alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irving A. Mandel, Individually and as a Partner of Mandel & Grunfeld, Respondent, v Harold M. Grunfeld et al., Appellants.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Blyn, J.), entered April 23, 1985, *inter alia,*granting plaintiff Mandel’s renewed motion for the appointment of a temporary receiver, is unanimously reversed, to the extent appealed from, without costs, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion is denied.

The instant action involves the dissolution of a law partnership. The initial law firm, Mandel & Grunfeld, was founded in 1974. Defendants with Grunfeld sought to form their own firm in early 1985, occupying space in the same offices as the original firm. Plaintiff Mandel also opted to form a new partnership, continuing to occupy space in the original suite. Both sides sent letters to Mandel & Grunfeld’s clients, informing them of these changes.

In February 1985, plaintiff commenced this action alleging breach of partnership agreements, breach of fiduciary obligations and conversion. Plaintiff asked to have a temporary receiver appointed, but Special Term denied this, as both sides had agreed that an amicable dissolution would be attempted. They also agreed to deposit all checks payable to Mandel & Grunfeld in that account and that any withdrawals would have the signatures of both Mandel and Grunfeld.

Shortly thereafter, plaintiff alleged that the defendants were violating the court’s order and again asked to have a temporary receiver appointed. This time, the motion was granted, although it was stayed by this court. At present, the parties are winding down the affairs of Mandel & Grunfeld without a receiver, while operating the two new firms.

CPLR 6401 authorizes the appointment of a receiver where “there is danger that the property will be removed from the state, or lost, materially injured or destroyed.” There is no such apparent danger in the instant case. Moreover, for a number of months the parties have managed without a receiver. The defendants are not insolvent and may respond in damages if necessary. The proper remedy is an accounting. *(See, Shandell v Katz,*95 AD2d 742, 743.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Bloom and Ellerin, JJ.
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
 Small Grains and Potato Germplasm Research: Aberdeen, ID
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Aberdeen, Idaho Small Grains and Potato Germplasm Research People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- 2023 IACUC Report (Sept 2023)
- 2023 IACUC Executive Summary (Sept 2023)
- 2023 IACUC Executive Summary (March 2023)
- 2023 IACUC Report (March 2023)
- 2022 IACUC Executive Summary Envion-Hagerman
- 2022 IACUC REPORT
- 2022 IACUC Executive Summary *latest
- 2021 IACUC Report Sept
- IACUC March 2021
- 2020 IACUC Summary March
- 2020 2ND REPORT IACUC
- IACUC 2019 Dec Summary
- IACUC 2019 June Summary
- IACUC 2018 Summary 3 (Dec 2018)
- IACUC 2018 Summary 2
- IACUC 2018 Summary 1

People and Locations at Aberdeen, Idaho   [Expand All] [Collapse All]
  (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,530-01
EX P ARTE ALLYN LYONS, Ap plicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W11-57686-U(A) IN THE 291ST DISTRICT COURT

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of ag g ravated sexual assault and se ntence d to twenty y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance
. On Marc h 6, 2014, the trial judge enter ed a timely order desig nating issues. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 66 8 (1 9 8 4 ); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As2

we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for fi ndings of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s c laim. I f t he trial court elects t o hold a h ea ring , it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Appl i ca n t is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent him at the hea ring . T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and co n cl u s i ons of law as to whether counsel’s conduct was defic ient and Applicant was prejudice d. The trial co urt s h al l also make any other finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s c laim for habe as cor pus relief
. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental transcr i p t co n t ai n ing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of t his order
. Any extensions of t ime shall be obtained f

rom this Court.
Filed: January

14, 2015 Do not publish
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Soil Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carl P. Ranno, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 result of operations of the Company.


Carl P. Ranno
----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer
March 23, 2010
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40018 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

− Appellee,

versus CAMILLE DIANE ARMSTRONG,

Defendant

− Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16 -CR- 657 -1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Camille Armstrong appeals h er conviction of conspiring to possess with

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED August 17, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40018 Document: 00514120864 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2017No. 17

- 40018

2 intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 . Sh e asserts that the factual basis for h er guilty plea was inadequate because the g overnment failed to meet its obligation to prove that s he had knowledge of the quantity of actual methamphetamine involved in her offense.
As Armstrong concedes, h er argument is foreclosed by United States
v. Betancourt , 586 F.3d 303, 308

− 09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that FloresFigueroa v. United States , 556 U.S. 646 (2009), did not overturn United States v. Gamez -Gonzalez , 319 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2003), and that the g overnment is not required to prove knowledge of drug type and quantity as an element of a § 841 drug offense. Accordingly, the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-40018 Document: 00514120864 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2017
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER WITHDRAWING MEDIATION ORDER

Cause number: 01-13-01061-CV

Style: Miriam Blank v. Jack Nuszen

Date motion filed: January 17, 2014

Type of Motion: Objection to Mediation

Party filing motion: Appellee

It is ordered that Appellee=s objection to mediation is granted. We withdraw our 

Mediation Order dated January 9, 2014.

Judge’s Signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 x Acting individually 

 

Date: January 21, 2014

* Absent emergency or a statement that the motion is unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for 

motion to extend time to file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a).

Note: Single justice may grant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except in a civil case a single justice 

should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion 

for rehearing. TEX. R. APP. P. 10.4(a).
EXHIBIT 23.2


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Our report on our audit of the balance sheet of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.
(the  "Company") as of December 31, 2001 and on the  statements  of  operations,
changes in stockholders' deficiency and cash flows for the period from August 6,
2001 (date of inception) to December 31, 2001, included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2003, is dated November 1, 2002. We
consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  of our  report  in the  following
Registration  Statements previously filed by the Company with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  pursuant to the Securities  Act of 1933: the  Registration
Statements  on Forms S-3 with SEC File  Nos.  333-34379,  333-35079,  333-65393,
333-40916,  333-49036 and 333-57550 and the Registration Statements on Forms S-8
with SEC file Nos. 333-15807 and 333-48531.



                                          WEINBERG & COMPANY, P.A.

Boca Raton, Florida
March 30, 2004
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 15 

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Libya and 

the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2011 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government 

of Libya and the Government and the people of the 

United States, and making provision to prosecute the 

same. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That— 

4 (1) a state of war between the United States 

5 and the Government of Libya is hereby formally de6 clared; and 

7 (2) the President is hereby authorized and di8 rected— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 15 IS 

1 (A) to employ the entire naval and military 

2 forces of the United States and the resources of 

3 the United States Government to carry on war 

4 against the Government of Libya; and 

5 (B) to issue to private armed vessels of the 

6 United States commissions or letters of marque 

7 and general reprisal, in such form as the Presi8 dent shall think proper, and under the seal of 

9 the United States, against the vessels, goods, 

10 and effects of the Government of Libya. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
      32.1 -  Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer








**CERTIFICATION
      IN ACCORDANCE WITH**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED BY**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Internet America, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) for the year ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William E. Ladin, Jr.,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to my
      knowledge that:





(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/
                William E. Ladin, Jr.William
                E. (Billy) Ladin, Jr.Chief
                Executive OfficerDate:
                October 6 2006
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:1550
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:1551
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:1552
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:1553
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:1554
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:1555
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:1556
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:1557
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:1558
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:1559
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:1560
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:1561
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:1562
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:1563
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:1564
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:1565
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:1566
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:1567
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:1568
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:1569
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:1570
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:1571
Case: 1:02-cv-01777 Document #: 217 Filed: 12/02/04 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:1572
# Official Journal L 75I/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 075I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6119 March 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 075I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6119 March 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/420 of 19 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2018/421 of 19 March 2018 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/420 of 19 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2018/421 of 19 March 2018 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Case: 1:03-cv-01821 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/22/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:188
Case: 1:03-cv-01821 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/22/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:189
Case: 1:03-cv-01821 Document #: 52 Filed: 07/22/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:190
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                            RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly of American Soil Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ken
Lew, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rules 13a-14
and 15-d14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to ss.302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

I have reviewed the Report;

Based upon my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading;

Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for,
the periods presented in the Report;

I and the other certifying officers of the Company:

are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures for the Company; have designed such disclosure controls and
procedures to ensure that material information is made known to us, particularly
during the period in which the Report is being prepared; have evaluated the
effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures within 90 days
of the date of the Report; and have presented in the Report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the
required evaluation.

I and the other certifying officers have disclosed to the Company's auditors and
to the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the
equivalent function):

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls (a
pre-existing term relating to internal controls regarding financial reporting)
which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the Company's internal controls.

I and the other certifying officers have indicated in the Report whether or not
there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of their
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/ Ken Lew
-----------------------
Ken Lew
Chief Financial Officer
February 18, 2003
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0023. JOHN YANG v. THE STATE.

John Yang has filed an application for discretionary review of the trial court’s

order denying his motion to reduce his sentence. The trial court entered its order on

May 25, 2016. Yang filed his application on August 1, 2016.

Ordinarily, if a party applies for discretionary review of a directly appealable

order - such as an order denying a timely motion for sentence modification - we grant

the application under OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). To fall within this general rule, however,

the application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order to be appealed. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582 (420 SE2d 393) (1992). The

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an

application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. See Boyle v. State of Ga.,

190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Yang filed his application 68 days after

entry of the order he seeks to appeal, and his application is therefore untimely.

Yang contends that his application is timely because he purportedly did not

receive the trial court’s order until July 29, 2016. However, a trial court’s failure to

August 31, 2016
timely notify a defendant of an order does not extend the time to file an appeal, and

the proper remedy in such situations is to file a motion to set aside the order or a

motion for an out-of-time appeal. See Whitfield v. State, 313 Ga. App. 297, 299 (1)

(721 SE2d 211) (2011); Shouse v. State, 189 Ga. App. 531 (376 SE2d 911) (1988).

For the reasons stated above, Yang’s application is hereby DISMISSED for

lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/31/2016