alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Winchester Global Trust Company Limited, Respondent, v Thomas B. Donovan et al., Appellants.

[873 NYS2d 130]

In an action, inter alia, to set aside allegedly fraudulent conveyances of assets, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), dated July 23, 2007, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for a preliminary injunction, among other things, prohibiting them from “directly or indirectly selling, transferring ... or otherwise disposing of’ their assets, “whether in the ordinary course of business or otherwise” during the pendency of this action.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant First Secured Capital Corporation is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from *834by the defendants Thomas B. Donovan, Pamela Donovan, Thomas B. Donovan Family Trust, First Secured Lien Corporation, Secured Lien Corporation, Secured Partners Corporation, Secured Property Corporation, REO Corp., and First Paper Corporation, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the fixing of an appropriate undertaking pursuant to CPLR 6312.

The plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and a balance of the equities in its favor, and thus the Supreme Court properly awarded it a preliminary injunction *(see*CPLR 6301; *Glorious Temple Church of God in Christ v Dean Holding Corp.,*35 AD3d 806, 807 [2006]; *Ruiz v Meloney,*26 AD3d 485, 486 [2006]). The plaintiffs submission recounted numerous improper asset transfers by the defendants Thomas B. Donovan, Pamela Donovan, Thomas B. Donovan Family Trust, First Secured Lien Corporation, Secured Lien Corporation, Secured Partners Corporation, Secured Property Corporation, REO Corp., and First Paper Corporation (hereinafter the appellants) as well as their attempts to conceal them, in derogation of the plaintiffs perfected security interest. When considered in conjunction with other relevant factors disclosed by the parties’ submissions, the uncontrolled sale and disposition by the appellants of their assets would threaten to render ineffectual any judgment which the plaintiff might obtain herein *(see*CPLR 6301). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for a preliminary injunction *(see Ying Fung Moy v Hohi Umeki,*10 AD3d 604, 604 [2004]).

In imposing a preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court was required to direct the plaintiff to post an undertaking *(see*CPLR 6312 [b]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the fixing of an appropriate undertaking *(see Winzelberg v 1319 50th Realty Corp.,*52 AD3d 700, 702 [2008]; *Buckley v Ritchie Knop, Inc.,*40 AD3d 794, 796 [2007]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P, Miller, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       5,465,254
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  703,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,186,051
<PP&E>                                       1,892,266
<DEPRECIATION>                                 851,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,596,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,775,851
<BONDS>                                      8,333,333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,100
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,481,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,596,332
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,493,665
<CGS>                                        1,134,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,490,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               120,576
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             237,840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                251,155
<INCOME-TAX>                                   362,364
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            613,519
<DISCONTINUED>                                  19,444
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (594,075)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.11)


</TABLE>
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-63-2014]

On September 8, 2014, the New Jersey Department of State, grantee of FTZ 44, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board on behalf of Panasonic System Communications Company of North America, within Subzone 44G, in Rockaway, New Jersey.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (79 FR 56058, 9-18-2014). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: January 6, 2015.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-00177 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Overstock.com, Inc., Appellant, v New York State Department of Taxation and Finance et al., Respondents.

Decided May 5, 2009

Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, to the Appellate Division, First Department, upon *831the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [2]; § 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

I, Christoph Westphal, certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

a)             designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)            evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)             allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)            anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant internal control over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ CHRISTOPH WESTPHAL                |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |   |
|                                  |   |
| Christoph Westphal                    |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| (principal executive officer)         |   |
| Date: April 29, 2008             |   |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 4.56


                     [Letterhead of Xinhua Finance Limited]


Date: June 30, 2007

To:  Xinhua Finance Media Limited ("XFMedia")

Re:  Waiver of inter-company balance


This is to confirm our agreement to irrevocably waive the entire amount of an
inter-company balance owed by XFMedia to us of US$26,969,786 as of June 30,
2007.




Sealed with the common seal of
Xinhua Finance Limited and
Signed by Fredy Bush, its
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Fredy Bush
Fredy Bush
----

----

|   | 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/  Samuel      J. Alderson                                |   |   |   |
| Samuel      J. AldersonChief      Financial OfficerApril      8, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of E-centives, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

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

and 

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

Dated this 29th day of March, 2007
The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3725

___________ Alonzo Echols, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the Unite d States * District Court for the The Jones Store Co.; Monty Martin; * Western District of Missouri. Russell England; Charles Sartain, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: Jun e 5, 1997 Filed: June 10, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Alonzo Echols appeals from the district court's dismissal of his personal injury 1 action f or failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders, and the denial of hi s motion to reconsider. After reviewing the record and the parties' submissions, w e-2-

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Sterling v. United-3-

States , 985 F.2d 411, 412 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (standard of review)
. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In the Matter of Benjamin D. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Vianuvia D., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 406]

— Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about May 30, 2012, which, upon a fact-finding determination that appellant mother had neglected the subject children, transferred custody of them to petitioner until the next permanency hearing, and directed her to comply with drug treatment at VIP and participate in family therapy with one of the children, unanimously affirmed, insofar as it brings up for review the fact-finding determination, and the appeal therefrom otherwise dismissed, without costs, as moot. Appeal from fact-finding order of the same court and Judge entered on or about April 25, 2012, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the order of disposition.

The court properly found that the mother had neglected the subject children through the infliction of excessive corporal punishment on them, based on the testimony of the caseworker and the hospital records, which indicated that she hit one of the children in the face on one occasion, and hit him with metal bed poles, after a visit from the caseworker. The children’s statements concerning the mother’s conduct were corroborated by the caseworker’s observation of a scratch on one child’s jaw, and *435the hospital records *(see Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 117-118 [1987]).

The court properly drew a negative inference from the mother’s failure to testify *(see Matter of Rosemary V. [Jorge V.],*103 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2013]). ACS could not have requested that the court draw a negative inference against the mother until after she rested her case.

The court properly concluded, based on the mother’s excessive corporal punishment directed at her son, that she had derivatively neglected her daughter *(see Matter of Joseph C. [Anthony C.],*88 AD3d 478, 479 [1st Dept 2011]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Christie’s, Inc., Respondent, v William I. Koch, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 57]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J. ), entered on or about September 26, 2012, which granted petitioner Christie’s Inc.’s motion for a protective order quashing respondent’s subpoena, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This matter concerns an out-of-state subpoena issued by respondent seeking documents for use in his California civil action against Rudy Kurniawan, alleging the fraudulent sale of counterfeit wine in 2005 and 2006 through another auction house, not Christie’s.

The motion court correctly held, and respondent does not dispute, that the original subpoena was overbroad. Although the motion court failed to analyze the narrowed subpoena, which sought three rather than the nine original categories of information, we find, in analyzing the subpoena even as narrowed, that the subpoena was properly quashed *(see Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 11*NY3d 843, 845 [2008]).

The first two categories in the narrowed subpoena sought information relating to wines sold at Christie’s auctions in April 2007, and September, October, and November 2009. The requests relating to the 2009 auctions exceed the time limits imposed by the court overseeing the California action, which limited discovery from Kurniawan and a third party to documents generated between April 1, 2003 to December 31, 2008. Even assuming that the requested information regarding the April 2007 auction is relevant to the California action *(see e.g.*
      *652
      *Davis v Solondz,*122 AD2d 401, 402 [3d Dept 1986]), that request is duplicative of respondent’s request in a November 2009 subpoena served on Christie’s. Christie’s produced documents in connection with that request, and respondent did not raise any timely objections *(Matter of Smith v Smith,*26 AD2d 922, 922-923 [1st Dept 1966]).

Contrary to respondent’s contentions, the third category of documents, which seeks information relevant to specified paragraphs of the federal criminal complaint filed against Kurniawan, does not relate to similar acts. Those paragraphs relate to Kurniawan’s alleged fraudulent sale of encumbered wine, not counterfeit wine, as alleged in respondent’s California action. As the motion court concluded, given that this request for information has no relevance to prosecution of the California action, it would appear to be an improper “fishing expedition to ascertain the existence of evidence” for use in an attempt to revive a dismissed federal claim against Christie’s *(Law Firm of Ravi Batra, P.C. v Rabinowich,*77 AD3d 532, 533 [1st Dept 2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RACHEL B. SPANN, : 

 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : 

 CIVIL ACTION 14-0368-M 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, : 

Commissioner of 

Social Security, : 

 Defendant. : 

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be entered in favor 

of Plaintiff Rachel B. Spann and against Defendant Carolyn W. 

Colvin.

DONE this 26th day of January, 2015.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00368-M Document 17 Filed 01/26/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Clemmons v. Securitas, Inc.

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

No. 324P07

1. Defs’ Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-1346)

2. Defs’ Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Pit’s Motion to Dismiss PDR

5. Defs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion for Temporary Stay Under Rule 23

6. Pit’s Conditional PDR

7. Defs Motion to Amend PDR

1. Denied 07/11/07 361 N.C. 567

2. Denied 10/11/07

3. Denied 10/11/07

4. Dismissed as Moot 10/11/07

5. Denied 10/11/07

6. Dismissed as Moot 10/11/07

7. Allowed 10/11/07
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Benton H Wilcoxon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Composite Technology
Corporation;

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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

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

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

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

5. I have disclosed, based on my 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,
summarize and report financial information; and

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


Date: August 8, 2005


By: /s/ Benton H Wilcoxon

Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer