alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ronald M. CHILDRESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-2408.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 7, 2010.

Decided: Aug. 10, 2011.

Everett J. Mercer, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Terri Hearn Bailey, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald M. Childress appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss his claims against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2671-2680 (West 2006 & Supp.2010). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible *788error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See Childress v. United States,*No. 3:08-cv-03922-RJC (D.S.C. Oct. 30, 2009). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 00075
- CR

Enoch David Castillo
- Quiroz , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. CR2019
- 329 , THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief was originally due May 4, 2022

. After this Court granted multiple motions requesting an extension of time to file his brief, appellant’s bri ef w as due October 4, 2022

. In granting the most recent extension, this Court advised counsel that no further extensions would be granted and that his failure to file a brief would result in the referral
of th e case to the trial court for a hearing under Rul e 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. To date, the brief has not been tendered for filing and is overdue.

The appeal is abated and remanded to the trial court. The trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant de sire s to prosecute this appeal and, if so, whether
counsel has aband oned this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). The court shall make appropriate written findings and recommendations. See id. R. 38.8(b)(2), (3). If necessary, the2

court shall appo i nt substitute counsel who will effectively represent appellant in this appeal. Following the hearing, which shall be transcribed, the trial court shall order the appropriate supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records

— including all findings and order s

— to b e prepared
and forwarded to this Court no later than December 9 , 2022

. See id. R. 38.8(b) (3)

.

It is so ordered November 9, 2022

.

Before Justices Goodwin, B aker, and Kelly
Abated and Remanded
Filed: November 9, 2022
Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15961]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11471]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror'' 
Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror'' at 
the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, New York, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural 
significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display 
within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. 
I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#96e5f3f5e2fff9f8a4a2a3afd6e5e2f7e2f3b8f1f9e0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="95e6f0f6e1fcfafba7a1a0acd5e6e1f4e1f0bbf2fae3">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Matthew R. Lussenhop,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-15961 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Robert R. Weiss, Appellant, v Donald J. Salamone, Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In this action on a promissory note, plaintiff contends that Special Term erred in denying his motions for partial summary judgment and for dismissal of various defenses and counterclaims. We disagree. Defendant’s fourth, fifth and sixth defenses and counterclaims are properly asserted in defense to plaintiff’s action and preclude granting plaintiff summary judgment. Plaintiff, as a mere holder of the note, took the instrument subject to all defenses that would be available in an action on a simple contract, including the defense of failure *1010of consideration (UCC 3-306 [b], [c]). The gravamen of defendant’s claims and defenses is that plaintiff acted in a manner which rendered defendant’s shares of the corporation valueless, that plaintiff thus breached an implied covenant of good faith not to impair the value of the consideration given by him, and that plaintiff’s breach of contract justified defendant in suspending his payments on the note. These are claims that may be asserted as defenses to a contract action and are not barred by the parol evidence rule. The note is not an integrated agreement but is referable to an alleged oral promise by plaintiff to convey corporate shares to defendant. Where only part of a contract has been reduced to a writing, parol evidence is admissible to complete the agreement *(Cooper v Payne,*186 NY 334, 337-338; *see generally,*Richardson, Evidence § 614 [Prince 10th ed]).

Defendant is entitled to prosecute his counterclaims in his own name. The fact that an act may constitute a wrong to a corporation does not bar a stockholder from obtaining individual redress where the act also constitutes a separate and distinct wrong to the stockholder *(see, General Rubber Co. v Benedict,*215 NY 18, 22). Since defendant is asserting that he has been damaged individually as a result of plaintiff’s breach of contractual and fiduciary duties, defendant is not required to bring an action as a stockholder *(see, Chalmers v Eaton Corp.,*71 AD2d 721, 723).

While the provision in the note that it is to be repaid at the "prime rate” of interest is not so ambiguous as to render the note unenforceable, the parties’ intent in incorporating this term into the note presents a question of fact requiring introduction of extrinsic evidence at trial.

Finally, the court did not err in refusing to dismiss the counterclaims on the ground that they were duplicative of claims asserted in a pending action in Federal court (CPLR 3211 [a] [4]). Plaintiff submitted no proof of the identity of the claims *(see, Security Tit. & Guar. Co. v Wolfe,*56 AD2d 745). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Willis, J.—partial summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Den-man, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
#### Todd C. Luigi et al., Respondents, v Avis Cab Co., Inc., et al., Appellants.

[949 NYS2d 61]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), entered September 6, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Todd C. Luigi did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the injured plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). The injured plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that he sustained certain injuries to his left shoulder as a result of the subject accident. Although the defendants asserted that those alleged injuries did not constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d at 352; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d at 955-956), the defendants’ examining orthopedic surgeon recounted, in an affirmed report submitted in support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, that range-of-motion testing performed during his examination revealed the existence of a significant limitation in the left shoulder *(see Scott v Gresio,*90 AD3d 736 [2011]). Further, the opinion of that physician that the left shoulder injuries were degenerative in nature and not causally related to the subject accident was too equivocal to satisfy the defendants’ prima facie burden of demonstrating that such injuries were not caused by a traumatic event *(see Reyes v Diaz,*82 AD3d 484 [2011]; *Spanos v Harrison,*67 AD3d 893, 894 [2009]).

*810Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion for summary judgment without considering the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ opposition papers (see *Scott v Gresio,*90 AD3d at 737). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 314 

Recognizing the contributions of Project Chernobyl and Project 9/11. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 7, 2011 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the contributions of Project Chernobyl and 

Project 9/11. 

Whereas Project Chernobyl is an important organization in 

the United States addressing the high risk of thyroid 

cancer among people living in the United States who are 

from countries affected by the Chernobyl nuclear accident; 

Whereas Project Chernobyl has expanded services to offer 

thyroid screenings to the general population in regions 

with a high incidence of thyroid cancer; 

Whereas Project Chernobyl is addressing the high medical 

costs of diagnosis and treatment of thyroid cancer by introducing and implementing innovative, minimally 

invasive techniques that allow for rapid, low cost treatment; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 314 IS 

Whereas Project Chernobyl is initiating and funding research 

directed toward developing new diagnostic and treatment 

methodologies for thyroid cancer and other thyroid diseases; 

Whereas Project Chernobyl has organized Project 9/11, a 

dedicated effort to identify and treat thyroid cancer 

among 9/11 first responders; and 

Whereas Project Chernobyl and Project 9/11 are providing an 

extraordinary service to members of the 9/11 community 

and first responders who are suffering from thyroid cancer: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate commends Project 9/11 

2 and its work to assist the 9/11 community in early treat3 ment and detection of thyroid cancer. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT A. MURRAY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

June 2, 1960.

*Mr. John 8. Bender*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Brendan Byrne*and *Mr. C. William Caruso*for the respondent.

Granted.
Exhibit 23.1




                        Consent of Independent Public Accountants


     As independent public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our reports  included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's  previously filed
Registration  Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-91451),  Form S-8 (No. 333-88719),
Form S-8 (No. 333-85031),  Form S-8 (No.  333-53153),  Form S-8 (No. 333-52349),
Form S-8 (No. 333-52347),  Form S-8 (No.  333-52345),  Form S-8 (No. 333-38072),
Form S-8 (No. 333-33946),  Form S-8 (No.  333-62868),  Form S-3 (No. 333-90105),
Form S-3 (No. 333-73229) and Form S-3 (No. 333-49560).


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

March 29, 2002
Vienna, Virginia
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50830 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus REYES ZAPATA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-99-CR-631-1-WWJ

-------------------- April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Represented by the Federal Public Defender, Reyes ZapataGarcia (Zapata), a/k/a Reyes Zapata-Sandoval, a/k/a Zapata ReyesGarcia, appeals his 63-month sentence imposed following his jurytrial conviction for illegal reentry subsequent to deportation. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Zapata contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in the indictment and proved by the prosecution to the jury beyond a reasonableNo. 00-50830 -2- doubt. Zapata acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). He also attempts to distinguish Almendarez-Torres based on the procedure resulting in the conviction: Zapata was convicted by a jury, and the defendant in Almendarez-Torres was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea. See Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 227. The asserted distinction is unpersuasive. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Zapata’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Todd R. Taylor, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.; and

 

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 report.

 
|   | /s/ TODD R. TAYLOR      |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Todd R. Taylor          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                    |
|   |                    |
|   | April 28, 2017     |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 15**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Supervisory Board of SAP AG:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-60399, 333-65083, 333-30380, 333-41762, 333-63496,333-63464, 333-102564, 333-167870 and 333-173782) on Form S-8 of SAP AG of our report dated February 23, 2012, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of SAP AG as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the relatedconsolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2011, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2011, which report appears in the December 31, 2011 annual report on Form 20-F of SAP AG. 

/s/ KPMG AG 

Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft 

Mannheim, Germany 

March 23, 2012
##### 



Exhibit 14.1 Consent of Independent Accountants To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD) We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Registration
Statement on Form F-4 (File Nos. 333-109610; 333-109610-01) of CVRD and Vale
Overseas Limited (Vale Overseas); and (ii) the Registration Statement on Form
F-3 (File Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale Overseas of our
reports dated February 20 and February 16, 2004 on the consolidated financial
statements of CVRD and Vale Overseas, respectively, which appear in the Annual
Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended December 31,
2003. June 4, 2004 /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers
Auditores Independentes
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Waterford Gaming Finance Corp.
All amounts are unaudited.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                          90
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






G.A. Marx Pea Genetic Stock Collectionheadline bar Pea Mutations Affecting Foliage
               A+b
               Aero
               Arg
               brz
               bt
               bulf
               cp
               cri
               dgl
               dp
               fa+fas
               st
               tl
               af
               apu


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 32



Certification

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of CuraGen Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such
officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                                                                                                                               
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: November 4, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    PATRICK J. ZENNER
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Patrick J. Zenner                                                                                                             
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(principal executive officer of the registrant)                      
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: November 4, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    DAVID M. WURZER  
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | David M. Wurzer                                                                                                               
|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial and accounting officer of the registrant)