alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Waters v. Shayne.

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

June 6, 1890.)

Discovery—Examination op Defendant before Trial.

In an action wherein it was sought to impeach defendant’s discharge in bankruptcy for fraud in the conveyance of land, an order for defendant’s examination before trial was obtained on an affidavit stating it to be material and necessary for plaintiff to ascertain whether defendant retained any interest in the property conveyed, or whether the conveyances were not made to protect the property as against creditors or the claim sued on. *Held,*that the order was properly vacated, the conveyances being matters of record, and no reason appearing for directing the examination before, rather than at, the trial.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Winfield Waters against Christopher C. Shayne. Plaintiff appeals from an order vacating an order for the examination of defendant as a witness before trial.

Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Brady and Daniels, JJ.

*W. J. Oppenheim, (Theodore B. Gates,*of counsel,) for appellant. *Blumenstiel & Hirsch,*for respondent.

Daniels, J.

This action is upon a bond executed by the defendant in June, 1875, for the payment of the sum of $900. A discharge in bankruptcy issued in 1881 has been presented by the answer as a defense. The plaintiff proposes to impeach this discharge for fraud in the conveyance of land in the state of Hew Jersey by the defendant to a grantee, who immediately thereafter conveyed the same premises to the wife of the defendant. These conveyances preceded the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, and the consideration mentioned in each deed is the sum of one dollar. All these facts are matters of record, and no necessity exists for examining the defendant as a witness to prove them. But the affidavit of the counsel for the plaintiff, on which the order was made for the examination, states it to be material and necessary for the plaintiff to ascertain whether the defendant retained any interest or equity in the premises, or whether the conveyances were not made to cover or protect the property conveyed against the claims of creditors, or the claim on which this action has been brought. But why that may not be as well ascertained by the examination of the defendant on the trial has not been stated. The inference warranted by the facts is that the defendant’s ev*773idence can be secured by obtaining his attendance as a witness at the trial, and that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to obtain it before that time. And where the facts are of that ‘description it is not the practice of the courts to direct the party to submit to an examination as a witness, at the instance of his adversary, before trial. *Williams*v. Folsom, 5 N. Y. Supp. 211. This defect in the plaintiff’s case, without considering the other objections urged against the appeal, requires that the order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and the disbursements. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Adam S. Klein, Petitioner, v E. W. Jones, as Superintendent of the Great Meadow Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

*928Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF INCOME, AND STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN STOCKHOLDER'S
EQUITY FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY SUCH REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Mar-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              Apr-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,055,990
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (4,320)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               643,300
<PP&E>                                      10,957,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                (891,840)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,956,330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,294,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,454,572
<OTHER-SE>                                  (4,865,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,956,330
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               949,510
<CGS>                                        1,015,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,493,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               136,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,861,060)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,861,060)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,861,060)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00



</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1306 KA 10-01796 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

JOANN RUSBY, ALSO KNOWN AS JOANN M. RUSBY, ALSO KNOWN AS JOANN VANWUYCKHUYSE, ALSO KNOWN AS JOANN SPICER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GARY A. HORTON, PUBLIC DEFENDER, BATAVIA (BRIDGET L. FIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered October 6, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally negligent homicide.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00043-CR

NOEL GOMEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-605-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Noel Gomez appealed his conviction for evading arrest/detention with a vehicle. 

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04 (West 2016). Gomez has now filed a motion to dismiss 

his appeal stating the appeal is moot because the trial court granted a new trial.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 
Gomez v. State Page 2

The Clerk of this Court is ordered to issue the mandate in this appeal at the same 

time this opinion is delivered.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Appeal dismissed

Mandate issued

Opinion delivered and filed March 28, 2018

Do not publish

[CR25]
# CI2021058EN.01000501.xml

| 18.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 58/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 58/5

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2021/C 58 I/05)

Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 386, the following text and photos are added:

‘Additional note 2

See also Note 6 to Chapter 90 and the judgment in Joined Cases C-260/00 to C-263/00, Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG and Medi Bayreuth Weihermüller & Voigtmann GmbH & Co. KG v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, paragraphs 36, 37, 39, 40, 43 and 45, (ECLI:EU:C:2002:637).

Examples of products falling under subheading 9021 10 10:

Image 1

Examples of products falling under Section XI:

Image 2 ’

On page 389:
  The existing explanatory note to subheading 9021 10 10 is replaced by the following text:

On page 389:

The existing explanatory note to subheading 9021 10 10 is replaced by the following text:

| ‘9021 10 10 | Orthopaedic appliances

  See the explanatory note to Additional note 2 to Chapter 90.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘9021 10 10

Orthopaedic appliances

See the explanatory note to Additional note 2 to Chapter 90.’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.

2

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: B.P.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.B., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 82 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: B.J.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.B., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 83 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: B.P.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.B., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 84 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: B.D.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: P.B., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 85 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of May, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Givi Kobiashvilli et al., Appellants, v Mitchell Hill et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 29, 2007;

decided March 27, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### ROSSGOG, Appellant, v. BRAINE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 15, 1896.)

Action by Julie Bossgog against Mary Braine.

No opinion. Motions to dismiss appeals granted unless the appellants file the appeal papers with the clerk on or before December 21, 1896. If the papers are so filed, the motions are denied, without costs.
Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Agenda 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

2 Arizona Center, 400 N. 5th Street, 

12th Floor, Conf. Rooms A&B 

Phoenix, Arizona 

November 29, 2005 

Start 

Time TOPIC PERSON 

MATERIALS / 

Index Tabs 

9 a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative 

1. Introductions and Determination of Quorum 

2. Review of Action Items 

3. Old Business 

4. New Arrivals at the GCMRC 

Norm Henderson Agenda 

Draft Minutes 

Action Items 

9:30 Nomination of TWG Chair for FY06 Dennis Kubly 

9:45 Review of Recreation PEP John Loomis Recreation 

PEP 

10:45 Review of Draft Planning Documents 

 - SPG Process 

 - Strategic Science Plan 

 - Core Monitoring Plan 

 - Research Plan 

Dave Garrett 

Ted Melis 

SPG 

Documents

12 noon L U N C H 

1:15 

Review of Draft Planning Documents 

 - SPG Process 

 - Strategic Science Plan 

 - Core Monitoring Plan 

 - Research Plan 

Dave Garrett 

Ted Melis 

SPG 

Documents

3:10 B R E A K 

3:15 Proposal for GCD Experimental Flows in WY 06 

(Prepared by WAPA, AGFD, & Federation of Flycasters) 

Clayton Palmer Experimental 

Flows 

3:30 TWG Procedures 

History of Proposed WY 06 Experimentation 

TWG Chair 

Ted Melis 

Experimental 

Flows 

4:30 Development of FY07-08 Budget & Workplan

Moved to second day 

Ted Melis 

Dennis Kubly 

5 p.m. Wrap-up and Adjourn Norm Henderson 
Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Agenda 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

2 Arizona Center, 400 N. 5th Street, 

12th Floor, Conf. Rooms A&B 

Phoenix, Arizona 

November 30, 2005 

Start 

Time TOPIC PERSON 

MATERIALS / 

Index Tabs 

8 a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative 

 - Determination of Quorum (16 members) TWG Chair Agenda 

8:05 Development of FY07-08 Budget & Workplan Dennis Kubly 

Ted Melis 

8:45 

Humpback Chub Translocation in Grand Canyon: 

Background Feasibility, Experimental Design, and 

Compliance Considerations 

Feasibility Study to Determine the Efficacy of Using a 

Weir in Bright Angel Creek to Capture Brown Trout 

Larry Stevens 

Bill Leibfried 

Reports 

9:00 Updates: 

Humpback Chub AHG 

Cultural Treatment Plan 

Lake Powell Water Quality 

Glen Knowles 

Mike Berry 

GCMRC 

Updates 

10:15 B R E A K 

10:35 Warm Water Workshop Planning Matthew Andersen 

11:00 Update on Knowledge Assessment Workshop & Report 

Ted Melis 

Josh Korman (phone) 

12:00 FY06 Contracting & Coop Agreements 

Ted Melis 

Dennis Kubly 

12:30 Science Symposium & SCORE Report Update Ted Melis Updates 

1:00 Wrap up and Adjourn
Exhibit 10.2(a)

      

      

      Schedule identifying agreements substantially identical to the form of the indemnification agreement filed
        as Exhibit 10.2 hereto

      

      

      	
              Indemnitee

            	
              Date of Agreement

            
	
              Charles Cherington

            	
              April 14, 2021

            
	
              George P. Denny III

            	
              April 14, 2021

            
	
              Howard J. Federoff

            	
              April 20, 2021

            
	
              Luba Greenwood

            	
              April 14, 2021

            
	
              Ronald Guido

            	
              April 14, 2021

            
	
              Sandra Gurrola

            	
              June 21, 2021

            
	
              Lynn Sadowski Mason

            	
              April 15, 2021

            
	
              Erich Mohr

            	
              May 7, 2021

            
	
              Yiannis Monovoukas

            	
              April 14, 2021

            
	
              Nicholas Singer

            	
              April 14, 2021
#### Morton Wolkoff, Appellant, v Church of St. Rita, Port Richmond, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated August 11, 1986.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons *268stated by Justice Kuffner in bis memorandum decision in the Supreme Court, Richmond County. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur. *[See,*132 Misc 2d 464.]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leslie Marshall, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 906]

Kavanagh, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), entered October 19, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Upon defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree, he was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to eight years in prison with five years of postrelease supervision. On this appeal, he argues that he was entitled to a hearing to determine whether the prior conviction relied upon by County Court qualifies him as a second felony offender. However, this argument is encompassed by his valid appeal waiver *(see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; *People v Korber,*89 AD3d 1543, 1544 [2011], *lv denied*19 NY3d 864 [2012]; *People v Taylor, 73*AD3d 1285, 1286 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 810 [2010]) and, in any event, is unpreserved due to his failure to object at sentencing *(see People v Smith,*89 AD3d 1328, 1328-1329 [2011]; *People v Califano,*84 AD3d 1504, 1506 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 805 [2011]).

Rose, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr. and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 14.(a).6



CONSENT



We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-149175) of Alon Holdings Blue Square Israel Ltd. (the "Company")
of the summary of our actuarial calculations of the Company's various employee benefits as described under the caption “Summary
of Significant Accounting Policies” (note 2u) in the consolidated financial statements of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2012 which appear in this Form 20-F.



|Tel Aviv, Israel | /s/ Ernst & Young (Israel)
|---------------- | --------------------------
|April 25, 2013   | Ernst & Young (Israel)
**EXHIBIT 32.1** **CERTIFICATION    BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER (SOX 906)**     The certification below is being submitted to the Securities and    Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with    Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the    United States Code.     In my capacity as chief executive officer of Ingram Micro Inc.,    I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, Ingram Micro    Inc.’s annual report on    Form 10-K    for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2006 as filed with    the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information    contained in such report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of    Ingram Micro Inc. */s/  Gregory    M. E. Spierkel***    Name: Gregory M. E. Spierkel    Title:     Chief Executive Officer     Dated: February 26, 2007
Order entered May 13, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01105
- CV CHELSEA DAVIS, Appellant
V. HARLAN CROW, Appellee On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D F
- 13
- 23109 

### O RDER By lett e r dated April 29, 2015, we directed Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of (1) the trial court’s June 24, 2014 dismissal order; (2) the trial court’s July 28, 2014 sa nctions order; and (3) the August 29, 2014 notice of appeal filed by appellant Chelsea Davis

. To date, however, the record has not been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Pitre to file the requested supplemental record no later than May 18, 2015.
We DIREC T the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and all parties.
/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30086

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERMAN STEVENSON, III,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:95-CR-377-3

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Herman Stevenson, III, federal prisoner # 24905-034, seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his

motion to dismiss his indictment. Stevenson argues that the district court erred

in concluding that his motion was an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. He contends that the prosecution engaged in misconduct before the

grand jury by arguing that he was involved in a conspiracy when the conspiracy

involved a Government informant. Stevenson also argues that the district court

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 16, 2011

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: 10-30086 Document: 00511384353 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2011
No. 10-30086

abused its discretion in denying his motion for the production of grand jury

transcripts for lack of jurisdiction. Stevenson’s motion to file a supplemental

brief is GRANTED.

A movant for IFP on appeal must show that he is a pauper and that he will

present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th

Cir. 1982). Stevenson’s arguments were previously raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition and a § 2255 motion. Stevenson’s motion to dismiss the indictment filed

in the district court was an unauthorized motion that the district court was

without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142

(5th Cir. 1994).

It is questionable whether Stevenson’s motion for the production of grand

jury transcripts had a valid jurisdictional basis in the district court. See United

States v. Carvajal, 989 F.2d 170, 170 (5th Cir. 1993). However, even if the court

retained jurisdiction over the motion, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion because Stevenson failed to show a

particularized need for the grand jury materials. See United States v.

Miramontez, 995 F.2d 56, 57-58 (5th Cir. 1993). Stevenson was convicted of a

conspiracy involving persons other than Government informants, and thus, there

is no basis for his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Millsaps,

157 F.3d 989, 992 (5th Cir. 1998).

Stevenson has not established that he will raise a nonfrivolous appellate

issue. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586. Accordingly, we DENY the motion to

proceed IFP on appeal, and we DISMISS Stevensons’s appeal as frivolous. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.

2

Case: 10-30086 Document: 00511384353 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2011
Listen

# CSSBMB News

News for The Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys. Learn more about CSSBMB

U.S. Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Welcomes Five New Commissioners
February 12, 2024

United States Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Hires Director
August 19, 2022

Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys (CSSBMB) to Hold Inaugural Meeting
November 4, 2021

-  All News 
-  Commission News 
-  Advisory Committees News 
-  Correspondence 
-  Videos 
-  Archives 

## Meetings

CSSBMB Second Quarter Business Meeting
February 22, 2024

CSSBMB First Quarter Business Meeting
November 17, 2023

VIEW ALL MEETINGS