alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Galina Matsyuk, Respondent, v Konstantin Konkalipos et al., Respondents, and Tatyana Tsipenyuk, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 918]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Tatyana Tsipenyuk appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurkin-Torres, J.), dated September 9, 2005, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against her.

*676Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment because the papers she submitted in support of her motion failed to include copies of all of the pleadings in the action as required by CPLR 3212 (b) *(see Wider v Heller,*24 AD3d 433 [2005]; *Sted Tenants Owners Corp. v Chumpitaz,*5 AD3d 663 [2004]; *Hamilton v City of New York,*262 AD2d 283 [1999]; *Deer Park Assoc. v Robbins Store,*243 AD2d 443 [1997]; *Lawlor v County of Nassau,*166 AD2d 692 [1990]). Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### SANTA TERESA CITIZEN ACTION GROUP, Philip Mitchell, Jeffrey S. Wade, Timothy Alton, Great Oaks Water Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-16485.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 15, 2006.

Filed June 23, 2006.

Stephan C. Volker, Esq., Gretchen Elizabeth Dent, Joshua Alexander Harris, Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Brian C. Hopper, Office of the City Attorney, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and KING,* Senior Judge.

*

 The Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group and others (collectively, Santa Teresa) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their § 1983 action against the City of San Jose, the City Council of San Jose, and Ron Gonzalez, the mayor of San Jose. We affirm.

First, we deny Santa Teresa’s request to take judicial notice of an October 2002 document.

*696Second, we agree with the district court that all of Santa Teresa’s claims are time-barred. The claims are not saved by the November 14, 2004 letter that Santa Teresa represented constitutes the tolling agreement and asked the district court to take judicial notice of. *Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,*266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.2001) (noting that court is not obliged to take conclusory allegations in complaint as true when contradicted by documents of which judicial notice is properly taken). The operative language of the November 14, 2004 agreement plainly *extends*the statute of limitations to January 5, 2004; it does not *toll*it. As the district court correctly determined that Santa Teresa’s claims accrued when San Jose and Calpine Corporation entered into the Cooperation Agreement on June 26, 2001, not when certain contingencies in that Agreement were ultimately satisfied, this action was untimely filed.

Finally, equitable tolling does not apply. Assuming no bad faith, the same parties were not part of Santa Teresa’s litigation against the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission or in evidentiary privity with the defendants in that action, and the claims focused on different issues. *Cervantes v. City of San Diego,*5 F.3d 1273, 1275 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth California’s three-part test); *Collier v. City of Pasadena,*142 Cal.App.3d 917, 924, 928, 191 CaLRptr. 681 (Cal.App.1983).

Given this disposition, it is unnecessary to reach the alternative grounds for affirmance advanced by San Jose.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SOLOMON L. HENDERSON, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-00280-KD-N

BILLY BOWEN, et al, :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue 

raised, and no objections having been filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge (doc. 8) made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this court. It 

is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims are dismissed because he failed to comply 

with this Court’s orders. Specifically, plaintiff was ordered to complete and file this Court’s form 

for a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and pay the filing fee, or in lieu thereof, to file this 

Court’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. (Doc. 6) In that order, plaintiff was 

cautioned that failure to comply within the prescribed time frame or to advise the Court of a 

change in address would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's Order. (Id.) 

Plaintiff failed to act as ordered and the Magistrate Judge filed a report with a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to 

obey the Court’s Order. The report and recommendation was mailed to the address plaintiff 

provided: Easterling Correctional Facility, 200 Wallace Drive, Clio, Alabama 36017. 

Case 1:15-cv-00280-KD-N Document 10 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 2
2

The mail was returned and marked “Return to Sender, Not Here” (Doc. 7) which 

indicates that he has been released or transferred. However, according to the Alabama 

Department of Corrections Inmate Locator, he is not an inmate with the Department. Therefore, 

plaintiff has failed to obey this Court’s order to immediately provide his change in address if he 

is transferred or released. 

DONE this 19th day of August 2015.

_s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00280-KD-N Document 10 Filed 08/19/15 Page 2 of 2
10411.

#### Dayhuff *v.*Brown *&*Allen.

Decided September 17, 1920.

Action for damages; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. January 31, 1919.

By plea in bar to Mrs. Dayhuff’s action for damages on account of the death of her husband, the defendant sets up that in a previous action, brought by him and prosecuted by her as his administratrix, damages for total loss of Ms earning capacity and for his pain and suffering were recovered by her on account of the same alleged negligent and wrongful act which in this subsequent suit was alleged to be tbe cause of his death. To this plea the plaintiff demurred on the ground that no valid defense was set up by 'it. The demurrer was overruled. The plaintiff then, by way of reply, 'amended her petition and in substance admitted the 'allegations of fact as to the previous suit and recovery, but contended that they constituted no defense to this action. The defendants demurred, contending that the facts stated constituted an estoppel, the court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition, and the case came to the Court of Appeals on exceptions to the rulings stated. The Supreme Court, in answer to a certified question from this court, held that the facts alleged constituted no bar to tbe action, and, on review, declined *634to overrule its decision in tbe case of *Spradlin*v. *Georgia Railway*& *Electric Co.,*139 *Ga. 575.*

*633Jenkins, P. J.

The court erred in overruling the demurrer to the defendant’s plea in bar, and in thereafter sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition. See answers by tbe Supreme Court to certified questions propounded in this case. 150 *Ga.*291 (103 S. E. 458).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*

*634*Westmoreland, Anderson & Smith,*for plaintiff.

*Rosser, Slaton, Phillips & Hopkins,*for defendant.
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

	
	


	




#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

		..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0." ! "# 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

		$


-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



		



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

A. SAMUEL KELLEY 08-00327-001

10556-003

08-26-2010

Arthur Madden

✔

✔

120 97 months

08-26-2010

07-08-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

This sentence reduction affects the following counts wherein the concurrent sentences are reduced from 120 months to

97 months: 83-86, 88-95, 96, 98, 102, 105,107,110,112,115,119,120,123,126,129,131,133,135,139,142,

145, 148, 151, 154, 159, 162, 164,166,170,172,177,178,181,184,186,188,192 & 195.

The concurrent 60 month sentences on each of Counts 1 through 82 are not subject to reduction.

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.07.08 12:43:46 -06'00'

Case 1:08-cr-00327-CG-B Document 1000 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.6


 Exhibit 10.6 

Apache Corporation 

Non-Employee Directors’ Restricted Stock Units Program Specifications 

As Amended and Restated Effective May 14, 2015 
  

			
	Share Plan:	  	2011 Omnibus Equity Compensation Plan (the “Omnibus Plan”), the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference.
		
	Administration:	  	This Program is administered by the Management Development and Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors.
		
	Eligible Participants:	  	Members of the Company’s Board of Directors, as of the applicable grant date, who are neither officers nor employees of the Company.
		
	Objective:	  	The program is designed to be administered in conjunction with the provisions of the current Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation Plan as a means to recognize the non-employee directors for services rendered through the
awarding of equity compensation.
		
	 Quarterly
 Grant Dates:
	  	The last day of each calendar quarter.
		
	 Quarterly Grant to
 Non-Employee

Directors*:
	  	  
  

RSUs the number of which is calculated by dividing $50,000 by the Fair Market Value (as defined in the Omnibus Plan) of a share of Apache Common Stock on the
grant date. If applicable, the grant shall be prorated for a non-employee director’s service during the calendar quarter. If the calculated number of RSUs includes a fraction, the number shall be rounded down to the nearest whole
number.

		
	 Quarterly Grant to
 Non-Executive

Chairman*:
	  	  
  

RSUs the number of which is calculated by dividing $25,000 by the Fair Market Value (as defined in the Omnibus Plan) of a share of Apache Common Stock on the
grant date. If applicable, the grant shall be prorated for the non-employee, non-executive chairman’s service during the calendar quarter. If the calculated number of RSUs includes a fraction, the number shall be rounded down to the nearest
whole number.

		
	Program Term:	  	Until termination of the Omnibus Plan
		
	Vesting:	  	100% as of grant date, with 100% automatic, mandatory deferral as described below.
		
	Automatic Deferral	  	Upon vesting, the RSUs will be deferred into the Outside Directors’ Deferral Program and the RSUs and the associated dividend amounts (converted to shares of the Company’s common stock) will be distributed in a lump sum
at the times specified in the Outside Directors’ Deferral Program.

  

	*	These grants do not result in any change to the cash retainers for board, non-executive chairman, and committee service paid under the provisions of the Non-Employee Directors’ Compensation Plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          79,235
<SECURITIES>                    1,102,000
<RECEIVABLES>                   755,639
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     174,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,230,754
<PP&E>                          510,565
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  18,628,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           8,109,771
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        15,953
<OTHER-SE>                      6,078,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    18,628,990
<SALES>                         2,820,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,820,000
<CGS>                           3,120,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   513,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (814,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (814,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (814,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.07)



</TABLE>
**Exhibit15.1**

**Consent of Independent Accountants**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129271) of ABB Ltd pertaining to theABB Employee Share Acquisition Plan - US Share Acquisition Sub-Plan of our reportdated February 11, 2005, with respect to the financial statements of JorfLasfar Energy Company S.C.A. included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of ABBLtd for the year ended December 31, 2006.

 
| /s/ Price Waterhouse |   |
|----------------------|--------|
|                 |
| Casablanca, Morocco  |
| April 11, 2007       |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John D. Justice, Appellant, v Steven Racette, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[975 NYS2d 781]

*1042Lahtinen, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McKeighan, J.), entered December 7, 2012 in Washington County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner was acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect in the killing of two persons, but sentenced to prison upon his conviction of various crimes stemming from the killing of two others *(People v Justice,*202 AD2d 981 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 968 [1994]; *People v Justice,*173 AD2d 144, 146 [1991]). He was released to parole in 2005, and was further subject to an order of conditions imposed pursuant to CPL 330.20. Petitioner violated the terms of his parole in numerous respects and, in 2007, his parole was revoked and he was ordered held until the expiration of his sentence. As his conditional release date neared in 2012, he waived his right to be released. Petitioner instead commenced the present habeas corpus proceeding, alleging that respondent Commissioner of Mental Health failed to take certain steps required by CPL 330.20 (12) that would have facilitated his release. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, and petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. “Entitlement to immediate release from prison, which does not occur until the expiration of an inmate’s sentence, is a prerequisite for habeas corpus relief’ *(People ex rel. D’Adamo v Artus,*61 AD3d 1263, 1263 [2009] [citation omitted]). Petitioner here waived his right to be conditionally released and, regardless, has not yet reached the maximum expiration date of his sentence *(see*Penal Law § 70.40 [1] [b]; *People ex rel. D’Adamo v Artus,*61 AD3d at 1263; *People ex rel. Richardson v West,*24 AD3d 996, 997 [2005]; *People ex rel. Wilson v Hanslmaier,*232 AD2d 702, 702 [1996]). His remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been considered and rejected.

McCarthy, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ, concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### In the Matter of Paul Simmons, Petitioner, v William Mogulescu, Respondent.

[872 NYS2d 687]

Application for an order pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. All concur. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Tom, J.E, Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUBY POWELL, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. CA 05-0318-BH-C

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 12, 2005, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 26th day of September, 2005.

 

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00318-BH-C Document 8 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 1
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 The InterGroup Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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: September 25, 2009                        /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The InterGroup Corporation and will be retained by The InterGroup
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Chemtura Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2007 (the “Report”“), I, Craig A.Rogerson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Craig A. Rogerson               |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Craig  A. Rogerson                   |   |
| Chairman,  President and             |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer             |   |
|                                 |   |
| Date:  March 2,  2009 |   |

 

 

Thiswritten statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30354]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 26, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Lang, Senior Vice 
President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:
    1. Riverview Financial Corporation, Halifax, PA; to acquire The 
Citizens National Bank of Meyersdale, Meyersdale, PA, through the 
merger of The Citizens National Bank of Meyersdale, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Riverview Bank, Marysville, PA
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community 
Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. First Security Bancorp, Searcy, Arkansas; to acquire 9.90% 
percent of the voting shares of CrossFirst Holdings, LLC, Leawood, 
Kansas, and thereby indirectly increase its interest in CrossFirst 
Bank, Leawood, Kansas.
    C. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    3. American Bancorporation, Inc., Sapulpa, Oklahoma; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Pawhuska Financial Corp., and thereby 
indirectly acquire First National Bank in Pawhuska, both in Pawhuska, 
Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 22, 
2014.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-30354 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P