alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Paul M. Merz, Appellant, v Masako Niwa, Respondent.

[970 NYS2d 877]—

In two related child support proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, S.M.), dated December 20, 2011, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition dated July 6, 2011, for a downward modification of his child support obligation, vacated a temporary order of support dated September 14, 2011, nunc pro tunc, and reinstated the child support provisions of a prior order of the same court (Boggio, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated September 17, 2007, and (2) an order of the same court (Genchi, J.), dated June 26, 2012, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Lynaugh, S.M.), dated May 10, 2012, which dismissed his petition dated February 14, 2012, for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 20, 2011, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated June 26, 2012, is reversed, on the law, the father’s objections to the order dated May 10, 2012, are granted, the order dated May 10, 2012, is vacated, the father’s petition dated February 14, 2012, is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing on the father’s petition dated February 14, 2012, and a new determination thereafter; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the father.

The father’s contentions with respect to the order dated December 20, 2011, are not properly before this Court, as he failed to file objections to that order in the prior proceeding *(see*Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; *Matter of Smith v Smith,*44 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2007], *affd*10 NY3d 364 [2008]; *Matter of Musarra v Musarra,*28 AD3d 668, 668-669 [2006]; *Matter of Fenical v Fenical,*26 AD3d 436, 437 [2006]). Accordingly, we dismiss the father’s appeal from that order *(see*Family Ct Act § 439 [e]; *Matter of Smith v Smith,*44 AD3d at 1082; *Matter of Musarra v Musarra,*28 AD3d at 668-669; *Matter of Fenical v Fenical,*26 AD3d at 437; *Matter of Ciampi v Sgueglia,*252 AD2d 755, 757 n 2 [1998]).

However, under the circumstances of this case, the father should have been given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations contained in his petition dated February 14, 2012, and *663the Family Court should have granted the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order dated May 10, 2012 *(see generally Matter of Nuesi v Gago,*68 AD3d 1122 [2009]; *Matter of Daniels v Spector,*53 AD3d 484 [2008]; *cf. Matter of Perna v Perna,*12 AD3d 448 [2004]). Accordingly, the order dated May 10, 2012, must be vacated, the father’s petition dated February 14, 2012, must be reinstated, and the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for a hearing on the father’s petition dated February 14, 2012, and a new determination thereafter. Eng, P.J., Balkin, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY 

OF LABOR, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00205-CG-M

)

LEAR CORPORATION EEDS AND 

INTERIORS and RENOSOL 

SEATING, LLC,

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification of 

the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 44), Defendants’ response (Doc. 45), 

Plaintiff’s reply (Doc. 46), and Defendants’ sur-reply (Doc. 47). The facts of the case, 

the parties’ arguments, and the Court’s ruling are thoroughly set out in the 

Preliminary Injunction Order. (Doc. 28). The Court finds that the Order speaks for 

itself, and the parties appear to be in compliance with the Order. Thus, no 

clarification is needed, and Plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of December, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

Case 2:15-cv-00205-CG-M Document 49 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Verizon New York Inc., Respondent, v Skanska USA Civil Northeast Inc., Formerly Known as Slattery Skanska Inc., Appellant.

[964 NYS2d 33]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered October 10, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that its construction activities did not contribute to the damage suffered by plaintiffs cables. Specifically, while defendant set forth evidence that it was not performing work in the vicinity of the water main break at the time that the leak was first observed, it failed to address evidence that it had performed secant pile drilling operations in the area of the leak, a few days prior. Since no evidence was offered that proper precautions were taken during the drilling, defendant failed to meet its initial burden as movant *(see Hixon v Congregation Beit Yaakov,*57 AD3d 328 [1st Dept 2008]).

Plaintiffs cables were not “key evidence” on the issue being litigated—namely, whether defendant caused the water main break that led to the cables becoming wet and failing. Thus, the motion court properly denied that portion of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment based upon plaintiffs disposal of portions of the involved cables six months after the incident *(see Shapiro v Boulevard Pious. Corp.,*70 AD3d 474, 476 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.
April 5 , 20 12



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID H. CULBRETH , Appellant

NO. 14

- 1 1

- 00 937

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

____________________ This cause was heard on the motion of the appellant to dismiss the appeal. Having considered the motion, the Court orders the appeal DISMISSED and that the appellant pay all costs expended in this appeal, and further orders this decision certified below for
observance.

We further order the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate immediately.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        158
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                             13
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       176
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3657

)

LLOYD'S OF SHELTON AUTO GLASS, )

LLC, a/a/o JEDIDIAH THOMAS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Opinion filed October 31, 2018.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit 

Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for 

Hillsborough County; sitting in its appellate 

capacity.

Alexandra Valdes of Cole, Scott & Kissane, 

P.A., Miami, for Petitioner.

Kristin A. Norse and Stuart C. Markman of 

Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., Tampa; 

David M. Caldevilla of de la Parte & Gilbert, 

P.A., Tampa; and John C. Murrow of Law 

Office of John C. Murrow, P.A., Tampa, for 

Respondent.

MORRIS, Judge.
- 2 -

The petitioner, Progressive Select Insurance Company, seeks a secondtier writ of certiorari to quash the circuit court's order that denied Progressive's petition 

for writ of certiorari below. While involving different parties, the facts and procedural 

history of this case are nearly identical to the facts and procedural history of another 

second-tier certiorari proceeding that is traveling with this case, Progressive American 

Insurance Co. v. SHL Enterprises, LLC, a/a/o Shazam Auto Glass, LLC, 2D17-4074. 

We quashed the order in SHL Enterprises, LLC, a/a/o Shazam Auto Glass, LLC, 

wherein the circuit court had adopted the reasoning of the circuit court's order that was 

entered in this case. Thus, for the reasons we explained in SHL Enterprises, LLC, a/a/o 

Shazam Auto Glass, LLC, we quash the circuit court's order here. 

Petition granted; order quashed.

SILBERMAN and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7719

BENJAMIN MAURICE JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. DAVID MITCHELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00248-GCM)

Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: June 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Maurice Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Maurice Jones seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones

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

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 23.1**
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(File Nos. 333-93623, 333-93625, 333-115416, 333-115417 and 333-115418) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-65730) of Triton PCSHoldings, Inc. and its subsidiaries of our report dated March 16, 2005 relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10742

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DANIEL SANTILLAN-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-30-1

Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Santillan-Hernandez appeals the 90-month term of imprisonment

imposed after he pleaded guilty of being found in the United States without

permission, following removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) & (b). He contends that

the district court plainly erred by enhancing his sentence pursuant to United

States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) based on a determination that his

1989 California state court conviction of selling or transporting marijuana was

an aggravated felony.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 6, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-10742 Document: 00511530628 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2011
No. 10-10742

We agree with Santillan-Hernandez that the district court plainly erred

in finding based on the presentence report that his prior conviction under

California Health & Safety Code § 11360(a) was an aggravated felony. See

United States v. Ibarra-Luna, 628 F.3d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless,

we also agree with the Government that Santillan-Hernandez has not shown a

reasonable probability that his sentence would have been lower absent the

district court’s consideration of the incorrect advisory guidelines range. See

United States v. Dickson, 632 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 2011), petition for cert.

filed, (Apr. 27, 2011) (No. 10-10278); United States v. Davis, 602 F.3d 643, 648-49

(5th Cir. 2010).

In the instant case, the district court determined that a sentence within

the incorrectly calculated guideline range was inappropriate in light of

Santillan-Hernandez’s serious criminal history and potential for recidivism. For

those same reasons a sentence within the lower correctly calculated range would

have been insufficient. Moreover, the district court’s statements, clearly

explaining its methodology for arriving at a reasonable sentence, indicate that

the incorrectly calculated range did not influence the sentence imposed. 

Santillan-Hernandez has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but

for the district court’s errors, he would have received a shorter sentence. See

United States v. Blocker, 612 F.3d 413, 416 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 623

(2010). 

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-10742 Document: 00511530628 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2011
##### 



AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
TO THE
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
TRITON PCS EQUIPMENT COMPANY, LLC
AND
NORTEL NETWORKS INC.
 th
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW THEREFORE
 1.
    
    Unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as in
the Agreement.2.
    
    The Purchase and License Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence of
the first paragraph in its entirety and replacing it with the following:
 Unless otherwise terminated in accordance with the terms hereof, this
Agreement will commence on the last date signed and terminate five (5)
years therefrom.




---



##### 



3.
    
    The GSM/GPRS Product Supplement is hereby amended by deleting Section 1 (TERM) in its
entirety and replacing it with the following:
 Unless otherwise terminated in accordance with the terms hereof, this
Supplement will commence on 05/16/2002 and terminate five (5) years
therefrom. (Term).
 4.
    
    The Agreement, as emended by this Amendment No. 1, shall constitute the entire
agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of the Agreement, and
shall not be modified or amended except in writing and signed by authorized representatives
of both parties. Except as otherwise expressly amended hereby, the Agreement continues in
full force and effect and is hereby reaffirmed by the parties.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 NORTEL NETWORKS INC.
    
    SUNCOM WIRELESS OPERATING
COMPANY, LLC by SUNCOM WIRELESS
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., its managerBy:     /s/ R.K. Dodd
    
    By:     /s/ David D. ClarkName:     Randy K. Dodd
    
    Name:     David D. ClarkTitle:     President NA Carrier Sales
    
    Title:     EVP and CFODate:     June 21, 2005
    
    Date:     June 10, 2005
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Murray Birnbaum, as Assignee, Plaintiff-Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Goldenberg Consulting Group, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), dated July 27, 2017, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.</p><p>Per Curiam.	</p><p>Order (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), dated July 27, 2017, affirmed, with $10 costs.</p><p>Civil Court properly dismissed the complaint on res judicata grounds. The instant action, like the small claims action brought by plaintiff, seeks damages for defendant's alleged failure to properly split a particular employment placement commission. That plaintiff now seeks greater damages than sought in the small claims action does not alter this conclusion (<i>see Chapman v Faustin</i>, 150 AD3d 647 [2017]). Nor is a contrary result required by plaintiff's claim that defendant rendered false testimony in the small claims action. A party who has lost a case as result of alleged fraud or false testimony cannot collaterally attack the judgment in a separate action for damages against the party who adduced the false testimony (<i>see Specialized Indus. Servs. Corp. v Carter</i>, 68 AD3d 750, 751-752 [2009]). Plaintiff's remedy is limited to proceeding in the small claims court case where the alleged misconduct occurred (<i>see Little Rest Twelve, Inc. v Zajic</i>, 137 AD3d 540 [2016]) and a possible appeal from the judgment of that court (<i>see Joseph v Citibank</i>, 271 AD2d 358 [2000]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<p>Decision Date: June 28, 2018</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 11, 2022

NO. 03

- 22

- 00033

- CR

Ex parte Todd T. Bornhop

APPEAL FROM THE 450TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIAN A

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION B Y JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the order denying habeas corpus relief entered by the trial court. Having

reviewed the rec ord and the parties’ arg uments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s order denying habeas corpus relief

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial

court’s order denying habeas corpus relief

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay

costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78454-78455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30367]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Mental Health.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Institute of Mental Health, including consideration of personnel 
qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual 
investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National 
Institute of Mental Health.
    Date: February 3-4, 2015.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Porter Neuroscience 
Research Center, 35A Convent Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Jennifer E. Mehren, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, 
Division of Intramural Research Programs, National Institute of 
Mental Health, NIH, 35A Convent Drive, Room GE 412, Bethesda, MD 
20892-3747, 301-496-3501, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3aea6abb1a6ada983aea2aaafedadaaabeda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93fef6fbe1f6fdf9d3fef2faffbdfdfafbbdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental 
Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 78455]]


    Dated: December 22, 2014.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30367 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>