alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Nicole Marie Mongitore, Respondent, v Jesse A. Linz, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 899]—

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Eisman, J.), dated January 14, 2011, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate an order of protection of the same court dated August 17, 2010, entered upon his default in appearing at a hearing.

Ordered that the order dated January 14, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A party seeking to vacate an order entered on default must establish that there was a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Matter*
      *1131
      *of Gustave-Francois v Francois,*88 AD3d 881 [2011]; *Matter of Coates v Lee,*32 AD3d 539 [2006]; *Matter of Vanessa F.,*9 AD3d 464 [2004]). Here, the father had failed to appear for a hearing on the mother’s family offense petition. In moving to vacate the resulting order of protection entered on his default, the father provided a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear, but no potentially meritorious defense to the petition. His conclusory assertion that he had a meritorious defense was insufficient *(see Matter of Atkin v Atkin,*55 AD3d 905 [2008]). The father’s remaining contention with respect to the Family Court’s denial of his motion is without merit. Consequently, the Family Court did not err in denying the father’s motion *(see Fekete v Camp Skwere,*16 AD3d 544, 545 [2005]; *Matter of Iris R.,*295 AD2d 521, 522 [2002]; *Matter of Shirley C.,*145 AD2d 631, 632 [1988]). Mastro, A.P.J., Balkin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET OF REGENT ASSISTED LIVING, INC., AS OF DECEMBER 31,
1997, AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS IN THE
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,865,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  278,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,367,064
<PP&E>                                      70,386,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                 566,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,703,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,669,591
<BONDS>                                     51,450,545
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,349,841
<COMMON>                                    10,808,703
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,241,287)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,703,773
<SALES>                                     13,751,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,958,282
<CGS>                                       10,689,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,094,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             136,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,864,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,877
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,877,654)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,877,654)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.97)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, John Mutch, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Peregrine Systems, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



| |  | Date:                                                         |  | November 3, 2004
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
| |  | /s/JOHN MUTCHJohn Mutch
President and Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2



                    Certification of Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
               (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer of Dahua Inc. (the "Company") do 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, based
upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended
December 31, 2005 of the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

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

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.



By: /s/ Hua Meng
 ---------------------------------
Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer


December 20, 2006
Exhibit
15.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-137598 on Form F-3 of our report dated May 9, 2008, relating to the
financial statements of Nordic American Tanker Shipping Limited and Management’s
annual report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Nordic American Tanker Shipping
Limited for the year ended December 31, 2007.
 
 
 \s\
Deloitte AS
 
 Oslo,
Norway
 May 9,
2008








SK 01318
0002 882179
# C_2019288EN.01005901.xml

| 26.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/59

---

Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)

(Case T-402/19)

(2019/C 288/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Freude an Farbe — International registration designating the European Union No 1 316 404

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 in Case R 1434/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Christopher Earl COTTRELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee, and Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 08-6501.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 14, 2009.

Christopher Earl Cottrell, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Earl Cottrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cottrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny, as moot, Cottrell’s “Motion to Object to District Court’s Nonruling on a Certificate of Appealability.” We also deny Cottrell’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
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

I, Scott Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of Radix Marine, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter
ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)); and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to IBiz Technology Corp. and will be retained by Radix Marine, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Dated: May 24, 2005

                                    /s/ Scott Edwards
                                    -----------------------
                                    Scott Edwards
                                    Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7190

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANE CLARK, a/k/a Darrell Howell, a/k/a Paul Grier, a/k/a 

Oral Merchant,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:03-cr-00079-HEH-RCY-7; 3:12-cv-00554-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dane Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Elizabeth 

Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dane Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2019399EN.01006701.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/67

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-62/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by A. Jaume and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Almashreq Investment Fund shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Almashreq Investment Fund shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


David E. Hershberg, Chief Executive Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., and
Andrew C. Melfi, Chief Financial Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Globecomm
Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2003 (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 that information
contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Globecomm Systems Inc.



Date:  November 14, 2003           By: /s/ DAVID E. HERSHBERG
                                   --------------------------
                                   David E. Hershberg
                                   Chairman of the Board and
                                   Chief Executive Officer


                                   By:  /s/ ANDREW C. MELFI
                                   ---------------------------
                                   Andrew C. Melfi
                                   Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
                                   and Treasurer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Globecomm Systems Inc. and will be retained by Globecomm Systems
Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

                                       32
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service

          - 36 CFR Parts 60 and 63
          - [NPS-WASO-NHPA-32134; PPWONRADE2, PMP00EI05.YP0000]
          - RIN 1024-AE49

# AGENCY:

National Park Service; Interior.

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; withdrawal.

# SUMMARY:

The National Park Service withdraws the proposed rule that would have revised regulations governing the listing of properties in the National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service no longer intends to prepare a final rule and has terminated the rulemaking process.

# DATES:

The March 1, 2019 proposed rule (84 FR 6996) is withdrawn as of July 28, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Joy Beasley, Associate Director, Cultural Resources Partnerships and Science & Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, NPS (WASO), (202) 354-6991,                         *joy_beasley@nps.gov.*

Shannon A. Estenoz,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 2021-15944 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
#### ARGENTINO PELLEGRINO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. MONAHAN McCANN STONE COMPANY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Argued May 24, 1960

Decided June 6, 1960.

*Mr. Isidor Kalisch*argued the cause for the appellant.

*Mr. Aaron Gordon*argued the cause for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of Judge Price in the court below.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Burling, Jacobs, Erancis, Proctoe, Hall and Schettino — 7.

*For reversal*— None.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ST EP HEN J . OD EL L, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. F E DE R AL B UR E AU OF IN V E S T IG A T IO N ; S E A T T L E P A C IF IC UN I VE R S I T Y, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 35660 D. C . No . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 1 6 5 - R AJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R i c ha r d A . J one s , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r25, 2011 ** B e f o r e : T R O T T , G O U L D , a n dR A W L I N S O N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . S t e phe n J . O de l l appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ryj udgm e nt a n dd is m is s a l o r d e rin h is a c tio n a lle g in g s ta te la w c la im s a g a in s t S e a ttle P a c if ic U ni ve r s i ty( “ S P U ” ) a nd aF e de r a l T ortC l a i m s A c t( “ F T C A ” ) c l a i m a ga i ns tthe 

# FI LED NO V 01 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 35660 2 F e d e r a l B u r e auo f

I n v e s tig a tio n ( “F B I ” ) . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o b o th ag r a n t o f s u m m a ryju d g e m e n t, U n iv e rs a l H

e a lth Se rvs . , I nc . v . T hom ps on , 363 F . 3d 1013, 1019 ( 9th C i r . 2004) , a nd adi s m i s s a l f or la c ko f s u b je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n , Kr us o v . I nt s . T e l. & T e l. C or p. , 872 F . 2d 1416, 1 4 2 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) . W e a f f i rm. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yg r a n t e ds u mmaryj u d g me n to n O d e l l ’ s t o rtc l a i ms a g a in s t S P U b e c au s e th e c la im s w e r e b a rr e db yth e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . See W as h. R ev. C od e § 4. 16 . 10 0(1). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed O del l ’ s F T C A cl ai m for l ac k o f s ubj ec t m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on be c aus e O de l l f a i l e d t o f i l e a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve c l a i m be f or e f i l i ng th is a c tio n . See 28 U . S . C . §§ 24 01 (b), 26 75 (a ); M arleyv. U

ni ted States , 567 F . 3d 10 30 , 10 34 -37 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). W e do notc ons i de rO de l l ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on ap p e a l. See Sm i th v. M

a rsh , 19 4 F . 3d 10 45 , 10 52 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). O del l ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, the undersigned Jack (J.D.) Draper,
President and Chief Executive Officer of FIRSTPLUS Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




1.   The Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (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.


|Dated: March 31,
2006 | /s/ Jack
(J.D.) Draper Jack (J.D.) Draper President and Chief Executive Officer Principal Accounting Officer
|--------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---