alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. v. HOTEL BRUNSWICK CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

1. Judicial Notice—Order of Court.

The appellate division will take judicial notice of its previous orders.

2. Receivers—Sale.

Where the general receiver of a mortgagor is substituted as receiver in foreclosure proceedings, a controversy between him and the original receiver in the foreclosure proceedings as to the property covered by the mortgagee, the latter having been directed to sell all the property covered thereby, becomes immaterial, so far as the sale is concerned.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by the Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, as trustee, against the Hotel Brunswick Company and another. From an order directing Robert Sturgis, as receiver, to sell certain property, Joseph H. Baker, as receiver, appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, RUMSEY, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Ira Leo Bamberger, for appellant.

David McClure, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question which arose between Mr. Baker and Mr. Sturgis with regard to the property to be sold under the order appealed from is no longer of any importance. This court takes judicial notice of the fact that it has modified the order appointing Mr. Sturgis receiver, by substituting Mr. Baker in his place. The effect of this is that all the money received upon the sale will pass into Mr. Baker’s possession under the previous order. The question, therefore, whether property not covered by the mortgage was sold is unimportant. As Mr. Baker is the receiver of the company generally, and, as such receiver, is entitled to the proceeds both of the sale of the mortgaged property (which he will hold for the plaintiff) and also of •what may not have been covered by the mortgage, the disputed question which arose at the time of the sale is at the present time of no moment.

The order should be affirmed, without costs.
JINA CHOI (NY Bar No. 2699718) 

ERIN E. SCHNEIDER (Cal. Bar No. 216114) 

SHEILA E. O’CALLAGHAN (Cal. Bar No. 131032) 

 ocallaghans@sec.gov 

WADE M. RHYNE (Cal. Bar No. 216799) 

 rhynew@sec.gov 

BERNARD B. SMYTH (Cal. Bar No. 217741) 

 smythb@sec.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 705-2500 

Facsimile: (415) 705-2501 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

AEQUITAS MANAGEMENT, LLC; AEQUITAS 

HOLDINGS, LLC; AEQUITAS COMMERCIAL 

FINANCE, INC.; AEQUITAS CAPITAL 

MANAGEMENT, INC.; AEQUITAS INVESTMENT 

MANAGEMENT, LLC; ROBERT J. JESENIK; 

BRIAN A. OLIVER; and N. SCOTT GILLIS, 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 3:16−cv−00438−PK 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE VIA 

EMAIL AND UPS 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 6 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 3
Certificate of Service Case No.: 3:16−cv−00438−PK

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I, Gem Mil Langit, am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, and am not a 

party in this action. I hereby certify that on March 11, 2016, I caused the following documents: 

COMPLAINT 

[Docket No. 1] 

CIVIL CASE ASSIGNMENT ORDER 

DISCOVERY AND PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER 

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(A)(1) DISCOVERY AGREEMENT 

CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DESIGNATION OF 

THE NORMAL APPEAL ROUTE 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT – OREGON CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT TIME 

SCHEDULES 

[Docket No. 3] 

SUMMONS 

[Docket No. 4] 

LIMITED OBJECTION TO STIPULATED ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER 

[Docket No. 5] 

to be served via email and UPS, on the following counsel entitled to notice: 

Ivan B. Knauer, Esq. 

Pepper Hamilton, LLP 

Hamilton Square 

600 Fourteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20005-2004 

knaueri@pepperlaw.com 

Attorney for Defendants 

Aequitas Management, LLC; 

Aequitas Holdings, LLC; 

Aequitas Commercial Finance, Inc.; 

Aequitas Capital Management, Inc.; 

Aequitas Investment Management, LLC 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 6 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 3
Certificate of Service Case No.: 3:16−cv−00438−PK

Marc J. Fagel, Esq. 

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 

555 Mission Street 

Suite 3000 

San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 

MFagel@gibsondunn.com 

Attorney for Defendant Robert J. Jesenik 

Jahan P. Raissi, Esq. 

Shartsis Friese LLP 

One Maritime Plaza 

Eighteenth Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

JRaissi@sflaw.com 

Attorney for Defendant Brian A. Oliver 

W. Douglas Sprague, Esq. 

Covington & Burling LLP 

One Front Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 

dsprague@cov.com 

Attorney for Defendant N. Scott Gillis 

 /s/ Gem Mil Langit 

 Gem Mil Langit 

Case 3:16-cv-00438-PK Document 6 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER


OF APPLIED NATURAL GAS FUELS, INC.


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, I, Richard Rychlik, Principal Accounting Officer of Applied Natural Gas Fuels, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to my knowledge, the accompanying Annual Report of the Company
on this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: April  23, 2010
By:
/s/ Richard RychlikRichard RychlikPrincipal Accounting Officer
**EXHIBIT
23.1**


**CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (File No. 333-121065) of CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. of our report dated
March 16, 2005, relating to the financial statements , financial statement
schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. and our reports dated March 12, 2004
relating to the financial statements of Desert Ridge Resort Partners, LLC and
Subsidiaries and WB Resort Partners, LP and Subsidiaries , which appear in this
Form 10-K.
PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
Orlando,
Florida
March 16,
2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dante White, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 717]

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Hall Jr., J.), rendered April 8, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, executed a waiver of the right to appeal, and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of four years followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant’s contention that he did not knowingly waive the right to appeal. Defendant was advised that the appeal waiver was part of the plea agreement and he executed a written waiver in open court after discussing the appeal waiver with counsel. Although County Court made a minimal inquiry, the record reveals that defendant’s waiver of *1300the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice *(see People v Binns,*82 AD3d 1449, 1450 [2011]; *People v McCaskill,*76 AD3d 751, 752 [2010]). Accordingly, defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea is foreclosed; it is also unpreserved, as there is no indication on this record that he moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Taylor,*89 AD3d 1143, 1143 [2011]). The exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable, as defendant made no statements during the allocution that negated an essential element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon his guilt *(see People v McFarren,*83 AD3d 1209, 1209-1210 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 860 [2011]).

To the extent that defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel relates to the voluntariness of the plea and, therefore, survives his appeal waiver, it is similarly unpreserved for our review given defendant’s failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Tatum,*82 AD3d 1411, 1411 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 810 [2011]; *People v Ivey,*79 AD3d 1531, 1532 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 859 [2011]). Finally, defendant’s contention that the sentence was harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice is barred by his valid appeal waiver *(see People v Ivey,*79 AD3d at 1532; *People v Fields,*41 AD3d 1089 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 961 [2007]).

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### Lillie M. MIDDLEBROOKS, Appellant v. GODWIN CORPORATION, et al., Appellees.

No. 10-7089.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

July 6, 2011.

Lillie M. Middlebrooks, Annandale, VA, pro se.

Virginia Ellen Robinson, John Francis Scalia, Esquire, Matthew Harrold Sorensen, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, McLean, VA, Todd Sunhwae Kim, Donna M. Murasky, Esquire, Irvin B. Nathan, Mary Larkin Wilson, Office of the Attorney General, District of Columbia Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

BEFORE: TATEL, GARLAND, and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 25, 2010, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s federal claims be*11cause she failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title YI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Even when appellant’s complaint and other filings are viewed in the light most favorable to her, and even when all reasonable inferences are drawn in her favor, she alleged no facts supporting an inference that she was a victim of discrimination, retaliation, or a hostile work environment based on race or color. *See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*— U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

Appellant has not alleged facts to support diversity jurisdiction over her remaining claims. “[T]he party seeking the exercise of diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of pleading the citizenship of each and every party to the action.” *Loughlin v. United States,*393 F.3d 155, 171 (D.C.Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). And given the dismissal of appellant’s federal claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her remaining claims. *See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,*484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988).

In addition, the court will not consider appellant’s argument that the district court erred in setting aside the default against appellees Godwin Corporation and its employee Janice Williams, because appellant failed to file an opposition to the motion to set aside the default and did not seek reconsideration of the order setting aside the default. *See District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc.,*750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C.Cir.1984).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       SECTION 906 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report of Emeritus Corporation, a Washington
corporation  (the  "Company"),  on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2003,  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Form  10-Q"),  I, Daniel R. Baty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:


1.     The  Form  10-Q  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.     The  information  contained  in  the  Form  10-Q  fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.




                                            /s/    Daniel  R.  Baty
                                            -----------------------
                                            Daniel  R.  Baty
                                            Chief  Executive  Officer
                                            November  7,  2003


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 Emeritus Corporation and will be
retained  by  Emeritus  Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND FOR THE YEAR THEN
ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,533,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,813,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                   871,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,634,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,496,938
<PP&E>                                      13,540,635
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,522,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,747,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,732,324
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,784
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,150,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,747,166
<SALES>                                     32,948,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,079,368
<CGS>                                       15,215,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,105,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,718,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               185,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,814,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,959,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                   180,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (15,757,968)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (3,294,726)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,618,428)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (19,052,693)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $(1.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(1.77)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,005,845
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  269,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                   116,997
<INVENTORY>                                    256,954
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,488,164
<PP&E>                                         555,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                 408,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,673,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          512,436
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,956,449
<OTHER-SE>                                 (14,831,772)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,673,236
<SALES>                                        571,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               571,791
<CGS>                                          634,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,718,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,705,354)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,705,354)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,705,354)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.30)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1Certification of Principal Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Internet America, Inc. (the Company)
for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William E. Ladin, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ William E. Ladin, Jr.William E. (Billy) Ladin, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerDate: June 7, 2006
#### David A. Ellis et al., Respondents, v Adam Slovak, Appellant.

— Mikoll, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered February 5, 1987 in Columbia County, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

On this appeal, defendant contends that a contract for the sale of real estate he executed with plaintiffs, which specified a particular date for closing, made time of the essence in the contract. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ordered specific performance of the contract.

There should be an affirmance. There is no dispute that the contract provided that transfer of title was to be completed on or about 12 weeks from acceptance of the contract. Defendant argues that the contract contained handwritten notations specifying a closing date of August 10, 1986, exactly 12 weeks from the date of acceptance. Actually, plaintiffs were ready to close 11 days later on August 21, 1986. Although no copy of the handwritten contract was submitted in evidence, defendant claims that the alleged handwritten provision was sufficient to make time of the essence in the contract.

We disagree. Assuming that the handwritten addition was made, it would not make time of the essence of the contract *(see, Grace v Nappa,*46 NY2d 560, 565; *Ballen v Potter,*251 NY 224, 228). Further, defendant’s contention, that he told plaintiffs that the closing date was of paramount importance, could not be found to orally change the contract since the terms of the contract prohibited any oral change of its provisions. Thus, defendant failed to demonstrate by evidentiary proof the existence of an issue of fact and failed to raise a material issue of fact which would preclude the grant of summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# C_2021201EN.01000601.xml

| 28.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/6

---

Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(2021/C 201/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/855 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/848 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 March 2022, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council's next review, pursuant to Article 34 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, of the list of designated persons and entities.

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 188, 28.5.2021, p. 91.

(3)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 188, 28.5.2021, p. 18.

---