alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Tanya Webb, Appellant, v New York Methodist Hospital et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 645]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J), dated June 30, 2005, as granted the defendants’ motion to compel her to execute authorizations pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 which would allow the defendants to conduct post-note of issue ex parte interviews of Dr. Suresh K. Malhotra and Dr. Thomas Magnuson, and (2) an order of the same court dated September 21, 2005, as granted the defendants’ motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 3126 striking the complaint unless within 15 days the plaintiff provided authorizations pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 allowing the defendants to conduct post-note of issue interviews of Dr. Suresh K. Malhotra and Dr. Thomas Magnuson.

Ordered that the orders are reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the motions are denied without prejudice to making a motion in the Supreme Court, Kings County, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.21 (d) for *458permission to conduct additional pretrial discovery relating to the treatment of the plaintiff by Dr. Suresh K. Malhotra and Dr. Thomas Magnuson as limited by CPLR article 31.

For the reasons set forth in *Arons v Jutkowitz*(— AD3d —, 2006 NY Slip Op 09139 [2006] [decided herewith]), the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiff to execute authorizations pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 which would allow the defendants to conduct post-note of issue ex parte interviews of Dr. Suresh K. Malhotra and Dr. Thomas Magnuson.

In light of the above, this Court need not address the defendants’ remaining contentions regarding the language of the authorizations and the requirement that they turn over certain materials and notes after the interviews.

Motion by the appellant on appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 30, 2005, and September 21, 2005, respectively, to strike portions of the respondents’ brief. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated April 26, 2006, the motion was held in abeyance and was referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied. Adams, J.E, Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    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 30, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Richard Walker, Community Affairs Officer) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204:

                    1.                     *Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc.,*                     Pittsfield, Massachusetts; to acquire and merge with Hampden Bank, and thereby indirectly acquire Hampden Bancorp, Inc., both in Springfield, Massachusetts.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 31, 2014.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2014-30926 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
EXHIBIT
32.2





STATMON
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


19
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey P. Talbot, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:




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




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


/s/Geoffrey P.
      Talbot/s/Geoffrey
      P. TalbotChief
      Financial OfficerNovember
      23, 2009


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of: HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Debtor. Robert C. Konop, Appellant, v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation, Appellee.

No. 09-15827.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 27, 2010.

Robert C. Konop, Playa Del Rey, CA, pro se.

Bruce Bennett, Esquire, Sidney P. Levinson, Esquire, Joshua M. Mester, Hennigan Bennett *&*Dorman, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Tom Edward Roesser, Esquire, Carlsmith Ball LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Appellee.

*249Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Konop's request to have oral argument in Pasadena, California, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting a motion by Hawaiian Airlines Inc., (“Hawaiian”) to enforce the confirmation order and impose sanctions against Konop. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court’s determinations. *Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand),*375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not err in granting Hawaiian’s motion to enforce the confirmation order because Konop knowingly and intentionally brought his claims in violation of the discharge injunction. *See Renwick v. Bennett (In re Bennett),*298 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir.2002) (bankruptcy court may enforce a discharge injunction through sanctions where the party knew the discharge injunction applied and intended the actions that violated the injunction). On the same basis, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against Konop. *See id.; Price v. Lehtinen (In re Lehtinen),*564 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir.2009) (the bankruptcy court’s imposition of sanctions is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

We decline to address contentions Konop raises for the first time on appeal, including his contention that his wrongful termination and retaliation claims against Hawaiian do not require the filing of an administrative claim and are not subject to discharge, and his contention that the bankruptcy court erred by dismissing, in effect, his claims as to non-debtor third party defendants. *See Florida Partners Corp. v. Southeast Co. (In re Southeast Co.),*868 F.2d 335, 339-40 (9th Cir.1989) (declining to address issue not raised before bankruptcy court)

Konop’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Konop’s requests for judicial notice are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
----

|                       |   |                         |   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                       |   |                         |   |   |
|  August      12, 2008 |   | /s/      Michael Sweet       |   |   |
|                       |   |                         |   |   |
|                       |   | Michael      Sweet           |   |   |
|                       |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |
|                       |   |                         |   |   |

----
Exhibit 32.2 
 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 on Form 10-K of Deer Consumer Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zongshu Nie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m or §78o(d)); 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: March 10, 2011
By:
/s/ Zongshu NieZongshu Nie

Chief Financial Officer
 
 This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I, James Steffey, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this 10-Q of Tasa Products Limited;

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 the 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)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)) 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. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c. 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

d. 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
registrants 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 the 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,
summerize 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: 10-24-06


/s/James Steffey
Co-General Partner
1

Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed February 26, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00112-CV

____________

SCZ RESOURCES, LLC, Appellant

V.

MULTIPLEX RESOURCES, INC., BRANDON L. GUILES, AND 

BLUEROCK ENERGY CAPITAL II, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-38802

ABATEMENT ORDER

On February 20, 2019, the parties notified this court that the parties are 

attempting to settle the issues on appeal and requested that the appeal be abated for 

negotiation of the settlement. The motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the 

following order.
2

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket until March 19, 2019. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s 

active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss the appeal or 

other dispositive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to 

reinstate the appeal filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its 

own motion.

PER CURIAM
#### In the Matter of David Edward D. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Appellant; Michelle D. et al., Respondents.

[828 NYS2d 438]

In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Budd, J.), dated July 11, 2006, as, after a hearing, denied its application for continued removal of the subject child and returned custody of the child to the father.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In determining a removal application pursuant to Family Court Act § 1027, the court must “engage in a balancing test of the imminent risk [to the child’s life or health] with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, the reasonable efforts made to avoid removal or continuing removal” *(Nicholson v Scoppetta,*3 NY3d 357, 380 [2004]). Accordingly, the court must “balance [the] risk against the harm removal might bring” *(Nicholson v Scoppetta, supra*at 378). Since the Family Court had the advantage of viewing the witnesses and assessing their character and credibility, its determination should not be *857disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Jennifer R.,*29 AD3d 1003, 1004 [2006]; *Matter of John Robert P. v Vito C.,*23 AD3d 659, 661 [2005]).

Here, the petitioner failed to establish that the imminent risk to the child’s life or health if he remained with the father outweighed any harm that the child’s removal might bring. The Family Court, thus, properly determined that it was in the child’s best interests to be returned to his father. The Family Court also properly determined that the imminent risk to the child from the mother could be eliminated by issuing an order of protection prohibiting her from unsupervised contact with the child *(see*Family Ct Act § 1027 [b] [iv]; § 1028 [e]; *Nicholson v Scoppetta, supra*at 378-379). Crane, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### Debra Cooney et al., Appellants, v Cambridge Management and Realty Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[826 NYS2d 639]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered January 19, 2006, as granted the motion of the defendant Cambridge Management and Realty Corp., in effect, to vacate its default in appearing and answering, to compel the plaintiffs to accept its untimely answer, and to vacate the note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendant Cambridge Management and Realty Corp., in effect, to vacate its default in appearing and answering the complaint, to compel the plaintiffs to accept its untimely answer, and to vacate the note of issue. The moving defendant demonstrated both a reasonable excuse for its delay in answering and the existence of a potentially meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Ubaydov v Kenny’s Fleet*
      *523
      *Maintenance, Inc.,*31 AD3d 536 [2006]; *Harcztark v Drive Variety, Inc.,*21 AD3d 876 [2005]; *Gang Liang Guo v Shaybane,*9 AD3d 382 [2004]; *Seccombe v Serafina Rest. Corp., 2*AD3d 516 [2003]). Moreover, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate prejudice from the relatively short delay, which was not willful, and public policy favors the resolution of cases on their merits *(see Ubaydov v Kenny’s Fleet Maintenance, supra; Sound Shore Med. Ctr. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.,*31 AD3d 743 [2006]; *New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Auto One Ins. Co.,*28 AD3d 441 [2006]). Miller, J.P., Krausman, Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 August 14, 2015 
 Don
Miller 
 Dear Don: 
 It is with great pleasure that we offer
you the position of Senior Vice President and CFO effective August 14, 2015. You will report directly to me in this role. This offer is based on the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A which is attached and supersede any and all prior
terms and conditions applicable to any former offer or arrangement between the Company and you. 
 Don, we are very pleased to see you transition to this
new role within Bristow. Please feel free to contact me at 713-267-7601 if you have any questions 
  

	
	My very best regards,
	
	 /s/ Jonathan Baliff

	Jonathan Baliff
	President and CEO

 Attachment 
  

			
	Offer Accepted:	 	 /s/ Don Miller

		 	Don Miller
		
	Date:	 	 August 14, 2015


  

			
	Bristow Group Inc. 2103 City West Blvd., 4th Floor, Houston, Texas 77042 United States	  	




	t (713) 267 7600    f (713) 267 7620    bristowgroup.com	  







 



 
 Exhibit A 

Senior Vice President and CFO 

Compensation Package 
  

			
	Employer and Location:	  	Bristow Group Inc. (the “Company”) located at 2103 City West Blvd, 3rd Floor, Houston, Texas 77042
		
	Compensation Structure:	  	US based employment
		
	Base Salary:	  	$425,000 per year
		
	Bonus Percentage:	  	Participation in the Company’s Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, including cash bonuses in accordance with the Senior Vice President level. Current annual incentive compensation for this position is a target bonus of 75% of
Base Salary with a maximum of 187.5% of Base Salary.
		
	LTIP:	  	Participation in the Company’s Long Term Incentive Plan, including a target annual award for this position valued at 300% of Base Salary.
		
	Retention Award:	  	A Retention Award of Stock Options valued at $200,000 to be awarded effective August 14, 2015 that will vest ratably in equal amounts on the first, second and third anniversaries of the date of grant. As more specifically described
in the applicable award letter, the Retention Award will not be subject to accelerated vesting per the Company’s Management Severance Benefits Plan for U.S. Employees, but instead shall only vest consistent with the terms and conditions set
forth in the applicable award letter.