alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Mehran Manouel et al., Appellants, v Board of Assessors et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 806]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a Small Claims Tax Assessment hearing officer dated December 17, 2010, which denied the petitioners’ application for small claims assessment review pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7, the petitioners appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated December 16, 2011, which, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The property in question was occupied by the mother of one of the petitioners, and the mother did not pay rent. To qualify for small claims assessment review, the property at issue must be, among other things, “owner-occupied” (RPTL 730 [1] [b] [i]). At the hearing on the petitioners’ application for small claims assessment review, a jurisdictional objection was raised on the ground that the property was not owner-occupied. That objection was sustained, and the application was denied.

Where statutory language is clear and unambiguous, a reviewing court may not depart from its plain meaning *(see Pultz v Economakis,*10 NY3d 542, 547 [2008]; *Matter of Brown v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.,*60 AD3d 107, 115 [2009]). In this case, pursuant to the plain meaning of RPTL 730 (1) (b) (i), the owners did not reside at the property.

In support of their claim that the property satisfied the requirements for small claims assessment review, the petitioners cite *Matter of Masters v Board of Assessors*(188 AD2d 471 [1992]). In that case, the owner was attempting to sell the property and, rather than leave it vacant, arranged for his father-in-law to live there rent-free until the sale of the property. Since the father-in-law’s stay on the property was clearly temporary, the property did not lose its owner-occupied character *(see id.*at 472; *see also Moreno v Shanker,*93 AD3d 829, 830 [2012]).

In the instant case, on the other hand, there is no evidence that the mother’s residence at the property was temporary. Accordingly, the administrative determination denying the petitioners’ application for small claims assessment review was not arbitrary and capricious, or affected by an error of law *(see Matter of Sass v Town of Brookhaven,*73 AD3d 785, 788 [2010]). Therefore, the Supreme Court property denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Austin, J.E, Sgroi, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
----

|                        |   |                         |   |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                        |   |                         |   |   |
|  October      30, 2008 |   | /s/      J. Collier Sparks   |   |   |
|                        |   |                         |   |   |
|                        |   | J.      Collier Sparks       |   |   |
|                        |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |   |
|                        |   |                         |   |   |

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 15, 2024

NO. 03-24-00074-CV

Trivista Operating LLC and Trivista Oil Company LLC, Appellants

v.

ERC Acquisitions II LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 155TH DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the orders signed by the trial court on December 28, 2023. Trivista 

Operating LLC and Trivista Oil Company LLC have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and 

having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the 

Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to 

this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00075]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35893]


Pennsylvania & Southern Railway, LLC--Operation Exemption--
Franklin County General Authority

    Pennsylvania & Southern Railway, LLC (PSCC), a Class III carrier, 
has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to 
acquire extended operating rights over approximately 25 miles of track 
and associated right-of-way within the Cumberland Valley Business Park 
and the Letterkenny Army Depot near Chambersburg, Franklin County, Pa. 
(the Rail Lines), pursuant to an amended agreement between PSCC and the 
Franklin County General Authority (FCGA).
    PSCC states that it currently operates over the Rail Lines pursuant 
to an operation exemption issued in Pennsylvania & Southern Railway--
Operation Exemption--Franklin County General Authority, FD 34461 (STB 
served Feb. 12, 2004). PSCC and FCGA have entered into an amended rail 
operating agreement that extends the term of the current agreement 
until October 31, 2039, and makes other minor changes to the existing 
agreement. PSCC states that the amended terms will promote stability 
for the rail operations and justify further investment in the 
operations.
    PSCC also states that it will continue to interchange with CSXT and 
certifies that no interchange commitments will be required as part of 
this transaction.
    PSCC certifies that its projected revenues as a result of the 
transaction will not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II 
rail carrier.
    PSCC states that it intends to begin operations under the amended 
rail operating agreement on or after the effective date of the 
exemption, which is January 22, 2015 (30 days after the verified notice 
was filed).
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the 
exemption. Petitions to stay must be filed no later than January 15, 
2015 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and ten copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket 
No. FD 35893, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 
E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on Eric M. Hocky, Clark Hill PLC, One Commerce 
Square, 2005 Market Street, Suite 1000, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at 
www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: January 5, 2015.
    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2015-00075 Filed 1-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
|   | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 28, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. |
|--------|------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: April 30, 2010 | /s/ OLEG KHAYKIN                                                       |
|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |  Oleg KhaykinChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |
#### State v. Stitt

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 150

No. 075P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-238)

Denied

03/08/07

Hudson, J., Recused
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Crestwood Midstream Partners LP;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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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):
    /s/ Robert G. PhillipsRobert G. PhillipsPresident and Chief Executive 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company) for the Quarterly Period Ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin McIntosh, Senior Vice President and 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:



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 result of operations of
the Company.



By:

/S/ KEVIN MCINTOSHKevin McIntoshSenior Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)




Dated: February 13, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6709

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH PIERRE FORD, a/k/a K-9,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-91-429, CA-97-102-AM)

Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clifford Chesnut, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Ford, Nos. CR-91-429; CA-97-102-AM (E.D.

Va. Apr. 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       433
<OTHER-SE>                                     (433)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               190,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (190,047)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (190,047)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (190,047)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.17)


</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2991EM

_____________ Donald Cayce, * * Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Amerisure Insurance Company of * Detroit, Michigan, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: February 11, 1999

Filed: February 18, 1999

_____________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, and FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. DonaldCayce appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in Cayce's action to recover for injures suffered in an automobile accident under the uninsured and underinsured provisions of his policy with Amerisure Insurance Company of Detroit, Michigan. We review a grant of summary judgment under a well-establishedstandard. Because this is a diversity action, we review de novo questions of state law. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied the district court correctly applied the controlling law and the record supports the district court's ruling. Because a comprehensive opinion in this diversity-2-

case would lack precedential value, we affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ezequiel Alvarez, * From the 42nd District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 26240A.

Vs. No. 11-17-00282-CR * November 21, 2019

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Stretcher, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6834

ROBERT LEWIS BRANTNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EUGENE M. NUTH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96-

75)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lewis Brantner, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Mary Ellen Barbera, Assistant Attorney General,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Brantner v. Nuth, No. CA-96-75 (D. Md. May 14, 1997). See Lindh v.

Murphy, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
|   | (1)      | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the date and for the periods indicated. |
|--------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 31, 2011                                                                        |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                 |
| /s/ Frank J. Sansone                                                                      |
| Frank J. SansoneChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF GUMBINER, SAVETT, FINKEL, FINGLESON & ROSE, INC.,**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Axesstel, Inc. 

San Diego, California 

 

We hereby consent to the use inthe Prospectus constituting a part of this Registration Statement on Form S-3, Registration No. 333-115168, of our report dated March 18, 2004, except for the restatement as described in Note 2 which is as of September 30, 2004, relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Axesstel, Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2003, which is incorporated by reference in that Prospectus. 

 

We also consent to the reference to us under the caption “Experts” in the Prospectus. 

 

 

/s/ Gumbiner, Savett, Finkel, Fingleson & Rose, Inc. 

GUMBINER, SAVETT, FINKEL,FINGLESON & ROSE, INC. 

 

Santa Monica,California 

October 12, 2004
<PAGE>

                        EXHIBIT 99(B)--CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                           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 of Sycamore Networks, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Frances M. Jewels, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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:

      (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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


                                                /s/  FRANCES M. JEWELS
                                        --------------------------------------
                                                   Frances M. Jewels
                                        Chief Financial Officer, Vice President,
                                              Finance and Administration,
                                                Secretary and Treasurer

October 24, 2002
#### In the Matter of Raymond F. Mulhaul, Petitioner, v Debra H. Levine, Respondent. Samantha Mulhaul, Nonparty Appellant.

Submitted December 29, 2008;

decided February 17, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
The HONORABLE THOMAS M. REAVLEY, United States Circuit Judge for *

the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2399

___________

Aderemi A. Alli, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Minneapolis Public Housing *

Authority, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 13, 1997

Filed: July 21, 1997

___________

Before LOKEN, REAVLEY, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

Aderemi Alli was hired by the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority as an open

account specialist. After poor performance evaluations by two different supervisors,

Alli was terminated near the end of his six-month probationary period. He then

commenced this action under Title VII and the Minneapolis Civil Rights Act

contending that he was wrongfully terminated because of his African-American race.
The HONORABLE DAVID S. DOTY, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

-2-

 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Housing Authority, 1

concluding that it had presented credible evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory

reason for Alli’s termination -- his poor work performance -- and that Alli had failed

to come forward with credible evidence that this reason was a pretext for unlawful race

discrimination. Alli appeals. After careful review of the record, we conclude that

summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated by the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felix Edwards, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 652]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), imposed April 28, 2005, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Miller, J.E, Santucci, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.