alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marsha Zimbler et al., Respondents, v Resnick 72nd Street Associates et al., Defendants, and The Board Managers of the Oxford on Seventy Second et al., Appellants.

[876 NYS2d 18]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, *549J.), entered October 9, 2008, which denied the motion of defendants the Board Managers of the Oxford on Seventy Second and Brown Harris Stevens Residential Management, LLC, to preclude the presence of a stenographer or other recorder at the court-ordered psychological evaluation of the minor plaintiff to the extent of directing plaintiffs to arrange for the stenographer not to be present in the examination room, unanimously modified, on the facts, to direct that, if it is not feasible to station the stenographer outside the examination room so as not to be visible to anyone in the room and not to interfere with the proper conduct of the examination, then the stenographer’s audio recording device may be placed, concealed, in the examining room during the evaluation and the recording transcribed later, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

On the record presented, the motion court properly permitted plaintiffs to record the psychological examination of the infant plaintiff, provided that the stenographer is not present in the examination room *(see Barraza v 55 W. 47th St. Co.,*156 AD2d 271 [1989]; *Milam v Mitchell,*51 Misc 2d 948, 950 [1966]). Defendants have not shown that the presence of a stenographer outside the room will unduly interfere with the examination. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
----

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1335/2003 der Kommission vom 25. Juli 2003 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2454/93 mit Durchführungsvorschriften zu der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2913/92 des Rates zur Festlegung des Zollkodex der Gemeinschaften

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 187 vom 26. Juli 2003)

Seite 17, Artikel 870, Absatz 2, Satz 2:

anstatt

„Die Mitteilung nach Absatz 1 ...“

muss es heißen:

„Diese Mitteilung ...“

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-99643 and 333-59894 ) and theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-62825, 33-62827, 33- 62829, 33-62831, 33-62833, 33-62835, 33-62837, 33-62839, 33-62841, 33-62943, 33-63247, 33-63249, 33-63253, 333-03275, 333-03277, 333-19241, 333-77615, 333-59854 and 333-108384) ofBurlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation of our report dated February 10, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Fort Worth, Texas 

February 10, 2005
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-23-00145-CR 

 

CHARLES ANDREW CAMARILLO, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 428th District Court 

Hays County, Texas1 

Trial Court No. CR-21-5594-D, Honorable Joe Pool, Presiding 

June 13, 2023 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Charles Andrew Camarillo, was convicted of burglary of a habitation2

and, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, sentenced to twenty-five years’ confinement. 

The trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right of appeal reflects that this is a plea bargain 

case from which Appellant has no right of appeal and that Appellant has waived the right 

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(2).
2

of appeal. The certification comports with the record before the Court. Notwithstanding 

the certification, Appellant filed a notice of appeal, pro se, challenging his conviction.

We are required by Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) to dismiss an appeal “if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of 

the record.” By letter of May 16, 2023, we notified Appellant of the consequences of the 

trial court’s certification and directed him to file a response demonstrating grounds for 

continuing the appeal by May 26. To date, Appellant has not filed a response or had any 

further communication with this Court.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the trial court’s certification. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
J. Carl COOPER, petitioner, v. SQUARE, INC.

No. 16-76.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
970.

#### Clements *et al. v.*National Bank of Tifton.

Hill, C. J.

1. A sued B, O, and D, as makers of a promissory note, also claiming attorneys’ fees, and alleging the statutory notice therefor. B answered, admitting the execution of the note as principal maker, with C and D as sureties, and his indebtedness for principal and interest, but denied the allegation of notice' of the claim for attorneys’ fees. C and D made no defense. Judgment was rendered by the court against B for principal and interest, and against C and D for principal, interest, and attorneys’ fees. *Held,*the judgment was erroneous as to the attorneys’ fees against O and D. If in fact they were all joint principals, they were equally liable.

*%*If C and D were sureties for B, no judgment could be lawfully rendered for a greater amount against the sureties than against the principal. The judgment for attorneys’ fees against O and D should be written off.

*Affirmed, xoith direction.*

*271Complaint, from city court of Nashville — Judge Peeples. December 10, 1907.

Submitted February 25,

Decided April 22, 1908.

*J. H. Powell, Watts Powell,*for plaintiffs in error.

*R. D. Smith, R. S. Foy,*contra.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 7, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D2 2

- 1072

Lower Tribunal No. F18

- 5015

________________



### Lazaro Torres

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Ariana

Fajardo Orshan , Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant

Public Defender , for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney

General , for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See McLean v. State , 934 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2006)

.
Panel List

Public Roundtable on Customer Protection

February 29, 2012

LN Fn Affiliation Panel # √

Ackerman Ken Olsson, Frank & Weeda 1, 2, 3

Ayotte-Brennan Christine

Fidelity Management and Research 

Company 1, 2, 4

Bagan Anne CME 3

Baggesen Eric California Public Employees' Retirement 2

Baldwin Byron Eurex Clearing 2

Brown Peter Moore Capital Management, LP 1, 2, 3, 4

Burke Maureen Bank of America 3

Cochran Christine Commodity Markets Council 1, 2, 3, 4

Coral Hilary Franklin Templeton Investments 2

Delain Eric Minneapolis Grain Exchange 1

Dewaal Gary Newedge 1

Doar Tim CME 1, 2

Downs Maureen Rosenthal Collins Group 3

Driscoll Dan NFA 3

Edmonds Chris ICE Clear Credit 2, 4

Ferris Scott Harris Bank 1, 2, 3

Filler Ron New York Law School 1, 2, 3, 4

Foley Kevin Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 3

Frankel Oliver Goldman Sachs 2

Gilmore Carl Penson 3

Greenberger Michael University of Maryland School of Law 1, 3

Grosshandler Seth Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 1, 2, 4

Hainline Jeff Advance Trading, Inc. 1, 2, 3

Hammond Thomas ICE Clear US 1

Jordal Tracey PIMCO 3

Kannambadi Sanjay BNY Mellon Clearing 1, 2, 3

Karsh Andrew

California Public Employees' Retirement 

System 1, 3

Kastenholz Steven Newedge 3

Klimpel Laura New York Portfolio Clearing 1, 4

Lee Robert Deutsche Bank 2

Lothian John John J. Lothian & Company 3

Medero Joanne Blackrock 1, 2

Maguire Dan LCH 2

McCarthy Sandy FC Stone 3

O'Shields Reggie Federal Home Loan Bank/Atlanta 3

Ott Joseph Kansas City Board 1, 2

Parke Ross Barclays Capital 1
Panel List

Public Roundtable on Customer Protection

February 29, 2012

Perkins Chris Citigroup Global Markets Inc. 2

Salzman Jerrold Skadden Arps 4

Schaefer Michael Futures Industry Assn. 1

Streit Julie Country Hedging 3

Stuart Oliver Morgan Stanley 2

Szycher Mark GM Pension Plan 1, 2

Thum William Vanguard Group 1, 2

Torell John Tudor 1, 2

Trkla Kathryn Foley & Lardner LLP 4

Winter Steven State Street 1, 2, 3, 4

Yeres David Clifford Chance LLP 4

Zebregs Bas APG Algemene Pensioen Groep, N.V. 2
Edward H. FLINT, petitioner, v. Gerald MARX.

No. 16-574.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Vyrex Corporation on S-8 (File No. 333-50571)of our report, which contains an explanatory paragraph relating to the Corporation’s ability to continue as a going concern, dated February 11, 2004 on the financial statements of Vyrex Corporation as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and for theyears then ended and for the period from January 2, 1991 (date of inception) to December 31, 2003, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. 

 

/s/ J.H. COHN LLP 

 

San Diego, California 

March 26, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1687 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1687

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 7, 2010.
Whereas the number of runaway and homeless youth in the United States is 
        staggering, with studies suggesting that between 1,600,000 and 2,800,000 
        youth live on the streets each year;
Whereas the problem of children who run away from home is widespread, as youth 
        between 12 and 17 years of age are at a higher risk of homelessness than 
        adults;
Whereas runaway youth are often expelled from their homes by their families, 
        discharged by State custodial systems without adequate transition plans, 
        separated from their parents by death and divorce, or physically, 
        sexually, and emotionally abused at home;
Whereas runaway youth are often too poor to secure their own basic needs and are 
        ineligible or unable to access adequate medical or mental health 
        resources;
Whereas effective programs that provide support to runaway youth and assist them 
        in remaining at home with their families can succeed through 
        partnerships created among families, community-based human service 
        agencies, law enforcement agencies, schools, faith-based organizations, 
        and businesses;
Whereas preventing youth from running away from home and supporting youth in 
        high-risk situations is a family, community, and national priority;
Whereas the future of the Nation is dependent on providing opportunities for 
        youth to acquire the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to 
        develop into safe, healthy, and productive adults;
Whereas the National Network for Youth and its members advocate on behalf of 
        runaway and homeless youth and provide an array of community-based 
        support to address their critical needs;
Whereas the National Runaway Switchboard provides crisis intervention and 
        referrals to reconnect runaway youth with their families and link youth 
        to local resources that provide positive alternatives to running away 
        from home; and
Whereas during the month of November, the National Network for Youth and the 
        National Runaway Switchboard are cosponsoring National Runaway 
        Prevention Month, in order to increase public awareness of the 
        circumstances faced by youth in high-risk situations and to address the 
        need to provide resources and support for safe, healthy, and productive 
        alternatives for at-risk youth, their families, and their communities: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and supports the 
goals and ideals of National Runaway Prevention Month.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32279-32280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14665]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1, 31, and 301

[REG-107186-00]
RIN 1545-AY50


Electronic Payee Statements; Hearing

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Rescheduled public hearing on proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document reschedules the public hearing on proposed 
regulations relating to voluntary electronic furnishing of payee 
statements on Forms W-2.

DATES: The public hearing is being held on Wednesday, July 25, 2001, at 
10 a.m. Outlines of oral comments must be received by July 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing is being held in room 4716, Internal 
Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Send 
submissions to: Regulations Unit CC (REG-107186-00), room 5226, 
Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 
DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. 
and 5 p.m. to: Regulations Unit CC (REG-107186-00), Courier's Desk, 
Internal Revenue Service, 1111

[[Page 32280]]

Constitution, Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may 
submit outlines of oral comments electronically directly to the IRS 
Internet site at http://www.irs.gov/tax_regs/regslist.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the regulations, Laura 
Nash, (202) 622-4910; concerning submissions, Sonya M. Cruse, (202) 
622-7180 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, 
appearing in the Federal Register on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 (66 
FR 10247), announced that a public hearing was being held on June 4, 
2001, regarding proposed regulations under sections 6041 and 6051. A 
hearing cancellation document was inadvertently published in the 
Federal Register on May 23, 2001 (66 FR 28408). Thus, the IRS is 
rescheduling the public hearing for Wednesday, July 25, 2001, at 10 
a.m. in room 4716. Outlines of oral comments must be received by July 
6, 2001.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization & 
Strategic Planning).
[FR Doc. 01-14665 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Robert Alan JONES, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6368.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District denied.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

 Office of Public Affairs 

 Three Lafayette Centre 

 1155 21st Street, NW 

 Washington, DC 20581 

 www.cftc.gov

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Disruptive Trading Practices 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced the publication in the Federal Register of an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning disruptive trading practices under the provisions of the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

On July 21, 2010, the Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act. Among other things, section 747 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the 

Commodity Exchange Act to expressly prohibit certain disruptive practices. 

• In section 747 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress amended the CEA to expressly prohibit certain 

trading practices that it determined were disruptive of fair and equitable trading. Dodd-Frank 

section 747 amends section 4c(a) of the CEA to make it unlawful for any person to engage in any 

trading, practice, or conduct on or subject to the rules of a registered entity that– 

A. violates bids or offers; 

B. demonstrates intentional or reckless disregard for the orderly execution of transactions 

during the closing period; or 

C. is, is of the character of, or is commonly known to the trade as, “spoofing” (bidding or 

offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution). 

 

• Dodd-Frank section 747 also amends section 4c(a) by granting the Commission authority to 

promulgate such “rules and regulations as, in the judgment of the Commission, are reasonably 

necessary to prohibit the trading practices” enumerated there “and any other trading practice that is 

disruptive of fair and equitable trading.” The prohibition on the disruptive practices specified in 

new section 4c(a) will become effective 360 days after the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, i.e. on 

July 16, 2011. 

• Commenters are also encouraged to address all of the questions in the ANOPR. For example 

should rules be adopted that are specifically applicable to the use of algorithmic trading 

methodologies and programs that are reasonably necessary to prevent algorithmic trading systems 

from disrupting fair and equitable trading; and what duties of supervision over trades should be 

required to prevent disruptive trading practices? 

On October 26, 2010, the Commission issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking to encourage comments to address specifically enumerated questions 

concerning the statutory provisions and any other rules the Commission should consider 

under the rulemaking authority of Section 747. 

The comment period closes on [insert 60 days from publication in FR]. 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        181


        <NAME>      Fidelity France Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

6-MOS


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

OCT-31-1998


<PERIOD-END>

APR-30-1998


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

7,676


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

9,646


<RECEIVABLES>

189


<ASSETS-OTHER>

1


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

9,836


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

1,357


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

32


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

1,389


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

6,398


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

533


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

420


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

0


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

42


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

121


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

1,970


<NET-ASSETS>

8,447


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

5


<INTEREST-INCOME>

13


<OTHER-INCOME>

0


<EXPENSES-NET>

58


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

(40)


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

128


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

1,526


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

1,614


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

17


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

474


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

179


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

107


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

39


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

2,869


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

23


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

744


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

22


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

106


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

5,950


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

13.270


<PER-SHARE-NII>

(.090)


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

3.860


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .040


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

 .1.150


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

15.860


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

200


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1585 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1585

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 30, 2010.
Whereas the base originally named Fairfield-Suisun Army Air Base, the ``Gateway 
        to the Pacific'', was renamed Travis Air Force Base in 1951;
Whereas Team Travis includes the 13,900 active duty, reservists, and civilians 
        of the 60th Air Mobility Wing, the 349th Air Mobility Wing, the 15th 
        Expeditionary Mobility Task Force, the 615th Contingency Response Wing, 
        and their families;
Whereas the 60th Air Mobility Wing, one of the Air Force's largest air mobility 
        organizations, significantly contributed to the defense of our Nation 
        during World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf 
        War, and operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Team Travis played 
        major roles in providing airlift, air refueling, and aero medical 
        evacuation in support of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom, flying 
        102,581 hours for Operation Iraqi Freedom and 70,940 hours for Operation 
        Enduring Freedom;
Whereas in January 2009, Travis aircrews from the 60th Air Mobility Wing and 
        349th Air Mobility Wing supported humanitarian aid operations in the 
        Darfur region of Sudan;
Whereas the 615th Contingency Response Wing, one of two Air Force Contingency 
        Response Wings, facilitated airlift efforts from Rwanda in support of 
        the Rwandan peacekeeping mission;
Whereas, after a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti on January 12, 2010, Team 
        Travis conducted the first humanitarian airlift mission, providing 
        search and rescue personnel, medical experts and supplies, and 
        facilitated the delivery of more than 1,000,000 pounds of cargo during 
        the duration of the Haitian Relief Effort; and
Whereas the 60th Air Mobility Wing and Team Travis valiantly fulfill its motto 
        of being ``America's First Choice'', for true global reach: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors and recognizes the exemplary service and sacrifice of the 
        60th Air Mobility Wing, the 349th Air Mobility Wing, the 15th 
        Expeditionary Mobility Task Force, and the 615th Contingency Response 
        Wing civilians and families serving at Travis Air Force Base, 
        California;
            (2) offers condolences to the families of the brave servicemembers 
        of Team Travis who have lost their lives in defense of the United 
        States; and
            (3) commends the actions of private citizens and organizations in 
        the Travis Air Force Base community for their steadfast support of 
        members of the United States Armed Forces and their families.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```