alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maria Castillo, Appellant, v Carver Federal Savings and Loan Association, Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from *288(1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated November 23, 1984, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) an order of the same court, entered January 28, 1985, which denied her motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered January 28, 1985, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 23, 1984 is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court, Kings County, properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. That motion raised issues of whether or not the defendant was a mortgagee in possession and whether or not, assuming that the defendant was a mortgagee in possession, there was any demonstration of the defendant’s failure to use due care in the repair and maintenance of the premises which proximately caused the infant’s injuries. Even assuming, without deciding, that the defendant was a mortgagee in possession and therefore owed the plaintiff a duty of care with respect to the maintenance of the subject premises, the plaintiff failed to set forth factual allegations sufficient to support her claim that the defendant was negligent, either with regard to its causing the fire or in affording reasonable access from the building. In addition, the plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue as to whether, if in fact the defendant were negligent, such negligence was a proximate cause of the infant’s injuries. Accordingly, since no triable issue of fact existed for resolution at trial, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2022099EN.01024701.xml

| 1.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/247 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/247

---

P9_TA(2021)0340

Measures necessary for the implementation of the Protocol on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and on the Research Fund for Coal and Steel ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Council decision amending Decision 2003/76/EC establishing the measures necessary for the implementation of the Protocol, annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and on the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (09399/2021 — C9-0242/2021 — 2020/0142(APP))

(Special legislative procedure — consent)

(2022/C 99/38)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (09399/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (09399/2021),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 2 of Protocol No 37 on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and on the Research Fund for Coal and Steel, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0242/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 2 of Protocol No 37 on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and on the Research Fund for Coal and Steel, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0242/2021),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Budgets (A9-0229/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Budgets (A9-0229/2021),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the draft Council decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2079 

To provide that chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States Code, relating 

to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, shall not apply to enrollment agreements made between students and certain institutions of higher education; and to prohibit limitations on the ability of students to 

pursue claims against certain institutions of higher education. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2015 

Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California (for herself, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. ELLISON, 

Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. LEE, Mr. COHEN, and Mr. TAKANO) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States 

Code, relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, shall not apply to enrollment agreements made 

between students and certain institutions of higher education; and to prohibit limitations on the ability of students to pursue claims against certain institutions of 

higher education. 

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


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2079 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Court Legal Access 

3 and Student Support (CLASS) Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INAPPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 9, 

5 UNITED STATES CODE, TO ENROLLMENT 

6 AGREEMENTS MADE BETWEEN STUDENTS 

7 AND CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 

8 EDUCATION. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 9 of the United 

10 States Code (relating to the enforcement of arbitration 

11 agreements) shall not apply to an enrollment agreement 

12 made between a student and an institution of higher edu13 cation. 

14 (b) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the 

15 term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the meaning 

16 given such term in section 102 of the Higher Education 

17 Act of 1965 (0 U.S.C. 1002). 

18 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON LIMITATIONS ON ABILITY OF STU19 DENTS TO PURSUE CLAIMS AGAINST CER20 TAIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 

21 Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

22 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

23 following new paragraph: 

24 ‘‘(30) The institution will not require any stu25 dent to agree to, and will not enforce, any limitation 

26 or restriction (including a limitation or restriction on 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2079 IH

1 any available choice of applicable law, a jury trial, 

2 or venue) on the ability of a student to pursue a 

3 claim, individually or with others, against an institu4 tion in court.’’. 

5 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

6 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

7 take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

8 Act. 

Æ 


Emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

No. 96-6736. FOLSOM METAL PRODUCTS, INC., an Alabama Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-DefendantAppellee, RBOP Tools International Inc., Texas Corporation, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. TORUS EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant. July 24, 1997. Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Northern Di strict of Alabama (CV 94-L-988-S SHL); Seybourn H. Lynne, Judge. Before BIRCH and CARNES, Circuit Judge s, and GODBOLD, Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM: The petition for rehearing by RBOP Tools Internati onal Inc. asserts that the district court addressed the issue of whether RBOP was subject to liability as a successor in interest to Folsom Metal Products, Inc. and held it was not subject to such liability. Therefore, RBOP says, the panel erred in holding that the district court had not a ddressed that issue and in remanding that issue for consideration. The district court referred to successor liability of RBOP in the context of its determination of whether Folsom was responsible to Torus Equipment Co. for more than 5% of $2,100,000 (a 5% that Folsom agreed it must pay). The district court's barebones order held Folsom had no further contract obligation beyond the 5% and there were " no further contract obligations" owed to Torus by RBOP or any other successor in interest. We do not construe the district court's decisi on as a plenary determination that RBOP could not be subject to successor liabilit y for obligations of Folsom to Torus but rather as a limited decision relating to Torus' claims for more than5%, i.e., "Folsom doesn't owe anything more than 5% and RBOP can't have successor liability for somethi ng Folsom doesn't owe." If the district court intended to confer on RBOP a status of freedom from any successor liability, the record does notsupport such a ruling at the summary judgment stage. Additionally the district court did not focus at all on whethe r if RBOP were a successor in interest to Folsom it might be responsible for Folsom's obligation to pay 5% of $2,100,000. We neither whisper nor hint what we thi nk the determination should be on whether RBOP has successor liability. But it is an issue alive and well to be considered on remand. If RBOP is found to be a successor, it is for the district cour t in the first instance to decide whether it has successor liability for the 5% of $2,100,000 that Folsom acknowledges it owes, or for additional amounts, if any, found to be owed by Folsom, or both. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. The summary judgments in favor of Folsom and RBOP are REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion and with this order.
LAKE SUMNERLatitude: 34.629Longitude: -104.392Elevation: 4272

LAKE SUMNER

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wesner Springs Site Page...



Wesner Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe
# C_2021081EN.01000301.xml

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9285 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Oignies Site)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/03)

On 20 March 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9285. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9285. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
BLANCO DIVERSION NEAR PAGOSA SPRINGSLatitude: 37.204Longitude: -106.811Elevation: 11558

BLANCO DIVERSION NEAR PAGOSA SPRINGS

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit
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 the Annual Report of TransAct Technologies Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven A. DeMartino, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 of operations of the Company.






Date:  March 16, 2010




/s/ Steven A. DeMartinoSteven A. DeMartino

Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2182

G. MARK SEALS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NATIONAL STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM, a Nebraska

Corporation; ILLINOIS STUDENT ASSISTANCE

COMMISSION, an Illinois Corporation; MAXIMUS

COLLECTION CENTER, a Michigan Corporation;

AMERICAN EDUCATION SERVICES, Pennsylvania

Higher Education Assistance Agency, a

Pennsylvania Corporation; SALLIE MAE SERVICING

CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation; NCO

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-02-101-5)

Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 22, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

G. Mark Seals, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Leftridge Thomas, KAY,

CASTO & CHANEY, Charleston, West Virginia; David M. Thomas, KAY,

CASTO & CHANEY, Morgantown, West Virginia; Jacon Swartly, LEGAL

SERVICES DIVISION, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; William Scott Adams,
- 2 -

MACCORKLE, LAVENDER, CASEY & SWEENEY, PLLC, Morgantown, West

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

G. Mark Seals appeals the dismissal of his civil action

alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o (2000), and the West Virginia

Consumer Credit Protection Act (“WVCCPA”), W. Va. Code § 46A-2-125

(1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

memorandum opinions and orders granting Defendants’ motions to

dismiss and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Seals v. National

Student Loan Program, No. CA-02-101-5 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 8, 2003;

Aug. 16, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**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 the Annual Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), ThomasC.K. Yuen, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: March 30, 2005 | By:      | /s/ THOMAS C.K. YUEN                                                                |
|-----------------------|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |     | Thomas C.K. Yuen                                                                    |
| * *              | * * | *Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive  Officer**(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1





April 25, 2002


United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington DC  20549

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter is being furnished to you pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3
of Regulation S-X in connection with the filing of the Form 10-K (the "Form
10-K") of Wilsons The Leather Experts, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year
of the Company ended February 2, 2002.

Item 8 of the Form 10-K incorporates by reference the financial statements
required by such Item and the report of Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as the
Company's independent public accountant for the year ended February 2, 2002 with
respect to such financial statements, from the Company's Annual Report to
Shareholders for the year ended February 2, 2002.

The Form 10-K also contains a financial statement schedule, Schedule
II-Valuation and Qualifying Accounts for the fiscal years ended February 2,
2002, February 3, 2001, and January 29, 2000, and the report of Andersen with
respect to such schedule.

The Company has received the written representations of Andersen that the audits
that were the subject of the reports referred to above were subject to
Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice
to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audits, availability of national office consultation,
and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the
relevant portions of the audits.

Very Truly Yours,

Wilsons The Leather Experts, Inc.

By: /s/Peter G. Michielutti

Peter G. Michielutti
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary
Listen

# Request for Congressional Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2025

March 11, 2024

Report

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40900

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSHUA CALHOUN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CR-1159-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederalPublic Defender appointed to represent Joshua Calhoun in his

appeal of a resentencing proceeding has moved for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and

United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Calhoun has filed a

response and requested the appointment of counsel. 

During the pendency of this appeal, Calhoun completed his sentence of

imprisonment, and he has no further term of supervised release to serve. The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-40900 Document: 00512420002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
No. 12-40900

appeal is, therefore, moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Bailey v.

Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED as moot, and counsel’s motion to withdraw and Calhoun’s motion

for the appointment of counsel are DENIED as unnecessary.

2

 Case: 12-40900 Document: 00512420002 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
Page 1 - ORDER FOR DEFAULT

TDS/tn1/7323006

Department of Justice

1162 Court Street NE

Salem, OR 97301-4096

(503) 934-4400 / Fax: (503) 373-7067

ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM #753239

Attorney General

TIMOTHY D. SMITH #914374

Assistant Attorney General

Department of Justice

1162 Court Street NE

Salem, OR 97301-4096

Telephone: (503) 934-4400

Facsimile: (503) 373-7067

E-mail: tim.smith@doj.state.or.us

Attorneys for State of Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

STATE OF OREGON, Acting by and through

the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICHOLAS ADAM AMES,

Defendant.

Case No. 6:16-cv-345-TC

ORDER FOR DEFAULT

Plaintiff the State of Oregon, acting by and through the Department of Corrections (the

“State of Oregon”), requests that the clerk of the court enter default against Defendant Nicholas

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 6:16-cv-00345-TC Document 5-1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 - ORDER FOR DEFAULT

TDS/tn1/7323006

Department of Justice

1162 Court Street NE

Salem, OR 97301-4096

(503) 934-4400 / Fax: (503) 373-7067

Adam Ames pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). It appearing from the record that

Defendant Nicholas Adam Ames has failed to appear, plead or otherwise defend, the default of

Defendant Nicholas Adam Ames is hereby entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

55(a).

Dated this _____ day of ___________________, 2016.

Clerk of the Court

SUBMITTED BY:

Timothy D. Smith, #914374

Assistant Attorney General

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

Department of Justice

1162 Court Street NE

Salem, OR 97301-4096

Telephone: (503) 934-4400

Facsimile: (503) 373-7067

E-mail: tim.smith@doj.state.or.us

Case 6:16-cv-00345-TC Document 5-1 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 2