alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ramon Almonte et al., Respondents, v Western Beef, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[800 NYS2d 738]

In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Western Beef, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), dated June 16, 2003, which denied its motion, denominated as one for leave to renew and reargue, which was, in actuality, a motion for leave to reargue the plaintiffs’ prior motion for leave to commence a direct action against it, which was granted in an order of the same court dated March 5, 2002.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

By order dated March 5, 2002, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to commence a direct action against Western Beef, Inc. (hereinafter Western Beef, the corporation which employed the injured plaintiff, on the ground that its failure to comply with prior disclosure orders impaired the plaintiffs’ ability to pursue claims against third-party tortfeasors. Over one year later, Western Beef moved for leave to renew and reargue the plaintiffs’ motion. However, the only additional evidence it submitted to establish that it had complied with court-ordered disclosure was the deposition testimony of a witness produced by a codefendant several months after the original motion was decided. Contrary to Western Beef’s contention, this deposition testimony did not constitute new evidence as contemplated by CPLR 2221 (e) (2) *(see Johnson v Marquez,*2 AD 3d 786 [2003]). Accordingly, Western Beef’s motion was, in actuality, a motion solely for *517leave to reargue, the denial of which is not appealable *(see Schneider v Schneider,*16 AD3d 573 [2005]; *Matter of Pirrone v Town of Wallkill,*6 AD3d 447 [2004]; *Koehler v Town of Smithtown,*305 AD2d 550 [2003]). We further note that since Western Beefs prior appeal from the March 5, 2002, order was dismissed for lack of prosecution, it would ordinarily be precluded from relitigating issues which could have been raised on that appeal *(see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*93 NY2d 750 [1999]; *Bray v Cox,*38 NY2d 350 [1976]; *Matter of Joy Bldrs., Inc. v Town of Clarkstown Planning Bd., 16*AD3d 416 [2005]; *Ruffing v Union Carbide Corp.,*1 AD3d 339 [2003]). Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Krausman and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
WILLIAMS v. CSX TRANSPORTATION.

No. 190P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Randall A. Jordan, Mary Helen Moses, Saint Simons Island, GA, for CSX Transportation.

H. Forest Horne, Raleigh, for Williams.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of April 2006 by Defendant to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2006."
CAPPS v. NW SIGN INDUSTRIES et al.

No. 383A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 13, 2006.

David P. Ferrell, Raleigh, Norman W. Shearin, Jr., Kitty Hawk, for NW Sign Industries, et al.

Richard B. Fennell, Charlotte, for Alan Capps.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of February 2006 by Plaintiff to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of February 2006."

Justice MARTIN recused.
# **Exhibit21.1**

### **Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

| Name                                          | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Formation** |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------|
| MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C.                    |       | Delaware                      |
| MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.                |       | Delaware                      |
| Basin Pipeline L.L.C.                         |       | Michigan                      |
| Bright Star Gathering, Inc.                   |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest Blackhawk, L.P.                      |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest Energy Appalachia, L.L.C.            |       | Delaware                      |
| MarkWest Energy East Texas Gas Company, L.P.  |       | Delaware                      |
| MarkWest Energy Finance Corporation           |       | Delaware                      |
| MarkWest Energy Operating Company, L.L.C.     |       | Delaware                      |
| MarkWest Javelina Company                     |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest Javelina Holding Company, L.P.       |       | Delaware                      |
| MarkWest Javelina Pipeline Company            |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest Javelina Pipeline Holding, L.P.      |       | Oklahoma                      |
| MarkWest Michigan Pipeline Company, L.L.C.    |       | Michigan                      |
| MarkWest New Mexico, L.P.                     |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest Pinnacle L.P.                        |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest Pipeline Company, L.P.               |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest PNG Utility, L.P.                    |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest Power Tex L.P.                       |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest Texas GP, L.L.C.                     |       | Delaware                      |
| MW Texas Limited, L.L.C.                      |       | Delaware                      |
| MarkWest Texas PNG Utility, L.P.              |       | Texas                         |
| MarkWest Western Oklahoma Gas Company, L.L.C. |       | Oklahoma                      |
| Matrex, L.L.C.                                |       | Michigan                      |
| Starfish Pipeline Company, L.L.C.             |       | Delaware                      |
| Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.             |       | Delaware                      |
| Triton Gathering, L.L.C.                      |       | Delaware                      |
| West Cameron Dehydration Company, L.L.C.      |       | Delaware                      |
| West Shore Processing Company, L.L.C.         |       | Michigan                      |

 

 

----
Exhibit 10.2

                                Amendment to All
                       Outstanding Stock Option Agreements
                    under the 1997 Long-Term Incentive Plan
                    ---------------------------------------

      Effective August 5, 2005, Section 3(b)(iii) of each outstanding Stock
Option Agreement under the 1997 Long-Term Incentive Plan was amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

           (iii) LabOne merges or consolidates with another corporation or other
      entity, unless such merger of consolidation (A) is approved by a majority
      of the Continuing Directors of LabOne, and (B) is specifically designated
      by a majority of the Continuing Directors not to constitute a change of
      control for purposes of the Plan; or
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/D. Hughes Watler,      Jr.                                            |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | D.      Hughes Watler, Jr.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | November      10, 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
Exhibit 32.1













CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Scientific Energy, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley Chan, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  August 15, 2010



|                                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Stanley Chan                                              |  | 
|Stanley Chan                                                  |  | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer           |  | 
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |  |
# L_2016270EN.01000301.xml

| 5.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 270/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1767

of 27 September 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Paška janjetina (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Paška janjetina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Paška janjetina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Paška janjetina’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Paška janjetina’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Paška janjetina’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.1. Fresh meat (and offal), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 September 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 185, 24.5.2016, p. 11.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Alan CAPPS v. NW SIGN INDUSTRIES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., a North Carolina corporation, Ronald Brodie, and Chris Reedel.

No. 383A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 7, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 614 S.E.2d 552 (2005), dismissing as interlocutory an appeal from an order denying both a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion to dismiss entered 18 February 2004 by Judge J. Gentry Caudill in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 February 2006.

James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Richard B. Fennell and Jared E. Gardner, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.

Vandeventer Black LLP, by David P. Ferrell and Norman W. Shearin, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissent, the decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with direction to the Court of Appeals to further remand to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County for findings of fact sufficient for appellate review of the jurisdictional issue.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Justice MARTIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">52 Hamilton Place NYC Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Christine Araman, Respondent-Tenant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Tenant appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anne Katz, J.), dated June 13, 2016, which denied her second posteviction motion to be restored to possession of the premises in a nonpayment summary proceeding, and (2) an order (same court and Judge), dated June 13, 2016, which declined to sign her order to show cause.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Anne Katz, J.), dated June 13, 2016, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order (Anne Katz, J.), dated June 13, 2016, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.</p><p>We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of tenant's second application for posteviction relief in this nonpayment proceeding. Tenant offered no excuse for her multiple defaults in appearance nor any adequate explanation for her failure to comply with the terms of the stipulation of settlement. In this posture, and considering the substantial rental arrears which had amassed, "good cause" (RPAPL 749[3]) for vacating the warrant and restoring tenant to possession was absent (<i>see Matter of 1621 St. Nicholas Ave Owners LLC v Cruz</i>, 146 AD3d 409, 410 [2017]; <i>cf. Lafayette Boynton Hsg. Corp. v Pickett</i>, 135 AD3d 518 [2016]). In any event, since there is apparently a new tenant in possession who has not been made a party to this proceeding, restoration relief is unavailable (<i>see Eight Assoc. v Hynes</i>, 102 AD2d 746, 748 [1984], <i>affd</i> 65 NY2d 739 [1985]).</p><p>No appeal lies from the order declining to sign tenant's order to show cause (<i>see Nall v Estate of Powell</i>, 99 AD3d 411, 412 [2012], <i>lv denied </i>20 NY3d 993 [2013]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: November 27, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
# C_2016421EN.01000201.xml

| 16.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 14 November 2016

appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for France and Italy

(2016/C 421/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

1

Having regard to the list of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,

Whereas:

| (1) | By its Decision of 24 February 2016 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 29 February 2016 until 28 February 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By its Decision of 24 February 2016 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 29 February 2016 until 28 February 2019.

2

| (2) | The governments of France and Italy have submitted further nominations for several posts to be filled, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The governments of France and Italy have submitted further nominations for several posts to be filled,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2019:

I.   TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Member | Alternate member |
| --- | --- | --- |
| France | Mr Abderrafik ZAIGOUCHE | Ms Edina LAMOUREUX
  Mr Jean-Paul ZERBIB |
| Italy | Ms Silvana CAPPUCCIO | Ms Cinzia FRASCHERI
  Mr Marco LUPI |

Country

Member

Alternate member

France

Mr Abderrafik ZAIGOUCHE

Ms Edina LAMOUREUX

Mr Jean-Paul ZERBIB

Italy

Ms Silvana CAPPUCCIO

Ms Cinzia FRASCHERI

Mr Marco LUPI

II.   EMPLOYERS’ REPRESENTATIVES

| Country | Member | Alternate member |
| --- | --- | --- |
| France | Ms Nathalie BUET | Mr Patrick LEVY
  Mr Franck GAMBELLI |
| Italy | Ms Fabiola LEUZZI | Mr Giorgio RUSSOMANNO
  Mr Pier Paolo MASCIOCCHI |

Country

Member

Alternate member

France

Ms Nathalie BUET

Mr Patrick LEVY

Mr Franck GAMBELLI

Italy

Ms Fabiola LEUZZI

Mr Giorgio RUSSOMANNO

Mr Pier Paolo MASCIOCCHI

Article 2

The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 November 2016.

For the Council

The President

G. MATEČNÁ

---

(1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Decision of 24 February 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (OJ C 79, 1.3.2016, p. 1).

2

---
# L_2013189EN.01001201.xml

| 10.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 189/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/12

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2013/367/CFSP

of 9 July 2013

amending Decision 2012/389/CFSP on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 16 July 2012 the Council adopted Decision 2012/389/CFSP (1). That Decision expires on 15 July 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 16 July 2012 the Council adopted Decision 2012/389/CFSP (1). That Decision expires on 15 July 2014.

| (2) | The current financial reference amount covers the period from 16 July 2012 until 15 July 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The current financial reference amount covers the period from 16 July 2012 until 15 July 2013.

| (3) | Decision 2012/389/CFSP should be amended to extend the period covered by the current financial reference amount until 15 November 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2012/389/CFSP should be amended to extend the period covered by the current financial reference amount until 15 November 2013.

| (4) | The Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 13(1) of Decision 2012/389/CFSP is replaced by the following:

"1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP NESTOR for the first 16 months following the entry into force of this Decision shall be EUR 22 880 000. The financial reference amount for the subsequent period shall be decided by the Council.".

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2013.

For the Council

The President

R. ŠADŽIUS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 187, 17.7.2012, p. 40.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Corey Latimer, Appellant.

[800 NYS2d 629]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered December 17, 2002, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), and robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the sentence is vacated, the plea of guilty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

As the prosecution concedes, the record supports the defendant’s contention that he understood that in exchange for his plea of guilty, the County Court would sentence him to 20 years to life on the top count of his indictment, to run concurrently with the sentences imposed on the remaining counts, as well as concurrently with sentences imposed in unrelated criminal matters in Dutchess and Ulster Counties. However, at sentencing, the County Court stated that its promise did not include Ulster County. The defendant was not given an opportunity to withdraw his plea.

*909Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the County Court did not fulfill what, as the People concede, the defendant reasonably construed as a promise regarding his sentence. Accordingly, the defendant should have been given an opportunity to withdraw his plea *(see People v Lowman,*237 AD2d 621, 622 [1997]; *cf. People v Smith,*279 AD2d 487 [2001]).

We decline to address the defendant’s contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that his arrest and subsequent questioning while in police custody violated his constitutional rights. While the defendant raised those challenges in a pretrial motion, the prosecution represents, and our own review of the record indicates, that the County Court did not decide those issues, either orally on the record or in any written decision. Accordingly, they should be addressed in the first instance on remittitur, if necessary.

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, need not be addressed in light of the foregoing determination. H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Goldstein, and Skelos, JJ., concur.