alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Onewest Bank, FSB, Appellant, v Lillian Tarantola, Also Known as Lillian J. Tarantola, et al., Defendants.

[64 NYS3d 903]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Gross-man, J.), dated October 29, 2014, which, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and the cancellation of a notice of pendency filed against the subject property.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements.

In this action to foreclose a mortgage, the Supreme Court, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and the cancellation of a notice of pendency filed against the subject property. “A court’s power to dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, is to be used sparingly and only when extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant dismissal” *(Onewest Bank, FSB v Fernandez,*112 AD3d 681, 682 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Alexander,*124 AD3d 838, 839 [2015]; *Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Meah,*120 AD3d 465, 466 [2014]; *Bank of N.Y. v Cepeda,*120 AD3d 451, 452-453 [2014]). Here, there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and the cancellation of the notice of pendency *(see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Sobanke,*101 AD3d 1065 [2012]; *Bank of Am., N.A. v Bah,*95 AD3d 1150, 1151-1152 [2012]; *U.S. Bank, N.A. v Guichardo,*90 AD3d 1032, 1033 [2011]). The plaintiff’s delay in submitting an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale was not a sufficient ground upon which to direct the dismissal of the complaint and cancellation of the notice of pendency *(see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Guichardo,*90 AD3d at 1033; *see also CitiMortgage, Inc. v Carter,*140 AD3d 1663, 1664 [2016]; *CitiMortgage, Inc. v Petragnani,*137 AD3d 1688, 1688 [2016]). Accordingly, the court erred in, sua sponte, directing the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and the cancellation of the notice of pendency *(see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v*
      *712
      *Shahmela Shah Sookoo,*92 AD3d 705 [2012]; *U.S. Bank, N.A. v Emmanuel,*83 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2011]; *HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Valentin,*72 AD3d 1027 [2010]).

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Connolly and Christopher, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  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 Lexon Technologies, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the AReport@), I, Kenneth J. Eaken, Principal Executive Officer and 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.   Date: December 18, 2006 /S/Kenneth J. Eaken Principal Executive Officer Principal Financial Officer
No. 10-5386.

#### Michael Curtis Reynolds, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1125, 131 S. Ct. 853,

178 L. Ed. 2d 583,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9629.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 918, 131 S. Ct. 289, 178 L. Ed. 2d 189, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7524.
Theodore Roosevelt NP - Worst - Total Extinction Theodore Roosevelt NP - Worst - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extinction

THRO1 NIA 2000 21 62.43 THRO1 NIA 2000 21 13.61

THRO1 NIA 2001 22 62.37 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 17.7

THRO1 NIA 2002 19 57.06 THRO1 NIA 2002 19 10.7

THRO1 NIA 2003 21 65.18 THRO1 NIA 2003 21 10.34

THRO1 NIA 2004 23 61.07 THRO1 NIA 2004 23 16.35

308.11 Total 68.7 Total

61.622 Average 13.74 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 22%

Theodore Roosevelt NP - Best - Total Extinction Theodore Roosevelt NP - Best - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extinction

THRO1 NIA 2000 21 22.97 THRO1 NIA 2000 21 1.57

THRO1 NIA 2001 22 21.94 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 1.43

THRO1 NIA 2002 18 21.93 THRO1 NIA 2002 18 1.85

THRO1 NIA 2003 20 21.25 THRO1 NIA 2003 20 1.58

THRO1 NIA 2004 22 21.23 THRO1 NIA 2004 22 1.17

109.32 Total 7.6 Total

21.864 Average 1.52 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 7%

Lostwood - Worst - Total Extinction Lostwood - Worst - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extinction

LOST1 NIA 2000 19 75.25 LOST1 NIA 2000 19 15.96

LOST1 NIA 2001 24 80.22 LOST1 NIA 2001 24 29.33

LOST1 NIA 2002 24 67.55 LOST1 NIA 2002 24 23.33

LOST1 NIA 2003 24 65.55 LOST1 NIA 2003 24 19.4

LOST1 NIA 2004 24 81.67 LOST1 NIA 2004 24 26.71

370.24 Total 114.73 Total

74.048 Average 22.946 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 31%

Lostwood - Best - Total Extinction Lostwood - Best - NO3 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

NO3

Extinction

LOST1 NIA 2000 18 24.98 LOST1 NIA 2000 18 2.42

LOST1 NIA 2001 23 22.83 LOST1 NIA 2001 23 1.65

LOST1 NIA 2002 23 22.22 LOST1 NIA 2002 23 1.78

LOST1 NIA 2003 23 22.19 LOST1 NIA 2003 23 1.65

LOST1 NIA 2004 23 22.22 LOST1 NIA 2004 23 1.8

114.44 Total 9.3 Total

22.888 Average 1.86 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Nitrate Share of Particle Light Extinction 8%
# DLA Installation Support at Susquehanna generates donations for Feds Feeds Families campaign with “CANstruction” challenge

/ Published Aug. 30, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
To energize its employees about the 2016 Feds Feed Families campaign and increase donations, DLA Installation Support at Susquehanna devised a challenge for the team to put its creativity- and generosity- to the test.

The brainchild of David Potter, maintenance leader, the “CANstruction” contest was launched in early August, and encouraged participants to form artwork out of donated canned goods and other food stuffs that will ultimately go to the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank.  

Each participating team opted to construct art related to their field of expertise and tailored donated items to fit within that theme. 

In the case of the American flag, created by Security and Emergency Services, only Campbell's soup with its red and white label would work to complete the motif; 210 cans of it, to be exact.  

A working HVAC unit was created by the employees in the HVAC shop, and a computer created by the supply team depicted their day-to-day ordering operations. 

Plumbers constructed a commode which did not flush but had a working lid, and maintenance workers constructed a replica DeWalt drill with a working drill bit made out of Pringles cans. 

The winning design, chosen by a panel of judges, was the Maintenance Shop’s DeWalt drill.  Together, teammates Michael Henry, Gregory Rada, Stan Hemler, Edward Kleckner, Bradley Blaisdell, Joseph Kreider, Robert Eldridge and Stephen Alleman donated nearly 200 food items through the creation of their functional art.

In total, over 900 items were donated as a result of the challenge, all of which will be given to the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank.  

The Feds Feed Families campaign, which kicked off in June, runs through August 31.  The goal is to replenish area food banks whose stocks are normally depleted this time of year.  Collection barrels are still available throughout the installation and employees are encouraged to bring non-perishable food items and place them in the barrels.
No. 10-7544.

#### Jaycee Williams, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1118, 131 S. Ct. 846,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9721.

178 L. Ed. 2d 575,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 927.
#5 ®3

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON STANDARDS FOR

RESIDENTIAL FURNACES AND BOILERS

U.S. Department of Energy

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

Polaris Room

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004

September 29, 2004

Purpose

The Department will present its methodology for the Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANOPR) analysis and example results. The Department also will explain

its plans for the remaining analysis-the analysis to support the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking-and will seek input from stakeholders on its planned methodologies,

assumptions, and data sources.

Agenda

9:00-9 :05 am Welcome

9:05-9:15 am Introduction and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15-9:30 am Rulemaking Overview

Mohammed Khan

This is an overview of the analyses in the rulemaking, the

tools DOE uses to generate results for each analysis, and

the issues on which DOE would like input during today's

meeting.

9:30-10:00 am Comments from Participants

This is an open forum for participants to make a brief

summary statement and/or identify their key issues

regarding the ANOPR analyses, methods, and data.

10:00-10:30 am Engineering Analysis

Graham Stevens and Alex Lekov

This is a summary presentation and discussion regarding

the approach used and factors considered for the market

and technology assessment, screening analysis, and

engineering analysis, and a characterization of the results.

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 56.3
#56.3

10:30-10:45 am Break

10:45-11:30 am Engineering Analysis Continued

11:30 am-12:00 pm Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Jim Lutz

This is a summary presentation and discussion regarding

the approach used and factors considered for the life-cycle

cost analysis, energy use, markups, and payback period

analysis, and a characterization of the results.

12:00-1:00 pm

1:00-1:45 pm

1:45-2:45 pm

Lunch (on your own)

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Continued

National Impact Analysis

Alex Lekov

This is a summary presentation and discussion of issues

regarding the approach used and factors considered for the

national energy savings, net present value, and shipments

analysis, and a characterization of the results.

2:45-3:15 pm Discussion of Other Issues

This is an open forum to discuss any remaining questions

or issues identified by participants.

3:15-3:30 pm Break

3:30-4 :30 pm NOPR Analyses and Next Steps

Jim McMahon, Mike Rivest and Mohammed Khan

This is a summary presentation and discussion of issues

regarding the planned revisions to the ANOPR analyses,

and the planned approach and factors that will be

considered for the manufacturer, utility, employment, and

regulatory impact analyses, and the environmental

assessment.

4:30-5:00 pm Final Discussions

This is an opportunity to discuss any remaining issues.

5:00 pm Adjourn

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 56.3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1964

JUDY CONNELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HOSPITALITY RESOURCES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a

Captain D's; JIM CORNELL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-96-927-4-22)

Submitted: April 7, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Alexander Gaines, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant.

Dean B. Bell, BETHEA, JORDAN & GRIFFIN, P.A., Hilton Head Island,

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the

magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granting summary

judgment to Defendant Hospitality Resources, Inc., in Appellant's

suit alleging sexual harassment and hostile environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 2000e-2 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). The action remains pending as

to Defendant Jim Conley, erroneously listed as Jim Cornell in the

complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

(1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
# Staffers in Qatar have been working hard to lay boneyard residents to rest

/ Published Oct. 27, 2016
Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, 
Operation “Big Wheel” has been adding big numbers to scrap operations in Qatar with the arrival of 55 vehicles from the installation “boneyard” were scrapped onsite along with three truckloads of washers, dryers, bed frames and other miscellaneous scrap from Al Udeid Air Base.

The influx of vehicles ended a gap of more than a year that field reports indicate was the result of strict restrictions for disposal operations in Qatar. The reports show that DLA Disposition Services team members worked closely with Qatari Customs, the 379th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron and a local scrap contractor to execute a plan that would please all parties involved. In fact, DLA Disposition Services has already received 88 more vehicles and established a timeline with the 379th ELRS for the other 200 vehicles at the boneyard.

“All the credit goes to Frankie Rivera and Michael Loomis,” said Barbara Johnson, who replaced Rivera as the site lead in Qatar after he returned to the United States.

Before departing, Rivera wrote that both parties are eager to accomplish the mission by the end of December. Army watercraft will play a part in moving a number of the larger vehicles to Kuwait where there are better capabilities to dispose of the items. The progress made in disposing of the vehicles has been very pleasing to Air Force Lt. Col. Michael Sander, the 379th ELRS commander.

In his feedback to DLA, Sander wrote how “the removal of these vehicles has been a priority project for our squadron for more than two years. I am very thankful to the DLA-DS Team and their aggressive approach to clear a long-time challenge for the base.  Well done DLA!”

For the DLA team at Qatar, Johnson said it was a great feeling that gave everyone a strong sense of accomplishment.

“This just shows the level of skill, dedication and pride that the military and civilians have for the mission here at Al Udeid,” Rivera said. “All persons involved have worked long days in extreme temperatures and conditions to accomplish these challenging tasks.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00229-CV

IN RE Linda LEESER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 17, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 11, 2013, Relator Linda Leeser filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This 

court has determined that Leeser is not entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the petition is 

DENIED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006-CI-14491, styled In the Interest of S.O.L., pending in the 150th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Janet Littlejohn, presiding. However, the order 

complained of was signed by the Honorable Eugenia “Genie” Wright presiding judge of County Court No. 7, Bexar 

County, Texas.
#### Com. v. Weaver 30

05/11/2016

967 MAL (2015)

30

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 502
# C_2014052EN.01004703.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/47

---

Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Catalunya Banc v Commission

(Case T-705/13)

2014/C 52/92

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Catalunya Banc, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---
No. 10-316.

#### Robert J. Gagalis, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 964, 131 S. Ct. 482,

178 L. Ed. 2d 292,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8002.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
From: Sadler Randy [mailto:randy.sadler@argillon.com] 

Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juni 2008 08:15 

To: Hans Hartenstein 

Cc: Khalaf Cindy R 

Subject: Argillon Tail-end SCR 

Importance: High 

On behalf of Cindy Khalaf - 

Hans, 

Further to our phone call, as far as I know, Argillon has more tail end experience than any other SCR catalyst 

manufacturer and, as you noted, we also have experience with high dust, German lignite SCRs. Argillon also won 

the first US lignite SCR catalyst project (Luminant Oak Grove 1 & 2) and provided commercial guarantees. These 

units are not in service yet. So, yes, we consider ourselves able to answer these questions competently. 

Consider a tail-end SCR technically feasible? 

Yes, we consider this configuration to be technically feasible. As you know, tail end SCRs are often used when there 

are significant catalyst poisons in a flue gas stream. A wet scrubber can remove most of these poisons, resulting in 

very low catalyst deactivation. 

Recommend or require additional pilot testing? 

For a high dust configuration, we would say definitely. For a tail-end configuration, we would say no. We would 

only like to see a flue gas analysis for conditions at the inlet to the SCR in order to predict deactivation rate. 

Be willing to provide commercial guarantees for catalyst performance (activity, pressure drop and SO2/SO3 

conversion rate) and lifetime? If so what would these be? 

Generally speaking, yes, we would provide guarantees for deNOx & slip as specified (not to exceed 90% or 2 ppm), 

24k hours life, SO2 conversion rate - low but value TBD, pressure drop - value TBD. Of course we would have to 

see the technical specifications before being more specific. In addition, tail-end SCRs perform much longer, so 

depending on the application specifics, customer, etc., we may decide to extend the operating life guarantees. This is 

a commercial decision and will be reviewed on a case-by case basis. 

If you have any more questions, please let me know. 

Regards, 

Cindy 

Cindy R. Khalaf 

Argillon LLC 

President 

Tel: 678.341.7520 

Mobile: 770.331.9571 

FAX: 678.341.7509 

Email: cindy.khalaf@argillon.com

5895 Shiloh Road, Ste. 101 

Alpharetta, GA 30005
If cigarettes are 

your friend, you need 

a better friend.

Sharon, age 58

Illinois

Christine, age 55 

Pennsylvania

Sharon and Christine thought cigarettes would always be 

there for them. They both smoked and they both got cancer. 

Cigarettes hurt them. What kind of friend would do that? 

You can quit smoking. For free help, call

1-800-QUIT-NOW. #CDCTips

Print Only Document
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Balance Sheet
     and Income Statement of GARC II and is qualified in its entirety by 
     reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   other
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         2000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                     2024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2129
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  94<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                46
<INCOME-TAX>                                   21
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            25
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   25
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Not applicable because GARC has an unclassified Balance Sheet.
<F2>This value represents cost and expenses on hte Income Statement.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>