alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mindi Yeger, Respondent, v David Yeger, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 916]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated March 10, 2005, as granted the plaintiff wife’s motion for certain pendente lite relief and denied that branch of his cross motion which was to direct the parties to proceed to arbitration before a Beth Din rabbinical arbitration panel.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and that branch of the cross motion which was to direct the parties to proceed to *550arbitration before a Beth Din rabbinical arbitration panel is granted.

The plaintiff wife and the defendant husband agreed to arbitrate “all disputes between” them before a Beth Din rabbinical arbitration panel, including, inter alia, issues of “child support, distribution of assets, debt responsibility, and alimony.” Thus, the Supreme Court improvidently granted the wife’s motion for various pendente relief in this matrimonial action. Rather, the court should have granted that branch of the cross motion which was to direct the parties to proceed to arbitration before a Beth Din *(see Giahn v Giahn,*290 AD2d 483 [2002]). The parties’ intent was that arbitration was to proceed before a Beth Din rabbinical arbitration panel comprised of one arbitrator selected by the wife, one selected by the husband, and a third selected by the parties’ arbitrators. Thus, to the extent that vacancies exist on the panel, they should be filled accordingly. H. Miller, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          22,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,807,742
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 10,879,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,345,602
<PP&E>                                      10,921,192
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,355,962
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,727,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,301,759
<BONDS>                                     13,438,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,694
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,743,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,729,999
<SALES>                                     32,004,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,004,919
<CGS>                                       25,064,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,064,641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,325,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             815,220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (200,242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (35,475)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,475)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,475)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. Harley Ray ALLIGOOD, Jr.

No. 31P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Harley Ray Alligood, Jr., Lumberton, for Alligood, Harley Ray, Jr.

Seth H. Edwards, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of September 2015 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LIN
TELEVISION CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH LIN
TELEVISION CORPORATION QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q DATED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000931058
<NAME> LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,554
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,951
<PP&E>                                         188,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,043,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,346
<BONDS>                                        299,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     712,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,043,288
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,274
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,614
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (55)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,234
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,089)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,089)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Cole and Duff 

FRANKLIN CITY PUBLIC WORKS 

AND 

VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL GROUP 

 SELF-INSURANCE ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

v. Record No. 0397-96-3 JUNE 25, 1996 

 

HAYWOOD RIDDICK 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Robert A. Rapaport; Lynne M. Ferris; Knight, 

Dudley, Clarke & Dolph, on brief), for 

appellants. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Franklin City Public Works and its insurer contend that the 

Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that Haywood 

Riddick's hearing loss qualifies as an occupational "disease" 

under the Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"). 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 

 This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in 

Stenrich Group v. Jemmott, 251 Va. 186, 199, 467 S.E.2d 795, 802 

(1996) (holding that "job-related impairments resulting from 

cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion, however labeled or 

however defined, are, as a matter of law, not compensable under 

the present provisions of the Act"). 

 Accordingly, we reverse the commission's decision. 

 Reversed.
STATE v. BROWN.

No. COA08-916.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (05CRS227671, 05CRS227672, 05CRS227673, 05CRS227674, 05CRS227675).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS NICODEMUS GRADY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00002-GEC-1; 5:14-cv-80780-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis Nicodemus Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Marie Harrigan 

Kulpa, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, 

Virginia; Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Travis Nicodemus Grady seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Grady has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1967Show full title

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1967 of 9 March 2012 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union            and Bosnia and Herzegovina establishing a framework for the participation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in European Union crisis            management operations         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1967                     

# of 9 March 2012

# on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Bosnia and Herzegovina establishing a framework                        for the participation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in European Union crisis management operations                     

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 37 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (‘the HR’),

Whereas:

(1)Conditions regarding the participation of third states in European Union crisis management operations should be laid down                              in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than defining those conditions on                              a case-by-case basis for each operation concerned.

(2)Following the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 26 April 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the HR negotiated                              an agreement between the European Union and Bosnia and Herzegovina establishing a framework for the participation of Bosnia                              and Herzegovina in European Union crisis management operations (‘the Agreement’).

(3)The Agreement should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The Agreement between the European Union and Bosnia and Herzegovina establishing a framework for the participation of Bosnia                     and Herzegovina in the European Union crisis management operations is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.                  

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind                     the Union.                  

# Article 3U.K.

The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 16(1) of the Agreement.

# Article 4U.K.

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

Done at Brussels, 9 March 2012.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

I. Auken
Wesley Foust-Graham GOODWIN, Surviving Spouse of James Lester Goodwin v. Norman B. SMITH.

No. 398P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Wesley F.G. Goodwin, Pro Se.

Norman B. Smith, Greensboro, for Smith.

Prior report: 171 N.C.App. 707, 615 S.E.2d 398.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 3rd day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Guilford County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 3rd day of September 2008 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*564"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
# CE2004078EN.01070601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/706 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/706

---

(2004/C 78 E/0754)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0816/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(17 March 2003)

Subject:   Independent study on the use of inter-specific wine varieties

Subject:

In its reply to Question E-3520/01 (1) the Commission said that it would ‘finance an independent study on the use of inter-specific wine varieties’ on the basis of which it would send a report to Parliament and the Council by 31 December 2003.

1

Although this date is still a long way off, is there any possiblity that — given the natural concern this issue is causing in the Azores Autonomous Region which has a delegation for marketing this type of wine only until 2006 — the Commission might publish this independent study, even at the preliminary stage preceding the completion of the report itself?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

(15 April 2003)

In July 2002 the Commission opened an invitation to tender for the study in question, in accordance with Article 17(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (2).

2

Based on the tenders received, the Commission chose a consortium made up of German, French and Hungarian companies.

The study must be completed by 30 June 2003; the Commission will send it to the Honourable Member when it becomes available.

---

(1)  OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 131.

1

(2)  OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

2

---
IN RE A.N.

No. COA08-1229.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 3, 2009.

Certification Date March 23, 2009.

Appeal from Onslow (07JA03, 07JA04).

Case reported without published opinion. Adjudicatory order entered 29 January 2008, reversed in part and affirmed in part; dispositional orders entered 7 April and 5 June 2008, vacated.
# C_2023216EN.01005001.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/50

---

Action brought on 21 April 2023 — Sta Grupa v EUIPO — Axis (VAPIX)

(Case T-207/23)

(2023/C 216/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sta Grupa AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: I. Stankeviča, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Axis AB (Lund, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark VAPIX — European Union trade mark No 5 040 118

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 February 2023 in Case R 1098/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overturn the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

overturn the contested decision;

| — | revoke the trade mark at issue for the goods which remained as registered after the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

revoke the trade mark at issue for the goods which remained as registered after the contested decision;

The applicant requests an award of costs in relation to these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated February 13, 2002, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and included in the Annual Report of Xechem  International,
Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2001. We hereby  consent to
the  incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration  Statement of
Xechem International, Inc. on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-68162, effective August
22, 2001 and SEC File No.  333-71744,  effective  October 17, 2001), and on Form
S-3 (SEC File No. 333-71742, effective November 28, 2001).


GRANT THORNTON LLP

Edison, New Jersey
April 14, 2003
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3657 

To limit the retirement of A–10 aircraft. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 5, 2013 

Mrs. HARTZLER (for herself, Mr. BARBER, Mr. KINGSTON, and Mrs. MILLER

of Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To limit the retirement of A–10 aircraft. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF A–10 AIR4 CRAFT. 

5 (a) LIMITATION.—None of the funds authorized to 

6 be appropriated or otherwise made available for the De7 partment of Defense may be obligated or expended to re8 tire, prepare to retire, or place in storage any A–10 air9 craft until each of the following occurs: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3657 IH

1 (1) The Secretary of the Air Force certifies to 

2 the congressional defense committees each of the fol3 lowing: 

4 (A) That the F–35A aircraft has achieved 

5 full operational capability. 

6 (B) That the F–35A aircraft has achieved 

7 Block 4A capabilities, including— 

8 (i) an enhanced electronic warfare ca9 pability that will allow the F–35A aircraft 

10 to counter emerging threats in a close air 

11 support (CAS) environment; and 

12 (ii) a GBU–53 Small Diameter Bomb 

13 version II or equivalent weapon operational 

14 capability. 

15 (C) That a number of F–35A aircraft ex16 ists in the Air Force inventory in sufficient 

17 quantity to replace the A–10 aircraft being re18 tired in order to meet close air support capa19 bility requirements of the combatant com20 mands. 

21 (2) The Comptroller General of the United 

22 States submits to the congressional defense commit23 tees a report setting forth the following: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3657 IH

1 (A) An assessment whether each certifi2 cation under paragraph (1) is comprehensive, 

3 fully supported, and sufficiently detailed. 

4 (B) An identification of any shortcomings, 

5 limitations, or other reportable matters that af6 fect the quality or findings of any certification 

7 under paragraph (1). 

8 (b) DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTAL OF COMPTROLLER

9 GENERAL REPORT.—The report of the Comptroller Gen10 eral under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) shall be sub11 mitted not later than 90 days after the date of the sub12 mittal of the certification referred to in paragraph (1) of 

13 that subsection. 

14 (c) CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES DE15 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘congressional defense 

16 committees’’ has the meaning given that term in section 

17 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32****CONSENT OF V. SPRING**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated March 9, 2005, entitled “An audit of the MineralReserves/Resources Tayoltita, Santa Rita San Antonio and San Martin Mines” (the“Tayoltita Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Tayoltita Report,and the properties described therein.March 30, 2007/s/ V. Spring
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136783 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

RAYMOND W. LESLIE,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136783 

 COA: 283488 

WCAC: 07-000189 

COCA COLA ENTERPRISES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk