alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Cornwell, Respondent, v NRT New York LLC et al., Defendants, and Amir Meiri, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 132]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 4, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of defendant Amir Meiri’s cross motion seeking to dismiss plaintiffs third cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted in its entirety and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff, the owner of real property, failed to state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against defendant Amir Meiri, a real estate broker, since he did not allege the existence of a fiduciary relationship. It is well settled that a real estate *638broker is a fiduciary with a duty of loyalty and an obligation to act in the best interests of the principal *(see Dubbs v Stribling & Assoc.,*96 NY2d 337, 340 [2001]). Here, however, plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant Citi-Habitat, a licensed real estate brokerage, providing for defendant John Tarjavaara to act as the exclusive agent to find a lessee for plaintiffs apartments, thereby establishing a fiduciary relationship between plaintiff and defendant brokerage but not between plaintiff and defendant Meiri. The duty did not extend to Meiri, an independent contractor, who had no obligations to plaintiff and who dealt with plaintiff in an arm’s length transaction *(see EBCI, Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co.,*91 AD3d 211, 219 [2011]). This is evident from the terms of the exclusive agency agreement which provided that Tarjavaara would report all activity to plaintiff on a regular basis and accompany all potential tenants and co-brokers to the premises. Meiri, who approached plaintiff without Taijavaara present, acted in his own personal interest in negotiating the terms of the leases with plaintiff who chose not to utilize the services of Citi-Habitat for which he had contracted. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 31 Misc 3d 1209(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 50540(U).]
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________
No. ACM 39277

_______ _______ __________
UNITED STATES Appellee

v.

Michael S

. HERRING Captain ( O

- 3 ) , U.S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United S tates A ir Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 19 April 2018

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Mark Milam

. Approved sentence: Dismissal and confinement for 45 days . Sentence adjudged 3 May 2017 by GCM convened at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

. For Appella nt: Major Patricia Encarnación Miranda, USAF; Major Rebecca J. Otey, USAF.
For Appellee: Lieutenant Colonel Joseph J. Kubler, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire

. Before HARDING, SPERANZA, and HUYGEN, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________
This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________

PE R CURIAM :United States v. Herring , No. ACM 39277

2 The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial t o Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. * Articles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice

, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court

* Appellan t notes that the military judge “determined it was not necessary to address” the Defense Motion for Appropriate Relief: Unlawful Pretrial Punishment regarding pretrial confinement after adjud g ing a sentence that included 45 days of confinement and granting credit of 49 days for pretrial confinement. United States v. Zarbatany , 70 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F. 2011), provides that credit for illegal pretrial confinement may be applied to components of an adjudged sentence other than confinement , including a punitive di scharge. Relief, however, “is not warranted or required where it could be disproportionate to the harm suffered or the nature of the offense.” Id. at 170. Acknowledging that the military judge should have decided the motion and a ssuming arguendo that Appel lant was entitled to credit under Article 13, Uniform Code of Military Justice

, we find that a set aside of Appellant’s dismissal would be disproportionate to the nature of Appellant’s offenses and thus no prejudicial error.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

SUSAN DIANE HULTS, 

Plaintiff, 

3: 14-cv-01234-TC 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

Defendant. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

On August 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint for review of the final decision of the 

commissioner (ECF No. 2) and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 1). 

The Court granted plaintiffs application to proceed IFP on August 4, 2014 and ordered plaintiff 

within 30 days to: 

( 1) Prepare an original summons for each defendant and 

submit it to the Clerk of Co uti for issuance; 

(2) Provide the original and three copies of each summons, 

three copies of the complaint, and three copies of the 

procedural order issued in this case to the Clerk of Court 

for service; and 

(3) Complete the U.S. Marshals Service Form (USM285) for 

service of process and submit it to the Clerk of Court. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE 1 

Case 3:14-cv-01234-TC Document 9 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 2
(ECF No. 5). To date, plaintiff has not submitted original summons to the Clerk of Court for 

issuance nor has proof of service been filed. 

On October 29, 2014, the court issued an order to show cause why this action should not 

be dismissed for failure to serve summons and complaint on defendant and failure to follow a 

court order. ECF No. 8. To date, plaintiff has failed to respond to the order to show cause. 

Proof of service must be made to the court. FED. R. C1v. P. 4(1). "If a defendant is not 

served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court ... must dismiss the action without 

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." FED. R. 

CIV. P. 4(m). As of December 5, 2014, one-hundred twenty-seven (127) days have elapsed since 

the complaint was filed without proof of service having been filed. 

Accordingly, this action should be dismissed for failure to follow a court order and 

failure to prosecute. 

The above Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a United States District 

Judge for review. Objections, if any, are due no later than fourteen days after the date this order 

is filed. The parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991). If no objections are filed, review of the Findings and Recommendation will go under 

advisement on that date. If objections are filed, any party may file a response within fourteen 

days after the date the objections are filed. Review of the Findings and Recommendation will go 

under advisement when the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier. 

Dated this __ ""----day of December 2014. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION PAGE2 

I 

Case 3:14-cv-01234-TC Document 9 Filed 12/08/14 Page 2 of 2
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50057 Summary Calendar

CARLOS DAVID DOMINGUEZ
,
Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,
Defendant

- Appel lee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:17

- CV

- 5

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Carlos David Dominguez appeals the district court’s denial of his petition
for a writ of error coram nobis . Dominguez has completed his 110

- month term of imprisonment but is still serving a 10

- year term of supervised release

. At all times, this court mus t be assured of its jurisdiction and the district court’s jurisdiction. United States v. Key , 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Dominguez is subject to an unexpired term of supervised release, he

* 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 Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 4, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50057 Document: 00514294582 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2018No. 17

- 50057

2 is “in custody” and ineligible for coram nobis re lief. S ee United States v. Hatten
, 167 F.3d 884, 887 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999). We therefore affirm on the alternative ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Dominguez’s petition. See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED. Case: 17-50057 Document: 00514294582 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2018
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Periodic Financial Report**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of RC2 Corporation
      (the "Company") certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
      for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
      contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Dated:
      May 2, 2006


/s/
      Curtis W.
      Stoelting


Curtis
      W. Stoelting


Chief
      Executive Officer











Dated:
      May 2, 2006


/s/
      Jody L.
      Taylor


Jody
      L. Taylor


Chief
      Financial Officer








This
      certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
Case: 1:03-cv-05833 Document #: 47  Filed: 12/20/04 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:196

Case: 1:03-cv-05833 Document #: 47  Filed: 12/20/04 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:197

Case: 1:03-cv-05833 Document #: 47  Filed: 12/20/04 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:198

Case: 1:03-cv-05833 Document #: 47  Filed: 12/20/04 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:199

Case: 1:03-cv-05833 Document #: 47  Filed: 12/20/04 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:200

Case: 1:03-cv-05833 Document #: 47  Filed: 12/20/04 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:201
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

February 19, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00744

- CR

Marshall Hondo RILEY
, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. 18

- 10

- 166

- CRW Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on January 13, 2020

. On January 22, 2020, appellant filed a motion requesting a thirty

- day extension of time to file the brief. We granted the motion, making appellant’s brief due no later than February 12, 2020. On February 14, 2020, appellant filed a motion requesting a sixt een

- day extension of time to file the brief. The motion is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that appellant’s brief is due no later than February 28, 2020.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 19th day of February, 2020

.

___________________________________ Michael A . Cruz
, Cle rk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENT INCLUDED IN ITEM 1 OF FORM 10-Q DATED MARCH 31, 1998 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,595
<SECURITIES>                                       280
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                       165
<INVENTORY>                                      3,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,360
<PP&E>                                           2,039
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,257
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,720
<SALES>                                          2,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,358
<CGS>                                            1,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,077
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     13
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  8
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         8
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2 

 

**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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Versata, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended July 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, James Doehrman, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Executive Vice President of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 ofoperations of the Company as of the date and for the periods expressed in the Report. 

 

Date:  September 12, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice HAYNES, a.k.a. Mauricio Livingston, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-11221

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2011.

Steven E. Butler, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kenyen Ray Brown, U.S. Attorney, Donna Barrow Dobbins, Gina S. Vann, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Mobile, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Arthur J. Madden, III, Madden & Soto, Mobile, AL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WILSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur J. Madden, III, appointed counsel for Maurice Haynes, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merits of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Haynes’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. This case is REMANDED to the district court, however, with instructions to correct a clerical error in the written judgment. *See United States v. Diaz,*190 F.3d 1247, 1251-53 (11th Cir.1999) (remanding for the purpose of correcting clerical error in the defendant’s judgment). Rather than indicating that Haynes pled guilty, the judgment should indicate that Haynes was found guilty by a jury after pleading not guilty.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,073,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,454,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,754,631
<PP&E>                                         623,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                (49,973)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,826,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,227,294
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,458,000
<COMMON>                                    11,015,973
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,826,083
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               194,244
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,534,205
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,006,966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,596,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,596,602)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,596,602)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.168)


</TABLE>
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 56 Filed 07/06/2005 Page 1 of 1

George S May Intl, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al Doc. 56

Dockets.Justia.com
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-23-0000009

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

IKA M. VEA, JR., Claimant-Appellant-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HAWAII, DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION,

Employer-Appellee-Appellee, and ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Third-Party Administrator-Appellee-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL APPEALS BOARD (DCD NO. 9-16-48117; AB NO. 2020-131 (WH))

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Chan, JJ.) Upon consideration of (1) the January 12, 2023 Motion Requesting Leave to Withdraw as Counsel by Vladimir Devens ( Devens ), counsel for Claimant-Appellant Ika M. Vea, Jr. (Appellant ), (2) the January 13, 2023 Motion to Withdraw Appeal by Appellant, (3) the January 18, 2023 Stipulation for Dismissal, and (4) the January 19, 2023 Motion to Withdraw Appeal by Appellant, the papers in support, and the record, it appears that: (1) Devens requests that he be allowed to withdraw as counsel for Appellant, Appellant was served a copy of the motion and did not object to the request to withdraw, and withdrawal will not have a material adverse effect on Appellant's interest;

(2) the appeal has not been docketed; (3) pursuant to Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(a), the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal with each party to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs; and Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-23-0000009 27-JAN-2023 07:58 AM Dkt. 15 OAWSTNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) the stipulation is dated and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the January 12, 2023 Motion Requesting Leave to Withdraw as Counsel is granted.Upon the filing of this order, Appellant is deemed to be selfrepresented and shall be conventionally served. The January 18, 2023 Stipulation for Dismissal is approved and the appeal is dismissed. The January 13, 2023 Motion to Withdraw Appeal and the January 19, 2023 Motion to Withdraw Appeal are denied. The appellate clerk shall conventionally serve Appellant a copy of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, January 27, 2023. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 22.1

                         Hyperion Solutions Corporation
                           Subsidiaries of the Company


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                               Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                               -----------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
Hyperion Solutions Corporation...................  Delaware
Hyperion International Corporation...............  Delaware
Appsource Corporation............................  Delaware
Little Tree Acquisition Corporation..............  Delaware
Hyperion Solutions Austria MbH...................  Austria
Hyperion Foreign Sales Corp. ....................  Barbados
Hyperion Solutions BeLux N.V.....................  Belgium
Hyperion Solutions Nordic Oy.....................  Finland
Hyperion Solutions France SAS ...................  France
Hyperion Solutions Deutschland GmbH .............  Germany
Hyperion Solutions Italia S.r.l. ................  Italy
Hyperion KK......................................  Japan
HSC Acquisition Co...............................  Nova Scotia
Hyperion AS......................................  Norway
Hyperion Solutions Corporation of Canada, Ltd. ..  Ontario
Hyperion Solutions Asia Pte. Ltd. ...............  Singapore
Hyperion Solutions Iberica, S.A. ................  Spain
Hyperion Solutions Nordic AB.....................  Sweden
Hyperion Solutions Schweiz AG....................  Switzerland
Hyperion Solutions Nederland, B.V. ..............  The Netherlands
Hyperion Solutions plc...........................  United Kingdom
</TABLE>
Case: 1:02-cv-01992 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/30/02 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:29
Case: 1:02-cv-01992 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/30/02 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:30
Case: 1:02-cv-01992 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/30/02 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:31
Case: 1:02-cv-01992 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/30/02 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:32
Case: 1:02-cv-01992 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/30/02 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:33
Case: 1:02-cv-01992 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/30/02 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:34
Case: 1:02-cv-01992 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/30/02 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:35
Case: 1:02-cv-01992 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/30/02 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:36
Case: 1:02-cv-01992 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/30/02 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:37