program (2016-2019), a $100 billion DOD Major Defense Acquisition Program. During his tenure, he led the program through detail design, construction readiness, and significant sustainment planning activities. Before leading the Columbia Class, he was the Deputy Program Manager for the Zumwalt Class Destroyer (2014- 2016) during test, trials, and delivery of the lead ship (DDG 1000). Prior to DDG 1000, he was the Deputy Program Manager for International Fleet Support in the Naval Sea Systems Command’s Surface Warfare Directorate (2010- 2014), where was responsible for the management of more than $5 billion in Foreign Military Sales cases for more than 40 partner nations.

Other previous assignments include Principal Assistant Program Manager in the Support Ships, Boats, and Craft Program Office (PMS 325) in PEO Ships (2007-2010), where he led the $1.1 billion Egyptian Navy Missile Craft project while providing program management expertise for numerous other boat building projects.

Prior to starting in Navy civilian service, Sermon was a U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer (Nuclear). He received his Surface Warfare Officer qualification aboard USS Ramage (DDG 61). Additionally, Sermon served as nuclear engineering officer aboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) before leaving the uniformed Navy in 2004. He is a veteran of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom.

Sermon is a member of the Acquisition Professional Community and has a Level III Certification in Program Management. He holds Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act certifications in Production, Quality, and Manufacturing and Test & Evaluation, and has completed certification as a Project Management Professional (PMP). He received a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the United States Naval Academy in 1999, and a Master of Science degree in engineering management from The Catholic University of America in 2006. He is a 2012 graduate of the Defense Systems Management College’s Program Manager Course. During his distinguished federal service career, Mr. Sermon has received three Navy Civilian Meritorious Service Awards and one Navy Civilian Superior Service Award.
*April*5, *2017*

2017-Ohio-1238.]

2017-0341.

#### Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Verkhlin.

On certification of default. Mark Immanuel Yerkhlin, Attorney Registration No. 0083203, suspended from the practice of law for an interim period.
No. 09-10660.

#### Dennis Ervine, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 848, 131 S. Ct. 96,

178 L. Ed. 2d 60,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5999.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 47 Cal. 4th 745, 102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 786, 220 P.3d 820.
No. 10-5003.

#### Gilberto D. Hernandez, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1065, 131 S. Ct. 639,

178 L. Ed. 2d 485,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9146.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 530.
No. 10-281.

#### Jerome K. Lanning, et al., Petitioners v. Patrick Pilcher, et al.

562 U.S. 1062, 131 S. Ct. 646,

178 L. Ed. 2d 479,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9404.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

*480Same case below, 16 So. 3d 294.
No. 10-6835.

#### In re Allen Andrew Love, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1107, 131 S. Ct. 823,

178 L. Ed. 2d 580,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9670.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
2016-1761.

#### State v. Meeks.

Stark App. No. 2016CA00050, 2016-Ohio-7517.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Leap Wireless International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, S. Douglas Hutcheson, 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 to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    S. DOUGLAS HUTCHESONS. Douglas HutchesonChief Executive Officer and President


Date: November 7, 2008

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Leap Wireless International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Walter Z. Berger, Chief 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 to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/    WALTER Z. BERGERWalter Z. BergerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 7, 2008