alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Eleanor E. Goliger, Deceased. David Goliger, Respondent, v Donna M. Goliger, Respondent. Anne F. Pizzo, Nonparty Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 689]

In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to SCPA 2205 to compel an estate accounting, Anne F. Pizzo, the attorney for the former executor of the estate, appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Riordan, S.), dated February 1, 2007, as, upon a decision of the same court dated June 2, 2006, in effect, fixed the reasonable value of the services she rendered to the executor at the sum of $25,000 and directed that she refund the sum of $144,277.59 to the estate.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the nonparty appellant.

The Surrogate’s Court bears the ultimate responsibility for deciding what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee, and the evaluation of what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee is a matter within the sound discretion of the court *(see Matter of Katz,*55 AD3d 836 [2008]; *Matter of Szkambara,*53 AD3d 502 [2008]; *Matter of Piterniak,*38 AD3d 780, 781 [2007]). “In evaluating what constitutes a reasonable attorney’s fee, factors to be considered include the time and labor expended, the difficulty of the questions involved and the required skill to handle the problems presented, the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation, the amount involved, the customary fee charged for such services, and the results obtained” *(Matter of Szkambara,*
      *73353 AD3d 502, 503 [2008]; *see Matter of Freeman,*34 NY2d 1, 9 [1974]).

Here, the Surrogate providently exercised his discretion in fixing the reasonable value of the services rendered by the appellant to the former executor of the estate at the sum of $25,000, and in directing the refund of the sum of $144,277.59, in consideration of the hours expended by the appellant, the size of the estate, the issues involved, and results achieved *(see Matter of Drossos,*26 AD3d 602, 603 [2006]; *Matter of Tendler,*12 AD3d 520, 521 [2004]; *Matter of Bobeck,*196 AD2d 496, 497-498 [1993]). Mastro, J.P., Miller, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.
NO. 07-00-0356-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	APRIL 2, 2002

	______________________________

	PETROLEUM WHOLESALE, INC., APPELLANT

	V.

	SHABANA ENTERPRISES, INC. AND VARSHA HUSSAIN, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 133RD DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;

	NO. 97-44520; HONORABLE LAMAR MCCORKLE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant Petroleum Wholesale, Inc. filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s judgment that appellees Shabana Enterprises, Inc. and Varsha Hussain recover $11,000 plus interest and attorney’s fees.  The clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been filed.  On May 2, 2001, the appeal was abated at the request of the parties to continue settlement negotiations.  By letter dated December 11, 2001, this Court notified counsel that the appeal had been reinstated and that Petroleum Wholesale’s brief was due to be filed by January 11, 2002.  In response, Petroleum Wholesale filed a motion for extension of time in which to file its brief and the Court granted the motion until February 11, 2002.  The brief was not filed.  By letter dated March 14, 2002, this Court notified counsel of the defect and also directed counsel to reasonably explain the failure to file a brief together with a showing that Shabana Enterprises and Varsha Hussain have not been significantly injured by the delay by March 25, 2002.  Counsel for Shabana Enterprises responded by forwarding copy of a letter dated March 25, 2002, to counsel for Petroleum Wholesale indicating that Shabana Enterprises was withdrawing the settlement agreement and proceeding with the case.  Counsel for Petroleum Wholesale did not respond to this Court’s letter and the brief remains outstanding.

	Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with an order of this Court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(a) and (c).

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice

Do not publish.
#### Maurice New et al., Respondents, v New York State Urban Development Corp. et al., Appellants.

[972 NYS2d 556]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered August 8, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Madison Security Group, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied defendants New York State Urban Development Corp., Twin Parks Southeast Houses Incorporated, Inc., D.U. Second Realty, BSR Management Corp., and Riverside Management Corporation’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions granted, and the complaint dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Defendants met their prima facie burdens by proffering evidence that there was no proof that the assailant who shot plaintiffs was an intruder as opposed to a building resident or guest. Specifically, plaintiffs testified that they could not even *532ascertain the assailant’s race or gender (see *Price v New York City Hous. Auth.,*92 NY2d 553, 558 [1998]). Thus, plaintiffs contention that negligence on part of defendants was a proximate cause of the incident is entirely speculative (see *Maria S. v Willow Enters.,*234 AD2d 177, 178 [1st Dept 1996]). Inasmuch as plaintiffs’ arguments in opposition failed to refute defendants’ evidence, defendants’ motions should have been granted (see *Pagan v Hampton Houses,*187 AD2d 325, 325-326 [1st Dept 1992]).

We add that the affidavit of Madison’s former employee was irrelevant inasmuch as it does not address the issue of how the assailant gained entry into the building (see *Maria S.,*234 AD2d at 178). Moreover, the affidavit appears to have been tailored to avoid the consequences of plaintiffs’ depositions (see *Perez v Abbey Assoc. Corp.,*103 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2013]; *Morrissey v New York City Tr. Auth.,*100 AD3d 464 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing or rendered academic in light of the foregoing. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

NIOSH gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

*Facility:*                             Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.                        

*Location:*                             Livermore, California.                        

*Job Titles and/or Job Duties:*                             All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked in any area.                        

*Period of Employment:*                             January 1, 1974 through December 31, 1995.                        

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to                         *DCAS@CDC.GOV.*

John Howard,

 Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 2015-00685 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Wise, Appellant.

Decided September 17, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 900.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no civil appeal lies from the order of the Appellate Division entered in this criminal proceeding *{see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5601; CPL 450.90).
Deloitte LogoDeloitte & Touche
      llpSuite
  33001100 Walnut
      StreetKansas City,
      MO 64106-2129USATel: +1 816 474
      6180www.deloitte.com




REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Board of
Directors
 The PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc.:
  We have
examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's
Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria,
that Midland Loan Services, Inc., (the "Company"), an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for its role in servicing Commercial Mortgage Backed
Securities Transactions (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December
31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)((B), (C) and (D)),
1122(d)3(ii) through 3(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined
are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to
the Platform. Management's assertion identifies the transactions defined by
management as constituting 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 about the Company's compliance with
the servicing criteria based on our examination.
  Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by 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, including tests on a sample basis of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company
performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria
during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to
selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing
activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the
Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above
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 its role in servicing Commercial Mortgage Backed
Securities Transactions is fairly stated, in all material respects.
      Kansas
City, MO
 February
18, 2008
    Member
      ofDeloitte Touche
      Tohmatsu
<PAGE>
================================================================================

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              Washington, DC 20549

                                    FORM 6-K

                            Report of Foreign Private
                         Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16
                           or 15d-16 of the Securities
                              Exchange Act of 1934*

For the month of November, 2003                 Commission File Number: 333-8960

                       MILLAR WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS LTD.
                    ----------------------------------------
                              (Name of registrant)

                               16640 - 111 Avenue
                                Edmonton, Alberta
                                 Canada T5M 2S5
                    ----------------------------------------
                    (Address of Principal Executive Offices)


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

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


Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information
to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

          Yes  [ ]                                             No  [X]

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

*The registrant is furnishing this report on a voluntary basis.

================================================================================
<PAGE>
                                   SIGNATURES

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                       MILLAR WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS LTD.


Date: November 6, 2003                 By:        /s/  J.R. CONCINI
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  J.R. Concini
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit No.                          Description of Exhibit
-----------       --------------------------------------------------------------

    99.1          Interim Financial Statements for the Nine Months Ended
                  September, 2003

    99.2          Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
                  and Results of Operations

    99.3          Management Commentary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.J.L.

PETITION OF: C.C., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 404 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### Rosa Amelia PARTIDA-BENITEZ; Mayra Guadalupe Medina-Partida; Rosa Maria Medina-Partida, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72073.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 17, 2006.

Carlos A. Cruz, Esq., Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-Distriet, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., P. Michael Truman, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review from the denial of petitioners’ applications for can*125cellation of removal.

Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss in part this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with respect to petitioner Rosa Amelia Partida-Benitez is granted. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002).

Respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition in part with respect to petitioners Mayra Guadalupe Medina-Partida and Rosa Maria Medina-Partida is granted. Petitioners do not challenge the finding that they lack a qualifying relative to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); *Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105,1107 (9th Cir.2003).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

**

 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.
#### In the Matter of Danny Echevarria, Appellant, v Patricia D. Marks, Monroe County Court Judge, Respondent.

Submitted July 13, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 57 AD3d 1479.

Motion for poor person relief granted.
##### 



(FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS LOGO) EXHIBIT NO. 99.1 For immediate release FAIRMONT HOTELS & RESORTS INC. TO RELEASE
THIRD QUARTER EARNINGS TORONTO, September 27, 2004 Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. (FHR) (TSX/NYSE:
FHR) will release its third quarter earnings on October 27, 2004 to be followed
by a conference call that day at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Investors are invited to access the call by dialing 416-405-9328 or
1-800-387-6216. You will be required to identify yourself and the organization
on whose behalf you are participating. A recording of this call will be made
available beginning at 4:30 p.m. on October 27, 2004 through to November 3,
2004. To access the recording please dial 416-695-5800 or 1-800-408-3053 and
use the reservation number 3101928#. A live audio webcast of this conference call will be available via FHRs
investor website (www.fairmont.com/investor). An archived recording of the
webcast will remain available on the website until the next quarterly earnings
conference call. About Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. FHR is one of North Americas leading owner/operators of luxury hotels and
resorts. FHRs managed portfolio consists of 82 luxury and first-class
properties with more than 33,000 guestrooms in the United States, Canada,
Mexico, Bermuda, Barbados and the United Arab Emirates. FHR owns Fairmont
Hotels Inc., North Americas largest luxury hotel management company, as
measured by rooms under management, with 44 distinctive city center and resort
hotels such as The Fairmont San Francisco, The Fairmont Banff Springs and The
Fairmont Scottsdale Princess. FHR also owns Delta Hotels, Canadas largest
first-class hotel management company, which manages and franchises 38 city
center and resort properties in Canada. In addition to hotel management, FHR
holds real estate interests in 22 properties and an approximate 24% investment
interest in Legacy Hotels Real Estate Investment Trust, which owns 24
properties. -30- Contact:
    
    Emma ThompsonExecutive Director Investor RelationsTel: 1-866-627-0642Email: investor@fairmont.comWebsite: www.fairmont.com
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT K. HUDNALL AND SHARON E. 

HUDNALL,

Appellants,

v.

SMITH AND RAMIREZ RESTORATION, 

LLC,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-24-0087-CV

Appeal from the

448th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2015DCV1113)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

Appellants filed a notice of appeal on April 16, 2024. The clerk’s record was filed on 

June 4, 2024, and Appellants’ second amended docketing statement indicated that no reporter’s 

record was taken or requested for this cause. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6, 

Appellants’ brief was due July 5, 2024, 30 days after the clerk’s record was filed. Tex. R. App. P. 

38.6(a)(1).

1

1 Thirty days from June 4 was July 4, a legal holiday. Therefore, Appellants’ deadline was automatically extended to

July 5, the next day that was “not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.” Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a). 
2

On July 16, 2024, the Clerk of this Court sent a notice to Appellants notifying them that 

their brief was overdue, and their appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution if no 

brief and motion for extension to file the same was received within 20 days. Tex. R. App. P. 

38.8(a)(1) (allowing an appellate court to dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution if the 

appellant fails to file a brief). 

As of this date, Appellants have not filed a brief or a motion for an extension of time to file 

their brief. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1); 

42.3(b).

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

August 9, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.