alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Albert Palamara, Appellant, v Beverley Palamara, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 608]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molía, J.), dated July 6, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for an award of maintenance and an attorney’s fee pendente lite.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as awarded the defendant an attorney’s fee pendente lite is dismissed as withdrawn; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court’s award of maintenance pendente lite was a reasonable accommodation between the plaintiffs means and the defendant’s needs, considering the parties’ preseparation standard of living *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]). Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the parties’ conflicting allegations should be resolved at trial, when they can be fully explored *(see, Wolfson v Wolfson,*272 AD2d 470). Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
NASH HOSPITALS, INC. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.

340P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Scott Lewis, Attorney at Law, Pamela Renee Lawrence, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

J. Christopher Dunn, Attorney at Law, for Nash Hospitals, Inc.

Pamela L. Carter, Attorney at Law

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of October 2017 by Robert L. Allgood for Admission Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
#### HANOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. HANOVER EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 29, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 29th day of July, 2003, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issue:

> Did the Commonwealth Court depart from the essence test as set forth by this Court when it found that a “just cause” provision was “implied” in a collective bargaining agreement where the arbitrator found provisions in the collective bargaining agreement that addressed discipline, the collective bargaining agreement expressly defined a grievance as any “alleged violation of any *provision*of this agreement,” and no evidence of any bargaining history or past prac*309tice was presented that the parties intended to arbitrate disciplinary matters?
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF GENERAL MEDIA, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                State or Other
                                                                                Jurisdiction of
                                                                                Incorporation
         Name                                                                   Or Organization
         ----                                                                   ---------------
<S>      <C>                                                                    <C>
1.       General Media Communications, Inc.                                     Delaware
2.       General Media Films, Inc. (*)                                          New York
3.       General Media International Financial Services (GMIFS)
            N.V.                                                                Netherlands Antilles
4.       General Media (UK), Ltd.                                               United Kingdom
5.       Penthouse Clubs International Establishment                            Liechtenstein
6.       Penthouse Images Acquisition, Ltd.                                     New York
7.       Penthouse Music, Ltd. (*)                                              Delaware
8.       Pure Entertainment Telecommunications, Inc.                            New York
9.       Pure Entertainment Telecommunications (Curacao) N.V.                   Netherlands Antilles
10.      General Media Entertainment, Inc.                                      New York
11.      Penthouse Financial Services N.V.                                      Netherlands Antilles
12.      General Media Art Holding, Inc.                                        Delaware
13.      GMCI Internet Operations, Inc.                                         New York
14.      GMI On-Line Ventures, Ltd.                                             Delaware
</TABLE>

(*) Merged Into General Media Communications, Inc. On May 11, 2001.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The
Board of Directors and Stockholders
BroadVision, Inc.:

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-109709, 333-97521,
333-63798, 333-35114, 333-62619, and 333-14057) of BroadVision, Inc. of our report dated January 22, 2004, relating to the consolidated
financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January 22, 2004, relating to the financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
BDO Seidman, LLP

San
Jose, California
March 15, 2004

---

QuickLinks
Order entered June 28, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00388-CR

CARL RAY WOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-54553-Y

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written 

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be 

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
STATE of North Carolina v. Trevor Wilks FORTE

No. 58P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Kirby H. Smith, III, Attorney at Law, New Bern, for Forte, Trevor Wilks.

Joseph A. Newsome, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina

Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd of February 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of February 2018 by Defendant to Deem Petition for Discretionary Review Timely Filed and Served:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed by Defendant on the 22nd of February 2018 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
In the MATTER OF: J.R.G.

No. COA17-1106

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 6, 2018

VACATED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Each of the undersignedhereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 ofthe United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of ante4, Inc.,that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of WPT Enterprises, Inc. on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 27, 2009, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ante4, Inc.This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of thisstatement has been provided to ante4, Inc. and will be retained by ante4, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 
| Date: November 10,  2009 | /s/ *Steven Lipscomb*                             |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Steven Lipscomb                                   |
|                          | President, Chief  Executive Officer and Secretary |
|                          |                                              |
| Date: November 10,  2009 | /s/ *John Simonelli*                              |
|                          | John Simonelli                                    |
|                          | Interim Chief Financial  Officer                  |

 

----
(109 So. 289)

No. 27744.

#### L. A. BAUMAN et al. v. Mrs. Mary J. PENNYWELL et al.

(June 28, 1926.)

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; E. P. Mills and T. F. Bell, Judges.

Edward Barnett, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Foster, Hall & Smith, of Shreveport, for appellees. '

ST. PAUL, J.

This is an appeal taken in the same case which came lately before us on application for writs of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition. See Bauman et al. v. Pennywell et al., No. 27686 of our docket, decided February 1, 1926 (160 La. 555, 107 So. 425).

This suit is (in effect) an action to set aside, on allegations of fraudulent simulation, a sale and mortgage of certain lands in ■Caddo parish, and to enjoin the sale of said lands by the sheriff of said parish; all as set forth in the opinion handed down in No. 27686 aforesaid, wherein the issues involved are fully stated.

These issues need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say, that the judgment below (rendered *before*our judgment in No. 276S6 aforesaid, to wit, on December 19, 1926), sustained the pleas of res judicata herein filed by these defendants, which pleas we held, in No. 27686 aforesaid, to be *not well founded,*as follows:

> “We conclude, therefore, that the plea[s] of res adjudicata should have been overruled, as at the date of the rendition of the judgment in the partition suit by this court [Bauman et al. v. George et al., 154 La. 680, 98 So. 85], Mrs. L. S. Bauman, the mother of the defendants in said suit, was yet alive, and it was [therefore] not legally possible for [said] defendants to have asserted, at that time, against Mrs. Pennywell, [subrogated] plaintiff in said suit, the action to annul provided for in article 2239 of the Civil Code for the protection of their légitime as forced heirs.”

This ruling is determinative of the matter now before us.

Decree.

The judgment appealed from is therefore reversed, and the pleas of res judicata herein filed are overruled; and it is now ordered that this cause be remanded for further proceedings according to law.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4375 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4375

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, as the ``Jim Kolbe Post 
                               Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2014

    Mr. Barber (for himself, Mr. Salmon, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Gosar, Mr. 
Grijalva, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Schweikert, and 
    Mr. Pastor of Arizona) introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, as the ``Jim Kolbe Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JIM KOLBE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Jim Kolbe Post Office.''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jim Kolbe 
Post Office.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal C 268/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 268 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 646 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 268

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 646 July 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2021/C 268/01 | Position (EU) No 30/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Internal Security FundAdopted by the Council on 14 June 2021 | 1 |
| 2021/C 268/02 | Statement of Council’s reasons: Position (EU) No 30/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Internal Security Fund | 39 |

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COUNCIL

2021/C 268/01

Position (EU) No 30/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Internal Security FundAdopted by the Council on 14 June 2021

1

2021/C 268/02

Statement of Council’s reasons: Position (EU) No 30/2021 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Internal Security Fund

39

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
IN RE: Charles HOLLENBACK

No. 480P12-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Mr. Charles Hollenback, for Hollenback, Charles

Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Raleigh, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

Mr. William R. West, District Attorney, for State

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 18th of December 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Cumberland County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
EXHIBIT 32.2



STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

HOMEBANC CORP.

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with HomeBanc Corp.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report), I, Kevin D.
Race, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kevin D. Race      
|                      |  |     |  | Kevin D. Race          
|                      |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

Section 906 CFO Certification

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert Schaffhauser, Executive Vice President of Finance, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                    |  |  |  |                     
|----------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------
|/s/ Robert Schaffhauser             |  |  |  | Date: August 9, 2007
|Robert Schaffhauser                 |  |  |  |                     
|Executive Vice President of Finance |  |  |  |
# Official Journal C 23/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 23 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5128 January 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 23

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5128 January 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2008/C 023/01 | Opinion No 8/2007 on a proposal for a Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) amending Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities | 1 |
| 2008/C 023/02 | Opinion No 9/2007 on the proposal for a Council Regulation on a Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th European Development Fund | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

Court of Auditors

2008/C 023/01

Opinion No 8/2007 on a proposal for a Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) amending Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities

1

2008/C 023/02

Opinion No 9/2007 on the proposal for a Council Regulation on a Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th European Development Fund

3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4233 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4233

To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor posthumously to 
  Lance Corporal Jordan C. Haerter and Corporal Jonathan Yale of the 
Marine Corps for acts of valor during Operation Iraqi Freedom in April 
                                 2008.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2014

    Mr. Bishop of New York (for himself, Mr. Hurt, and Mr. Israel) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor posthumously to 
  Lance Corporal Jordan C. Haerter and Corporal Jonathan Yale of the 
Marine Corps for acts of valor during Operation Iraqi Freedom in April 
                                 2008.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL OF HONOR TO LANCE 
              CORPORAL JORDAN C. HAERTER AND CORPORAL JONATHAN YALE FOR 
              ACTS OF VALOR DURING OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

    (a) Waiver of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding the time 
limitations specified in sections 6248 and 6250 of title 10, United 
States Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the awarding 
of certain medals to persons who served in the Armed Forces, the 
President may award the Medal of Honor posthumously under section 6241 
of such title to Lance Corporal Jordan C. Haerter and Corporal Jonathan 
Yale of the Marine Corps for the acts of valor during Operation Iraqi 
Freedom described in subsection (b) for which they were originally 
awarded the Navy Cross.
    (b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to in 
subsection (a) are the actions of Lance Corporal Jordan C. Haerter and 
Corporal Jonathan Yale on April 22, 2008, while serving as Riflemen, 3d 
Platoon, Weapons Company, First Battalion, Ninth Marines, Regimental 
Combat Team 1, I Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) in support of 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, in defending a checkpoint in Ramadi, Iraq, 
from a suicide bomber driving a truck carrying a large quantity of 
explosives and, at the cost of their own lives, saving the lives of 
more than 50 Marines and Iraqi policemen.
                                 <all>
```