alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gary Zambito, Appellant, v Joseph W. Ryan et al., *463Respondents.

— In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated June 10, 1985, as granted the motion of the defendant Ryan, and the cross motion of the defendants Fariello and Carlino & Scharf to dismiss the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is modified, by adding a provision thereto granting the plaintiff leave to move in the Supreme Court, Kings County, if he be so advised, for leave to replead his cause of action sounding in legal malpractice upon a showing of merit (CPLR 3211 [e]). As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff’s time to move for leave to replead is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The complaint in this case failed to state a cause of action sounding in conspiracy, fraud or prima facie tort, and was properly dismissed as against the defendant Fariello and, insofar as those causes of action are concerned, as against the defendants Ryan and Carlino & Scharf. In addition, the complaint did not contain allegations of fraud or deceit sufficient to state a cause of action against the defendants Ryan and Carlino & Scharf under Judiciary Law § 487.

However, the complaint did allege that the defendant attorneys, over the plaintiff’s objection, accepted payment from the plaintiff’s former employers in connection with the representation of the plaintiff on criminal charges arising out of his former employment. It was further alleged that, as a result of this conflict of interest, the defendant attorneys failed to introduce evidence at the plaintiff’s trial which was exculpatory as to him but which inculpated his former employers, thereby causing his conviction. Although the foregoing allegations inartfully attempt to make out a cause of action sounding in legal malpractice, the complaint, as it now stands, fails to do so. Nevertheless, because it appears that the plaintiff might be able to remedy the deficiencies in his complaint and to properly plead a cause of action sounding in legal malpractice *(see, Sherbak v Doughty,*72 AD2d 548), he should be permitted, if he be so advised, to seek leave to replead that cause of action, upon an evidentiary showing that the cause of action has merit *(see,*CPLR 3211 [e]; *see also, Sanders v Schiffer,*39 NY2d 727, 729; *Boothe v Weiss,*107 AD2d 730, 731; *Maney v Maloney,*101 AD2d 403, 405). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
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
 Livestock and Range Research Laboratory: Miles City, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Public Notice
                        Recent Notices
                                    2024 School Tours
                    2024 Research Animal Sale On-line AuctionSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Miles City, Montana Livestock and Range Research Laboratory Docs





- ARS Careers
- ARS Jobs at USAJOBS
- Careers

Summer Jobsheadline bar  /ARSUserFiles/30300500/images/Summer Range Crew announcement 2019.jpg OTHER JOBS TOO! Other summer positions are available for students atFortKeoghwithMontanaStateUniversity, Agricultural Experiment Station such as FARM CREW, and SHOP/MAINTENANCE CREW. Please see these links to get information on how to apply for farm and shop positions.


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
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 189 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 189

To extend foreclosure and eviction protections for servicemembers, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2015

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend foreclosure and eviction protections for servicemembers, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Servicemember Foreclosure 
Protections Extension Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF PROTECTIONS FOR 
              MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES RELATING TO MORTGAGES, 
              MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND EVICTION.

    Section 710(d) of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for 
Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-154; 126 Stat. 1208) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``December 31, 2015'' and 
        inserting ``December 31, 2016''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``January 1, 2016'' and 
        inserting ``January 1, 2017''.
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARRY W. BARTON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ROBERT AYERS, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 07-15939

D.C. No. CV-06-03646-SI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges 

FILED

JAN 19 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 1

2005 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings to deny parole violated

due process. We decline to issue a certificate of appealability as to Barton’s

remaining claims.

2 07-15939

California state prisoner Harry W. Barton appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. 

1

Barton contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’s 2005 decision to deny

him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due

process rights. The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence

supports the Board’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v.

Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562-63 (9th Cir. 2010). 

AFFIRMED.
WILBORN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 

TIM WILBORN, Attorney at Law - OSB # 944644 

tirn@wilbornlaw. corn 

P.O. Box 370578 

Las Vegas, NV 89137 

Voice: (702) 240-0184 

Fax: (503) 926-9133 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

MICHAEL JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

COMMISSIONER of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 6: 15-cv-00069-AA 

PROPOSED ORDER 

Attorney fees in the amount of $7, 106.54 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and costs in the amount of $400.00 are awarded 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Subject to any offset allowed under the Treasury Offset Program, 

payment of this award shall be made via check sent to Tim Wilborn's address: P.O. Box 370578, Las 

Vegas, NV 8913 7. In accordance with the fee assignment which Plaintiff has signed, payment shall 

be made in Tim Wilborn's name if no debt subject to offset exists. 

DATED this3 day of· f}llal£R- , 2016. 

Submitted on March 1, 2016 by: 

s/ Tim Wilborn 

TIM WILBORN, OSB # 944644 

(702) 240-0184 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER - Page 1 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 6:15-cv-00069-AA Document 25 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Nathan A. Roesing, the Vice-President/CFO of Pelican Properties,
International Corp., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (1)      to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
                  Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the
                  "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ; and

         (2)      to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
                  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
                  condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:  August 14, 2002.


                                       /s/ Nathan A. Roesing
                                       -------------------------------
                                       Nathan A. Roesing, Vice-President/CFO
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

September 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 131035(77)(80) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

HARVEY GRACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 131035

v COA: 257896 Oakland CC: 2002-045572-NM BRUCE LEITMA N and BRUCE LEITMAN, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ ______________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by defendants -appellees for extension to August 29, 2007 of the time for filing their br ief is considered and it is GRANTED. The motion by the Insurance Institute of Michigan, ProNational Insurance Company and Professionals Direct Insurance Co mpany for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is considered and it is GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 27, 2007

Clerk
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of LCC International, Inc. (the Company),
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:  (a)
    the Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2004, filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. /s/  Graham B. PerkinsGraham B. PerkinsChief Financial OfficerMarch 23, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within
the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as
our exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as part of the Form
10-K.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES, L.P., FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             542
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      421
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (92)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   871
<PP&E>                                          74,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,477)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,661
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,908
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,208
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,818
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (2,265)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,529)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,024
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 192 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the refundable portion 

of the child tax credit to individuals who are not authorized to be 

employed in the United States and to terminate the use of certifying 

acceptance agents to facilitate the application process for ITINs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the 

refundable portion of the child tax credit to individuals 

who are not authorized to be employed in the United 

States and to terminate the use of certifying acceptance 

agents to facilitate the application process for ITINs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Handouts to Un5 authorized Taxpayers Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘SHUT Act 

6 of 2015’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 192 IH

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF REFUNDABLE PORTION OF CHILD TAX 

2 CREDIT TO INDIVIDUALS NOT AUTHORIZED 

3 TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section 24 of the 

5 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at 

6 the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(5) IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT WITH RE8 SPECT TO TAXPAYER.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) shall 

10 not apply to any taxpayer for any taxable year 

11 unless the taxpayer includes the taxpayer’s so12 cial security number on the return of tax for 

13 such taxable year or otherwise demonstrates on 

14 the return that the taxpayer is authorized to be 

15 employed in the United States. 

16 ‘‘(B) JOINT RETURNS.—In the case of a 

17 joint return, the requirement of subparagraph 

18 (A) shall be treated as met if either spouse 

19 meets such requirement. 

20 ‘‘(C) OMISSION TREATED AS MATHE21 MATICAL OR CLERICAL ERROR.—Any failure to 

22 meet the requirement of subparagraph (A) shall 

23 be treated as a mathematical or clerical error 

24 and assessed according to section 6213(b)(1).’’. 

25 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (e) of 

26 section 24 of such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘WITH

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 192 IH

1 RESPECT TO QUALIFYING CHILDREN’’ after ‘‘IDENTI2 FICATION REQUIREMENT’’ in the heading thereof. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

6 SEC. 3. TERMINATION OF CERTIFYING AGENT PROGRAM. 

7 Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

8 no Individual Taxpayer Identification Number may be 

9 issued by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any delegate 

10 of such Secretary) unless the supporting documentary evi11 dence is submitted to such Secretary or any delegate of 

12 such Secretary who is an employee within the Department 

13 of the Treasury. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### DRAKE, Respondent, v. McKIBBON et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

April, 1896.)

Action by Fred E. Drake, as executor, etc., against Thomas G. McKibbon, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 11

               STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                Three Months     Three Months      Six Months      Six Months
                                                   Ended            Ended            Ended            Ended
                                                June 30, 1999    June 30, 1998    June 30, 1999    June 30, 1998
                                                -------------    -------------    -------------    -------------

<S>                                                    <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>
Net loss-Limited Partners                               $0               $0               $0                $0

Average Class A and B units outstanding                921              921              921               921

Net loss per Class A and B unit                         $0               $0               $0                $0

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 6, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127547 (30) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 127547

 ADB: 01-55-GA 

GEOFFREY N. FIEGER, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s December 21, 

2006 order denying the motion for stay of proceedings pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

consideration of the petition for certiorari in this case is DENIED as moot, inasmuch as 

the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 20, 2007. 

t0403 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 6, 2007 

 Clerk
1 TheHonorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________ Nos. 99-1464/1466

________________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Lamont Gentry Falls, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

__________ Submitted: November 5, 1999 Filed: November 9, 1999

___________ Before BOWMAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lamont Gentry Falls appeals from the district court’s 1 orders denying his motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing on the accuracy of his trial transcript, and denying his motion for a new trial.-2-

After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial: Falls’s discovery of a jury request to view a video surveillance tape did not constitute “newly discovered” evidence, and the motion was untimely if it was based on any other ground. SeeFed. R. Crim. P. 33; United States v. Castillo , 171 F.3d 1163, 1167 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review); United States v. Luna , 94 F.3d 1156, 1161 (8th Cir. 1996) (prerequisites for new trial based on newly discovered evidence). We also conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to remandfor an evidentiary hearing, because the notice of appeal concerning this ruling was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i) (criminal defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed in district court within 10 days after entry of order being appealed); UnitedStates v. Robinson , 64 F.3d 403, 404-05 (8th Cir. 1995) (court lacks jurisdiction to review where notice of appeal is untimely filed). Accordingly, we dismiss Falls’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing, and affirm the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 22, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00488

- CR

IN RE Joshua PACHECANO , Relator

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On November 5, 2021, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has considered relator’s petition and has determined that it is now moot. Accordingly, the petition for

writ of mandamus is DENIED AS MOOT. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on December 22, 2021

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of December, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CR11362 , styled State of Texas v. Joshua Charles Pachecano , pending

in the 227th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Kevin M. O ’ Connell presiding.