alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Town of Oyster Bay, Appellant, v Hendrickson Bros., Inc., Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 563]

In an action to recover damages for continuing public nuisance, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered May 19, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to a contract with Nassau County, the defendant completed certain sewer construction work in 1980, and that defects in the construction work constitute and contribute to a continuing public nuisance. The action is time-barred for the reasons stated in the companion case of *Village of Lindenhurst v J.D. Posillico, Inc.*(94 AD3d 1101 [2012] [decided herewith]).

*1093The plaintiffs contentions relating to alleged statutory violations are not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ, concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

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

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Force Protection, Inc.,a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Form 10-QSB”)of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the informationcontained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|     | *Dated: Aug. 15, 2005* |
|----------|-----------------------------|
|     | * *                    |
|     | */s/ Gordon McGilton*       |   |
|     | *Gordon McGilton*      |
|     | *Chief Executive Officer*   |
|     |                        |
|     |                        |
|     | *Dated: Aug. 15, 2005* |
|     | * *                    |
| * * | */s/ Thomas Thebes*         | * * |
| * * | *Thomas Thebes*        |
| * * | *Chief Financial Officer*   |

 

 

**End ofFiling**

 

 

----
#### Mayfield, *et al. v.*Schoolar.

*Bill for Dissolution of Partnership and Other Purposes.*

(Decided Feb. 7, 1907.

43 So. Rep. 12.)

*Equity; Pleading; Defeats; Motion to Dismiss; Demurrer.*— Where some of the averments of the bill give it equity, although the bill may be dofetcive in other averments, the defects cannot .be reached by motion to dismiss for want of equity, but must be pointed out by demurrer. '

Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. Alfred H. Benners.

Bill by Kate Bell Schoolar against J. C. Mayfield and others. Prom a decree overruling defendants’ motion to dismiss the bill, they appeal.

Affirmed.

Kerr & Haley, for appellant. —

Counsel discuss assignments of error but cite no authority.

Z. T. Rudolph, for appellee. —

No brief came to the reporter.

DOWDELL, J. —

The appeal in this case is prosecuted from a decree of the chancellor overruling a motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity. One of the *151objects of the bill is the dissolution of an alleged partnership, of which the complainant was a member, and for an accounting. The averments in this respect unquestionably give equity to the bill. It may be that the bill is defective in some of the averments, but not such as may be reached by a motion to dismiss for want of equity in the bill. The proper practice in such case is to point out the defect, by demurrer. The decree overruling the motion to dismiss is free from error.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.
II

Calendar No. 309

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1235

[Report No. 105–163]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel registered as State of Oregon official number OR

766 YE.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1997

Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

FEBRUARY 12, 1998

Reported by Mr. MCCAIN, without an amendment

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

registered as State of Oregon official number OR 766

YE.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine
2

S 1235 RS

1 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of

2 June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App.

3 289), section 12102 and section 12106 of title 46, United

4 States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue

5 a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorse6 ment for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

7 registered as State of Oregon official number OR 766 YE.

Calendar No. 309

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1235

[Report No. 105–163]

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

Oregon official number OR 766 YE.wise trade for the vessel registered as State ofpriate endorsement for employment in the coastissue a certificate of documentation with approFEBRUARY 12, 1998

Reported without amendment
# C_2021232EN.01000101.xml

| 16.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2019-2020 SESSION

Sittings of 25 to 28 November 2019

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 203, 28.5.2021.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       8,774,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              421,055,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                31,942,000
<INVENTORY>                                123,599,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           162,482,000
<PP&E>                                      69,898,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,268,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             603,225,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       67,698,000
<BONDS>                                     74,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       133,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 171,259,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               603,225,000
<SALES>                                    179,048,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           211,745,000
<CGS>                                       30,995,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              155,072,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            17,488,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          23,141,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             16,044,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,178,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,866,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                316,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,182,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.79


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Dylan Mc. Nassau County Department of Social Services et al., Respondents; Michelle M. Mc., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Connor Mc. Nassau County Department of Social Services et al., Respondents; Michelle M. Mc., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.) In the Matter of Michael W., Respondent, v Michelle M. Mc., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 3.)

[943 NYS2d 767]—

*1017In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, and a related child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Greenberg, J.), dated April 13, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for custody of the subject children. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, assigned counsel is relieved as counsel for the appellant, and she is directed to turn over all papers in her possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that John M. Zenir, Esq., 114 Old Country Road, Suite 216, Mineóla, N.Y., 11501, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order and the respondents shall serve and file their briefs within 120 days of the date of this decision and order. By prior order on certification of this Court dated June 10, 2011, the appellant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings) and on the briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

The *Anders*brief submitted by the appellant’s counsel is deficient in that counsel fails to analyze any possible appellate issues or highlight anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal *(see Matter of Max F. [Emma F.-G.],*90 AD3d 1047, 1048 [2011]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]). The argument section of her brief merely states in conclusory fashion that “the undersigned has fully analyzed the record, performed the necessary legal research, spoke to Appellant and trial counsel for Respondent-Appellant, and it is the opinion of the undersigned that there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal.” Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to new counsel *(see Matter of Max F. [Emma F.-G.],*90 AD3d at 1048).

Moreover, upon this Court’s independent review of the record, we conclude that nonfrivolous issues exist, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s request for substitution of counsel and whether the appellant was af*1018forded the effective assistance of counsel. Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.
(Expressed in U.S. Currency)Three months ended March 31,2008
    
    
    2007Numerator:Net (loss)
    
    $
    (965,518
    )
    
    $
    (437,908
    )Dividends on Series A preferred stock
    
    
    (361
    )
    
    
    (358
    )Numerator for basic and diluted loss per
share loss available to common shareholders
    
    $
    (965,879
    )
    
    $
    (438,266
    )Denominator:Denominator for basic loss per share-
weighted average shares outstanding *
    
    
    12,637,735
    
    
    
    12,637,735Effect of dilutive securities
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Warrants
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Dilutive potential common shares denominator
for diluted earnings (loss) per share adjusted
weighter-average shares and assumed conversion
    
    
    12,637,735
    
    
    
    12,637,735Basic (loss) per share
    
    $
    (0.08
    )
    
    $
    (0.03
    )Diluted (loss) per share
    
    $
    (0.08
    )
    
    $
    (0.03
    )
 
 *
    
    Excludes unvested shares of 2,312,131 issued for compensation
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:4
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:5
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:6
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:7
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:8
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:9
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:10
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:11
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:12
Case: 1:01-cv-05236 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/06/01 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:13
1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

____________________ 

NO. 09-17-00299-CV 

____________________ 

IN RE COMMITMENT OF JERRY ALLEN REDFEARN 

________________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 435th District Court 

Montgomery County, Texas 

Trial Cause No. 08-11-10818-CV

________________________________________________________________________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant, Jerry Allen Redfearn, failed to timely file his appellate brief. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a)(1). On December 15, 2017, we notified the parties that the 

brief was past due, and we warned the appellant that his failure to file a brief could 

result in a dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

38.8(a)(1). On January 5, 2018, we notified the parties that the appeal would be 

submitted to the Court on January 26, 2018, without briefs and without oral 

argument. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. The appellant has not filed a brief, a motion for 

leave to file a late brief, or a motion for extension of time. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; 
2 

38.6(d). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b); 43.2(f). 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

 

 

 ________________________________ 

 CHARLES KREGER 

 Justice 

 

Submitted on January 26, 2018 

Opinion Delivered February 8, 2018 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, 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
 Food and Feed Safety Research: New Orleans, LA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area New Orleans, Louisiana Southern Regional Research Center Food and Feed Safety Research People & Locations







Valerie E Reed
                        Food and Feed Safety Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (504) 286-4531
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7660

ALBERT CURTIS MILLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUTH NEWBORN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA97-3413-DKC) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 14, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Curtis Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on November 22, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on November 23, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Albert Curtis Mills appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mills v. Newborn , No. CA-97-3413-DKC (D. Md. Nov. 23, 1999). * 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                          4,451,274
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       140,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                4,862,466
<PP&E>                         10,050,588
<DEPRECIATION>                    278,904
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 14,644,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           6,637,037
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                            7,029
<OTHER-SE>                      5,994,452
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   14,644,811
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                               3,748
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   4,176,876
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   80,677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,691,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (4,176,876)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (4,176,876)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (4,176,876)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.67)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 31,
1999 UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         102,764
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,909
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,812)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               229,039
<PP&E>                                         168,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                (39,440)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 585,659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,632
<BONDS>                                        565,521
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,033
<OTHER-SE>                                   (155,241)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   585,659
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,914
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,415
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,630
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,171
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (61,023)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (61,023)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (61,023)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)


</TABLE>