alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(8 Misc. Rep. 304.)

#### TOOKER et al. v. BOOTH.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

Appeal—From City Court to Common Pleas—Review of Facts.

An appeal to the court of common pleas from an order of the general term of the city court opening a default will be dismissed, as the decision of the city court is conclusive on the court of common pleas, as to the facts.

Appeal from city court, general term.

Action by Joseph H. Tooker and others against Marion Booth. A default suffered by defendant was opened by the special term of the city court. The order of the special term was reversed by the . general term of the city court (27 N. Y. Supp. 974), and defendant appeals. Plaintiffs move to dismiss the appeal. Granted.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

Michael J. Scanlan, for the motion.

Langbein Bros. & Langbein, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. The special term of the city court made an order opening a default suffered by the appellant, from which an appeal was taken to the general term of that court, where the order of the court below was reversed. The general term of the city court had the undoubted *728right to review the facts connected with the default, and its opening, and to reverse, if, in its judgment, it thought proper. But we have repeatedly held that we cannot review the facts in such a case, being in all respects bound by the same conditions which prevail in like cases in the court of appeals. The appeal must therefore be dismissed, with costs.
Exhibit
4.7


 





 


April 13, 2010


 


Consent of Michel R. Julien, Eng., Ph. D.


Board of Directors, Osisko Mining Corporation


United States Securities and Exchange Commission


 


To the Board of Directors of Osisko Mining
Corporation


 


I, Michel R. Julien, Eng., Ph. D. of Golder
Associates Inc., consent to:


 


1.             The incorporation by
reference in the Offer and Circular of Osisko Mining Corporation (the “Company”),
included as part of the Company’s Registration Statement on Form F-8 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, of the description of the
report titled “Feasibility Study — Canadian Malartic Project (Malartic, Quebec)”
dated December, 2008.


 


2.             The information that forms
the summary of the report of the description of project and to the use of my name
under the Offer and Circular and Registration Statement as a named expert.


 


	
  Dated
  as of the 13th day of April, 2010

  
	
   

  
	
  SIGNED

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/
  Michel R. Julien

  	
   

  
	
  Michel
  R. Julien, Eng. Ph. D

  
	
  Principal
Exhibit 32.2



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



I, Gene S. Godick, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Verticalnet, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), hereby certify to my knowledge that:



| | (1) | The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ GENE S. GODICKGene S. GodickExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: May 13, 2005




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Verticalnet, Inc. and will be retained by Verticalnet, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



36
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10056]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Meeting

    National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Data Policy and 
Standards Staff, announces the following meeting.
    Name: ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee meeting.
    Time and Date: 9 a.m.-5 p.m., May 17-18, 2001.
    Place: The Health Care Financing Administration, Auditorium, 7500 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland. In the interest of security, 
the H.C.F.A. has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the 
building by non-government employees. Persons without a government I.D. 
will need to show a photo I.D. and sign-in at the security desk upon 
entering the building.
    Status: Open to the public, as limited by the capacity of the 
meeting room, which is 75 people.
    Purpose: The ICD-9-CM Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee 
will hold its first meeting of the 2001 calendar year cycle on Thursday 
and Friday May 17-18, 2001. The C&M meeting is a public forum for the 
presentation of proposed modifications to the International 
Classification of Diseases, Ninth-Revision, Clinical Modification.
    Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include:

Critical illness neuropathy
Ocular torticollis
Personal history of pre-term labor
Fussy infant/excessive crying of infant
Perinatal conditions
Aqueous misdirection
Disruption of operation wound
Dieulafoy lesion
Aftercare codes
Supplemental oxygen dependency
Scooter external cause code

    Implementation issues on the ICD-10-Procedure Classification System 
(PCS) coding system. Presenters will include:

The American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA)
The American Hospital Association (AHA)
The American Medical Association (AMA)
McKesson HBOC
DRG Review, Inc.
AdvaMed
Ingenix Syndicated Content Group
Princeton Provider Group

    ICD-9-CM procedure topics to be covered:

High-Dose Interleukin-2
Spinal Fusion Devices
Addenda

    Contact Person for Additional Information: Amy Blum, Medical 
Classification Specialist, Data Policy and Standards Staff, NCHS, 6526 
Belcrest Road, Room 1100, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone 301/
458-4106 (diagnosis), Amy Gruber, Health Insurance Specialist, Division 
of Acute Care, HCFA, 7500 Security Blvd., Room C4-07-07, Baltimore, 
Maryland, 21244 telephone 410-786-1542 (procedures).
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: April 18, 2001.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 01-10056 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
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 this Amended Year End Report of GoldSpring, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steve Parent, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best
of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Amended 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 this Amended Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.


June 23, 2004                                    /s/ Steve Parent
                                                -------------------------------
                                                    Steve Parent
                                                    Principal Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Hernandez, Appellant.

— Kane, J. P.

A review of the record reveals that County Court did not abuse its discretion by granting the People’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing, nor by denying defendant’s subsequent application to reopen the hearing *(see, People v Frieson,*103 AD2d 1009). We note that the People’s motion was made during oral argument on the suppression motion after defendant, apparently for the first time, challenged the execution of the search warrant. Upon reopening, the People presented their witness, after which the defense was allowed to present a new witness. Defendant’s motion to reopen was made during trial, after the People closed their case, and was denied after defendant was allowed to make an offer of proof.

Next, the record supports County Court’s determination that the search warrant was executed in substantial compliance with CPL 690.50 (1) *(see, People v Drapala,*93 AD2d 956). Accordingly, the suppression motion was properly denied and the judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Main, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 02-14

IN RE: RECALL OF SENIOR JUDGE

O R D E R

WHEREAS the Court has been receiving a substantial number of appeals, motions, and other

filings every month, and

WHEREAS appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court deserve timely judicial review

and decision, and

WHEREAS the Chief Judge of the Court, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), may recall

Senior Judges of the Court who have retired but who have agreed to be available for such recall

when their service is needed by the Court, and

WHEREAS the Chief Judge of the Court has determined that, if recalled, Senior Judge

William P. Greene, Jr., would provide substantial service necessary to meet the needs of the Court,

and

WHEREAS Senior Judge Greene has consented to be available for recall as needed by the

Court,

THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED that, effective January 29, 2014, Judge William P. Greene, Jr., is recalled from

retired status to have and to exercise all of the judicial powers and duties of the office of a Judge in

active service and to otherwise perform substantial service for the Court as requested by the Chief

Judge. It is further

ORDERED that Judge Greene shall serve in recalled status in this calendar year to review

and decide appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court, and to perform other substantial

service at the request of the Chief Judge, and he shall so serve throughout the calendar year for up

to 90 days or its equivalent. With his consent, Judge Greene's service may be extended beyond

90 days. Judge Greene's service shall be recorded and maintained by the Clerk of the Court.

DATED: January 29, 2014 BY THE COURT:

Bruce E. Kasold

Chief Judge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Hill, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.), rendered on January 22, 1986, unanimously affirmed.

*584Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors of

China Natural Gas, Inc.

 

We consent to the use of our report datedMarch 10, 2010, except for the effects on the consolidated financial statements of the restatement described in Note 2 and 15,as to which the date is September 30, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of China Natural Gas, Inc. and Subsidiariesas of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income and other comprehensive income, stockholders’equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which report appear in the December31, 2011 annual report on Form 10-K of China Natural Gas, Inc.

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the registration statement on Form S-3/A (No. 333-160150) and the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-166422), of thereport described above, appearing in the annual report on Form 10-K of China Natural Gas, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2011.

 

 

/s/ Frazer Frost, LLP

 

Brea, California

April 2, 2012
----

----

| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  April 18, 2011 |   |                                                                         |
|---------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |   |   /s/ Timothy Sherlock                                                  |
|                            |   | Timothy Sherlock                                                             |
|                            |   | Interim Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer) |

----

----
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5419-16T3

SERGEY FRADKOV,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATALIA KRONFELD,

Defendant.

__________________________

SNYDER SARNO D'ANIELLO

MACERI & DA COSTA, LLC,

Petitioner-Respondent,

v.

NATALIA KRONFELD,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Submitted January 9, 2019 – Decided January 31, 2019

Before Judges Nugent, Reisner and Mawla.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-5419-16T3

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FM-02-1337-13.

Gambourg Law Group, attorneys for appellant (Roman 

V. Gambourg, of counsel and on the briefs).

Snyder Sarno D'Aniello Maceri & Da Costa, LLC, 

respondent pro se (Angelo Sarno and Scott D. Danaher, 

of counsel and on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Natalia Kronfeld appeals from a July 14, 2017 order awarding 

approximately $148,000 in counsel fees to the law firm that represented her in 

her divorce action. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the trial 

judge. We add the following brief comments.

First, defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying her motion to 

consolidate the attorney fee claim with her pending malpractice claim against 

the attorneys. Judge Ronny Jo Siegal set forth her reasons for denying 

consolidation in oral opinion on June 1, 2016. We agree with Judge Siegal that 

the consolidation motion was untimely, having been filed less than a month 

before the scheduled plenary hearing on the counsel fees. The attorney fee 

motion was filed in June 2015, and was scheduled to be heard at a plenary 

hearing starting on June 1, 2016. The malpractice action was not filed until 

March 4, 2016, and the consolidation motion was not filed until May 4, 2016. 
3

A-5419-16T3

We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's decision to deny that motion 

as untimely. See Moraes v. Wesler, 439 N.J. Super. 375, 378 (App. Div. 2015). 

Next, in a point consisting of one paragraph, defendant argues that in 

awarding fees, the judge did not address the reasonableness of the amount of 

time the attorneys spent on the case.1 Judge Siegal's written opinion discussed 

at length the reasonableness of the time spent. Because defendant failed to file 

a statement of facts with relevant citations to the record, we deem the judge's 

factual findings about the fee application as uncontested on appeal. Based on 

the facts as the judge found them to be, we find no clear abuse of discretion in 

the fee award. See Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 317 (1995). 

Affirmed.

 

1 Defendant's entire appellate brief is five pages long and is devoid of relevant 

citations to the evidentiary record. See R. 2:6-2(a)(4) and (5).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-998]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Acadia National Park Bar Harbor, Maine; Acadia National Park 
Advisory Commission; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, Sec. 
10), that the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission will hold a 
meeting on Monday, February 7, 2000.
    The Commission was established pursuant to Public Law 99-420, Sec. 
103. The purpose of the commission is to consult with the Secretary of 
the Interior, or his designee, on matters relating to the management 
and development of the park, including but not limited to the 
acquisition of lands and interests in lands (including conservation 
easements on islands) and termination of rights of use and occupancy.
    The meeting will convene at park Headquarters, McFarland Hill, Bar 
Harbor, Maine, at 1:00PM to consider the following agenda:

1. Review and approval of minutes from the meeting held September 13, 
1999
2. Committee reports
    Land Conservation
    Park Use
    Science
3. Old business
4. Superintendent's report
5. Public comments
6. Proposed agenda for next Commission meeting, June 5, 2000

    The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make 
oral/written presentations to the Commission or file written 
statements. Such requests should be made to the Superintendent at least 
seven days prior to the meeting.
    Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from 
the Superintendent, Acadia National Park, P.O. Box 177, Bar Harbor, 
Maine 04609, tel: (207) 288-3338

    Dated: January 7, 2000.
Len Bobinchock,
Actg. Superintendent, Acadia National Park.
[FR Doc. 00-998 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 610 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 610

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen enforcement of 
 spousal court-ordered property distributions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2009

   Mr. Wexler (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. 
Bordallo, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Filner, Mr. Hastings 
of Florida, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. George 
Miller of California, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. 
 Payne, Mr. Sires, Ms. Watson, Mr. Weiner, and Ms. Woolsey) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen enforcement of 
 spousal court-ordered property distributions, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Jane's Law''.

SEC. 2. SPOUSAL OBLIGATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 11(A) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3. Failure to pay legal spousal court-ordered property 
              distribution
    ``(a) Offense.--Whoever knowingly, travels in interstate or foreign 
commerce, with the intent to evade compliance with a court ordered 
property distribution as part of a separation or divorce settlement 
involving more than $5,000, with respect to a spouse or former spouse, 
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two 
years or both.
    ``(b) Mandatory Restitution.--Upon a conviction under this section, 
the court shall order restitution under section 3663A in an amount 
equal to the total unpaid property distribution.
    ``(c) Definition.--The term `court ordered property distribution' 
means any amount determined under a court order pursuant to the law of 
a State or of an Indian tribe to be due from a spouse or former spouse 
as an equitable or other distribution to a spouse or former spouse of 
assets in connection with a separation or divorce.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment to Table of Sections.--The table of 
sections at the beginning of chapter 11(A) of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``228A. Failure to pay legal spousal obligations.''.
                                 <all>
```
Instructions, Form 420A

December 1, 2017

NOTICE OF MOTION OR OBJECTION

General Information

Official Form 420A, Notice of Motion or Objection, is intended to provide uniform, plain 

English explanations to parties regarding what they must do to respond in certain contested 

matters which occur frequently in bankruptcy cases. Previously, some courts have given such 

explanations better than others. The form is intended to make bankruptcy proceedings more fair, 

equitable, and efficient by aiding parties, who sometimes do not have counsel, in understanding 

the applicable rules.

The form is not intended to dictate the specific procedures to be used by different 

bankruptcy courts. The form contains optional language that can be used or adapted, depending 

on local procedures.

Applicability of Rule 9009(a)

Rule 9009(a) provides that “[t]the Official Forms prescribed by the Judicial Conference 

of the United States shall be used without alteration, except as otherwise provided ... in the 

national instructions for a particular Official Form.” 

Alterations may be made to this form in accordance with applicable local court rules.
CONSENT
      OF SELIGSON & GIANNATTASIO, LLP





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated April 14, 2007
      with respect to the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of
      DCI
      USA, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 included in its Annual
      Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission.








SELIGSON
      & GIANNATTASIO, LLP





White
      Plains, New York


May
      2,
      2007