alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined t hat this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30759

Summary Calendar

In the matter of:

GREGORY J. AVERY and KATHLEEN R. AVERY

Debtors

GREGORY J. AVERY and KATHLEEN R. AVERY

Appellants,

versus

JEAN O. TURNER

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1823)

February 17, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gregory and Kathleen Avery appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s grant of partial su mmary

judgment in favor of the Trustee, Jean Turner, for monies received by Gregory Avery as a result of

the pre-petition agreement dissolving his law partnership with Ray Orrill. The Averys claim that the2

bankruptcy court violated the mandate of our previous opinion, Turner v. Avery

, 947 F.2d 772 (5th

Cir. 1991), by granting summary judgment on the trustee’s claims for all the monies due Avery from

Orrill on cases assigned to Orrill in the partnership dissolution agreement. In a t horough and able

opinion, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court. We are persuaded that the district court

reached the correct result for the right reasons. Our prior opinion did not address those cases handled

by Orrill or the fees they generated, and it did no t vacat e findings of fact made by the bankruptcy

court. The bankruptcy court correctly decided that funds received by Avery on a pre-petition

agreement on which Avery performed no personal services after the petition date is properly made

part of the bankruptcy estate. The same is true of residual partnership funds that resulted from the

dissolution of the law partnership.

The Avery’s also ask for a new trial. Our review of the record reveals no error or abuse of

discretion by the bankruptcy court’s refusal to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial on the basis

of inadvertence and excusable neglect.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM CANISCO RESOURCES, INC.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         722,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,987,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (218,241)
<INVENTORY>                                    413,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,613,813
<PP&E>                                       5,337,250
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,920,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,544,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,547,239
<BONDS>                                      9,605,820
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,194
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,385,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,544,479
<SALES>                                     41,716,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,716,752
<CGS>                                       33,882,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,882,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,861,393
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             785,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,186,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                   474,607
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            711,907
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   711,907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
Judgment 1

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations (8738)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

V. (For Revocation of Supervised Release)

DANIEL LATRAIL JONES

a/k/a Big Daniel CASE NUMBER: 2:06-CR-00176-014

USM NUMBER: 09620-003

THE DEFENDANT: Andrew M. Jones, Esquire

Defendant's Attorney

admitted guilt to violation of supervision conditions statutory & 3 as set out in the Petition dated 

9/4/2014.

was found in violation of supervision condition: ___

Violation Number Nature of Violation

Date violation

Occurred

Statutory

3

Technical

Technical

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed 

pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) and is discharged as to such violation(s) 

condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this 

district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, 

and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

Defendant's Social Security No. 4209

Defendant's Date of Birth: 1983

Defendant's Residence Address:

Selma, AL

Defendant's Mailing Address:

___________________________

___________________________

November 21, 2014

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

December 9, 2014

Date

X

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 953 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 2
Judgment 2

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations: Sheet 2 - Imprisonment

Defendant: DANIEL LATRAIL JONES, a/k/a Big Daniel

Case Number: 2:06-CR-00176-014

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be 

imprisoned for a total term of SIX (6) MONTHS

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: 

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at .m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of 

Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Defendant delivered on to at __________________

with a certified copy of this judgment.

 UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By _________________________________

 Deputy U.S. Marshal

X

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 953 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 2
##### 



FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of March 2004 Commission File Number 1-14916 BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES CORPORATION  BCE Place
181 Bay Street
Suite 330
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5J 2T3
(416) 359-8600
(Address of principal executive offices) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F   o    Form 40-F  þ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes  o    No  þ If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. Date:  March 24, 2004Brookfield Properties CorporationBy:
    /s/ Craig LaurieName:
    Craig LaurieTitle:
    Senior Vice President & Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit
32
 
 Certification
Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 (18
U.S.C. 1350)
 
 Persuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
undersigned General Partners of TASA Products Limited, a Washington limited
partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General
Partner's knowledge and belief, that:
 
 1. The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the "Form
10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 /s/MICHEL
      E. MAES
                /s/JAMES
      R. STEFFEYMichel
      E. Maes
                James
      R. SteffeyCo-General
      Partner
                Co-General
      PartnerDate:
      5-5-09
                Date:
      5-5-09
[908 NE2d 868, 880 NYS2d 878]

#### Linda Smalley, Appellant, v Matthew J. Bemben, Respondent.

Decided February 24, 2009

*752APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Law Offices of Michael G. Dwyer, PLLC,*Williamsville *(Michael G. Dwyer*of counsel), for appellant.

*Barth Sullivan Behr,*Buffalo *(Laurence D. Behr*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Unless a statute or ordinance *“clearly imposes liability*upon” an abutting landowner, only a municipality may be held liable for the negligent failure to remove snow and ice from a public sidewalk *(Roark v Hunting,*24 NY2d 470, 475 [1969] [emphasis added]; *Jacobs v Pasquale,*281 AD2d 891, 892 [4th Dept 2001]). In 1997, the City of Buffalo amended section 413-50 (A) of its City Code to impose two duties on landowners: (1) removing snow and ice on abutting sidewalks before 9:00 a.m. and (2) making, maintaining and repairing abutting sidewalks. The plain language of section 413-50 (A) only imposes liability with respect to the second duty. While the legislative history of the 1997 amendment may also be read as indicating that the amendment was intended to impose liability on landowners for failing to remove snow and ice from city sidewalks abutting their property *(see Montes v City of Buffalo,*295 AD2d 896, 897 [4th Dept 2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 504 [2002]), the terms of the Code do not clearly subject landowners to such liability.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
665 A.2d 1104

#### MARTIN GLENNON, INC. v. FIRST FIDELITY BANK, N.A. AND LIVIO RUSSO, ET AL.

September 15, 1995.

ORDER

The parties having stipulated to a dismissal of this matter and good cause appearing, it is ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23.1     FREEDMAN & GOLDBERG  CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS   A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM    We consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10-K of Parallax Health Sciences, Inc., of our report dated May 15, 2020, on our audit of the financial statements of Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. as of December 31, 2019, and for the year then ended.         /s/Freedman & Goldberg, CPAs  Freedman & Goldberg, CPAs Farmington Hills, Michigan May 15, 2020  31150 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334  (248) 626-2400  Fax (248) 626-4298 2444 East Hill Road, Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439  (810) 694-0336  Fax (810) 694-9789 Website: freedmangoldberg.com
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00463-CV

In Re J. Galvan, Annuitant

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law of Kleberg County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-231-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellants, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND METROPOLITAN 

INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 2, 2014
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Gregory Boomer, Appellant, v James Conway, Respondent.

Submitted July 13, 2009;

decided September 17, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie from the order of an individual Justice of the Appellate Division *{see*NY Const, art VI, § 3; CPLR 5602).
663 A.2d 1352

#### IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMITMENT OF N.N.

July 6, 1995.

ORDER

Certification to the Superior Court, Law Division, is granted.
#### Paul Mohan et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 561]

Judgment of the Court of Claims of the State of New York (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered on or about March 13, 2012, dismissing the claims after a nonjury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“In a nonjury trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially when the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses” *(Watts v State of New York,*25 AD3d 324, 324 [1st Dept 2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, there exists no basis to disturb the trial court’s determination that the opening in the median barrier on the Hutchinson River Parkway did not constitute a dangerous condition. The record shows that the court carefully considered the conflicting expert testimony and its decision to find the conclusions of the State’s expert to be more credible was supported by the evidence. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 34 Misc 3d 1234(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 50368(11).]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

FAY ROSE TOURE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0018-CG-M

)

CECIL WILLIAMSON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The court hereby ADOPTS the joint Settlement Agreement (Doc. 25) filed by 

the parties on February 12, 2015 (Doc. 25); therefore, this action is DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00018-CG-M Document 26 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 1
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.                    

*Date:*                         February 2, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Room 3E61, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Raymond R. Schleef, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-7616, 240-669-5019,                         *schleefrr@niaid.nih.gov.*

Late notification due to delayed response from panel members.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 7, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00292 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

GARY D. WILLIAMS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 173 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 20th day of January, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
**Exhibit (31.2)**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Paul A. Smith, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Imperial OilLimited;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 4, 2004         */s/  Paul A. Smith*   Paul A. Smith   Controller and Senior Vice-President,
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3619 

To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment the water supplies 

of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served 

by the District. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2006 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for a feasibility study of alternatives to augment 

the water supplies of the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District and cities served by the District. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CENTRAL OKLAHOMA MASTER CONSERVATORY 

4 DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY. 

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

6 (1) Thunderbird Lake, located on Little River 

7 in central Oklahoma, was constructed in 1965 by the 

8 Bureau of Reclamation for flood control, water sup9 ply, recreation, and fish and wildlife purposes; 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 3619 IS

1 (2) the available yield of Thunderbird Lake is 

2 allocated to the Central Oklahoma Master Conserv3 atory District, which supplies municipal and indus4 trial water supplies to the cities of Norman, Midwest 

5 City, and Del City, Oklahoma; and 

6 (3) studies conducted by the Bureau during fis7 cal year 2003 indicate that the District will require 

8 additional water supplies to meet the future needs of 

9 the District, including through— 

10 (A) the drilling of additional wells; 

11 (B) the implementation of a seasonal pool 

12 plan at Thunderbird Lake; 

13 (C) the construction of terminal storage to 

14 hold wet-weather yield from Thunderbird Lake; 

15 (D) a reallocation of water storage; and 

16 (E) the importation of surplus water from 

17 sources outside the basin of Thunderbird Lake. 

18 (b) STUDY.—Not later than 1 year after the date of 

19 enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of the Bureau 

20 of Reclamation shall conduct a feasibility study of alter21 natives to augment the water supplies of the Central Okla22 homa Master Conservatory District and cities served by 

23 the District, including recommendations of the Commis24 sioner, if any. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•S 3619 IS

1 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

2 authorized to be appropriated to the Commissioner of the 

3 Bureau of Reclamation $300,000 to conduct the study 

4 under subsection (b). 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS