alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George Papaioannou, Appellant, *v.*Sirocco Supper Club, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 16, 1973.

*Asarch & Altomerianos, P. C. (Benjamin Asarch*of counsel), for appellant. *Marvin J. Goldstein*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The court below, holding that there were no damages sustained by plaintiff, did not rule on the question of liability. Scrutiny of the record impels the conclusion that a written renewal contract for six months was entered into whereby defendant employed plaintiff as a singer. It is also clear that defendant breached the renewal contract by terminating plaintiff’s employment after a five-week period.

*1002Regarding damages, it has been aptly observed that ‘ ‘ the burden of proof is on the master to show either that the servant has found employment elsewhere, or that other employment has been offered, or, at least, that other employment might have been found, the servant is not bound to show affirmatively, as part of his case, that other employment was sought for and could not be found ” (Clark, New York Law of Damages, § 309). The illness of a servant does not *ipso facto*end his engagement unless so specified in the agreement. It only gives the employer the option to terminate it under appropriate circumstances. In the case at bar, plaintiff’s illness occurred *after*termination by the employer of the renewal contract which contract is silent as to the effect of illness on the part of the servant. It is clear that the employment was not terminated by the plaintiff’s illness. Defendant having thus breached the renewal contract may not assert a privilege open to it only had it kept the agreement, namely a benefit equivalent to the discharge of the plaintiff for inability to render the service. This would contravene the fundamental principle of law that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong. (See *Bassett*v. *French,*10 Misc. 672.)

“ The general doctrine of avoidable consequences applies to the measure of damages in actions for breach of contract. Thus, the damages awarded to the nondefaulting party to a contract will be determined and measured as though that party had made reasonable efforts to avoid the losses resulting from the default * * * If the court determines that he has not acted reasonably to avoid damages, the actual award of damages for the breach will be reduced by the amount which could have been reasonably avoided. On the other hand, if the court decides that the nondefaulting party has made reasonable efforts to minimize defendant’s damages, the award will not be limited by the doctrine of avoidable consequences ”. (22 Am. Jur. 2d, Damages, § 33; see 5 Corbin, Contracts, § 1039). The nature and circumstances of plaintiff’s alleged illness are germane to the application or nonapplication of this doctrine. *(Marx*v. *New York Ribbon Co.,*95 Misc. 551.)

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, judgment directed for plaintiff, and case remitted to court below for the assessment of plaintiff’s damages.

Concur — Fine, J. P., Lupiano and Quinn, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           The unusual nature of recent snowpack declines in the North American Cordillera      

      January 1, 2011    

In western North America, snowpack has declined in recent decades, and further losses are projected through the 21st century. Here, we evaluate the uniqueness of recent declines using snowpack reconstructions from 66 tree-ring chronologies in key runoff-generating areas of the Colorado, Columbia, and Missouri River drainages. Over the past millennium, late 20th century snowpack reductions are almost unprecedented in magnitude across the northern Rocky Mountains and in their north-south synchrony across the cordillera. Both the snowpack declines and their synchrony result from unparalleled springtime warming that is due to positive reinforcement of the anthropogenic warming by decadal variability. The increasing role of warming on large-scale snowpack variability and trends foreshadows fundamental impacts on streamflow and water supplies across the western United States.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Asteroids

Filters

              - science_science(7)
              - products_publications(69)
              - (-)multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(16)
              - multimedia_image-141771(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(2)
              - multimedia_image-204460(4)
              - multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(4)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)
              - california(4)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        January 26, 2017        PubTalk 1/2017 — Unusual sources of tsunamis

Presentations and Events        January 23, 2020        PubTalk 1/2020 — The Rise of the USGS in Space Exploration

Podcasts        February 5, 2013        Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater

Presentations and Events        June 30, 2005        PubTalk — Tsunamis

Presentations and Events        August 31, 2017        2017 August Evening Public Lecture — Roving on Mars
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

STUART ROY MILLER,

Debtor.

/

Case No.: 20-22497-EPK

Chapter 7

AGREED ORDER GRANTING AGREED EX PARTE MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ADVERSARY COMPLAINT 

AGAINST DEBTOR TO DETERMINE DEBT NON-DISCHARGEABLE 

UNDER 11 U.S.C. §523(a) [ECF 47]

THIS MATTER came before the Court in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, upon 

the Agreed Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Adversary Complaint Against Debtor 

to Determine Debt Non-Dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a) filed by Chad S. Paiva (the 

“Trustee”), as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Denials Recovery Group, Inc. (the “Motion”) [ECF 47].

The Court, having reviewed the Motion, having noted that the Movant has complied with 

Erik P. Kimball, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 19, 2021.

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 48 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 2
Local Rule 9013-1(C)(1) and (6), and the Court having noted that the parties agree to the entry of 

this order, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises does, 

ORDER:

1. The Agreed Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Adversary Complaint 

against Debtor to Determine Debt Non-Dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a) filed by Trustee 

Chad S. Paiva, is GRANTED.

2. Trustee Chad S. Paiva shall have up through and including March 2, 2021 to file an 

adversary complaint against the Debtor, Stuart Roy Miller, to determine debt non-dischargeable 

under 11 U.S.C. §523(a).

###

Submitted by:

Submitted by:

G. Steven Fender, Esq.

Fender, Bolling, and Paiva, P.A.

P.O. Box 1545

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33302

Telephone: (407) 810-2458

steven.fender@fender-law.com

Mr. Fender is instructed to serve copies of this Order on all parties in interest and to file a certificate 

of service that he has done so.

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 48 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 2
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

29829

Vol. 70, No. 99

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–51671; File No. SR–Amex–

2005–033] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; 

American Stock Exchange LCC; Notice 

of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and 

Amendment No. 1 Thereto To Amend 

Rule 918—ANTE(a)(4) Regarding 

Closing Rotations

Correction 

In notice document E5–2380 

beginning on page 25629 in the issue of 

Friday, May 13, 2005, make the 

following correction: 

On page 25630, in the second column, 

under the heading ‘‘Paper Comments’’, 

in the second paragraph, in the last line, 

‘‘June 6, 2005’’ should read ‘‘June 3, 

2005’’.

[FR Doc. Z5–2380 Filed 5–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–51664; File No. SR–Phlx–

2005–24] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice 

of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness 

of Proposed Rule Change by the 

Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. 

Relating to Disclaimer of Warranties by 

SIG Indices, LLLP and by Standard and 

Poor’s

Correction 

In notice document E5–2382 

beginning on page 25641 in the issue of 

Friday, May 13, 2005, make the 

following correction: 

On page 25643, in the first column, in 

the second line from the top, ‘‘June 6, 

2005’’ should read ‘‘June 3, 2005’’.

[FR Doc. Z5–2382 Filed 5–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

[Release No. 34–51665; File No. SR–NYSE–

2005–23] 

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New 

York Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of 

Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of 

a Proposed Rule Change To Seek 

Permanent Approval of the Pilot 

Relating to the Allocation Policy for 

Trading of Exchange-Traded Funds on 

an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis 

(NYSE Rule 103B)

Correction 

In notice document E5–2383 

beginning on page 25637 in the issue of 

Friday, May 13, 2005, make the 

following correction: 

On page 25639, in the third column, 

under the heading ‘‘Paper comments’’, 

in the second paragraph, in the last line, 

‘‘June 6, 2005’’ should read ‘‘June 3, 

2005’’.

[FR Doc. Z5–2383 Filed 5–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
Saili SALAZAR, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM and Alfredo Rivero, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1887

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           A practical solution: The Anthropocene is a geological event, not a formal epoch      

      November 15, 2021    

The Anthropocene has yet to be defined in a way that is functional both to the international geological community and to the broader fields of environmental and social sciences. Formally defining the Anthropocene as a chronostratigraphical series and geochronological epoch with a precise global start date would drastically reduce the Anthropocene’s utility across disciplines. Instead, we propose the Anthropocene be defined as a geological event, thereby facilitating a robust geological definition linked with a scholarly framework more useful to and congruent with the many disciplines engaging with human-environment interactions. Unlike formal epochal definitions, geological events can recognize the spatial and temporal heterogeneity and diverse social and environmental processes that interact to produce anthropogenic global environmental changes. Consequently, an Anthropocene Event would incorporate a far broader range of transformative human cultural practices and would be more readily applicable across academic fields than an Anthropocene Epoch, while still enabling a robust stratigraphic characterization.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Lucy Edwards

##### Scientist Emeritus

Florence Bascom Geoscience Center

leedward@usgs.gov

703-648-5272

## Related Content

#### Lucy Edwards

##### Scientist Emeritus

Florence Bascom Geoscience Center

leedward@usgs.gov

703-648-5272

### Contact

####               Florence Bascom Geoscience Center          

12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States

703-648-5953
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Thomas B. Sabol, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Suntron Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 31, 2006   /s/ Thomas B. Sabol         Thomas B. Sabol    *Chief Financial Officer*    *(Principal Financial Officer)*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH E. WIGGINS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

J. F. SALAZAR,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-16091

D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01175-OWW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Keith E. Wiggins appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Wiggins contends that the 2006 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings

FILED

JUN 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16091

(“Board”) denying his parole was not supported by “some evidence” of current

dangerousness and, therefore, violated his due process rights. The only federal

right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is

what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case

correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (per curiam). 

Because Wiggins raises no procedural challenges, we affirm. 

Wiggins’s motions for judicial notice, received on November 23, 2009, and

February 22, 2010, respectively, are deemed filed and are denied as moot. His

suggestion for supplemental briefing on the impact of Cooke is also denied. 

See Pearson v. Muntz, No. 08-55728, 2011 WL 1238007, at *5 (9th Cir. April 5,

2011).

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 Medical Staffing Solutions, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates 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  June 6, 2007                        By:    /s/ Brajnandan B. Sahay
                                                   -----------------------
                                            Name:  Brajnandan B. Sahay
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer/
                                                   Principal Financial 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 Medical Staffing
Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Medical Staffing Solutions, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register,

should it be determined that publication is needed:

Applicant Jeff Pennell. seeks an exemption from the following rules:

14 C.F.R. §21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R 45.23(b);14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113( a) & (b);91.7 (a); 91.9(b)

(2);91.103(b);91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a);91.203(a) and (b); 91.405 (a); 91.407 (a) (1); 91.409 (a)

(2); 91.409 (a) (2) and 91.417 (a) & (b) to operate commercially a small unmanned vehicle (55lbs or less).

Approval of exemptions allowing commercial operations of sUASs, will enhance safety by reducing risk.

Conventional operations, using jet or piston power aircraft, operate at extremely low altitudes just feet

from the subjects being filmed and in extreme proximity to people and structures and present the risks

associated with vehicles that weigh in the neighborhood of 4,000lbs, carrying large amounts of jet A or

other fuel. Such aircraft must fly to and from the operational location. In contrast, a sUAS weighing fewer

than 55 lbs. and powered by batteries eliminates virtually all of that risk given the reduced mass and lack

of combustible fuel carried on board. The sUAS is carried to the operation site and not flown. The sUAS

will carry no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks associated with manned

aircraft flights. The operation of small UASs, weighting less than 55 lbs., conducted in the strict conditions

outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant of the exemptions requested

herein, including exempting the applicant from the requirements of Part 21 and allowing commercial operations. These lightweight aircraft operate at slow speeds, close to the ground, and in a sterile environment and, as a result, are far safer than conventional operations conducted with turbine helicopters operating in close proximity to the ground and people.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6368

ROLAND MATHIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DR. IRENE WASYLYK; GARLAND R. WARD, PA

- C; ARH APPALACHIAN REGIONAL HEALTH CARE HOSPITAL , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Beckley

. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 5:18

- cv
- 01487 )

Submitted : August 15, 2019 Decided: September 3, 2019

Before AGEE and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Roland Mathis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roland Mathis, a federal prisoner, appeal s the district court’s order a do pting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and d ismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Based on his allegations, the magistrate j udge found that he was seeking damages from privately employed personnel for conduct for which he would have a cause of action under state law; and there was no Bivens liability. Mathis did not timely file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s rec ommendation. On appeal, he argues that his failure was due to his mail being delayed. However, even assuming he did not waive his right to appellate review of the district court’s order accepting the recommendation, he fails to show any
error in the reco mmendation or the order dismissing his complaint. See Minneci v. Pollard , 565 U.S. 118, 131 (2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district cour t’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 on Form 10-Q of Alamosa (Delaware), Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David E. Sharbutt, as Chairman 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, to the best of 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ David E. Sharbutt
----------------------------------------
Name:    David E. Sharbutt
Title:   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Date:    November 12, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```