alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Linda J. Stolow, Respondent-Appellant, v Gregory M. Stolow, Appellant-Respondent.

Motion by the plaintiff for resettlement of a decision and order of this court dated April 24, 1989 [149 AD2d 683], which determined an appeal from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 29, 1988, and for a stay of the enforcement of the provision of that decision and order which directed an immediate sale of the marital residence pending a new determination of the value of the plaintiff’s 30% share of the defendant’s interest in J & H Stolow, Inc.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is,

Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of deleting from the first full paragraph of the third page of the decision and order the sentence: "The court properly used the averaged pretax annual earnings of the corporation as a basis for capitalizing its earnings *(see, Siegel v Siegel,*132 AD2d 247, 252; *Bofford v Bofford,*117 AD2d 643, *appeal dismissed*68 NY2d 808)” and substituting therefor the following: "The court improperly used the averaged aftertax earnings of the corporation as a basis for capitalizing its earnings. Upon remittitur, the court should utilize the averaged pretax earnings as its basis for capitalizing its earnings *(see, Siegel v Siegel,*132 AD2d 247, 252; *Bofford v Bofford,*117 AD2d 643). The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in choosing a date closest to trial as the valuation date *(see, Wegman v Wegman,*123 AD2d 220, 234)”; and it is further,

Ordered that upon the sale of the marital residence, the defendant’s share of the proceeds shall be held in escrow until a determination is reached as to the value of the plaintiff’s 30% share in the defendant’s interest in J & H Stolow, Inc., and until the plaintiff is paid a distributive award represent*560ing that 30% share either from those funds held in escrow or from the defendant’s personal funds; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is otherwise denied. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### CURTIS, Respondent, v. DELAWARE & H. CANAL CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

February, 1894.)

Action by Nathan R. Curtis against the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. MAYHAM, P. J., dissenting.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 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 Xodtec Group USA, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
Hui-Yu Che, as Chief Financial Officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that:
 
 (1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d), as
applicable 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
Registrant.
  
 Dated:
      October 20, 2009
              
              /s/ Hui Yu CheHui-Yu
      CheChief
      Financial Officer(principal
      accounting officer)
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Xodtec Group USA, Inc. and will be retained by Xodtec Group USA, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2378 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for naturalization 

processes for the immediate relatives of public safety officers who die 

as a result of their employment, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2019 

Mr. BACON (for himself, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, 

Mr. CARBAJAL, Mr. PANETTA, and Mrs. DEMINGS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

for naturalization processes for the immediate relatives 

of public safety officers who die as a result of their 

employment, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Kerrie Orozco First 

5 Responders Family Support Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2378 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATURALIZATION FOR IMMEDIATE RELATIVES OF 

2 PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS. 

3 Section 319 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

4 (8 U.S.C. 1430) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(f) IMMEDIATE RELATIVES OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF7 FICERS.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any person who is the sur9 viving spouse, child, or parent of a United States 

10 citizen, whose citizen spouse, parent, or child dies as 

11 a result of injury or disease incurred in or aggra12 vated by employment as a public safety officer, and 

13 who, in the case of a surviving spouse, was living in 

14 marital union with the citizen spouse at the time of 

15 his death, may be naturalized upon compliance with 

16 all the requirements of this title, except that no 

17 prior residence or specified physical presence within 

18 the United States shall be required. 

19 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this sub20 section, the term ‘public safety officer’ has the 

21 meaning given such term in section 1204 of the Om22 nibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 

23 (34 U.S.C. 10284).’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2019305EN.01002001.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-273/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input VAT - Article 168 - Goods supply chain - Refusal of the right to deduct on account of that chain’s existence - Obligation on the competent tax authority to establish the existence of an abusive practice)

(2019/C 305/24)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of refusing the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT), the fact that an acquisition of goods took place at the end of a chain of successive sale transactions between several persons and that the taxable person acquired possession of the goods concerned in the warehouse of a person forming part of that chain, other than the person mentioned as supplier on the invoice, is not in itself sufficient to find the existence of an abusive practice on the part of the taxable person or the other persons participating in that chain, the competent tax authority being required to establish the existence of an undue tax advantage obtained by that taxable person or those other persons.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---
#### Charles U. SMITH, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7083.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 1, 2006.

Charles U. Smith, pro se.

Before BRYSON, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, Charles U. Smith’s appeal of the judgment in Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims case no. 03-664. Smith opposes and moves for default judgment in part and remand of his claim to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Secretary replies.

Smith appeals from the December 13, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision denying his increased rating claim for an infection of the skin and bilateral inguinal area lymph nodes. In his informal brief, Smith argues that he wants adjudication on “hearing, speech, and sight loss.” He refers to a claim for back pay. He does not address the issues raised by the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. *See Forshey v. Principi,*284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2002) (en banc). Smith’s appeal does not satisfy any of the grounds for invoking this court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Secretary’s motion to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) is granted.

(2) The Secretary’s motion to dismiss is granted.

(3) Smith’s motions are denied.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 212 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 212

 To authorize microenterprise assistance for renewable energy projects 
                        in developing countries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

 Mr. Serrano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize microenterprise assistance for renewable energy projects 
                        in developing countries.

    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 ``Solar Villages Initiative Act''.

SEC. 2. MICROENTERPRISE ASSISTANCE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS IN 
              DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

    (a) In General.--The President, acting through the Administrator of 
the United States Agency for International Development and in 
consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Energy, 
is authorized to provide assistance for renewable energy projects 
described in subsection (b) in developing countries to increase the 
availability of credit, savings, and other services to microfinance and 
microenterprise clients lacking full access to capital, training, 
technical assistance, and business development services.
    (b) Types of Projects.--The renewable energy projects described in 
this subsection include projects to assist small and micro businesses 
that loan or sell solar lanterns or lamps and other solar energy 
technologies.
    (c) Priority.--In providing assistance under subsection (a), the 
President shall give priority to empowering female-owned businesses in 
developing countries.
    (d) Relation to Existing Authorities.--Assistance provided under 
subsection (a) shall be made available under the authorities of section 
252 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2211a).
    (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the President to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2020, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2021, $7,500,000 for 
fiscal year 2022, $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2023, $10,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2024, and $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2025.
                                 <all>
```
#### FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe R. TODECHEENE, as the surviving natural parent of Esther Todecheene, deceased; Mary Todecheene, as the surviving natural parent of Esther Todecheene, deceased, Defendants-Appellants, and Navajo Nation District Court; Leroy S. Bedonie, The Honorable, Defendants. *1197Ford Motor Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe R. Todecheene, as the surviving natural parent of Esther Todecheene, deceased; Mary Todecheene, as the surviving natural parent of Esther Todecheene, deceased, Defendants, and Navajo Nation District Court; Leroy S. Bedonie, The Honorable, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 02-17048, 02-17165.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 1, 2007.

Vaughn Crawford, Andrew S. Ashworth, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard A. Derevan, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, Irvine, CA, Edward D. Fitzhugh, Esq., Law Offices of Edward D. Fitzhugh, Tempe, AZ, Luraline D. Tapahe, Navajo Nation Department of Justice, Window Rock, AZ, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before BARRY G. SILVERMAN, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Joe and Mary Todecheene’s Petition for Rehearing is GRANTED in part.

The opinion in this case, *Ford Motor Company v. Todecheene,*394 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.2005) is WITHDRAWN. Because our en banc opinion in *Smith v. Kootenai College,*434 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.2006), did not resolve the jurisdiction issue presented in this case, we cannot say that the tribal courts in this case plainly lack jurisdiction over the dispute among Ford Motor Company, the Todecheenes and the Navajo Nation. *See Boozer v. Wilder,*381 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring exhaustion unless the tribal courts plainly lack jurisdiction). Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the district court with instructions that the district court stay proceedings in this matter pending exhaustion of available proceedings in the tribal courts, including appellate review. *See Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante,*480 U.S. 9, 16, 107 S.Ct. 971, 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987). (“[T]he federal policy supporting tribal self-government *directs a federal court to stay its hand*in order to give the tribal court *a full opportunity*to determine its own jurisdiction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

The petitions for rehearing en banc filed by Joe and Mary Todecheene and the Navajo Nation are DENIED as moot.

The panel retains jurisdiction over any further appeals in this case.
EXHIBIT 31.1  I, Andreas Klimm, in my capacity indicated below, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alco Energy Corp. (the Registrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: November 16, 2009 /s/ Andreas Klimm Andreas Klimm, President (as Principal Executive Officer)
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1289

___________ Darrell Donta McKenzie, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michelle Hill, Officer, Little Rock * Police Department; Kevin Simpson, * [UNPUBLISHED] Detective, Little Rock Police * Department; Plunkett, Officer, Little * Rock Police Department; Ringgold, * Officer, Little Rock Police Department, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 21, 2009 Filed: August 25, 2009

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.Darrell McKenzie appeals fro m the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. After reviewing the record, we find no basis to reverse. See Johnson v. Bi-State Justice Ctr. , 12 F.3d 133, 135-36 (8th Cir. 1993) (approving use of pretrial evidentiary hearing to determine whether pro se inmate’s nonfrivolous § 1983 damages claim warrants jury trial; if both sides present evidence at hearing, standard is whether evidence presents suffi cient disagreement to require jury submission or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as matter of law). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief J udge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Ma gistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
fs82010ex_greenchek.htm


Exhibit 4.1


 





	


	
ROSS MILLER


Secretary of State


204 North Carson Street, Ste 1


Carson City, Nevada 89701-4069


(775) 684-5708


Website: secretaryofstate.biz







 




	
 


Certificate of Amendment


(PURSUANT TO NRS 78.385 AND 78.390)









	
Filed in the office of


/s/  Ross Miller


Ross Miller


Secretary of State


State of Nevada

	
Document Number


20080527022-08


	
Filing Date and Time


08/06/2008  11:05 AM


	
Entity Number


E0679072006-6











 



	
USE BLACK INK ONLY – DO NOT HIGHLIGHT

	
ABOVE SPACE FOR  OFFICE USE ONLY







 


Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation 


For Nevada Profit Corporation


Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - (After issuance of Stock)


 



	1. Name of the corporation:
	RIDGESTONE RESOURCES, INC





 




	2. The articles have been amended as follows (provide article number if available):
	
 


1. Name of the Corporation: GREENCHEK TECHNOLOGY INC .


 


 


 


 


 









 




	
3. The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power or such greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series , or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is:    35,000,000- 54.70%









 



	4. Effective date of filing (optional):                              





 



	
 5. Signature (required):   


      X                            /s/ Lincoln Parke                  


     Signature of officer    Lincoln Parke, President                                    







 



	*if any proposed amendment would alter or change any preference or any relative to other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then the amendment must be approved by the vote. In addition to the affirmative vote otherwise required of the holders of shares representing a majority of the voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless of limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.





 


IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit the proper fees ay cause this filing to be rejected.


 


This form must be accompanied by appropriate fees.
EXHIBIT 23.3
                                                                   ------------



                               CONSENT OF EXPERT

          Reference is made to the Annual  Report on Form 40-F (the "40-F") of
Ivanhoe  Mines  Ltd.  (the  "Company")  to be  filed  with the  United  States
Securities and Exchange  Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

          We hereby  consent to the use of and  reference  to our name for the
"Technical Report: Ovoot Tolgoi Property" dated March 27, 2008 (the "Technical
Report") and the inclusion of  information  derived from the Technical  Report
under the heading  "Item 3:  Description  of the  Business - Ovoot Tolgoi Coal
Property, Mongolia - Ovoot Tolgoi (Open Pit)" and the use and reference to our
name in "Item 11:  Interest of Experts" in the  Company's  Annual  Information
Form for the year ended  December  31,  2007,  dated March 28, 2008 and in the
40-F.

Sincerely,

Norwest Corporation


/s/ Richard D. Tifft III
------------------------------------------
Name:   Richard D. Tifft III
Title:  Vice President, Geologic Services

Date: March 28, 2008
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 0 0 503

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF G.A.T.

_

___________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

_

___________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

On October 17 , 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal a

transfer of appellant ’s determinate sentence probation to the appro priate district court
pursuant to 54.051(d) of the Texas Family Code See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 54.051(d).

On October 27

, 2022, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that it appear ed appellant

was attempting to appeal an order that was not appealable

. On March 14 , 2023

, after

appellant failed to respond to the clerk’s notice, the matter was abated to the trial court

.2 The trial court was ordered to determine whether appellant wishe d to pursue his appeal

and whether appellant had effecti vely abandoned his appeal, among other things.

Upon review of the supplemental clerk’s record submitted on March 30, 2023, the
trial court found appellant is unable to legally pursue his appeal and in the alterative the

appeal is abandoned. Furthermore, couns el for appellant moved the trial court to withdraw

the subject appeal.

Appellant has abandoned his appeal and has not responded to the notices from

the Clerk of the Court requiring a response or other action within the time specified ;
accordingly, the matter is reinstated, and the appeal is dismissed for want of

prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(b), (c).

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

D elivered and filed on the 18th day of May, 202 3.