alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hispanic Independent Television Sales, LLC, Now Known as Hispanic Media Works, Appellant, v Una Vez Mas, LP, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 60]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered June 7, 2012, which, in this action to collect on accounts receivable purchased in an underlying bankruptcy proceeding, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant’s fourth affirmative defense for recoupment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Nonparties Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. and Azteca America Television Sales, Inc. (collectively Interep) entered into a national television sales representation agreement (sales agreement) with defendant television station. Under the agreement, Interep was to sell television spots and advertising time on behalf of defendant, in exchange for a commission based on *475the amount of revenue from the sales. While it is undisputed that Interep sold television spots and advertising time for defendant, defendant alleged that Interep breached various provisions of the sales agreement. After defendant terminated the agreement, Interep filed for bankruptcy.

During the bankruptcy proceedings, plaintiff purchased from the trustee Interep’s accounts receivable related to defendant’s account pursuant to an asset purchase agreement, which the Bankruptcy Court approved under the Bankruptcy Code (11 USC § 363 [f]). Plaintiff commenced this action to collect on the accounts receivable, and defendant asserted a “defense” for recoupment of damages arising from Interep’s alleged breach of the sales agreement. Plaintiff argues that the “defense” should be dismissed because it does not sound in recoupment, but rather, is an independent breach of contract claim against Interep that has been extinguished by the “free and clear” sale under section 363 (f).

Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion to dismiss the defense. The affirmative defense of recoupment is not an “interest” that is extinguishable by a “free and clear” sale under the Bankruptcy Code *(see Folger Adam Sec., Inc. v DeMatteis/MacGregor JV,*209 F3d 252, 260-261 [3d Cir 2000]). Further, we reject plaintiffs contention that recoupment may not be applied because Interep’s performance and alleged breach of the sales agreement constitute independent and unrelated transactions *(see Westinghouse Credit Corp. v D’Urso,*278 F3d 138, 147 [2d Cir 2002] [“Recoupment may only be applied in bankruptcy where both debts . . . arise out of a single integrated transaction . . . .” (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted)]). Defendant’s recoupment defense arises out of the same transaction (i.e., the same contract) that forms the basis for plaintiffs action against defendant *(see Hispanic Ind. Tel. Sales, LLC v Kaza Azteca Am. Inc.,*2012 WL 1079959, *7, 2012 US Dist LEXIS 46239, *20 [SD NY, Mar. 30, 2012, No. 10 Civ. 932(SHS)]).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions, including its argument that defendant’s defense is barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel, and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
##### 



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 September, 2004 Commission File Number: 00-30082 Envoy Communications Group Inc.
(Translation of registrants name into English)172 John Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 1X5
(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 o
 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 x
 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. Envoy Communications Group Inc.
(Registrant)By:
    /s/ Geoffrey B. GenoveseName:
    Geoffrey B. GenoveseDated: February 7, 2005
    
    Title:
    President, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



Exhibit Index Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press release on year end results.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel PAHIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10616.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Beverly Wee Sameshima, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alexander Silvert, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Pahia appeals from his 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess five grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion by delegating its authority to determine whether he had to take a non-treatment drug test and to determine the actual number of non-treatment drug tests to a probation officer, in violation of *United States v. Stephens,*424 F.3d 876 (9th Cir.2005). We disagree.

The district court did not delegate its authority, and properly determined the maximum number of tests appellant was subject to, complying with the requirements of *Stephens. See id.*at 882-83, 884 n. 5.

Appellant also contends that because the oral pronouncement at sentencing conflicts with the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls and the case should be remanded. However, viewing the sentencing transcript as a whole, the district court’s intention is clear. Accordingly, we conclude that the written judgment resolves any ambiguity and should stand. *See Green v. United States,*447 F.2d 987, 987 (9th Cir.1971) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Lisa Smith, Respondent, v Andrew Matinale et al., Appellants.

[873 NYS2d 132]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered May 22, 2008, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants satisfied their initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident through the submission of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the affirmed reports of their examining physicians *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition, in particular the affirmations of her treating orthopedist and neurologist, as well as the affirmation of her radiologist, was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Moreover, both the plaintiff’s orthopedist and the plaintiff, in her own affidavit, adequately explained any gaps in her medical treatment. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Florio, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 8, 2014, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), IMS Global Learning 
Consortium, Inc. (``IMS Global'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, CODE--Open University of Japan, Chiba, 
Japan; Fulton County Schools, Atlanta, GA; Qualcomm Incorporated, San 
Diego, CA; Scholastic Inc., New York, NY; and TurnItIn, Oakland, CA, 
have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Scientia, Cambridge, United Kingdom, has withdrawn as parties 
to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IMS Global intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global filed its original notification 
pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
18, 2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 61098).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-30788 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2482 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2482

     To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the 
accessibility of mental health care providers and services for members 
  of the Armed Forces serving on active duty, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2023

   Mr. Buchanan (for himself, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mrs. Kiggans of 
 Virginia, and Ms. Pettersen) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the 
accessibility of mental health care providers and services for members 
  of the Armed Forces serving on active duty, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY ON ACCESSABILITY OF MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS AND 
              SERVICES FOR ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a study on the 
accessibility of mental health care providers and services for members 
of the Armed Forces serving on active duty, including an assessment 
of--
            (1) the accessibility of mental health care providers on 
        military installations;
            (2) the accessibility of inpatient services for mental 
        health care for such members; and
            (3) steps that may be taken to improve such accessibility.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate a report containing the findings of the study under subsection 
(a).
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Diana B., Appellant-Respondent, v Lorry B., Respondent-Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 679]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the maternal grandmother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.H.O.), dated August 23, 2012, as awarded the mother liberal supervised visitation with the subject child, and the mother cross-appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of the same order.

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

*929In adjudicating visitation rights, the most important factor to be considered is the best interests of the child *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). “[A] noncustodial parent should have reasonable rights of visitation, and the denial of those rights to a natural parent is a drastic remedy which should only be invoked when there is substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the child” *(Matter of Mera v Rodriguez,*73 AD3d 1069, 1069 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba,*60 AD3d 774, 775 [2009]; *Matter of Grisanti v Grisanti,*4 AD3d 471, 473 [2004]). The determination of whether visitation should be supervised is a matter left to Family Court’s sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound basis in the record *(see Matter of Lorraine D. v Widmack C.,*79 AD3d 745, 746 [2010]; *Matter of Smith v Roberts,*67 AD3d 688, 689 [2009]). Here, the Family Court’s determination to award liberal visitation to the mother, and to require that such visitation should be supervised, has a sound basis in the record.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
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.

Donald Cayce 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-established standard. 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2260 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2260

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
  of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Office of the Under 
            Secretary for Food Safety for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
  of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Office of the Under 
            Secretary for Food Safety for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, OFFICE OF 
              THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD SAFETY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

     Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Office of the Under 
Secretary for Food Safety for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $800,000.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

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 China Green Creative, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chen Feng, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.     The Company’s Report 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.

Date:  September 2, 2009

/s/    Chen Feng

Chen Feng, Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
     the balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages 2 and 3 of
     the Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its
     entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000318852
<NAME>                        COLORADO WYOMING RESERVE C0MPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars


<S>                             <C>          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000  JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1999  JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999  DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1            1
<CASH>                          100,820      100,820
<SECURITIES>                    0            0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,904        1,904
<ALLOWANCES>                    0            0
<INVENTORY>                     0            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                104,224      104,224
<PP&E>                          589,723      589,723
<DEPRECIATION>                  (13,026)     (13,026)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  680,921      680,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           62,950       62,950
<BONDS>                         0            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0            0
<PREFERRED>                     0            0
<COMMON>                        106,077      106,077
<OTHER-SE>                      511,894      511,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    680,921      680,921
<SALES>                         0            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0            0
<CGS>                           0            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   24,431       41,782
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (115,500)    (234,701)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (115,500)    (234,701)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0            0
<CHANGES>                       0            0
<NET-INCOME>                    (115,500)    (234,701)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (0.01)       (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.01)       (0.02)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2**Certifications**I, Jon D. Greenwood, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of MDI, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Dated: August 15, 2005         By/s/ Jon D. Greenwood    Jon D. Greenwood    Chief Financial Officer