alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Wayne Jacques v. John P. Runion

February 24, 1992

Case No. (Chancery) 114350

By Judge Thomas J. Middleton

The Court has reviewed the Application for Rule to Show Cause submitted in the above-referenced matter. For the following reasons, the court declines to enter the Rule to Show Cause.

As a preliminary matter, only *nonparties*must be served with a Request for Production of Documents by *subpoena duces tecum.*Rule 4:9(c). Since a *party*may be served by mail without leave of court, Rule 4:9(b), it was unnecessary to proceed by *subpoena duces tecum*against the defendant. Certain remedies are available against a party who fails to respond to a discovery request. Certain other remedies, including contempt, are available against a nonparty. But a plaintiff may not afford himself additional remedies by proceeding against a party as if he were a nonparty.

Before the court will issue a Rule to Show Cause against a *party*who has failed to comply with discovery, the party must have failed to comply with an Order Compelling Discovery. Rule 4:9(b) provides in pertinent part:

> The party submitting the request may move for an Order under Rule 4:12(a) [an Order Compelling Discovery] with respect to any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit inspection as requested.

This is, significantly, the *only*reference to an “order” in Rule 4:9(b). Rule 4:9(d) provides:

> *143If a party fails to obey *an order under (b) of this Rule,*the court may proceed as provided by Rule 4:12(b)(2).

Rule 4:12(b)(2)(D) authorizes the contempt remedy for failure to comply with a discovery order. However, since there has been no *“order under (b) of [Rule 4:9],"*this remedy is not available under Rule 4:9.

Nor is contempt a preferred remedy against a party under Rule 4:12, the general rule pertaining to failure to make discovery. Rule 4:12(d) provides:

> If a party ... fails to serve a written response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 4:9 ... the court. . . may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just and among others it may take any action authorized under paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of subdivision (b)(2) of this Rule.

Although this Rule purports, at first glance, to give the court discretion to make any order it finds just, it conspicuously leaves out paragraph (D) of subdivision (b)(2), the paragraph which allows a contempt order as a sanction for failing to comply with a discovery order.

For all the foregoing reasons, the court declines to enter the Rule to Show Cause.
----

----

**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**

| (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/                      Eduardo                      Biancardi |   |   |   |   |
| Eduardo                      Biancardi                          |   |   |   |   |
| Chief                        Financial Officer                  |   |   |   |   |
| Date:                    November 8, 2007                       |   |   |   |   |
```

[Federal Register: March 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 12684]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17mr03-50]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, April 25, 2003.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC 9th floor conference room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be considered. Surveillance matters.

For More Information Contact: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 03-6452 Filed 3-13-03; 3:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P-M
```
#### Galip VATANSEVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.C. Department of Corrections, Captain Rocco, Correction Officer Hager, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-6965-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 11, 2006.

Galip Vatansever, pro se, New York, NY.

Stephen J. McGrath, Victoria Scalzo, City of New York, Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Present: Hon. THOMAS J. MESKILL, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR and Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Galip Vatansever, *pro se,*appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pauley, *J.)*granting summary judgment for the defendants in Vatansever’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and denying his Rule 60(b) motions. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Officer Hager was not served with a copy of the summons and complaint, *see*Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); the Department of Corrections was not a suable entity, *see*N.Y. City Charter Ch. 17 § 396; *27and the City did not promote any policies that led to a deprivation of Vatansever’s constitutional rights, *see Batista v. Rodriguez,*702 F.2d 393, 397 (2d Cir.1983). Vatansever offered only his uncorroborated assertions to support his allegation that Captain Raco1 used excessive force against him, which was belied by the medical evidence, and which is insufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. *See United States v. Potamkin Cadillac Corp.,*689 F.2d 379, 381 (2d Cir.1982). Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Vatansever’s Rule 60(b) motions. *See Lawrence v. Wink (In re Lawrence),*293 F.3d 615, 623 (2d Cir.2002).

Vatansever also moves to sanction the defendants for failure to timely file their appellate brief. That motion is denied as without merit, as the defendants requested and were granted additional time within which to file their appellate brief, and complied with that adjusted timeline.

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

1

. Although Vatansever referred to Captain “Rocco,” the defendants identified Captain Anthony Raco as the defendant named in the complaint.
Exhibit (j)(1)

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the reference to our Firm under the heading "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in the Statements of Additional Information of Fidelity Investment Trust:Fidelity Series International Growth Fund, which are included in Post-Effective AmendmentNo. 117 to the Registration Statement on Form N-1A.
#### Kathryn Jordan, Appellant, v Bates Advertising Holdings, Inc., Formerly Known as AC & R Advertising, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted December 19, 2011;

decided February 16, 2012

Reported below, 2011 NY Slip Op 88663(U).

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie *(see*CPLR 5602 [a]).

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
```

[Federal Register: March 13, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 14555]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13mr01-52]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting

    This is to give notice, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec. 10(a), that the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission's Agricultural Advisory Committee will
conduct a public meeting on March 28, 2001, in the first floor hearing
room (Room 1000) of the Commission's Washington, D.C. headquarters,
Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20581.
The meeting will begin at 1:30 p.m. and last until 5:00 p.m. The agenda
will consist of the following:

Agenda

1. Welcoming remarks
2. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) and proposed
changes to CFTC regulations
3. "Special Procedures to Encourage and Facilitate Bona Fide Hedging
by Agricultural Producers," new Section 4p of the Commodity Exchange
Act, as added by the CFMA
4. Review of agricultural trade options and other risk management
alternatives in light of CFMA and proposed regulatory changes
5. Warehouse Act of 2000--implications for agricultural futures
6. Report on current activities by USDA's Risk Management Agency
7. Recent developments in electronic derivatives trading
8. Other business

    The meeting is open to the public. The Chairman of the Advisory
Committee, Commissioner David D. Spears, is empowered to conduct the
meeting in a fashion that will, in his judgment, facilitate the orderly
conduct of business. Any member of the public who wishes to file a
written statement with the Advisory Committee should mail a copy of the
statement to the attention of: The Agricultural Advisory Committee, c/o
Commissioner David D. Spears, Commodity Futures Trading
Commission,Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20581, before the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make
oral statements should inform Commissioner Spears in writing at the
foregoing address at least three business days before the meeting.
Reasonable provision will be made, if time permits, for an oral
presentation of no more than five minutes each in duration.

    Issued by the Commission in Washington, D.C. on March 7, 2001.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-6215 Filed 3-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 5, 2024

No. 04-23-00423-CR

EX PARTE Carlos Antonio CORDOVA JUAREZ

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10594CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS Carlos Antonio Cordova 

Juarez’s appeal of the denial of his application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus for want of 

jurisdiction. We further consider Cordova Juarez’s appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and 

DENY his request for mandamus relief WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on June 5, 2024.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of June, 2024.

_____________________________

Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dora FAJARDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50515.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*696Submitted Sept. 8, 2008 *.

Filed Sept. 12, 2008.

United States Attorney, USSD—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kris J. Kraus, Esq., FDSD—Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Dora Fajardo appeals the revocation of her supervised release and the sentence imposed upon revocation. Fajardo contends that the procedures by which her supervised release was revoked are unconstitutional. Fajardo argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in *Cunningham v. California,*549 U.S. 270, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007), called into question the constitutionality of the revocation procedures, and undermined this court’s holding in *United States v. Huerta-Pimental,*445 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*549 U.S. 1014, 127 S.Ct. 545, 166 L.Ed.2d 403 (2006).

As Fajardo concedes in her reply brief, her contention is foreclosed by this court’s recent decision in *United States v. Santana,*526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir.2008) (“nothing in *Cunningham*calls into question the continuing authority of *Huertcu-Pimental. Cunningham*does not affect the validity of § 3583’s procedure for revocation of supervised release.”)

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register: March 19, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 53)]

[Notices]

[Page 13395]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr19mr98-43]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION





Sunshine Act Meeting



AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.



TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, April 20, 1998.



PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Fl., Conference Room.



STATUS: Closed.



MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.



CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.



Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 98-7220 Filed 3-16-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO    INDEX ========**

----
```

[Federal Register: May 20, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 27519-27520]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20my99-38]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 21, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.


[[Page 27520]]


CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-12869 Filed 5-8-99; 1:22 p.m.]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
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 Form 10-Q/A of Fidelity Aviation Corporation for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in his
capacity as an officer of the company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the company.




Date:
      May 22, 2009/s/ Rong YangRong YangPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer), and Chief Financial
                    Officer
      (principal financial and accounting
officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 105.

#### Zachritz *v.*St. Louis San Francisco Ry. Co.

October 14, 1935.

*Mr. W. S. Hogsett*for petitioner.

*Messrs. Joseph W. Jamison, Henry S. Conrad,*and *L. E. Durham*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri denied.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1175 

Expressing support for designation of the first weekend of May as Ten 

Commandments Weekend to recognize the significant contributions the 

Ten Commandments have made to shaping Western civilization and 

the vital role they played in the development of the institutions and 

national character of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2010 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. FOXX, Mr. 

BARTLETT, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. HARPER, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. KING of 

Iowa, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mrs. BACHMANN, and Mr. CONAWAY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of the first weekend of 

May as Ten Commandments Weekend to recognize the 

significant contributions the Ten Commandments have 

made to shaping Western civilization and the vital role 

they played in the development of the institutions and 

national character of the United States. 

Whereas from the earliest days of the United States, the Ten 

Commandments have been part of the Nation’s basic cultural fabric; 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1175 IH 

Whereas the sixth President of the United States, John 

Quincy Adams, declared the Ten Commandments to be 

‘‘laws essential to the existence of men in society, and 

most of which have been enacted by every nation, which 

ever professed any code of laws’’; 

Whereas the Ten Commandments are a widely respected code 

of personal conduct and a declaration of fundamental 

principles for a fair and just society that transcend the 

diversity of cultural expression and faith in the United 

States; 

Whereas a marble relief of Moses, the bearer of the Ten 

Commandments, is prominently displayed over the gallery 

doors of the chamber of the House of Representatives, in 

the United States Capitol; 

Whereas images of the Ten Commandments are prominently 

displayed in many Federal buildings, such as the United 

States Supreme Court, National Archives, and Library of 

Congress; and 

Whereas in addition to being understood as an elemental 

source for United States law, the Ten Commandments 

have become a recognized symbol of law in the Nation’s 

culture: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of Ten Command3 ments Weekend; 

4 (2) celebrates the significant role the Ten Com5 mandments have played in the development of sig6 nificant public and private institutions of the United 

7 States; and 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1175 IH 

1 (3) encourages citizens of all faiths and reli2 gious persuasions to reflect on the important impact 

3 that the Ten Commandments have had on the people 

4 and national character of the United States. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
{"agency":"CFTC","generated":"2014-04-01 13:42:37","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"}],"value":"2014"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"5"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["CFTC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["42"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["38"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["47"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2014","quarter":"Q2"}
#### Adina Benedikt et al., Respondents, v Certified Lumber Corporation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[875 NYS2d 526]-

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Certified Lumber Corporation, Certified Lumber, LLC, and Israel Nieman appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated July 9, 2008, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs established a prima facie case for summary judgment in their favor on the issue of liability by demonstrating that the defendant driver failed to yield the right-of-way to the injured plaintiff Adina Benedikt, who was crossing the street within the crosswalk with the pedestrian “WALK” signal in her favor *(see Zabusky v Cochran,*234 AD2d 542 [1996]; *Jermin v APA Truck Leasing Co.,*237 AD2d 255 [1997]). The plaintiffs submitted an affidavit by the injured plaintiff to that effect, which was supported by copies of the police accident reports and the MV-104 report signed by the defendant driver, containing that defendant’s admission against interest that he did not see the injured plaintiff before he struck her *(see Niyazov v Bradford,*13 AD3d 501 [2004]; *Vaden v Rose,*4 AD3d 468 [2004]; *Kemenyash v McGoey,*306 AD2d 516 [2003]; *Guevara v Zaharakis,*303 AD2d 555 [2003]). The affidavit of the defendant driver, submitted in opposition to the motion, merely raised feigned issues of fact, which are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment *(see Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp.,*245 AD2d 256 [1997]; *Miller v City of New York,*214 AD2d 657 [1995]; *Garvin v Rosenberg,*204 AD2d 388 [1994]), and the defendants failed to demonstrate that further discovery was *799warranted *(see Lopez v WS Distrib., Inc.,*34 AD3d 759, 760 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Belen, JJ., concur.
No. —, original.

#### Ex parte Harold Maniloff.

October 12, 1936.

Motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus denied.
No. 365.

#### Brown *v.*Gesellschaft fur Drahtlose Telegraphie, M. B. H.

November 11, 1935.