alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter G. Schmidt, Respondent, v Solow Management Corp., Appellant.

Order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered on or about June 5, 1984, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant landlord had unreasonably withheld consent to the proposed sublet of plaintiff’s apartment and that plaintiff is authorized to sublet the subject premises, severed that branch of the action seeking compensatory damages and attorney’s fees, and directed an assessment thereof, is reversed, on the law, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied, with leave to renew by either party, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 3212 (a) provides that a party may move for summary judgment after issue has been joined. A motion is made when a notice of the motion or an order to show cause is served. (CPLR 2211.) In that connection, the instant motion was made prior to the time that issue was joined, and, therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Although *620this court has held that in special circumstances wherein a prompt determination on the merits is essential and there are no disputed issues of fact, summary judgment may be allowed prior to the joinder of issue *(Kreitman v Einy,*92 AD2d 801), the present situation does not present such a special case. An examination of the record herein reveals that there remain unresolved factual questions concerning plaintiff tenant’s primary residence and the ability of the prospective subtenant to meet his financial obligations under the lease, matters which are clearly relevant to the issue of whether consent to the proposed sublet was unreasonably withheld by the landlord. However, since further discovery may be useful in providing additional information with regard to these issues, we do not preclude the parties from bringing another motion for summary judgment at a future time. As to the recoverability of compensatory damages in an action commenced pursuant to Real Property Law § 226-b (2) (c), attention is directed to this court’s recent decision in *72nd St. Assoc. v Pyle*(105 AD2d 607) wherein we held that “the statute expressly limits the remedies available * * * in instances such as this and those remedies are exclusive”. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Fein and Milonas, JJ.
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 43 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 on any day from Thursday, April 26, 2012, through Sun4 day, May 6, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this 

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on 

7 Monday, May 7, 2012, or such other time on that day 

8 as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee 

9 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of 

10 any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

11 resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 

12 House adjourns on any legislative day through Friday, 

13 May 4, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this concur14 rent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 

15 stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, May 7, 2012, 

16 or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 

17 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first. 

18 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the 

19 Speaker of the House, or their respective designees, acting 
2 

†SCON 43 ES 

1 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

2 Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify 

3 the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to re4 assemble at such place and time as they may designate 

5 if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Passed the Senate April 26, 2012. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 43 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess 

of Representatives. of the Senate and an adjournment of the House
1Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 06-10886

In The Matter Of: KEVCO INC 

Debtor

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

COASTAL INDUSTRIES, INC.

Appellant

VERSUS

DENNIS FAULKNER, Plan Administration Agent

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth

4:05-CV-691

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

After reviewing the record and considering the argument of

counsel and the briefs of the parties, we are satisfied the

district court committed no reversible error. We, therefore,

affirm the judgment of the district court essentially for the
2

reasons stated in the Bankruptcy Court’s thorough Memorandum

Opinion dated June 30, 2005.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


19 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 Constitution Mining Corp. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Stocker, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to §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/Michael
Stocker


Michael
Stocker


President
and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
Executive Officer)
  Date:  March
31, 2010






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, 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 Constitution Mining Corp. and
will be retained by Constitution Mining Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Official Journal C 184/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.184.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 184 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5424 June 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.184.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 184

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5424 June 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 184/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2011 to 30 April 2011(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2011/C 184/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2011 to 30 April 2011(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 17 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 184/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2011 to 30 April 2011(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

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

1

2011/C 184/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2011 to 30 April 2011(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

17

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 328 

Designating the week of November 14 through 20, 2011, as ‘‘Global 

Entrepreneurship Week/USA’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2011 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself and Mr. MORAN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of November 14 through 20, 2011, 

as ‘‘Global Entrepreneurship Week/USA’’. 

Whereas research has shown that between 1980 and 2005 

the majority of jobs in the United States were created by 

entrepreneurs and the young companies of those entrepreneurs; 

Whereas the economy and society of the United States, as 

well as the country as a whole, have greatly benefitted 

from the everyday use of breakthrough innovations developed and brought to market by entrepreneurs; 

Whereas Global Entrepreneurship Week/USA is an initiative 

to celebrate the innovators and job creators who launch 

startups that bring ideas to life, drive economic growth, 

and improve human welfare; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 328 ATS 

Whereas Global Entrepreneurship Week/USA helps existing 

and aspiring entrepreneurs to acquire the knowledge, 

skills, and networks needed to create vibrant enterprises 

that will improve the lives and communities of the entrepreneurs; 

Whereas, in 2010, more than 445,896 individuals participated in the more than 3,200 entrepreneurial activities 

held in the United States alone during Global Entrepreneurship Week; 

Whereas, in 2010, more than 1,300 partner organizations 

participated in Global Entrepreneurship Week/USA, including startup accelerators, business incubators, chambers of commerce, institutions of higher education, high 

schools, businesses, and State and local governments; and 

Whereas, in 2011, thousands of organizations in the United 

States will join in the celebration by planning activities 

designed to inspire, connect, mentor, and engage the next 

generation of entrepreneurs throughout Global Entrepreneurship Week/USA: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of November 14 

3 through 20, 2011, as ‘‘Global Entrepreneurship 

4 Week/USA’’; and 

5 (2) supports the goals of Global Entrepreneur6 ship Week/USA, including— 

7 (A) inspiring young people everywhere to 

8 embrace innovation, imagination, and creativity; 

9 and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 328 ATS 

1 (B) training the next generation of entre2 preneurial leaders. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmErnst & Young LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Form S-3 (No.333-121562)
and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-12025, 333-68128, 333-83650, 333-106647, 333-117070, 333-117137,
333-128113 and 333-136575) of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated May 19, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements as of December 31, 2007 and for the two years in the period ended December 31, 2007 of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.



Orange
County, California
March 12, 2009

---



QuickLinks
#### ARNSTEIN et al., Respondents, v. SIEGEL et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Emanuel Arnstein and others against Moses I. Siegel and others. G. W. Glaze, for appellants. M. D. Steuer, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 3, 2013

NO. 03-12-00670-CV

J. C., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s final 

decree: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the trial court’s final decree 

is in all things affirmed. It FURTHER appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay 

costs relating to this appeal, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be 

certified below for observance.
(January 17, 1986)

#### In the Matter of Mark T. Costantino, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

by Motion byrespondent for reconsideration of this court’s decision dated March 5, 1984 [100 AD2d 979] which imposed a five-year suspension from the practice of law by the respondent and upon reconsideration to modify the suspension by reducing same to a two-year period, or in the alternative, to permit the respondent leave to apply for reinstatement after two years’ suspension.

Motion denied. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Hemphill, Appellant, v David A. Rock, as Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 710] —

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered July 8, 2011 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner, an inmate, commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus claiming, among other things, that his arrest was unlawful and the underlying indictment is flawed. Supreme Court denied the application without a hearing. Petitioner appeals, and we affirm. “Habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for asserting claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL 440 motion, even if they are jurisdictional in nature” *(People ex rel. Burr v Rock,*93 AD3d 977, 977 [2012] [citations omitted]; *see People ex rel. Lainfiesta v Lape,*83 AD3d 1303, 1303 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 708 [2011]). Inasmuch as no sound reason to depart from traditional orderly procedure has been presented *(see People ex rel. Collins v Billnier,*87 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2011], *Iv denied*18 NY3d 802 [2011]), we find no basis to disturb the denial of petitioner’s application.

Peters, PJ., Spain, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
* 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. 07-51381 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LEVI NAJERA-MORALES, also known as Ruben Morales-Cordova Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-1851-ALL
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Levi Najera-Morales raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 4, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51381

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING E N B ANC

Appellate case name: Tammy Tran Attorneys a t Law, LLP, Tammy Tran, PLLC, and Minh

Tam Tran v

. Spark Funding, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 0 0 564

- C V

Trial court case number: 2020

- 27154

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: August 30, 2021

Party filing motion: App el lant s

The en banc court has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s motion for en banc re hearing

. It is ordered that the motion is denied

.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Julie Countiss

__________ Acting for the En Banc Court

* En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau,

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra, and Farris

.

Date: November 23, 2021
# C_2019399EN.01006502.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/65

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-59/19) (1)

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

(2019/C 399/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (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. | Mr Ehab Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ehab Makhlouf shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
* 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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

VALENTINO BOL MAJAK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10386

D.C. No. 4:10-cr-03004-RCCBPV-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Valentino Bol Majak appeals his convictions for possession of marijuana

with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii), and fleeing from an

FILED

OCT 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

immigration checkpoint, 18 U.S.C. § 758. He argues that the district court erred in

admitting expert testimony to show that he knowingly possessed the marijuana. 

Majak was apprehended after fleeing from a Border Patrol checkpoint at

high speed; approximately 400 pounds of marijuana was found in the trunk of his

car. Majak testified that he did not know how the marijuana got there and

suggested that Border Patrol agents must have placed it there after his arrest. An

expert in drug trafficking testified for the Government that drug traffickers do not

typically use unknowing couriers to transport drugs. 

We review a district court’s decision admitting drug-courier expert

testimony for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza, 645 F.3d

1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in this

case. Expert drug-courier testimony “is admissible when relevant, probative of a

defendant's knowledge, and not unfairly prejudicial.” Id. at 1072. The testimony

here was relevant because Majak disavowed knowledge as to how the marijuana

got into his trunk. Majak’s suggestion that the Border Patrol agents may have

placed the marijuana there did not render the expert testimony irrelevant. See

United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that expert

testimony about unknowing couriers is generally probative of the defendant’s
3

knowledge of possession (citing United States v. Castro, 972 F.2d 1107, 1111 (9th

Cir. 1992)).

AFFIRMED.
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
 Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Orders & ServicesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Davis, California Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes Docs







temp to replace people listingheadline bar GRIN (Germplasm Resources Information Network). Services National Plant Germplasm SystemCrops Evaluated at NCGR-DavisTaxa Held at the NCGR-Davis Crop Specific Resources: Actinidia - KiwifruitDiospyros - PersimmonFicus - FigJuglans - WalnutOlea - OliveMorus - MulberryPistacia - PistachioPrunus - StonefruitPunica - PomegranateVitis - Grape


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