alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 119 Fifth Avenue Corporation, Plaintiff, v Rudi Berkhout et al., Defendants.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Special Term, New York County,

June 2, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Hartman, Ule, Rose & Ratner (Jacques F. Rose*of counsel), for defendants. *Richard W. Meirowitz*for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Richard S. Lane, J.

By my decision herein dated March 18, 1987 (134 Misc 2d 963) defendant was awarded attorney fees pursuant to section 234 of the Real Property Law. In this motion defendant seeks reconsideration to add prejudgment interest.

Surprisingly, a matter of first impression! Perhaps because the amount of section 234 fees is usually relatively small and *774the period of litigation usually relatively short. Here the amount is $13,500 and the litigation lingered on for several years.

Why not? CPLR 5001 (a) commands prejudgment interest in a contract or property action. A lease is a contract. Section 234 creates an implied-in-law convenant in an appropriate residential lease. That the convenant is implied rather than express does not affect the applicability of CPLR 5001 (a) *(Delulio v 320-57 Corp.,*99 AD2d 253 [interest on award of damages for breach of warranty of habitability]; *Isaacs v Incentive Sys., 52*AD2d 550 [interest on award for services rendered in quasi contract]).

Plaintiffs opposing argument premised on the alleged punitive nature of section 234 is inapposite. There is nothing punitive about section 234. It simply confers upon tenant a reciprocal right to fees whenever landlord is so entitled under the lease.

More elusive is the question of the date from which interest should flow. In the ordinary contract or property action model it is the date of breach. Defendant urges the date upon which the fees were incurred, which at least has the merit of sedulously, aping the statutory language of section 234. Plaintiff urges the date upon which the fees were actually paid. None of these solutions appeals to the court as appropriate.

In the ordinary contract or property action, interest is computed on damages for breach of contract or property right and flows from the date of the breach. Attorney fees are not damages for breach of any substantive provision of a contract or substantive property right. Rather, they represent a conditional award or prerogative which does not mature until the underlying action or proceeding has been determined. In the court’s opinion that establishes the appropriate date from which interest should flow.

The litigation here began in the Supreme Court, traveled to the Loft Board, and from there to the Appellate Division, and ultimately back to the Supreme Court. The final act was the order of the Supreme Court dismissing plaintiff’s ejectment action and ordering a hearing on counsel fees. The date of that order is February 19, 1985.

My decision herein awarding fees is amended to provide for interest thereon from February 19, 1985.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	SOUTHCOM Announces Findings of Investigation on Former GTMO Commander
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/7/Images/SOUTHCOM_logo_thumb.jpg?ver=SIvIeRRofyrg5ZHPpvvh6Q%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">SOUTHCOM Announces Findings of Investigation on Former GTMO Commander</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published Sept. 12, 2019</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>MIAMI – U.S. Southern Command addresses the findings into alleged misconduct by U.S. Navy Rear Adm. John C. Ring, former commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo Bay.</p>

<p>U.S. Navy Adm. Craig Faller, SOUTHCOM commander, directed the investigation on March 15, 2019 and relieved Ring of duty on April 27, 2019, citing loss of confidence in his ability to command.</p>

<p>Due to Ring’s rank, the Department of Defense Inspector General completed a required review of the investigation before becoming final on August 1, 2019.  The investigation found that Ring mishandled or directed the mishandling of classified information, made inaccurate reports, and created a poor command climate.  Ring’s relief was not based on statements he made to the media during his tenure.</p>

<p>“We expect our commanders to uphold the highest standards,” said Faller.  “When senior leaders do not demonstrate the sound judgement required of their rank and position, we must hold them accountable.”</p>

<p>Following the investigation, Joint Task Force-Guantanamo Bay implemented training to address the issues identified, and Faller ordered periodic inspections to assess the progress of the training.</p>
<br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-70030

DUANE EDWARD BUCK, 

 Petitioner–Appellant,

versus

LORIE DAVIS, Director, 

 Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, 

 Respondent–Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before SMITH, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This court denied a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to review the 

denial of petitioner Duane Buck’s motion, filed per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), claiming violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective 

assistance of counsel. Buck v. Stephens, 623 F. App’x 668 (5th Cir. 2015). The 

Supreme Court reversed and remanded, Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 780 

(2017), “conclud[ing] that Buck has demonstrated both ineffective assistance 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-70030 Document: 00513951562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2017
No. 14-70030

2

of counsel . . . and an entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b)(6)” and that this 

court “erred in denying Buck the COA required to pursue those claims on 

appeal.” On remand, we requested briefing on what action this court should 

take. Helpfully, the parties submitted a joint letter brief, agreeing on what 

action is appropriate. 

There are no remaining matters requiring resolution by this court or the 

district court except as set forth below. The motion for a COA is GRANTED. 

The judgment is VACATED in regard to ineffective assistance of counsel at the 

punishment phase. This matter is REMANDED with direction to grant, conditionally, a writ of habeas corpus and to direct the respondent to release petitioner from custody unless, within 180 days of the date of the district court’s 

order on remand, the state either (1) initiates proceeding for a new trial on the 

issue of punishment only, per Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 44.29(c), or (2) elects not to seek the death penalty and accedes to a life 

sentence.

 Case: 14-70030 Document: 00513951562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2017
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 29769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12547]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act as amended (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ) announces meetings of scientific peer 
review groups. The subcommittees listed below are part of the Agency's 
Health Services Research Initial Review Group Committee.
    The subcommittee meetings will be closed to the public in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 
U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). Grant applications are to 
be reviewed and discussed at these meetings. These discussions are 
likely to involve information concerning individuals associated with 
the applications, including assessments of their personal 
qualifications to conduct their proposed projects. This information is 
exempt from mandatory disclosure under the above-cited statutes.

    1. Name of Subcommittee: Health Care Technology and Decision 
Sciences.
    Date: June 15-17, 2010 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on June 15 
and closed for remainder of the meeting)
    Place: Crowne Plaza Hotel, 3 Research Court, Conference Room 
TBD, Rockville, MD 20852.
    2. Name of Subcommittee: Health Systems Research.
    Date: June 16-18, 2010 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on June 16 
and closed for remainder of the meeting)
    Place: Sheraton Rockville Hotel, 920 King Farm Boulevard, 
Conference Room TBD, Rockville, MD 20852.
    3. Name of Subcommittee: Health Care Research Training.
    Date: June 17-18, 2010 (Open from 8 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. on June 17 
and closed for remainder of the meeting)
    Place: Hyatt Regency Hotel, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, 1 Bethesda 
Metro Center, Conference Room TBD, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
    4. Name of Subcommittee: Health Care Quality and Effectiveness 
Research.
    Date: June 22-24, 2010 (Open from 8:30 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. on June 
22 and closed for remainder of the meeting)
    Place: Hilton Rockville Executive Meeting Center, 1750 Rockville 
Pike, Conference Room TBD, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of the meetings 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Suite 2000, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for these meetings are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.

    Dated: May 13, 2010.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-12547 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5089 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5089

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2000 Mulford Road in Mulberry, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First 
                Class Daniel M. Ferguson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS DANIEL M. FERGUSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2000 Mulford Road in Mulberry, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant First Class Daniel M. Ferguson 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 ``Sergeant 
First Class Daniel M. Ferguson Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 8, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5089

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2000 Mulford Road in Mulberry, Florida, as the ``Sergeant First 
                Class Daniel M. Ferguson Post Office''.
```
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2723 Filed: 06/24/19 Entered: 06/24/19 09:13:51 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2723 Filed: 06/24/19 Entered: 06/24/19 09:13:51 Page 2 of

3
EXHIBIT A

Notice Parties Service List

Served as set forth below

DESCRIPTION NAME NOTICE NAME ADDRESS EMAIL

METHOD OF

SERVICE

Counsel to Debtors Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Attn: Stephen Karotkin, Rachael Foust

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

stephen.karotkin@weil.com

rachael.foust@weil.com

First Class Mail & Email

Counsel to Debtors Keller & Benvenutti LLP Attn: Tobias Keller, Jane Kim

650 California Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com

jkim@kellerb envenutti.com First Class Mail & Email

Debtors

PG&E Corporation and 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Attn: Janet Loduca

77 Beale Street

P.O. Box 770000

San Francisco, CA 94105 First Class Mail

Office of the United States Trustee Office of the United States Trustee 

Attn: James L. Snyder, Esq. & Timothy 

Lafreddi, Esq

450 Golden Gate Avenue

5th Floor, Suite #05-0153

San Francisco, CA 94102

James.L.Snyder@usdoj.gov

timothy.s.laffredi@usdoj.gov

First Class Mail & Email

Counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Milbank LLP

Attn: Dennis F. Dunne, Samuel A. 

Khalil

55 Hudson Yards

New York, NY 10001-2163

ddunne@milbank.com

skhalil@milbank.com First Class Mail & Email

Counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors Milbank LLP

Attn: Paul S. Aronzon, Gregory A. 

Bray, Thomas R. Kreller

2029 Century Park E, 33rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Paronzon@milbank.com

Gbray@milbank.com

TKreller@milbank.com First Class Mail & Email

Fee Examiner Bruce A. Markell

541 N. Fairbanks Court, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60611-3710 First Class Mail

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2723 Filed: 06/24/19 Entered: 06/24/19 09:13:51 Page 3 of

3
#### Ex Parte DAVID EICHEL.

Division Two,

November 23, 1909.

CONTEMPT: Refusal to Answer Question: Incrimination. The petitioner was committed to jail for refusing to answer this question propounded by the grand jury: “Did you ever make any bet with any persons other than Steve Pensa upon the result of any horse race to be run anywhere in this State, or without this State, at his place of business on Washington Avenue?” *Held,*that, having declared under oath to the court that he could not answer the question without incriminating himself, he was not guilty of pertinaciously refusing to answer a lawful question, and was not guilty of contempt, and is entitled to his discharge. ■

Habeas Corpus.

Petitioner discharged.

*T. J. Rowe, Thos. J. Route, Jr.,*and *Henry Roioe*for petitioner.

*Seebert G. Jones*and *Forrest G. Ferris*for respondents.

GANTT, P. J.

The petitioner was committed to the jail of the city of St. Louis for contempt of court in refusing to answer a certain question before the grand jury of said city. He was brought before the judge of Division Number Ten of the circuit court, and having been ordered to answer the question, and haying again refused to do so, was committed to the custody of the jailer until he should' answer said question. Thereupon he sued out a writ of *habeas corpus*in this court.

The question which he refused to answer was the following: “Did you ever make any bet with any persons other than one Steve Pensa upon the result of any horse race to be run anywhere in this State, *259or without the State, at his place of business on Washington Avenue?”

The petitioner answered that he could not answer this question without incriminating himself, and the question now presented is whether he was guilty of pertinaciously refusing to answer a lawful question. While counsel for the State has endeavored to draw a distinction between the facts of this ease and that of Ex parte Gauss, which has been heard and the opinion handed down at this sitting of the court, we have been unable to make any distinction in the principle which should govern in such a case. We think the witness was entitled to refuse to answer the question after he had disclosed under oath to the court that he could not do so without accusing himself of a crime.

For the reason given in Ex parte Gauss, *post,*p. 277, we think the commitment was wrongful and accordingly the prisoner is discharged.

*Burgess*and *Fox, JJ.,*concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    . Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (                    *http://www.fmc.gov*) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov.*

*Agreement No.:*                     011741-014.                

*Title:*                     U.S. Pacific Coast-Oceania Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     ANL Singapore PTE Ltd.; A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; CMA CGM S.A.; Hamburg-Süd; and Hapag-Lloyd AG.                

*Filing Party:*                     Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M Street, NW.; Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.                

*Synopsis:*                     The amendment increases the maximum size of vessels the parties are authorized to deploy.                

*Agreement No.:*                     201207.                

*Title:*                     Terminal 6 Lease Agreement Between the Port of Portland and ICTSI Oregon, Inc.                

*Parties:*                     Port of Portland and ICTSI Oregon, Inc.                

*Filing Party:*                     Paul D. Coleman, Esq.; Hoppel, Mayer & Coleman; 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW., 10th Floor; Washington, DC 20036.                

*Synopsis:*                     The agreement provides for the lease of terminal facilities and other cooperative activities at the Port of Portland, OR.                

Dated: May 21, 2010.

By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

Karen V. Gregory,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-12701 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 360 Filed: 02/07/19 Entered: 02/07/19 13:01:27 Page 1 of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 360 Filed: 02/07/19 Entered: 02/07/19 13:01:27 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-31117 of Roberts Realty Investors, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-3 of our
audit report dated February 28, 1997 (on the Company's financial statements for
the year ended December 31, 1996) appearing in the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1997.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the
Prospectus, which is a part of the Registration Statement.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 30, 1998
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of
VISION ACQUISITION II, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Antti William Uusiheimala, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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/ Antti William
    UusiheimalaAntti
      William UusiheimalaDecember
      29, 2009
#### William M. Sherwood, Appellant, v. Tjark J. Hartman, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.—

Dykman, J.:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the County Court of Kings county, in an action tried before the county judge and a jury. The action was originally commenced in a Court of a Justice of the Peace, where the plaintiff recovered a judgment. Upon the appeal to the County Court, a new trial was had, and the plaintiff again recovered a judgment. Upon an appeal to the Supreme Court, that judgment was reversed and anew trial ordered, on the ground that the verdict was not warranted by the evidence. Upon the second trial in the County Court, the evidence was substantially the same as on the first trial and the county judge directed a verdict for the defendant. From the judgment eritered on that verdict, and from the order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes of the court, the plaintiff has appealed. When this case was before us upon the former appeal, decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. As the testimony upon the second trial was substantially the same as upon the first, we take the same view of the case as we did before when we decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The judgment and order denying a motion for a new trial must be affirmed, with costs.

Brown P. J., dissents on ground that case was for jury.
EXHIBIT 99.2

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SUMMIT BANCSHARES, INC.

      This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
(the "Form 10-Q") for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 of Summit Bancshares,
Inc. (the "Issuer").

I, Bob G. Scott, the Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, and
Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer certify that:

      (i)   the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
            or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C.
            78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

      (ii)  the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

Dated: May 1, 2003

                                           /s/ Bob G. Scott
                                           ------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Bob G. Scott
                                    Title: Executive Vice President and COO/CFO

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 1st day of May, 2003.

                                           /s/ Karen S. Appel
                                           ------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Karen S. Appel
                                    Title: Notary Public

My commission expires: August 5, 2006