alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### U.S. Bank National Association, Plaintiff, and Syncora Guarantee Inc. et al., Appellants, v GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Respondent.

[965 NYS2d 401]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered April 4, 2012, severing and dismissing plaintiffs-appellants’ (plaintiffs) claims against defendant, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 28, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and/or replead and file a third amended complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiffs monoline insurers brought claims alleging that defendant, the originator of residential mortgage loans packaged for resale as residential mortgage-backed securities, breached *640its warranties and representations made in agreements for the sale of loans that were the collateral in a $1.83 billion securitization transaction.

The insurers, nonparties to the loan sale agreements, lacked standing to bring the claims directly, and given the absence of any clear language on the face of the loan sale agreements evincing an intent to benefit third parties, the insurers failed to allege facts sufficient to sustain the claim that the agreements were intended to give them third-party benefits *(see LaSalle Natl. Bank v Ernst & Young,*285 AD2d 101, 108-109 [1st Dept 2001]). The absence of any clear language on the face of the sale agreements regarding any third-party beneficiary rights precludes reliance on subsequent documents to raise an issue of fact *(id.).*Further, the insurers never argued before the motion court that they had standing to sue defendant for breach of other agreements related to the securitization, and we decline to consider the issue.

The order holding that the insurers could not assert claims against defendant for breach of the loan sale agreements because they were neither parties to the agreements nor intended third-party beneficiaries was final and on the merits, and the court properly denied their subsequent motion for leave to file an amended complaint asserting claims for breach of other securitization-related agreements. Under New York’s transactional approach to the doctrine of res judicata, once a claim is brought to a final conclusion on the merits, “all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” *(Matter of Hunter,*4 NY3d 260, 269 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Acosta, Román, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
Fourth Department,

November, 2013

(November 8, 2013)

#### Todd R. Greenert, Plaintiff, v Sales Associates of WNY, LLC, et al., Defendants. Sales Associates of WNY, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Edward H. Davis, Jr., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[974 NYS2d 816]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John F. O’Donnell, J.), entered October 3, 2011. The order, among other things, granted the motion of third-party defendants Edward H. Davis, Jr. and Kateri M. Davis for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint of third-party plaintiff Sales Associates of WNY, LLC, against them.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation discontinuing appeal signed by the attorneys for the parties on October 16, 2013,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

All concur except Martoche, J, who is not participating. Present — Smith, J.E, Peradotto, Garni, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30962]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8994]


Determination Under Section 7012 of the Department of State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2014, 
Relating to Assistance to Zimbabwe

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 7012 of the 
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Div. K, P.L. 113-76) (SFOAA), E.O. 12163, as 
amended by E.O. 13346, and Delegation of Authority 245-1, I hereby 
determine that targeted assistance to Zimbabwe for health, good 
governance, education, leadership, family planning, agriculture and 
food security, poverty reduction, livelihoods, and macroeconomic growth 
including anti-corruption efforts, helping victims of trafficking, and 
combatting trafficking, as well as the continuation of assistance that 
would have a significant adverse effect on vulnerable populations if 
suspended, are in the national interest of the United States and 
thereby waive, with respect to Zimbabwe, the application of section 
7012 of the SFOAA for such assistance.
    This determination shall be reported to Congress and published in 
the Federal Register.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Heather Higginbottom,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2014-30962 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
---

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Daniel T. Farrell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Quincy
  Gold Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
  untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
  to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
  statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
  report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
  financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
  respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
  registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible
  for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
  in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
  such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
  to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
  consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
  particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
  controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
  period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
  internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
  most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
  of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
  materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
  and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
  based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
  directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
  the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
  reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
  summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
  or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
  control over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2004

/s/ Daniel T. Farrell
  Daniel T. Farrell 
  Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer

---
#### Putnam County Savings Bank, Appellant, v Allan Fishel, Defendant, and Sonja Fishel, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 247]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Jamieson, J.), dated December 12, 2012, as denied, on the ground of improper service, that branch of its motion which was for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against the defendant Sonja Fishel.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for a determination on the merits of that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against the defendant Sonja Fishel.

As the plaintiff correctly contends, any objections to alleged improprieties in its service of the papers constituting its motion for a deficiency judgment upon the defendant Sonja Fishel were waived when Fishel opposed the motion on the merits without contesting the validity of the service *(see Matter of Grasso,*24 AD3d 765, 767 [2005]; *McGowan v Hoffmeister,*15 AD3d 297 [2005]; *Yihye v Blumenberg,*260 AD2d 371, 371-372 [1999]; *Matter of Kareca Lashawn J. v County of Westchester,*142 AD2d 729, 730 [1988]). Therefore, the Supreme Court should not have *780sua sponte raised the issue of the propriety of service and denied the motion on the ground of improper service *(see Dupps v Betancourt,*99 AD3d 855, 856 [2012]; *Matter of Grasso,*24 AD3d at 766; *Yihye v Blumenberg,*260 AD2d at 371-372).

In any event, since the plaintiff substantially complied with the service requirements, and Fishel received actual and timely notice of the motion as a result, the service was sufficient *(see Sarasota, Inc. v Homestead Acres at Greenport,*249 AD2d 290, 290-291 [1998]; *Columbus Realty Inv. Corp. v Weng-Heng Tsiang,*226 AD2d 259 [1996]; *Heritage Sav. Bank v Grabowski,*70 AD2d 989, 990 [1979]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have made a determination on the merits of that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against Fishel. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.
(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

 

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.  

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT HAWES, :

: 

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 16-0015-WS-M 

: 

CAPT. MCCOY, et al., :

:

 Defendants. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, 

and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the 

Court's Order.

DONE this 13th day of June, 2016.

 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00015-WS-M Document 4 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5


<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         4,879
<SECURITIES>                               1,509,928
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              14,128
<PP&E>                                         2,214
<DEPRECIATION>                                   332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,525,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         25,776
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                1,309,928
<COMMON>                                      26,850
<OTHER-SE>                                   166,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,525,938
<SALES>                                        4,740
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,168
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 16,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (11,157)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (11,157)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (11,157)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.004)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief financial officer of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:

1) the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 29, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2) the information
contained in the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 29, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/     PATRICIA K.
JOHNSONPatricia K. Johnson Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)


Date: November 26, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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 For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 97-20644

___________________________

RICHARD H. WAVRO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) (96-CV-3222)

___________________________________________________ January 13, 1998

Before King, Higginbotham, and Davis, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Two issues worthy of discussion are presented in this appeal:

(1) whether the district court erred in refusing to remand this

case to state court; and (2) whether the mailbox rule applies to

these facts, making the district court’s grant of summary judgment

to the Appellee inappropriate.

Wavro first contends that because the amou nt in controversy

did not exceed $50,000, the district court erred in refusing to1 Although the jurisdictional amount was raised to $75,000,

this actio n was both filed and removed before that statutory change. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Supp. 1997).

2 remand hi s case to the state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1993). 1

Wavro's claims included one for his prope rty damage ($10,729.10)

and one for reimbursement of claims made against him ($14,944.78),

as well as claims for punitive damages, multiple damages and

attorney’s fees. Wavro provided no convincing evidence that the

amount in controversy was less than $50,000. We therefore agree

with the district court's order denying Wavro's motion to remand.

Wavro argues next that the “mail box rule” applies to this

case, making the district court’s grant of summary judgment

inappropriate. The Appellant failed to send the renewal premium

for his insurance policy, and therefore the policy expired by its

terms . The Appellee then offered to renew the policy if the

premium payment in response to the offer was received by February

10, 1996. The Appellee's offer expressly stated that:

The r enewal premium for this automobile policy has not been received. Accordingly, this policy expired effective 12:01 a.m. standard time Janu ary 27, 1996.
Ho wever, if amount due is received before February 10, 1996, coverage will be reinstated without interruption.

The Appellant mailed the renewal premium on February 7, 1996, but

the Appellee did not receive it until February 14, 1996. If the

mail box rule applies, this was a timely acceptance and summary

judgment was inappropriate.

We agree with the district court that the terms of the

contract preclude application of the mail box rule. The district3

court correctly resolved this issue against the Appellant and

correctly granted summary judgment to the Appellee.

AFFIRMED.
```

                                                                     EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 13A-14(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                           AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified
(the "Report"), the undersigned Daniel J. Lanjewar, as Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Daniel J. Lanjewar
---------------------------
Daniel J. Lanjewar
Chief Financial Officer
Date:  December 15, 2004
```
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 9, 2014, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the American Society of ASTM International (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between September 2014 and December 2014 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items along with a brief description of each, is available at                     *http://www.astm.org.*      ( print page 78909)    

                    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).                

                    The last notification with the Attorney General was filed on September 11, 2014. A notice was filed in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 61098).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2014-30669 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2154 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2154

     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and CA Grant 
                      Lands for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and CA Grant 
                      Lands for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
              INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, OREGON AND CA GRANT 
              LANDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for U.S. Department of 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and California Grant Lands 
for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $106,985,000.
                                 <all>
```