alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALISHA L. PRICE,

Appellant,

v.

REZA TORKAMAN,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1872

[April 24, 2024]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Edmond Alonzo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2023CC002019.

Alisha L. Price, Fort Pierce, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Tenant appeals the trial court’s final judgment of eviction. After Tenant 

failed to make a required monthly payment, Landlord issued a notice 

invoking the provisions of section 83.56(3), Florida Statutes (2023), 

informing Tenant of the lease termination due to non-payment. The notice 

provided a three-day period for Tenant to settle the outstanding rent. After 

Tenant failed to settle the outstanding rent, Landlord filed a complaint 

seeking to evict Tenant.

Three days after service of the summons and complaint, Tenant 

composed a handwritten letter articulating her reasons for withholding 

rent. The following day, Tenant deposited the total rent amount and court 

fees into the court registry. One hour later, the court entered a final 

judgment of eviction and order to disburse the funds held in the court 

registry.

The controlling statute allows a tenant to assert defenses to an eviction 

action and, if defenses are asserted, requires the tenant to pay the amount 

of rent at issue into the registry of the court. § 83.60(2), Fla. Stat. (2023). 

In this case, Tenant timely filed the defenses and deposited the funds into 

the registry of the court. Yet the court entered final judgment without 
2

affording Tenant an opportunity to present those defenses, and thus erred. 

On remand, the court must afford Tenant that opportunity.

Reversed and remanded.

LEVINE, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# L_2009265EN.01000101.xml

| 9.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 265/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 265/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 940/2009

of 8 October 2009

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 October 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 October 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.

2

---

ANNEX

Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

| (EUR/100 kg) |
| --- |
| CN code | Third country code (1) | Standard import value |
| 0702 00 00 | MK | 28,3 |
| TR | 71,2 |
| ZZ | 49,8 |
| 0707 00 05 | TR | 114,4 |
| ZZ | 114,4 |
| 0709 90 70 | TR | 111,0 |
| ZZ | 111,0 |
| 0805 50 10 | AR | 96,4 |
| CL | 81,0 |
| TR | 79,4 |
| ZA | 101,1 |
| ZZ | 89,5 |
| 0806 10 10 | BR | 188,8 |
| TR | 108,5 |
| US | 186,7 |
| ZZ | 161,3 |
| 0808 10 80 | BR | 63,1 |
| CL | 86,6 |
| NZ | 79,1 |
| US | 80,3 |
| ZA | 72,6 |
| ZZ | 76,3 |
| 0808 20 50 | CN | 41,0 |
| TR | 102,8 |
| ZA | 77,8 |
| ZZ | 73,9 |

(EUR/100 kg)

CN code

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

0702 00 00

MK

28,3

TR

71,2

ZZ

49,8

0707 00 05

TR

114,4

ZZ

114,4

0709 90 70

TR

111,0

ZZ

111,0

0805 50 10

AR

96,4

CL

81,0

TR

79,4

ZA

101,1

ZZ

89,5

0806 10 10

BR

188,8

TR

108,5

US

186,7

ZZ

161,3

0808 10 80

BR

63,1

CL

86,6

NZ

79,1

US

80,3

ZA

72,6

ZZ

76,3

0808 20 50

CN

41,0

TR

102,8

ZA

77,8

ZZ

73,9

---

(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
  ZZ
  ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 174 (Monday, September 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19554]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11531]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Sophie Taeuber-Arp: Living 
Abstraction'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Sophie Taeuber-Arp: Living 
Abstraction'' at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of 
cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or 
display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cbb8aea8bfa2a4a5f9fffef28bb8bfaabfaee5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aeddcbcddac7c1c09c9a9b97eedddacfdacb80c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Matthew R. Lussenhop,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-19554 Filed 9-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COLORADO RIVER NEAR PARSHALL BELOW W.F. CONFLUENCELatitude: 40.063Longitude: -106.193Elevation: None

Colorado River Near Parshall below W.F. Confluence

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Fork Camp Site Page...



Middle Fork Camp

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Never Summer Site Page...



Never Summer

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fool Creek Site Page...



Fool Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to High Lonesome Site Page...



High Lonesome

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sawtooth Site Page...



Sawtooth

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Arrow Site Page...



Arrow

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear Lake Site Page...



Bear Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Berthoud Summit Site Page...



Berthoud Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lake Irene Site Page...



Lake Irene

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Loveland Basin Site Page...



Loveland Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Phantom Valley Site Page...



Phantom Valley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Stillwater Creek Site Page...



Stillwater Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Willow Creek Pass Site Page...



Willow Creek Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Jones Pass Site Page...



Jones Pass
# L_2014348DE.01003101.xml

| 4.12.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 348/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 348/31

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1069/2009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. Oktober 2009 mit Hygienevorschriften für nicht für den menschlichen Verzehr bestimmte tierische Nebenprodukte und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1774/2002 (Verordnung über tierische Nebenprodukte)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 300 vom 14. November 2009
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 300 vom 14. November 2009

Auf Seite 20 in Artikel 2 Absatz 2 Buchstabe c:

anstatt:

| „c) | tierische Nebenprodukte aus Jagdwild und Jagdwildfleisch gemäß Artikel 1 Absatz 3 Buchstabe e der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 853/2004;“ |
| --- | --- |

„c)

tierische Nebenprodukte aus Jagdwild und Jagdwildfleisch gemäß Artikel 1 Absatz 3 Buchstabe e der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 853/2004;“

muss es heißen:

| „c) | tierische Nebenprodukte von frei lebendem Wild und Wildfleisch gemäß Artikel 1 Absatz 3 Buchstabe e der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 853/2004;“ |
| --- | --- |

„c)

tierische Nebenprodukte von frei lebendem Wild und Wildfleisch gemäß Artikel 1 Absatz 3 Buchstabe e der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 853/2004;“

.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Scott Parilla, Appellant.

Submitted January 8, 2007;

decided January 11, 2007

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
#### Bull, Respondent, v. Rome, W. & O. R. Co., Appellant.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                    SUBSIDIARIES OF SIGNATURE RESORTS, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                           JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION
<S>                                            <C>
AKGI - St. Maarten, N.V......................  Delaware and Netherlands Antilles

All Seasons Resorts, Inc.....................  Arizona

All Seasons Resorts, Inc.....................  Texas

Grand Beach Resort, Limited Partnership......  Georgia (limited partnership)

Greensprings Associates......................  Virginia (joint venture)

Herich Tahoe Development.....................  Nevada (general partnership)

Lake Tahoe Resort Partners, LLC..............  California (limited liability company)

MMG Development Corp. .......................  Florida

Poipu Resort Partners, L.P. .................  Hawaii (limited partnership)

Port Royal Resort, L.P. .....................  South Carolina (limited partnership)

Powhatan Associates .........................  Virginia (joint venture)

Signature Grand Villas, Inc. ................  U.S. Virgin Islands

Sunterra Pacific, Inc. ......................  Washington

Torres Mazatlan S.A. de C.V. ................  Mexico

Torres Vallarta S.A. de C.V. ................  Mexico

West Maui Resort Partners, L.P. .............  Delaware (limited partnership)
</TABLE>
# L_2009180EN.01002501.xml

| 11.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 180/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 180/25

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2009 of 26 May 2009 opening and providing for the administration of Community tariff quotas for bulls, cows and heifers other than for slaughter of certain Alpine and mountain breeds

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 128 of 27 May 2009
  )

On page 58, Article 2(2):

for:

‘09.4197’,

read:

‘09.0115’.

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Alfred B. W. FLINT, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 30,915.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

June 4, 1976.

*Susan H. Hewman, Esquire,*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With her on the brief were *Joseph Remcho, Esquire, Arpiar G. Saunders, Esquire, David F. Addlestone, Esquire, Colonel Alton H. Harvey, Captain Sammy S. Knight,*and *Captain J. D. Miller.*

*Captain Lee D. Schinasi*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Major John T. Sherwood, Jr.,*and *Captain William C. Kirk.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLETCHER, Chief Judge:

The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is affirmed. In affirming, we adopt the development and analysis of that court in resolving the speedy trial question,1 except insofar as the court exempted all rehearings, rather than merely *Dubay-type proceedings*
      *2*
      *from the*
      *429Burton3 rule. A *DuBay*proceeding, in effect, is utilized to gather additional evidence or to resolve conflicting evidence *before*determining an issue presented to the appellate tribunal. A rehearing, on the other hand, is a trial de novo, to redetermine either an accused’s guilt or an appropriate sentence or both. As such, rehearings necessarily fall within the *Burton*mandate, and such rehearings must be held within 90 days of the date the convening authority is notified of the final decision authorizing a rehearing. Inasmuch as the offenses involved in this case all predated the *Burton*decision, the rule has no applicability in this instance.

Judge COOK and Judge PERRY concur.

. *United States v. Flint,*50 C.M.R. 865 (ACMR 1975).

. *United States v. DuBay,*17 U.S.C.M.A. 147, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1967).

. *United States*v. *Burton, 21*U.S.C.M.A. 112, 44 C.M.R. 166 (1971).
# L_2009151EN.01002701.xml

| 16.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 151/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 151/27

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 507/2009

of 15 June 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Abbacchio Romano (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and Article 17(2) of that Regulation, the application submitted by Italy to enter the designation ‘Abbacchio Romano’ in the register has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 and Article 17(2) of that Regulation, the application submitted by Italy to enter the designation ‘Abbacchio Romano’ in the register has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 June 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 269, 24.10.2008, p. 16.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty

Class 1.1.   Fresh meat (and offal)

ITALY

Abbacchio Romano (PGI)

---
# L_2009171DE.01004801.xml

| 1.7.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 171/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 171/48

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 41/2009 der Kommission vom 20. Januar 2009 zur Zusammensetzung und Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln, die für Menschen mit einer Glutenunverträglichkeit geeignet sind

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 16 vom 21. Januar 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 16 vom 21. Januar 2009

Seite 4, Artikel 2 Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

| „b) | ‚Gluten‘ bezeichnet eine Proteinfraktion von Weizen, Roggen, Gerste, Hafer oder ihren Kreuzungen und Derivaten, die manche Menschen nicht vertragen und die in Wasser und 0,5 M Natriumchloridlösung nicht löslich ist;“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

‚Gluten‘ bezeichnet eine Proteinfraktion von Weizen, Roggen, Gerste, Hafer oder ihren Kreuzungen und Derivaten, die manche Menschen nicht vertragen und die in Wasser und 0,5 M Natriumchloridlösung nicht löslich ist;“

muss es heißen:

| „b) | ‚Gluten‘ bezeichnet eine Proteinfraktion von Weizen, Roggen, Gerste, Hafer oder ihren Kreuzungen und Derivate der Proteinfraktion, die manche Menschen nicht vertragen und die in Wasser und 0,5 M Natriumchloridlösung nicht löslich ist;“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

‚Gluten‘ bezeichnet eine Proteinfraktion von Weizen, Roggen, Gerste, Hafer oder ihren Kreuzungen und Derivate der Proteinfraktion, die manche Menschen nicht vertragen und die in Wasser und 0,5 M Natriumchloridlösung nicht löslich ist;“

---
#### Cedarwoods CRE CDO II, Ltd., et al., Appellants, v Galante Holdings, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[948 NYS2d 17]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered on or about January 4, 2012, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved a temporary restraining order issued on December 28, 2011, unanimously affirmed, with costs. The stay granted by this Court by order entered February 14, 2012 is continued for 45 days from the date of service of the order on this appeal with notice of entry.

The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion seeking to enjoin defendants from taking any action to transfer the mortgage loan, which was part of a securitization trust, to defendant Galante Holdings, Inc. The court properly found that plaintiffs failed to comply with the pooling and servicing agreement’s *582“no-action” clause. That clause provides that no certificate holder has the right to bring any suit unless the holders of certificates representing interests of at least 25% of “each affected [c]Iass” shall have first given notice to a trustee requesting that the suit be brought and the trustee shall not bring the suit within a 60-day period. Plaintiffs only hold an interest in two of the affected classes constituting far less than the required 25%. Furthermore, they did not obtain the consent of any other classes before commencing this action.

Moreover, even if plaintiffs could show that they were not required to comply with the “no action” clause before commencing this action, they failed to demonstrate that they were otherwise likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, that they would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and that a balance of the equities tips in their favor *(see generally Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc.,*4 NY3d 839 [2005]; *see also*CPLR 6301).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.P, Catterson, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.
#### Gabriela NAAMANY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72673.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 27, 2007.

Jagdip Singh Sekhon, Esq., Sekhon *&*Sekhon, PLC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Thomas P. Carroll, U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gabriela Naamany, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, adopting and affirming in part the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

*651To the extent that the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the final agency action. *Nuru v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir.2005) . We review for substantial evidence, *Ge v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2004), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

The IJ found that Naamany was not credible because he found it implausible that the police were still looking for her two years after she left the country. Substantial evidence does not support this finding because it rests on “impermissible speculation” in that it was “based on the IJ’s personal conjecture about what [the Romanian] authorities would or would not do.” *Ge,*367 F.3d at 1124-25.

In addition, the IJ found that Naamany was not credible on the ground that she testified inconsistently as to whether she had problems with the police prior to securing her visitor visa. Substantial evidence does not support this finding because the record reflects that Naamany’s testimony was internally consistent. *See Bandari v. INS,*227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir.2000).

Finally, the IJ concluded that Naamany’s failure to provide adequate corroboration was fatal to her claim. However, “[b]ecause the IJ’s credibility determination rested on insufficient and impermissible grounds, [Naamany’s] testimony should be deemed credible, ehminating the need for corroborating evidence.” *Singh v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 1100, 1109 (9th Cir.2006); *see also Kaur v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 876, 889-90 (9th Cir.2004).

We grant the petition for review and remand the case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### George McMillan, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

The instant claim was properly dismissed on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In so holding, however, we note that the claimant was entitled to an administrative hearing under the regulations concerning the assignment of inmates to special housing units *(see,*7 NYCRR part 300). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Richard H. Burr, an Attorney, Resignor.

[946 NYS2d 524]

Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys. Eresent — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni and Sconiers, JJ. (Filed June 11, 2012.)