alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Elaine A. Leirer et al., Appellants, v William J. Canary, Jr., et al., Respondents, and John A. Kay et al., Respondents-Respondents. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Elaine A. Leirer et al., Appellants, v William J. Canary, Jr., et al., Respondents, and John A. Kay et al., Respondents-Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

In two proceedings to invalidate petitions designating John Andrew Kay, and upon his declination, Joseph R. Caputo, Patrick Leis, Denis R. Hurley, Joseph Snellenburg II, and Marion T. Mc-Nulty as candidates in the Conservative Party primary election to beheld on September 15, 1987, for the public offices of Suffolk County Executive, County Court Judge, County Court Judge, Family Court Judge and Family Court Judge, respectively, the appeal is from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered July 13, 1987, which dismissed the first proceeding as premature and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated August 13, 1987, which dismissed the second proceeding.

*197Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The first proceeding was properly dismissed as premature. Further, we agree with the finding of the Supreme Court that the petitioners’ failure to exercise due diligence to timely serve and join the candidate for Suffolk County Executive substituted by the Committee on Vacancies as a necessary party after the commencement of the second proceeding requires dismissal of that proceeding *(see generally, Matter of Berman v Board of Elections,*68 NY2d 761).

The petitioners’ contention that the designating petition was permeated with fraud, a claim rejected by the Supreme Court, cannot be reviewed on this appeal in the absence of the hearing record. We have reviewed the petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Weinstein, Eiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99

                          Certification of CEO and CFO
                       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 on Form 10-KSB of OrderPro Logistics, Inc.,
for the year ended  December 31, 2002 as filed with the  Securities and Exchange
Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  Richard L.  Windorski,  Chief
executive officer and Patricia Robinson,  chief financial  officer,  each hereby
certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 Corporation.

/s/Richard L. Windorski
------------------------------
Name: Richard L. Windorski
Date: May 13, 2003


/s/Patricia Robinson
------------------------------
Name: Patricia Robinson
Date: May 13, 2003

This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the  Corporation for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Carlos A. ALFORD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Celecia PEERS; Brian Mansfield; Good Shepard Ministries, Defendants—Appellees, and Katrina Knight; Verna Mansfield, Defendants.

No. 10-2246.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2011.

Decided: May 10, 2011.

Carlos A. Alford, Appellant pro se. Harry Lee Davis, Jr., Ann Cox Rowe, Davis *&*Hamrick, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

*258Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Carlos A. Alford appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Alford v. Peers,*No. 7:09-cv-00170-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2010). 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.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Defense Intelligence Agency, Science and Technology Advisory 
Board Closed Panel Meeting

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of section 10 of 
Public Law 92-463, as amended by section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice 
is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Science and Technology 
Advisory Board has been scheduled as follows:

DATES: April 25, 2000 (8 a.m. to 4 p.m.).

ADDRESSES: The Defense Intelligence Agency, 200 MacDill Blvd., 
Washington, DC 20340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maj. Donald R. Culp, Jr., USAF, 
Executive Secretary, DIA Science and Technology Advisory Board, 
Washington, DC 20340-1328 (202) 231-4930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire meeting is devoted to the 
discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(1), 
Title 5 of the U.S. Code, and therefore will be closed to the public. 
The Board will receive briefings on and discuss several current 
critical intelligence issues and advise the Director, DIA, on related 
scientific and technical matters.

    Dated: April 12, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-9567 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
```
#### Rusciano Realty Services, Ltd., Appellant, v Irving Griffler, Doing Business as S & S Griffler, Respondent.—

Ordered that the judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 20, 1985, is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the decision of Judicial Hearing Officer Hopkins. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Motion Granted in Part and Denied in Part and Order filed February 11 , 201 9

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 17

- 00908

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.H. AND R.Q.D., C HILDREN

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015

- 61005



### O R D E R Oral argument is scheduled for Wednesday, February 13, 2019. At 2:00 p.m. on Friday, February 8, 2019, appellee filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a surreply brief and to postpone oral argument. We GRANT the motion for leave to file a surreply. Th e surreply is due on February 25, 2019. Requests for extension will be looked at with disfavor. We DENY the motion to postpone the oral argument.
If the parties do not wish to present oral argument on February 13, 2019, they may waive argument by agreement

. Notification of such waiver shall be filed with
this court no later than 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 12, 2019.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Hassan (Justice Christopher would deny the motion in its entirety.)
### 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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 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

T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 2 8 , 2018

Do not publish

[CR25]
#### SMITH, Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL POSTAL SUPPLY CO. OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Di*1132vision, Second Department.

October 13, 1896.)

Action by" Lyman C. Smith against the International Postal Supply Company of New York and •others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
#### Power Authority of the State of New York, Appellant, v John Potocnik et al., Respondents. (And Two Other Related Actions.)

— Harvey, J.

Plaintiff sought access to portions of defendants’ property in Otsego County in order to conduct preliminary activities related to the construction of an electric power transmission line known as "Marcy South”. Faced with defendants’ refusal, plaintiff commenced an action seeking to permanently enjoin defendants from obstructing it from employing its right to enter upon privately owned property to conduct activities related to preparing final design plans and the exercise of eminent domain in connection with Marcy South. Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction pending disposition on the merits was granted. However, Supreme Court imposed limitations as to the size of trees that could be cut, the use of track vehicles and the location of test borings. As to those activities which Supreme Court authorized plaintiff to engage in, the court apparently imposed the additional limitation that the activities could only be performed until plaintiff acquired an interest in the property. Plaintiff appeals from that part of the order which imposed limitations upon its activities.

In *Power Auth. v Bowen*(121 AD2d 841), this court was faced with an appeal by plaintiff from a Supreme Court order in Delaware County which had granted plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction but had imposed limitations virtually identical to those presently before us. In *Bowen,*we granted the relief requested by plaintiff and modified the order to eliminate the limitations. We are unpersuaded by the arguments made by defendants on this appeal which were not advanced by the defendant in *Bowen.*Defendants’ assertion that plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of successfully establishing a right of entry to pursue preconstruction activities is without merit *(see,*EDPL 302, 404; Public Authorities Law § 1007 [8]; *King v Power Auth.,*44 AD2d 74, 76-77, *affd*38 NY2d 756; *see generally, Eminent Domain: Right To Enter Land For Preliminary Survey or Examination,*Ann., 29 ALR3d 1104). Further, any damage caused by plaintiffs entry *915on the land is fully compensable (EDPL 404; *King v Power Auth., supra;*19 NY Jur, Eminent Domain, § 18, at 207 [1961]).

Order modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, by deleting the final decretal paragraph containing three limitations, and, as so modified, affirmed. Kane, J. P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE NINE
MONTH FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,420
<PP&E>                                         107,848
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,479)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,736
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    147,653
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,967
<SALES>                                          6,366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,366
<CGS>                                            2,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (60,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (60,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,412)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.11)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to
the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(Registration Nos. 333-55180, 333-63268, 333-68718, 333-81290, 333-104402,
333-108529, 333-125194, 333-135553, 333-149067, and 333-155865) of Paid, Inc.
and subsidiary of our report dated March 16, 2009, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Paid, Inc., which appears in the December
31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Paid, Inc. /s/ CCR LLP Westborough,
Massachusetts
March 16, 2009
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the
Board of Directors and Stockholders


NexMed,
Inc.:





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-148060, 333-107137, 333-122114, 333-117717,
333-125565,  333-140110, 333-152591, 333-132611, 333-111894,
333-1055509, 333-96813, 333-46976, and 333-91957) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-152284,
333-138598, and 333-93435) of our report dated March 31, 2010, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements, schedule, of NexMed, Inc. and
Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009.  Such report includes an uncertainty paragraph with
respect to the ability of Nexmed, Inc. to continue as a going
concern.





/s/
Amper, Politziner & Mattia, LLP





Date:
March 31, 2010


Edison,
New Jersey
#### The People of the State of New York, v William R. Blake, Jr., Defendant.

— Motion for removal of action denied. Memorandum: Defendant moves pursuant to CPL 230.20 (1) for an order transferring his scheduled trial in Onondaga County Court on charges of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree to the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, on the ground that the Judge assigned is prejudiced against him. CPL 230.20 (1) is not the proper remedy to obtain the relief sought. The correct procedure is for the defendant to move for the Trial Judge to disqualify himself *(see, People v Capuano,*68 Misc 2d 481, 483). Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
#### Dwight, Respondent, v. Elmira, C. & N. R. Co., Appellant.

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

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 8 N. Y. Supp. 789.
|Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Each of the undersigned hereby
certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Coast Casinos, Inc. (the Company),
for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | o | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | o | the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 12, 2003

|                                                                   | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|/s/ Michael J. Gaughan                                             | 
|Michael J. GaughanChairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer | 
|/s/ Gage Parrish                                                   | 
|Gage ParrishVice President andChief Financial Officer              | 

|A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Coast Casinos, Inc. and will be
retained by Coast Casinos, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order filed April 24, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-01099-CR

____________

DUSTIN ZACHARY COLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1321571

ORDER

The clerk’s record was filed January 9, 2013. Our review has determined 

that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk’s record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain a certified bill of costs.

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before May 22, 2014, containing a certified bill of costs.

PER CURIAM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joan Green, Appellant.

*1066The jury was instructed not to consider a count of robbery in the second degree if it convicted defendant of robbery first. A new trial is granted with respect to robbery second, count two of the indictment. The judgment on count one is reduced from a conviction for robbery in the first degree to the lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree (CPL 470.15 [2] [a]) and the defendant remanded for resentencing. The fourth count, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, is dismissed. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Maas, J. — robbery, first degree, and another offense.) Present — Den-man, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000013 29-JUN-2017 09:41 AM
PENALTY ASSESSMENT FACTORS APPLICABLE TO VIOLATIONS OF 

33 U.S.C. § 1321 (b)(3)

Written By CDR M. Hammond

In determining an appropriate civil penalty amount for violations 

found proved under Title 33 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 

1321(b)(3) for a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance into the 

navigable waters of the U.S., Hearing Officers are required by 33 

U.S.C. § 1321(b)(8) to consider the following:

“the seriousness of the violation, the economic benefit to the violator, 

if any, resulting from the violation, the degree of culpability 

involved, any other penalty for the same incident, any history of 

prior violations, the nature, extent, and degree of success of any 

efforts of the violator to minimize or mitigate the effects of the 

discharge, the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and 

any other matters as justice may require.”

In considering these factors, (whether aggravating or mitigating), 

Hearing Officers can only rely on the information contained within 

the case file; (i.e., the Coast Guard’s enforcement activity case and 

the evidence the party presents). The case file should contain a 

sufficient amount of detail in order for the Hearing Officer to fully 

address these considerations. In addition to specific details of the 

discharge (i.e., product type, source, amount, location responsible 

party, cause, etc.), the case file should contain among other factors 

information regarding the responsible party’s culpability, the impact 

of the discharge, the party’s response and mitigating efforts (or lack 

thereof); and the success of such efforts to minimize the impact of the 

discharge. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the degree of 

a party’s culpability for a discharge, and their actions taken to 

minimize environmental impact could significantly influence the 
Hearing officer’s determination of the final assessed civil penalty 

amount.

Because the Hearing Officer must by law, consider several factors in 

determining the final assessed penalty amount for violations under 

1321(b)(3), careful attention should be given to documenting 

important details in support of the above factors when putting a case 

together, or when responding to a preliminary assessment letter. 

This will greatly assist the Hearing Officer in formulating an 

appropriate final assessment commensurate with the circumstances 

of each case while supporting the overarching goal of compelling 

compliance and deterring future violations.
# C_2021324EN.01000301.xml

| 12.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10322 — TPG/Francisco Partners/Boomi)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 324/03)

On 16 July 2021, 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 32021M10322. 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 32021M10322. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---