alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Florence M. Barna, Appellant, v Steven M. Barna, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 116]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated July 31, 1998, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered July 23, 1999, which, *inter alia,*denied those branches of her cross motion which were for an award of interest and reimbursement for alleged losses on her portion of an investment account maintained by the parties, for arrears of certain expenses which the defendant allegedly was directed to pay pursuant to an order of the same court, dated July 24, 1996, awarding her maintenance pendente lite, and for a revaluation of the parties’ real property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The stipulation of settlement entered into by the parties in open court constituted a contract which should be enforced according to its terms. Since there was no proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to an award of interest *(see, Wilson v Neppell,*253 AD2d 493; *Torsiello v Torsiello,*188 AD2d 523; *Standley v Standley,*83 AD2d 863). The Supreme Court also properly determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement for losses, or for interest attributable to the delay in distributing certain assets.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs claim to be reimbursed for certain of her expenses, which she claims are due pursuant to the pendente lite order of maintenance. Arrears due under a pendente lite order may be recovered after a final judgment of divorce, even if the judgment is entered upon a stipulation *(see, Greenberg v Greenberg,*218 AD2d 558, 559). Public policy considerations require that a party who *442fails to comply with a pendente lite order should not be relieved of his or her obligations *(see, Greenberg v Greenberg, supra).*However, the parties may waive arrears due under such an order in their stipulation *(see, Greenberg v Greenberg, supra).*Here, the defendant did not violate the pendente lite order. Rather, the plaintiff is raising additional claims for reimbursement which would first require a factual determination that they are, in fact, covered by the pendente lite order. However, the stipulation specifically provides that “[tjhere is a waiver of maintenance. There will be no support or alimony under this agreement.” It is apparent that the parties did not contemplate the adjudication of new claims for reimbursement of expenses once they entered into the stipulation. Rather, the parties intended that the stipulation constitute the final resolution of the controversy between them. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim under the pendente lite order was properly denied.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
No. 09-9445.

#### Ronald Cooper, Petitioner v. Michigan Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1098, 130 S. Ct. 2398,

176 L. Ed. 2d 777,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3484.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
IN RE: Olander R. BYNUM

No. 109P17-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

Olander R. Bynum, For Bynum, Olander R.

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 21st of February 2019 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5173 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to suspend the Medicare 

prescription drug late enrollment penalty during 2006. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2006 

Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. GERLACH) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to suspend 

the Medicare prescription drug late enrollment penalty 

during 2006. 

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 ‘‘Suspension of Medi5 care Prescription Drug Late Enrollment Penalty Act of 

6 2006’’. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5173 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG 

2 LATE ENROLLMENT PENALTY DURING 2006. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860D–13(b)(3)(B) of 

4 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–113(b)(3)(B)) 

5 is amended by inserting ‘‘(after December 2006)’’ after 

6 ‘‘any month’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact9 ment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 

10 and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–173). 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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

I, Peter Schulhof, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer of Delbrook Corporation (the Company), hereby 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:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company,
        for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2003, and to which this certification
        is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
        Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Quarterly Report
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                

| | By:    | /s/ Peter Schulhof     
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Peter Schulhof         
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| |        | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | December 15, 2003      

---
STATE v. COPLEY

195P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 23, 2019

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for Copley, Chad Cameron.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*308The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of May 2019 by the State for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of May 2019."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DEVIN ROUSE,

Petitioner

v.

PHILA. COMMON PLEAS COURT, 

RETIRED JUDGE KATHYRN S. LEWIS,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 128 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2017, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Action in Mandamus is DENIED. The 

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
# C_2016490EN.01001901.xml

| 30.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/19

---

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 June 2016 to 30 June 2016

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1))

1

(2016/C 490/07)

—   Modification of a marketing authorisation (Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council): Accepted

Modification of a marketing authorisation

Accepted

| Date of the decision | Name of the medicinal product | Holder of the marketing authorization | Number of the entry in the Community Register | Date of notification |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.6.2016 | Nobivac Myxo-RHD | Intervet International B.V.
  Wim de Körverstraat 35, NL-5831 AN Boxmeer, Nederland | EU/2/11/132 | 23.6.2016 |

Date of the decision

Name of the medicinal product

Holder of the marketing authorization

Number of the entry in the Community Register

Date of notification

21.6.2016

Nobivac Myxo-RHD

Intervet International B.V.

Wim de Körverstraat 35, NL-5831 AN Boxmeer, Nederland

EU/2/11/132

23.6.2016

Anyone wishing to consult the public assessment report on the medicinal products in question and the decisions relating thereto is invited to contact:

| European Medicines Agency |
| --- |
| 30 Churchill Place |
| Canary Wharf |
| London E14 5EU |
| United Kingdom |

European Medicines Agency

30 Churchill Place

Canary Wharf

London E14 5EU

United Kingdom

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

1

---
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 United Companies Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.


Date:    November 12, 2004       UNITED COMPANIES CORPORATION

                                  By:  /S/ Robert M. Carmichael
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                           Robert M. Carmichael
                                           Chief Financial Officer and
                                           Principal Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to United Companies
Corporation and will be retained by United Companies Corporation and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ORANGE COUNTY, EX REL., Justinea LACY, Plaintiff, v. Aitor CANUP, Defendant.

No. COA18-1139

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 7, 2019

AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED IN PART. REMANDED.
No. 09-10159.

#### Cecil Wampler, Petitioner v. United States.

560 U.S. 916, 130 S. Ct. 3304,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1205,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4086.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 361 Fed. Appx. 490.
STATE of North Carolina v. Lamarquis Letron SMALLWOOD

No. COA18-578

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 16, 2019

DISMISSED.
Print	

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ODNI News Release No. 32-23

December 18, 2023

 

#### ODNI Releases Intelligence Community Assessment ofForeign Threats to the 2022 U.S. Elections

 

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) today released the declassified Intelligence Community Assessment of Foreign Threats to the 2022 U.S. Elections. Coordinated across the Intelligence Community (IC), the assessment addresses the intentions and efforts of foreign actors to influence or interfere with the 2022 U.S. elections. Within 45 days of the 2022 U.S. elections, ODNI completed and distributed the classified version of this report pursuant to Executive Order 13848.

 

“We share our assessment and the accompanying material to help inform the American public about foreign influence efforts, including attempts by foreign actors to induce friction and undermine confidence in the electoral process that underpins our democracy,” said Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines. “As global barriers to entry lower and accessibility rises, such influence efforts remain a continuing challenge for our country, and an informed understanding of the problem can serve as one defense.”

 

In addition to the declassified Intelligence Community Assessment, the accompanying National Intelligence Council Memorandum, Other Countries’ Activities During the 2022 Election Cycle, provides added insights.

 

The release of these materials is accompanied by a joint declassified report from the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security that evaluates the impact of foreign interference efforts on the security and integrity of U.S. election infrastructure, per Executive Order 13848.

 

###
ODNIHeader2




Print
  The core mission of the ODNI is to lead the IC in intelligence integration, forging a community that delivers the most insightful intelligence possible. That means effectively operating as one team: synchronizing collection, analysis and counterintelligence so that they are fused. This integration is the key to ensuring national policymakers receive timely and accurate analysis from the IC to make educated decisions. Mission Lead the Intelligence Community by driving integration, collaboration, and innovation under a shared vision that advances national security priorities and embodies our nation's democratic principles and values. Vision A world made more secure and prosperous through unparalleled, integrated intelligence. Values EXCELLENCE

We lead boldly and act decisively
We focus on what is important
We seek and retain the best talent
We serve the American people and ensure every resource we direct results in value to the NationCOURAGE

We innovate, imagine, seek out, and pursue new possibilities
We speak truth to power
We consider all aspects of risk
We anticipate, embrace, and drive changeRESPECT

We promote and foster diversity and an environment of inclusion
We treat everyone fairly and with dignity
We act in humility, seeking candid opinions and embracing differences of thought
We exercise transparency without jeopardizing intelligence capabilitiesINTEGRITY

We protect and defend the Constitution, and comply with the laws of the United States
We are honest, ethical, and trustworthy
We do the right thing all the time and act in objective and unbiased ways
We put mission before individual success
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ___________ 

No. 22-50158

___________ 

B.W., a minor, by next friends M.W. and B.W., formerly known 

herein as Jon AISD Doe,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Austin Independent School District,

Defendant—Appellee.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:20-CV-750 

______________________________ 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion January 9, 2023, 22-50158, 2023 WL 128948)

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Jones, Smith, Stewart, 

Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, 

Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson, and Douglas,

Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 27, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 22-50158

2

A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for 

rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service 

and not disqualified having voted in favor,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en 

banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will 

specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. Pursuant to 

5thCircuit Rule 41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated January 9, 2023, is 

VACATED.
BEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

________________________________________ )

Application of )

)

NORWEGIAN AIR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED )

) Docket No. OST

- 2013

- 0204

for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 4010 9 and )

a foreign air carrier permit pursuant to )

49 U.S.C. § 41301 (U

. S

. - EU Open Skies) )

_________________________________________ )

JOINT DECLARATION OF JOHN BYERLY AND DANIEL CALLEJA

The attached Joint Declaration of John Byerly and Danie l Calleja is hereby

entered into Docket No. OST

- 2013

- 0204 on behalf of the undersigned and Daniel

Calleja.

Respectfully submitted,

John Byerly

1718 Eutaw Place

Baltimore, MD 21217

Tel: 410.383.8448

E

- mail: jrb1718@gmail.com

August 21 , 2014JOINT DECLARATION OF JOHN BYERLY AND DAN IEL CALLEJA

( see attached )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on August 21 , 2014

, a true and correct copy of the

Joint Declaration of John Byerly and Daniel Calleja was served by electronic mail on the

individuals identified below:

romanow@pillsburylaw.com

peter.nelson@pillsburylaw.com

dan.weiss@united.com

dan.weiss@united .com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com

rpommer@ atlasair.com

russell.bailey@alpa.org

jonathan.cohen@alpa.org

edw@ttd.org

clytle@portoakland.com

kgeor ge@broward.org

mrichardson@swapa.org

robert.wirick@aa.com

francis.heil@aa.com

h oward.kass@ aa .com

info@airlineinfo.com

john.allen@faa.gov

anita.mosner@hklaw.com

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com

nssparks@fedex.com

gbleopard@fedex.com

dberg@airlines.org

jcasey@airlin es.org

kglatz@airlines.org

cc@eurocockpit.be

ejames@jamhoff.com

EngleTS @state.gov

sshur@traveltech.org

eugene.alford@trade.gov

Matthew.Baldwin@ec.europa.eu

Emmanuelle.Maire@ec.europa.eu

David.Batchelor@sesarju.eu

Ottar.Ostnes@sd.dep.no

John.Hanlon@ELFAA.c om

paul.gretch@dot.gov

Robert.Finamore@dot.gov

Charles.Leocha@travelersunited.org

keith@washingtonairports.com

pruden@asta.org

rdow@ustravel.org

/s/ John Byerly

John Byerly
In the MATTER OF: A.R.A., P.Z.A., Z.K.A.

No. 122P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 1, 2019

Christopher M. Watford, Attorney at Law, for Akers, Terri Lynn.

Charles E. Wilson, Jr., Attorney at Law, Shelby, for Cleveland County Department of Social Services.

Sydney J. Batch, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Akers, Aaron.

William L. Esser, IV, Attorney at Law, Charlotte.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Respondent-Mother on the 8th of April 2019 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"The petition for discretionary review prior to a determination of the North Carolina Court of Appeals is Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of May 2019.

By further order of the Court in conference, this matter is now consolidated with Supreme Court File Number 65A19, In re: A.R.A., P.Z.A, Z.K.A, and all further filings shall be made in Supreme Court File Number 65A19."
STATE of North Carolina v. David Malcolm SYDNOR

No. COA18-589

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 21, 2019

NO ERROR.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 333-222812) pertaining to the 2018 Equity Incentive Plan of Colony NorthStar Credit Real Estate, Inc. of our report dated March 23, 2018, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of ColonyNorthStar Credit Real Estate, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Colony NorthStar Credit Real Estate, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

March 23, 2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF APRIL 3, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 3, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED
IN FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 2, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,498
<INVENTORY>                                     39,330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,802
<PP&E>                                          39,268
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,625
<BONDS>                                         75,616
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,509
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                    (25,087)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,196
<SALES>                                         41,481
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,481
<CGS>                                           23,814
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (135)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (710)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (710)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,428)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>