alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of 100 William Co., Respondent, v Aetna Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), and entered on or about June 8, 1989, granting petitioner’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) and (c), permanently staying arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner landlord and respondent tenant are parties to a lease dated November 1, 1971. Pursuant to the lease, the tenant is obligated to pay petitioner, as additional rent, an "Operating Expense Rate” escalation, the calculation of which is based upon wages and benefits paid to porters pursuant to a labor agreement.

In 1978 it was discovered by landlord that certain fringe *171benefit charges had not been billed to respondent. The computation was recalculated, the figure forwarded to the tenant with a letter of explanation and respondent eventually paid the extra charges. Before paying, respondent objected to the calculations for 1972, since it had not taken possession of the premises until 1973 and the calculations were adjusted to omit charges for 1972. Respondent continued paying "Operating Expense Rate” escalations through 1987, without protest.

In December 1988, after retaining an auditor, the tenant commenced an arbitration proceeding to resolve a dispute regarding the calculation of the "Operating Expense Rate”. Specifically, the tenant challenged the meaning of the formula in regard to the "vacation component” of the porter wage escalation. The IAS court granted the landlord’s petition to stay the arbitration of the tenant’s claims.

The lease contains a narrowly limited arbitration clause which provides, in pertinent part, that: "Any controversy which may arise concerning the * * * proper manner to compute the adjustment in the annual rental rate and monthly installments as provided in paragraph C * * * shall be determined by arbitration”. Paragraph (C) sets forth, in essence, the mathematical formula by which the components of the operating escalation shall be multiplied.

Respondent’s claims do not challenge the manner of computation of the escalation rate and are thus not arbitrable. Respondent seeks a determination of the very meaning of the formula for adjusting the fringe benefit charges as set forth in article 4 (A) (2) of the lease. Such a determination, however, was never intended to be arbitrated pursuant to this lease. Accordingly, respondent’s instant claims are not arbitrable. *(See, Matter of New York Plaza Bldg. Co. [Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.],*103 AD2d 203 [1st Dept 1984].)

In addition, respondent was clearly aware of the manner of calculating the operating escalation since 1978 but did not challenge it for over 10 years. Inasmuch as it now seeks to "reform” the agreement with respect to the manner of calculating the operating escalation, that claim is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. (CPLR 213.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph L. Herring, Chairman ofthe Board and Chief Executive Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Covance.
| Date: May 8, 2007 |                           |
|-------------------|--------------------------------|
|              |                           |
|              | /s/ Joseph L. Herring          |   |
|              | Joseph L. Herring              |
|              | Chairman of the Board  and     |
|              | Chief Executive Officer        |
|              | (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FERNANDO AGUIRRE-QUINTERO,

Defendant.

8:23CR106

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 34). 

Counsel needs additional time to negotiate a resolution short of trial. For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 34) is granted, 

in part, as follows:

1. The jury trial now set for May 6, 2024, is continued to June 10, 2024.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and June 10, 

2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

3. No further continuances will be granted barring exceptional circumstances.

Dated this 3rd day of May 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Chief United States District Judge

8:23-cr-00106-RFR-MDN Doc # 35 Filed: 05/03/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 53
#### Mark E. ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-31252

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 8, 2003.

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Trans Union, LLC (TU), appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to strike plaintiff Mark Andrews’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal. TU’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal is DENIED. Because TU has shown no error on the part of the district court, we AFFIRM that court’s denial of TU’s motion to strike. *See Esmark Apparel, Inc. v. James,*10 F.3d 1156, 1163 (5th Cir. 1994); *Strong v. BellSouth Telecomms. Inc.,*137 F.3d 844, 853 (5th Cir.1998).

Andrews moves this court for sanctions in the form of attorney fees and damages pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 38. He also moves this court to file certain affidavits in support of his motion for sanctions. Andrews has not shown that TU’s unavailing appellate arguments are frivolous. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 38; *see also Diaz v. Methodist Hasp.,*46 F.3d 492, 498 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, his motions are DENIED.

DENIAL OF MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Randy S . Campney, Sr .

v . Case No. 06-fp-297

Bare Hill Correctional Facility, Superintenden t

O R D E R

Petitioner's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (document

no . 2) is granted .

This file has been assigned civil number 06-cv-297-JD .

SO ORDERED .

JXmes,R . Muirhead

ed States Magistrate Judge

Date : August 28, 200 6

cc : Randy S . Campney, Sr ., pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00297-JD Document 5 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21494]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Availability of Seats for the Gray's Reef National Marine 
Sanctuary Advisory Council

AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
Department of Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Notice and request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary (GRNMS or sanctuary) 
is seeking applicants for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary 
Advisory Council (council) sport fishing, sport diving and regional 
conservation. Applicants are chosen based upon their particular 
expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are 
applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding 
the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the 
length of residence in the area affected by the sanctuary. Applicants 
who are chosen as members should expect to serve three-year terms, 
pursuant to the council's Charter.

DATES: Applications are due by November 1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained from Becky Shortland, 
Council Coordinator (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d2f282e2634633e25223f39212c23290d23222c2c632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="254740464e5c0b564d4a575149444b41654b4a44440b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>, 10 Ocean Science Circle, 
Savannah, GA 31411; 912-598-2381). Completed applications should be 
sent to the same address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Shortland, Council Coordinator 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6a4a3a5adbfe8b5aea9b4b2aaa7a8a286a8a9a7a7e8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f1d1a1c1406510c17100d0b131e111b3f11101e1e51181009">[email protected]</span></a>, 10 Ocean Science Circle, Savannah, GA 31411; 
912-598-2381).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The sanctuary advisory council was 
established in August 1999 to provide advice and recommendations on 
management and protection of the sanctuary. The advisory council, 
through its members, also serves as liaison to the community regarding 
sanctuary issues and represents community interests, concerns, and 
management needs to the sanctuary and NOAA.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. Sections 1431, et seq.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary 
Program)

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
Daniel J. Basta,
Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean 
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-21494 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Grant of Extension of Time PAGE 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22
- 0015 IN THE MATTER OF S.C., A Youth in Need of Care **ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENS ION OF TIME**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s m oti on for extension of time, and good cause appearing therefore, Appellant, K.B., is granted an extension of time until April 25, 2022 to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 25 2022

02/25/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0015
#### The State, ex rel. Schindler, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio.

(No. 23722

Decided June 7, 1933.)

*Messrs. Seihel, Hill S Seihel,*for relator.

*Mr. Gilbert Bettman*and *Mr. John W. Bricher,*attorney general, and *Mr. R. R. Zurmehly,*for respondent.

*40The court finds upon the issues joined in favor of the respondent, it appearing from the record that, on relator’s appeal to the common pleas court from his denial of compensation, neither the verdict of the jury nor the judgment of the court purported to give the relator any lump or fixed sum; nor had the court any authority so to do. *State, ex rel. Kauffmam,*v. *Industrial Commission,*121 Ohio St., 472. The judgment of the trial court certified to the commission was that the relator “is entitled to participate in the workmen’s compensation fund of the Industrial Commission of Ohio, and hereby orders compensation to be paid to him in the manner provided by the workmen’s compensation law.” It does not appear from the record that the respondent refuses to act under that order; had it so appeared a writ of mandamus would be allowed. The answer of the respondent alleges that it is willing to pay compensation for loss of vision and has requested the relator to submit to examination so that it may be determined whether there is a total loss of vision to his injured eye; and that the relator refuses to submit himself to such examination. Such being the state of the record, judgment for the respondent will be rendered upon the pleadings, but without prejudice to the relator should the commission hereafter refuse to act.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, O. J., Day, Allen, Stephenson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.
Rule 10. MEMORANDUM OPINION[.] This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in 1

the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion

would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall be designated

“MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a unrelated

case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

March 23, 2004 Session

MELISSA FRAZIER NORWOOD HOFFMEISTER now BRINK v. 

JOHN KENNETH HOFFMEISTER

 Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County

No. 152339-1 John F. Weaver, Chancellor

FILED MAY 4, 2004

No. E2003-02022-COA-R3-CV

The custody of a four-year old boy is the pivotal issue in this case. The Chancellor found that the

father was the better qualified to be the primary residential custodian of his son following a recitation

of the bizarre conduct of the mother. We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

WILLIAM H. INMAN, SR.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P. FRANKS, P.J.,

E.S., and CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR, J., joined.

Melissa Hoffmeister Brink, Abita Springs, Louisiana, Pro Se.

Wayne Decatur Wykoff, Knoxville, Tennessee, for appellee, John Kenneth Hoffmeister.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Each of these parties is a practicing attorney. This litigation focuses on the custody of their

son Daniel, who was born March 19, 1999. The parties were separated in September 2001, when

they were practicing law in Knoxville, and a final decree of divorce was entered July 7, 2003, which

decreed that Father was better qualified to be the primary domiciliary custodian of Daniel. Mother

appeals, insisting that the evidence does not justify the finding by the Chancellor that the “Father is

the better choice as the residential parent given his greater stability.”
-2-

Mother has been married three times. Her last marriage, to Mr. Brink in Louisiana,

apparently occurred in January 2003, six months before her divorce from Mr. Hoffmeister. Before

her marriage to Mr. Brink she became enamored of Mr. Snedeker, also of Louisiana, whom she had

known for a number of years. She traveled to Louisiana to liaison with him. At that time, she was

employed by a law firm in Knoxville, and represented to the firm that her stepfather had been killed

in the 9/11 Pentagon disaster and that she was attending his funeral in Washington. This was a

fabricated tale to cover her trip to Louisiana for a job interview and liaison with Mr. Snedeker, and

she concocted yet another spurious tale to cover the initial fabrication. She eventually was licensed

in Louisiana where she now practices law. It would not be productive to recite the full body of the

evidence considered by the Chancellor. Suffice to state that the Appellant’s undisputed conduct

clearly reflects adversely on her parental stability and her profession. The evidence does not

preponderate against the judgment which is affirmed at the costs of the Appellant.

___________________________________ 

WILLIAM H. INMAN, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael Leon Hammell

v. Civil No. 06-cv-176-SM

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

Pro se petitioner Michael Leon Hammell has filed a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

challenging the constitutionality of his state court conviction

and confinement (document no. 1). The petition is before me for

preliminary review. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Proceedings (“Habeas Rules”) (requiring initial review to

determine whether the petition is facially valid and may be

served); United States District Court for the District of New

Hampshire Local Rules 4.3(d)(authorizing the magistrate judge to

preliminarily review pro se pleadings). 

For the reasons stated in the report and recommendation

issued simultaneously herewith, I recommend that the petition be

served on the respondent as to Grounds Two, Three and Four. The

remaining claim, Ground One, fails to state a claim upon which

Case 1:06-cv-00176-SM Document 5 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 1 of 3

Hammell v. Lakes Region Facility, Warden Doc. 5

Dockets.Justia.com
2

federal habeas relief may be granted, therefore, I have

recommended that it be dismissed.

Accordingly, I order the petition to be served on the

respondent. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings

(“§ 2254 Rules”). Respondent shall file an answer or other

pleading in response to the allegations made therein. See id.

(requiring reviewing judge to order a response to the petition). 

The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New Hampshire Office

of the Attorney General as provided in the Agreement On

Acceptance Of Service, copies of this Order and the habeas

petition (document no. 1). Respondent shall answer or otherwise

plead within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The

answer shall comply with the requirements of § 2254 Rule 5

(setting forth contents of the answer). 

Upon receipt of the response, the Court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See § 2254 Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

Case 1:06-cv-00176-SM Document 5 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 2 of 3
3

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’ attorneys.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 26, 2006

cc: Michael Leon Hammell, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00176-SM Document 5 Filed 05/26/2006 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6991
KEITH MAYDAK, Petitioner - Appellant, versusKEITH OLSEN, in his official capacity as Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Beckley, West Virginia; KATHLEEN HAWK, in her capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-97-306-5) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 23, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Maydak, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition as frivolous. We have reviewed therecord and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Maydak v. Olsen , No. CA-97-306-5 (S.D.W. Va. July 9, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 20418 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JESUS ABRAHAM SEPULVEDA

- BAU S TISTA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 484

- 1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Abraham Sepulveda

- Bautista has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sepulveda

- Bautista h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 21, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-20418 Document: 00515209453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2019No. 19

- 20418

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-20418 Document: 00515209453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2019
Case 1:06-cv-00258-JAW   Document 26   Filed 08/25/06   Page 1 of 4

Case 1:06-cv-00258-JAW   Document 26   Filed 08/25/06   Page 2 of 4

Case 1:06-cv-00258-JAW   Document 26   Filed 08/25/06   Page 3 of 4

Case 1:06-cv-00258-JAW   Document 26   Filed 08/25/06   Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-214-01-JD

Jacquie Vieira

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

27) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: July 11, 2007

cc: Mark S. Zuckerman, Esq. 

Michael J. Sheehan, Esq.

Thomas A. Brant, Esq. 

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00214-JD Document 28 Filed 07/11/07 Page 1 of 1