alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Magnum Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. DACA51-03-C-0027 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59592 

Lane F. Kelman, Esq. 

Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC 

Philadelphia, PA 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

Lorraine C. Lee, Esq. 

H. Weston Miller, Esq. 

Trial Attorneys 

U.S. Army Engineer District, New York 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE STEMPLER 

It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties' joint motion, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consent judgment, 

the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $675,000. This amount 

is inclusive of interest. No further interest shall be paid. 

Dated: 3 August 2015 

I conc.ur 

~\~ c17 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

,,,.,,., ~. ,/"' /.·--? / / /// 

;;'./>/ / "" );'"""7~/.-?"'-7-'-,hl/_/,,,.._¢ __ -,/l-l:___ 

///1~~~ MARK N. STEMPLER 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59592, Appeal of Magnum 

Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### In the Matter of Edwin Garcia, Appellant, v Department of Corrections and Community Supervision et al., Respondents.

[975 NYS2d 704]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered December 14, 2012 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination of the Board of Parole which denied his request for parole release and ordered his next appearance in 24 months. The Attorney General has advised this Court that petitioner subsequently reappeared before the Board and his request for parole release was again denied. Accordingly, the appeal is now moot and, inasmuch as the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable, must be dismissed (see *Matter of Griffin v Evans,*105 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2013]; *Matter of Hodge v Evans,*102 AD3d 1049, 1049 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 852 [2013]).

Rose, J.P, Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

AMMED HASSAN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0094 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-154825-001

The Honorable Shellie F. Smith, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Krista Wood

Counsel for Respondent

Ammed Hassan, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 11-15-2022
STATE v. HASSAN

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Peter 

B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Ammed Hassan seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

petitioner’s second successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          48,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  319,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    199,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               519,980
<PP&E>                                         684,938
<DEPRECIATION>                               (493,905)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 820,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,615,554
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           80,450
<PREFERRED>                                     28,266
<COMMON>                                        78,946
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,308,904)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   820,432
<SALES>                                        410,356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               410,356
<CGS>                                          691,674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  691,674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               397,796
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (726,491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (726,491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (726,491)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)

        


</TABLE>
IN	THE	UNITED	STATES DISTRICT	COURT

FOR	THE	SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

JAMES	DOUGLAS	LEWIS,	JR. )

AIS	#00302892, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. )				 CIVIL	ACTION	NO.	15-00273-CB-N

)

CYNTHIA	STEWART, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After	 due	 and	 proper	 consideration	 of	 the	 issues	 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)-(C),	Rule	8(b)	of	 the	Rules	Governing	§	2254	

Cases	in	the	United	States	District	Courts,	and	S.D.	Ala.	GenLR	72(a)(2)(R),	and	dated	

May	31, 2016,	is	ADOPTED as	the	opinion	of	this	Court.		

Accordingly,	it	is	ORDERED as	follows:

1. Petitioner	 James	 Lewis’s	28	 U.S.C.	 §	 2241 habeas	 petition (Doc.	 1),	 his	two	

motions	for	discovery	(Docs.	19,	20),	his	motion	for	a	trial	by	jury	(Doc.	21),	

his	motion	to	stay	his	state	court	criminal	proceedings	during	the	pendency	

of	 his	 present	 challenge	 to	 his	 extradition	 (Doc.	 23),	 and	 his	 “Motion	 for	

Injunctive	Relief	and	the	Imposition	of	Sanctions”	(Doc.	31) are DENIED;

2. this	action	is DISMISSED	with	 prejudice,	and judgment shall be	separately	

entered	in	favor	of	the	Respondent	under	Federal	Rule	of	Civil	Procedure	58;

and	

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 34 Filed 07/07/16 Page 1 of 2
3. the	Court	finds	that Lewis not	entitled	to	either	a	Certificate	of	Appealability	

or	to	appeal	in	forma	pauperis.

DONE	and	ORDERED	this	the	7th day	of	July,	2016.

/s/Charles	R.	Butler,	Jr.

SENIOR	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00273-CB-N Document 34 Filed 07/07/16 Page 2 of 2
1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2680

___________

Maureen C. Sewall, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

John G. Csernansky, M.D., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 23, 2007

Filed: May 29, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Maureen Sewall appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of her pro se civil

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon de novo review, see Osborn

v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir. 1990), we conclude that the district court

correctly dismissed Sewall’s complaint against Dr. Csernansky for the reasons

explained by the district court. 
-2-

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s decision. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We

also deny as moot appellee’s pending motion to dismiss. 

______________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOBBY LEE BANKS, AIS #119507 :

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : CIVIL ACTION 14-00319-KD-N

:

CHARLES A. GRADDICK, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the 

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated January 16, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this 

Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, prior to 

service of process, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii), because Plaintiff’s claims 

are either frivolous or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of February 2015.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00319-KD-N Document 15 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maico Lopez-Jimenez, Appellant.

Submitted April 20, 2009;

decided April 30, 2009

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2601 

To require entities that contract with the National Human Trafficking Hotline 

to cooperate with State and local law enforcement agencies when receiving tips via the Hotline. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2023 

Ms. LEE of Florida (for herself and Ms. CASTOR of Florida) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require entities that contract with the National Human 

Trafficking Hotline to cooperate with State and local 

law enforcement agencies when receiving tips via the 

Hotline. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Human Traf5 ficking Hotline Enhancement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONDITION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 107(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the 

8 Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2601 IH

1 7105(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by inserting ‘‘To be eligible 

2 for a grant under this clause, an applicant shall certify 

3 that the applicant will provide, on request, such assist4 ance, in accordance with such limitations on disclosure as 

5 may be applicable under law, and as may be practicable, 

6 to any State or local law enforcement agency with respect 

7 to information received by reason of operation of the hot8 line.’’ before ‘‘The contact information’’. 

9 (b) REPORT.—The Attorney General and the Sec10 retary of Homeland Security shall jointly submit to the 

11 Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Home12 land Security of the House of Representatives and the 

13 Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Home14 land Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a 

15 report on the implementation of section 107(b)(1)(B)(ii) 

16 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 

17 U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)(B)(ii)), as amended by subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EX-35.3
(logo) GMAC RFC


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

Residential Funding Company, LLC

Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust,
Series 2007-RAMPI (the "Issuing Entity")



The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company,
LLC, as servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing
agreement, does hereby certify that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all
material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
14th day of March 2008.


By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name: Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Managing Director
petition for a writ of habeas corpus and releasing Bueno from the 

conditions of lifetime supervision.' Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

Pickering 

J. 

cc/LA 

Parraguirre 

Saitta 

cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge 

Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Turco & Draskovich 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'We note that the district court did not provide findings of fact or 

conclusions of law in its order. To the extent that the district court 

granted relief to Bueno under NRS 176.0931(3), the district court did not 

have the authority to do this, as Bueno did not meet the statutory 

requirements for release from his lifetime supervision sentence. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I947A
EXHIBIT 10.61

  Neah Power Systems, Inc.
  
 Granted Issued Patents
  
  
  	 Patent Number
	 Issue date
	 Subject
	 Title

	 6641948
	 11/4/2003
	 Porous electrode
	 Fuel Cells Having Silicon Substrates and/or Sol-Gel Derived Support Structures

	 6720105
	 4/13/2004
	 Porous electrode
	 Metallic Blocking Layers Integrally Associated with Fuel Cell Electrode Structures and Fuel Cell Electrode Stack Assemblies

	 6808840
	 10/26/2004
	 Porous electrode
	 Silicon-Based Fuel Cell Electrode Structures and Fuel Cell Electrode Stack Assemblies

	 6811916
	 11/2/2004
	 Manufacturing / packaging
	 Fuel Cell Electrode Pair Assemblies and Related Methods

	 6852443
	 2/8/2005
	 Porous electrode
	 Fuel Cells Having Silicon Substrates and/or Sol-Gel Derived Support Structures

	 6924058
	 8/2/2005
	 Liquid/Liquid
	 Hydrodynamic Transport and Flow Channel Passageways Associated with Fuel Cell Electrode Structures and Fuel Cell Electrode Assemblies

	 7105245
	 9/12/2006
	 Cartridge
	 Fuel Cell System Reactant Supply and Effluent Storage Cartridges

	 7118822
	 10/10/2006
	 Manufacturing / packaging
	 Fuel Cell Electrode Pair Assemblies and Related Methods

	 7157177
	 1/2/2007
	 Porous electrode
	 Porous Fuel Cell Electrode Structures Having Conformal Electrically Conductive Layers Thereon

	 7198864
	 4/3/2007
	 Porous electrode
	 Silicon-Based Fuel Cell Electrode Structures   

	 7205665
	 4/17/2007
	 Manufacturing / packaging
	 Porous Silicon Undercut Etching Deterrent Masks and Related Methods

	 7968248
	 6/28/2011
	 Liquid/Liquid
	 Liquid-Liquid Fuel Cell Systems Having Flow-Through Anodes and Flow-By Cathodes
(January 22, 2009)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Rivers, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 790]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J., at CPL article 730 proceedings; Ronald A. Zweibel, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 14, 2004, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court, New York County for a new trial.

The matter was remanded to Supreme Court, New York County for a hearing as to whether defendant was an incapacitated person at the time of his trial (44 AD3d 391 [2007]), and the People failed to reconstruct defendant’s competency at the time of his trial as per order of Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), entered on or about October 15, 2008. Accordingly, the conviction must be vacated. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.
Amendment to Employment Agreement - Robert L. Recchia.



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is
made as of May 24, 2007 by and between Valassis Communications, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and Robert L. Recchia (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement effective as of March 18, 1992, as amended on January 2, 1996, January 3, 1997 and December 9,
1998, December 23, 1999, June 8, 2000, March 14, 2001, July 8, 2002, January 9, 2004 and January 11, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement to reflect an increase in the Executive’s Annual Base
Salary and to extend the term of employment thereunder. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the parties hereto
agree as set forth below. 
 1. Section 1(b) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 “The Employment Agreement shall commence on March 18, 1992 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue until the close
of business on December 31, 2012.” 
 2. The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to
read as follows: 
 “The Executive’s Annual Base Salary (“Annual Base Salary”), payable on a biweekly
basis, shall be at the annual rate of not less than $390,000 effective January 1, 2005 until June 30, 2007 which shall be adjusted to $500,000, effective July 1, 2007.” 
 3. All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 4. This instrument, together with the Employment Agreement, contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Corporation have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above
written. 
  

			
	VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Alan F. Schultz
	Name:	 	Alan F. Schultz
	Title:	 	 Chief Executive Officer

	
	/s/ Robert L. Recchia
	Robert L. Recchia
[PricewaterhouseCoopers Logo] PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP  300 Madison Avenue New York NY 10017 Telephone (646) 471 3000  Facsimile (813) 286 6000 **Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**To the Stockholder of Chase Home Finance LLC: We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that Chase Home Finance LLC (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period"), for asset-backed securities transactions backed by prime residential mortgages serviced on the Real Estate ("RE") servicing system where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period (the "Platform"), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and dete rmining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures *were*not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for the asset-backed securities transactions backed by prime residential mortgages serviced on the real estate ("RE") servicing system where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period is fairly stated, in all material respects. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPFebruary 25, 2008
#### In the Matter of Shahram David Lavian, Petitioner, v Herman Cahn, Respondent.

[872 NYS2d 687]

Application for an *529order pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. All concur. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
#### Rafael FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SILVERSTONE INVESTMENTS, INC., Juan C. Martinez, Jean Marc-Rogliano, Elena Fraga, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 06-11352, 06-13188

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 31, 2006.

Jamie H. Zidell, J.H. Zidell, P.A., Miami Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert M. Einhorn, Zarco *&*Pardo, P.A., Owei Z. Belleh, Bailey *&*Dawes, L.C., Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The district court denied appellant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the jury’s verdict and alternative motion for a new trial on the issue of damages. The court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law because the evidence did not point so overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiff that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the defendants. After reviewing the relevant portions of the trial transcript, we agree with the district court and thus affirm its ruling.

AFFIRMED.
#### John Nelson, Respondent, v Shaner Cable, Inc., Doing Business as El-Mar Communications Co., Appellant.

Submitted January 5, 2009;

decided February 12, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.