alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Lisa A. Guild, Respondent, v Reggie A. Clifford, Appellant. (And Two Other Related Proceedings.)

[971 NYS2d 582]—

Garry, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Morris, J.), entered May 4, 2012, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to find respondent in willful violation of a prior court order.

The parties are the parents of one child (born in 2008). In 2011, an order was entered placing sole custody of the child with petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and providing respondent (hereinafter the father) with parenting time “at such times as the parties agree.” Later that year, the mother filed these petitions alleging that the father had violated the order by refusing to return the child to her after an extended period of visitation. Following a hearing, Family Court found that the father willfully violated the custody order but, due to all of the circumstances, declined to impose any penalty. The father appeals.

Initially, we note that the father’s appeal from the finding of willful violation is not moot, as such a finding may have “enduring consequences” with regard to future custody and visitation matters *(Matter of Bickwid v Deutsch,*87 NY2d 862, 863 [1995]; *1054
      *see Matter of Destiny F. [Angela F.],*85 AD3d 1229, 1229 [2011], *lv dismissed*17 NY3d 854 [2011]; *Matter of Ashley E. [Mark E.],*68 AD3d 1185, 1186 [2009]). Turning to the merits, the record provides the clear and convincing proof necessary to support the finding of willful violation *(see Matter of Holland v Holland,*80 AD 3d 807, 808 [2011]; *Matter of Duane H. v Tina J.,*66 AD3d 1148, 1149 [2009]; *Matter of Aurelia v Aurelia,*56 AD3d 963, 964 [2008]). Although Family Court did not find either party particularly credible, the one fact that was testified to consistently by both of them was that, despite an existing court order providing the mother with sole custody and the father parenting time upon the parties’ agreement, the father refused to return the child to the mother when she sought to retrieve the child after a lengthy period of parenting time with the father. Accordingly, we find no error in the court’s decision *(see Matter of Holland v Holland,*80 AD3d at 808; *Matter of Aurelia v Aurelia,*56 AD3d at 964).

Rose, J.E, Spain and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL.OF TEXAS**  **AUSTIN**

HonorableH.**mD*** **Striager**

gate theneoetraltg Sor the itauame of a lloenae to say n&nor over 14 -$I under 16 years of age.

:Honorable II. D. Stringer, page 2&norable il. D. Stringer, page 3

situation invoking the dootrlne of reapon&at cuperior, *aLId be liable for a minor'8 operation of 

### a motdr vebii3le siaqly because you g&y ed 

### h3.c~ ap#LaatioiCfora 

### dz'lVer#~ lipetiee. I:mnut~6ftePate that 8scWon 8 ia meaningleaa unless tbir aonutrwtlon 28 gtven."

%eo. 7. ApplMatien of minora.

“The Dqt8rtmemt lrM.3 not grankthe 8ppIicertlon of anyminer under the e;ge of eighteen (18) yeara for an ~opePa$'or*i#;copeneruial operator',s,' OFabauiYew*a 3Acer~iae..~Wesasuch applfaatlon 14~signed by the'fathey bf the epplioant, 5.f ’‘the ‘iather ia 2i.@ilg aa&has the custody of the apjWc&nt, otharvlse by the notheP,or guardianHonorable X3.D, Stringer, page 4

It is to be observed that House Bill 20, neither in Section 7 or 8 thereof, nor elsewhere, expressly provides that the person signing 8n applioation ehall be liable In damages by reason of haviapr eigned the applloatlon of a minor pursuant to the requixwuantaof Seation7. Wedo not believe that such arlsee by neeereary iBspllostlon from the negative reclitatlons in Section 8. There is no lntlmatlon OPsuggestion in the title to House Bill 20 of anp suoh purpose, uhf&, aa you point out, would represent a *departure in the lav."

Anegation In a statute -11 noksupport the positive thereof when the latter, if it wxild ezP#t ra1.13~ by virtue of the etatute, iu non-exlrrtent Lo.t&e statute.
<PAGE>
                                    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

                                  May 18, 2005

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346


                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
                      under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                           Form 20-F [X] Form 40-F [ ]

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 [ ] No [X]


If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
                  connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT LIST


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Exhibit         Description
-------         -----------

<S>             <C>
99.1            Press Release, dated May 18, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc. Status Update.

</TABLE>


<PAGE>



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: May 18, 2005




                                         HOLLINGER INC.



                                         By  /s/ Peter G. White
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name:    Peter G. White
                                             Title:   Vice President, Operations
                                                      and Secretary
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 6, 2009 

d0720 

Order 

 

August 6, 2009 

137151(27) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137151 

 COA: 284785 

Kalamazoo CC: 97-000230-FC 

WILLIAM HALL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 27, 2009 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
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.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

###### National Endowment for the Arts

# AGENCY:

National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting—date change.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts previously announced for January 16, 2015, has been changed. The meeting will be held by teleconference from the National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC, 20506 as follows (all meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate):

*Partnerships/Folk & Traditional Arts*                         (application review): This meeting will be closed.                    

# DATES:

January 26, 2014. 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506;                         *plowitzk@arts.gov,*                         or call 202/682-5691.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.

Dated: January 6, 2015.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,

Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. 2015-00140 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 30 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4240

JULIE ANN DOBBS, (D.C. No. 99-CR-284-W)

 (D. Utah)

Defendant-Appellant.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , McKAY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

This appeal from a conviction and sentence for possession of stolen mail

raises only sentencing issues. The Defendant first appeals the trial court’s

inclusion of all relevant conduct at sentencing. At trial, two checks were

introduced into evidence which had been stolen from the mail, together with

evidence that Defendant presented them to a business for services and that she

filled in the name of the business and the amount tendered in her own

handwriting. At sentencing, the trial court included as relevant conduct fourteen
-2-

additional checks from the stolen series of blanks. There was no evidence that

Defendant negotiated those checks, but there was evidence before the court at

sentencing that the handwriting on the additional checks was similar to that on

the checks Defendant passed. (Appellee’s App. at 62). There was additional

testimony that Defendant was with a Ms. Spinuzzi (who testified that she gave

some of the checks to Defendant) when Ms. Spinuzzi passed some of the checks.

The handwriting and other evidence were sufficient to establish by a

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant was involved in the passing of at

least seventeen checks, whose value exceeded the $2,000 that the court used in

sentencing.

The second issue on appeal concerns the court’s two-level offense increase

for more than minimal planning. The number of checks, the elaborate ruses

Defendant used to explain her right to the checks she passed, and the apparent

coordination between Defendant and Ms. Spinuzzi more than satisfied the

necessary support for this conclusion. We have held that more than minimal

planning exists where “there are repeated acts over a period of time, unless it is

clear that each instance is purely opportune.” United States v. Copus , 110 F.3d

1529, 1537 (10th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court
-3-

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
---

Exhibit 32.1

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
|------------------------------------------------
|BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,                 
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                          
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.  

I, Dr. Amnon Gonenne, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director of MabCure, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (a) | The Second Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
      of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 (the
      Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m);
    and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                  

|By:    | /s/ Dr. Amnon Gonenne                                 | 
|------ | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Dr. Amnon Gonenne                                     | 
|Title: | President, Chief Executive
      Officer and Director | 
|       | (Principal Executive Officer)                         | 
|Date:  | April 15, 2011                                        | 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of this Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
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 TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

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

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, 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 unable to pay 

costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### State v. Sharpe

Case below: 183 N.C. App. - (5 June 2007)

No. 295P07

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1443)

Denied 10/11/07
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDERICK BANKS, *

*

Petitioner, *

 * CIVIL ACTION NO.:15-00281-WS-B

vs. *

*

TIMOTHY PIVNICHNY, et al., *

*

Respondent. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this 

file deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been 

no objections filed, the Report and 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 

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE this 24th day of November, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00281-WS-B Document 4 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40802

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL RAMOS-PINEDA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CR-584-1

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Ramos-Pineda

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramos-Pineda has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2010

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: 09-40802 Document: 00511149617 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
[773 NYS2d 789]

#### In the Matter of the Application of Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Upstate, New York, Inc., Petitioner, to Obtain Leave to Sell Substantially all of its Assets.

Supreme Court, Saratoga County,

November 24, 2003

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, PC.,*Glens Falls, for petitioner. *Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General,*Albany *(Timothy B. Lennon*of counsel).

OPINION OF THE COURT

Thomas D. Nolan, Jr., J.

The petition of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Upstate, New York, Inc. for court approval, pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 510 (a) (3), for the sale of *645certain real property for a price not less than $650,000 is denied, without costs and without prejudice.

Petitioner owns 3.54 acres of real property on Queensbury Avenue in the Town of Kingsbury, Washington County, on which a 15,000-square-foot commercial building is located and at which petitioner operates an animal shelter. On July 28, 2003, petitioner’s board of directors adopted a resolution authorizing that the property be sold, at auction, by a designated auctioneer, for a price not less than $650,000. By order to show cause and verified petition, petitioner seeks court approval of the sale plan. The Attorney General of the State of New York opposes the petition principally on the ground that there is nothing for the court to approve unless and until a valid, binding agreement for sale has been obtained. Petitioner counters that neither section 510 nor section 511 of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law expressly requires that a binding contract be in existence before court approval of a contemplated sale is secured.

The primary purpose for requiring that not-for-profit corporations secure court approval before assets are sold is to insure that the consideration to be received and the terms of the sale are fair and reasonable. (N-PCL 511 [a] [6].) Crucial to the making of such determination is the requirement that “the consideration to be received” be disclosed to the court. (N-PCL 511 [a] [5].) The petition now sub judice does not and cannot make such a disclosure because a definite purchase offer has not been made and there, of course, is no identified price which a purchaser has agreed to pay. The court cannot ascertain whether the $650,000 minimum price set by the board constitutes fair and reasonable consideration. The court cannot and should not approve a sale which at this time is nothing but a “hoped for” sale. This result comports with the historical reluctance of courts to render “advisory opinions.” Once a firm contract for sale is secured, be it from an auction or other traditional sales method, petitioner may reapply to the court for approval.