alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:9584
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:9585
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:9586
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:9587
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:9588
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:9589
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:9590
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:9591
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9592
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 483 Filed: 06/17/11 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:9593
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:7
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:8
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:9
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:10
Case: 1:02-cv-00843 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/04/02 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:11
#### In the Matter of Tolun Tuglu, Appellant, v Zara Crowley, Respondent. Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C., Non-party Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 608]

*863In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered July 12, 2011, which, without a hearing, granted the mother’s motion for an award of an attorney’s fee to the extent of awarding her an attorney’s fee in the sum of $3,500.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

An award of an attorney’s fee in a proceeding under the Family Court Act is entrusted to the sound discretion of the Family Court *(see Matter of Burris v Burris,*91 AD3d 866, 867 [2012]; *Matter of Wade v Smith,*86 AD3d 577, 578 [2011]). The Family Court properly determined, based upon its interaction with the parties and its participation in the proceedings herein, that the father had caused the mother to incur additional legal fees by engaging in unnecessary litigation. The record demonstrates that, despite the Family Court’s clear directive to the father to either stipulate to a fee award of $3,000, or request an evidentiary hearing, the father failed to stipulate to the proposed fee award or to request a hearing on the issue. In light of the father’s failure to appropriately respond to the Family Court’s directive, the Family Court scheduled a hearing. However, on the scheduled date of the hearing, the father refused to proceed with the hearing. Accordingly, the father waived his right to a hearing on the matter *(see Messinger v Messinger,*24 AD3d 631, 632 [2005]; *Bengard v Bengard,*5 AD3d 340, 341 [2004]).

In light of the parties’ financial circumstances and the other evidence in the record, the Family Court’s award to the mother of an attorney’s fee in the amount of $3,500, which included the fee incurred in connection with the cancelled hearing to determine the amount of the fee award *(see O’Shea v O’Shea,*93 NY2d 187, 193 [1999]), was a provident exercise of discretion. Angiolillo, J.P., Eng, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal L 118I/2018

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 118I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6114 May 2018 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 118I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6114 May 2018

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/705 of 14 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/706 of 14 May 2018 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/705 of 14 May 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/706 of 14 May 2018 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

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.
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Jeffrey I. Dreben, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of CVF Technologies Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fiscal fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: August 15, 2005           /s/ Jeffrey I. Dreben   Jeffrey I. Dreben,   Chief Executive Officer
#### Scoggins, executor, *v.*Knox.

June 25, 1915.

Motion for new trial. Before James E. Bosser, judge pro liae vice. Walker superior court. June *26,*1914.

*Paul D. Wright*and *p[. P. Lumplcin,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. M. Henry*and *B. M. W. Glenn,*contra.

Hill, J.

In this case the bill of exceptions recites that the judge refused to approve the brief of evidence tendered to him, passing the following order with respect thereto: “At Chambers, June 26th, 1914. This paper was this day presented to me, for approval, as a brief of the evidence; and counsel for respondent insisting that this does not contain a correct brief of the evidence of the witnesses named therein, and . further that the evidence of witnesses are left out and not named in this brief, it being presented for my approval 16 months after the trial, and by reason of the lapse of time I can not remember their evidence or the evidence of any witness, and can not approve this as correct, and I hereby disapprove this as a correct brief. This brief of evidence was accompanied by the affidavits attached of H. P. Lumpkin and P. D. Wright.” The court then passed a further order reciting that, “the movant not having an approved brief of evidence, on motion this motion for new trial is dismissed.” Two assignments of error are, “that the court erred in refusing to approve the brief of evidence presented under the circumstances in this case, as shown by the affidavits attached to the brief of evidence;” and that the court “erred in refusing to allow time to get the stenographer’s report, as requested by movant’s counsel, as shown by the affidavit of Paul D. Wright, attached to brief of evidence tendered in this case.” The brief of evidence and the affidavits referred to were specified as a part of the record and brought to this court as such. *Held: (a)*The brief of evidence not having been approved and filed as a part of the record, neither it nor the affidavits accompanying it could legally be brought to this court as part of the record, and the assignments of error quoted above can not be considered. (6) There being no approved brief of evidence before the court, the court did not err in sustaining the motion to dismiss the motion for a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Case: 1:02-cv-02590 Document #: 251 Filed: 12/21/04 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1451

Case: 1:02-cv-02590 Document #: 251 Filed: 12/21/04 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:1451

Case: 1:02-cv-02590 Document #: 251 Filed: 12/21/04 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:1451

Case: 1:02-cv-02590 Document #: 251 Filed: 12/21/04 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:1451
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
 Cereal Disease Lab: St. Paul, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Cereal Rust Bulletins
                    PublicationsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area St. Paul, Minnesota Cereal Disease Lab People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Yue Jin
- Shahryar Kianian
- H. Corby Kistler
- James Kolmer
- Matt Rouse
- Les Szabo
- Karen Broz (Hilburn)

People and Locations at St. Paul, Minnesota   [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 re*CUSTODY OF RONALD JEDYNAK, JR. (Ronald Jedynak, Petitioner-Appellee, *v.*Barbara Lawrecki (Jedynak), Respondent-Appellant).

First District (2nd Division)

No. 83 — 2697

Opinion filed April 10, 1984.

Victor Brown, of Legal Aid Bureau, of Chicago, for appellant.

Alan D. Hoffenberg and Jerome Marvin Kaplan, both of Chicago, for appellee.

JUSTICE STAMOS

delivered the opinion of the court;

Respondent Barbara Lawrecki appeals from an order denying her motion to dismiss a petition to modify a child custody judgment on the grounds that modification is barred by the two-year limitation of *186section 610(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 40, par. 610(a)). We dismiss the appeal because there was no final order.

The minor whose custody is disputed in this case was born to respondent and petitioner Ronald Jedynak on April 12, 1979, and in September 1981 respondent filed a complaint to establish the paternity of the child. On January 19, 1982, a consent paternity judgment was entered in paternity court, which found petitioner to be the father of the child, granted custody to respondent and provided for child support and visitation.

On December 30, 1982, when the child was visiting petitioner in Chicago, petitioner obtained an *ex parte*order granting him temporary custody and setting the matter for a hearing. This order was vacated on January 12, 1983, and the child was ordered to remain with petitioner pending a full custody hearing.

On March 24, 1983, respondent moved to dismiss petitioner’s petition as barred by section 610(a) of the IMDMA. Respondent’s motion was denied and she appeals.

Before considering an appeal on its merits, it is our duty to determine whether the appeal has been properly taken so as to invoke our jurisdiction. *(In re Marriage of Zymali*(1981), 94 Ill. App. 3d 1145, 1147, 419 N.E.2d 487.) “[F]or an appellate court to have subject matter jurisdiction, an appeal must generally be taken from a final order which either terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits or disposes of the rights of the parties in regard to the entire controversy or some definite part thereof.” (94 Ill. App. 3d 1145, 1147-48; see 87 Ill. 2d Rules 301, 304.) An order which leaves a cause still pending and undecided is not a final order. *In re Marriage of Zymali*(1981), 94 Ill. App. 3d 1145,1148.

In the instant case, the appeal is from an order denying a motion to dismiss the petition to modify custody. Such an order is not final and appealable. *(Coble v. Chicago Health Club, Inc.*(1977), 53 Ill. App. 3d 1019, 1021, 369 N.E.2d 188.) It did not dispose of the controversy or any definite part thereof and no determination as to the custody of the child was made. Therefore, the order is not final and appealable and we must dismiss the appeal.

Dismissed.

BERLIN and DOWNING, JJ., concur.
EX-4.4





 Exhibit 4.4 

CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE DOMESTICATION OF 

DRAGONEER GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES CORP. 

Pursuant to Section 388 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”) 

Dragoneer Growth Opportunities Corp., presently a Cayman Islands exempted company limited by shares (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY: 
 1. The Company was first incorporated on July 3, 2020 under the laws of the Cayman Islands. 

2. The name of the Company immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware
in accordance with Section 388 of the DGCL was Dragoneer Growth Opportunities Corp. 
 3. The name of the Company as set forth in the Certificate of
Incorporation being filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware in accordance with Section 388(b) of the DGCL is “CCC Intelligent Solutions Holdings Inc.” 

4. The jurisdiction that constituted the seat, siege social, or principal place of business or central administration of the Company, or any other equivalent
thereto under applicable law, immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication in accordance with the provisions of Section 388 of the DGCL was the Cayman Islands. 

5. The domestication has been approved in the manner provided for by the document, instrument, agreement or other writing, as the case may be, governing the
internal affairs of the Company and the conduct of its business or by applicable non-Delaware law, as appropriate. 

The corporate domestication of the Company shall be effective upon the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication and the Certificate of
Incorporation in accordance with Section 388 of the DGCL and with the Secretary of State of Delaware. 
 [Signature page follows]













 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Certificate to be executed by its duly
authorized officer on this 30th day of July, 2021. 
  

	
	DRAGONEER GROWTH
	OPPORTUNITIES CORP., a Cayman
	Islands exempted company limited by shares
	
	 /s/ Pat Robertson

	Name: Pat Robertson
	Title: President and Chief Operating Officer


 [Signature Page to Certificate of Domestication]
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-4 No. 333-49568 as amended as of December 7, 2000); the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 33-1502, 333-31047) pertaining to the 1985 Incentive
Stock Option Plan, the 1994 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the 1995 Director Stock
Option Plan, the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995 Stock Option Plan
and non-statutory stock options granted to directors and officers of IDX Systems
Corporation; the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-31045) pertaining
to the PHAMIS, Inc. Amended and Restated 1983 Combined Nonqualified and
Incentive Stock Option Plan, the PHAMIS, Inc. 1993 Combined Incentive and
Nonqualified Stock Option Plan as amended through May 14, 1996, the PHAMIS Inc.
1994 Nonemployee Director Stock Option Plan as amended through January 1, 1996,
the PHAMIS, Inc. Salary Savings and Deferral Plan and Trust as amended through
February 22, 1996 and the PHAMIS, Inc. Cain Option Agreement, of our report
dated January 29, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of IDX Systems Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-
K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                              /s/Ernst & Young LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2001
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1233

To terminate the taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

other than Social Security and railroad retirement-related taxes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1997

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

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To terminate the taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue

Code of 1986 other than Social Security and railroad

retirement-related taxes.

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

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

4 OF 1986.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

6 (b), no tax shall be imposed by the Internal Revenue Code

7 of 1986—

8 (1) for any taxable year beginning after Decem9 ber 31, 2000, and
2

•S 1233 IS

1 (2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the

2 basis of a taxable year, on any taxable event or for

3 any period after December 31, 2000.

4 (b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to

5 taxes imposed by—

6 (1) chapter 2 (relating to tax on self-employ7 ment income),

8 (2) chapter 21 (relating to Federal Insurance

9 Contributions Act), and

10 (3) chapter 22 (relating to Railroad Retirement

11 Tax Act).

Æ
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
 Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Search Collections
                        U.S. National Fungus Collections
                                    USDA Nematode CollectionSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory People & Locations







Allen  Cavan
                        Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (301) 504-6921
                        
                        
                        Fax: (301) 504-5062(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