alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State of New York, Appellant, v Como Meat Packers, Inc., Respondent.

— Mahoney, P. J.

On December 2, 1983, the Department of Transportation appropriated property of defendant for highway purposes. Defendant, which was in the meat packing business, had used the property as a slaughterhouse. Despite being notified in writing to pay rent, defendant remained in possession of the property for approximately four months and paid nothing for the use of the property.

On April 2, 1984, plaintiff commenced the subject action with a summons and verified complaint. The complaint recited the statute imposing the obligation on defendant to pay rent (EDPL 305) and sought to recover five months rent at $4,000 per month. On June 1, 1984, defendant served a verified answer denying allegations of the complaint and claiming that it only had to pay a "negotiated rent”, such rent to start when defendant was paid for its condemned property. On July 24, 1984, plaintiff moved for summary judgment for the fair and reasonable value of defendant’s use and occupancy of State property. Plaintiff included as part of its moving papers an affidavit of its real estate expert giving his opinion that the fair and reasonable rental value was $4,000 per month. Defendant opposed the motion by affidavit. Special Term denied the motion for summary judgment. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

*903Defendant was liable for rental payments pursuant to statute. EDPL 305 (A) and Highway Law § 30 require the condemnee using or occupying property after acquisition for highway purposes to pay the condemnor the fair and reasonable value for such use and occupancy. This court has already recognized and enforced this statutory mandate against former owners who refuse to pay *(see, e.g., State of New York v Mallette,*102 AD2d 906; *State of New York v Rospendowski,*110 AD2d 1031). Defendant had no right to refuse to make payments to plaintiff on the ground that it was a commercial venture rather than an individual owner. Accordingly, we hold that Special Term should have granted summary relief to plaintiff on the issue of liability. Next, since the statement of defendant’s president that the subject premises had no greater value than $300 per month, as well as his claim that he was "informed” that an appropriate rent was to be negotiated, created an issue of fact as to the fair and reasonable monthly rental value of the premises, summary relief must be withheld as to that issue. That issue must be resolved at trial.

Order modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as denied plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability; summary judgment granted to plaintiff on the issue of liability; and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7119

ABDU-SALIM GOULD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LESLIE BESS, Shift Sergeant; TRINITRA LEE-BOONE; CORPORAL 

AMBROSE; TYRONE PUGH, Dorm Officer,

Defendants - Appellees, 

and

TOWNSHIP OF WINDSOR; BERTIE-MARTIN COUNTY REGIONAL JAIL 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:17-ct-03136-BO)

Submitted: December 22, 2020 Decided: December 29, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdu-Salim Gould, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf Alexander Garcia-Gallont, James R. 

Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 
2

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Abdu-Salim Gould appeals from the district court’s order denying his motions for 

change of venue, for recusal of the district court judge, and for entry of judgment in his 

favor, and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failure to 

exhaust his administrative remedies. He also appeals from the denial of his motion to alter 

or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gould v. Bess, No. 5:17-

ct-03136-BO (E.D.N.C. July 21, 2020 & Sept. 28, 2020). Additionally, we grant Gould’s 

motion to seal an exhibit filed in this court, and we deny his remaining pending motions. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Chinawe.com Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Man
Keung Wai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Man Keung Wai
Chief Executive Officer
May 24, 2004




















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 Chinawe.com Inc. and will be
retained by Chinawe.com Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In re SHEEHAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 8, 1896.)

Application by James A. Sheehan for admission and license to practice as an attorney and counselor at law.

No opinion. Application granted, and applicant may appear and take the oath.
CAUSE NO. 69510 

EUGENE ELDRIDGE et al. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 

 §

vs. §

 § BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 

 § 

 § 

BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS § 149th JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

DEFENDANT BRAZORIA COUNTY’S NOTICE OF APPEAL

1. Defendant, Brazoria County, desires to appeal from the trial court’s order denying 

its plea to the jurisdiction, signed on June 10, 2015.

(See Exhibit A) 

2. Defendant, Brazoria County, appeals to either the First or the Fourteenth Court of 

Appeals. 

3. This is an accelerated appeal as it is an appeal from an order denying a plea to the 

jurisdiction made by Brazoria County, a governmental unit. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/Raethella Jones 

 Raethella Jones 

Assistant District Attorney 

111 E. Locust, Suite 408A 

Angleton, Texas 77515 

(979) 864-1232 

(979) 849-8914 fax 

rjones@brazoria-county.com 

Bar Card No. 75007981 

Filed for Record

6/16/2015 10:18:38 AM

Rhonda Barchak, District Clerk

Brazoria County, Texas

69510

Kim Mire, Deputy

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/16/2015 4:45:01 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I certify that a copy of this notice of appeal was served on all counsel of record 

by: X , regular mail, X certified mail, X , fax, X 

electronic mail or personal delivery on June 16, 2015. 

 /s/ Raethella Jones 

 Raethella Jones
# C_2023177EN.01014202.xml

| 17.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/142 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/142

---

P9_TA(2022)0431

Administrative cooperation in the field of excise duties

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 December 2022 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 389/2012 as regards the exchange of information maintained in the electronic registers concerning economic operators who move excise goods between Member States for commercial purposes (COM(2022)0539 — C9-0367/2022 — 2022/0331(CNS))

(Special legislative procedure — consultation)

(2023/C 177/20)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2022)0539), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2022)0539),

| — | having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0367/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0367/2022),

| — | having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0276/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0276/2022),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Randall D. MARTIN, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellee.

No. 30,087.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

July 11, 1975.

*Lieutenant Colonel Ronald M. Holdaway, Major Steven M. Werner,*and *Captain Nancy M. Giorno*were on the pleadings for Appellant, United States.

*Lieutenant Colonel James Kucera, Captain Allan L. Placke,*and *Captain John R. Osgood*were on the pleadings for Appellee, Accused.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The Army Judge Advocate General certified this case for review under the provisions of Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 867(b)(2). The certificate of review requested that action be taken with regard to the following issues:

> I. WAS THE COURT OF MILITARY REVIEW CORRECT IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT WRONGFUL POSSESSION OF AMPHETAMINES FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 134, CLAUSE 1 OR 2?

> II. IF THE FIRST CERTIFIED ISSUE IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, DID THE COURT OF MILITARY REVIEW ERR IN ITS DETERMINATION THAT THE ELEMENTS OF PREJUDICIAL OR SERVICE DISCREDITING CONDUCT WERE NOT PROVEN AT TRIAL?

*76The Court of Military Review found in setting aside the findings and dismissing the charge that as a matter of fact there was “no proof to support the service-discrediting provision of clause two” of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934, *United States v. Martin,*50 C.M.R. 314, 317 (ACMR 1975). This was a finding of fact which, under the circumstances in this case, is binding on the Court. *United States v. Phifer,*18 U.S.C.M.A. 508, 40 C.M.R. 220 (1969); *United States v. Smith,*17 U.S.C.M.A. 427, 38 C.M.R. 225 (1968); *United States v. Judd,*10 U.S.C.M.A. 113, 27 C.M.R. 187 (1959).

Regardless of the answer to the first certified question, the Court of Military Review’s decision setting aside the findings and sentence and dismissing the charge would be unaffected; therefore, the first certified question is rendered moot.

The decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       7,406,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,281,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,520,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,260,128
<PP&E>                                      28,659,275
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,193,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,264,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,234,912
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,446
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,745,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,264,950
<SALES>                                     21,788,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,096,158
<CGS>                                       16,051,704
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,661,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                598,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            598,328
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   598,328
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Peter Harris, an Attorney.

Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Green, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Lori J. Chase-Triou, Respondent, v James M. Triou, Jr., Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 919]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Daniel G. Barrett, J.), entered March 19, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order granted petitioner an order of protection through March 19, 2011.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order of protection entered in favor of petitioner and her two daughters. We conclude that Family Court properly determined that petitioner met her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree (see Family Ct Act § 812 [1]; Penal Law § 240.26 [3]; see *generally Matter of Harrington v Harrington,*63 AD3d 1618, 1619 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 705 [2009]), thus warranting the issuance of an order of protection. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeResourcesAdministrative Law JudgesDecisionsALJ Decisions 2009

**ALJ Decisions: 2009**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

**

                      - FOIA
                      - Privacy Policy
                      - MHS Notice of Privacy Practices
                      - Accessibility
                      - No FEAR
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                      - DHS Office of Inspector General
                      - WhiteHouse.gov
                      - USA.gov

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Exhibit 10.20
                           AURORA METALS (BVI) LIMITED

P.O.Box 27494,                                           Telephone: 303-727-8609
Denver, Colorado,                                      Facsimile:   303-936-0333
U.S.A. 80227-0494.                                  E-mail: jaajames@comcast.net
                                                        contact@aurorametals.net

January 14, 2005


Mr. Thomas A. Loucks,
President and CEO,
Trend Mining Company,
5575 South Sycamore Street, Suite 103,
Littleton,
Colorado, USA 80120


Dear Tom,

THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME TO LETTER OF INTENT - PROPOSED JOINT VENTURE -
STILLWATER COMPLEX, MONTANA

By this letter, Aurora Metals (BVI) Limited (hereafter "AM"), agrees to the
third extension of time under Clause 13. Timing of the Letter of Intent ("LOI")
dated September 20, 2004, until 5.00 pm Mountain Standard Time, Friday, February
18, 2005.

If you are in agreement with this second extension of time to the LOI, please so
indicate by signing where indicated below.


Yours sincerely,
AURORA METALS (BVI) LIMITED

/s/ J.A.A. James
----------------
J.A.A. James
President and Director


Agreed and acknowledged this 14th day of January, 2005 on behalf of Trend Mining
Company:


/s/ Thomas A. Loucks
--------------------
Thomas A. Loucks
President and CEO
exv10w6wb






Exhibit
10.6(b)


June 9,
2009

Eckhardt Trading Company

1314 North Dearborn Parkway

The Carriage House

Chicago, Illinois 60610




Attention: Ms. Audrey L. Gale




     Re: Management Agreement Renewal



Dear Ms. Gale:




We are writing with respect to your management agreement concerning the commodity pool to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreement”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreement through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreement will remain
unchanged.





	 	•	 	CMF Eckhardt Master Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	SSB Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	SB Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	SB Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II





Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Jennifer Magro	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Jennifer Magro	 	 
	 

	 	Chief Financial Officer & Director	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	ECKHARDT TRADING COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ William  Eckhardt	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Print Name: William
Eckhardt	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	JM/sr
# C_2021043EN.01001401.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/14

---

Notice for the attention of the person to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan apply

(2021/C 43/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of the person that appears in Annex II to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 (1) and Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 (2) concerning restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan.

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 and in Regulation (EU) 2015/735 should continue to apply to that person.

The attention of the person 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 listed in Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2015/735, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 6 of the Regulation).

The person concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include that person on the above-mentioned lists should be reconsidered, by 30 November 2021, 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

---

(1)  OJ L 117, 8.5.2015, p. 52.

(2)  OJ L 117, 8.5.2015, p. 13.

---