alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David R. Caplan, Appellant, v Lawrence E. Tofel, Defendant, and Tofel, Karan & Partners, P.C., Respondent.

[871 NYS2d 656]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated March 8, 2007, which, upon a jury verdict, directed the entry of a judgment in favor of the defendant Tofel, Karan & Partners, EC., on its counterclaim and against him in the principal sum of $34,122.25, and (2) from a judgment of the same court entered March 9, 2007, which, upon the order, is in favor of the defendant Tofel, Karan & Partners, EC., and against him in the principal sum of $34,122.25.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The Supreme Court has broad discretion in determining the materiality and relevance of proffered evidence *(see Hyde v**660*County of Rensselaer,*51 NY2d 927 [1980]; *Klempner v Leone,*277 AD2d 287 [2000]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion in limine to exclude certain evidence. The challenged evidence was relevant either to the nature of the services performed by the respondent law firm for the appellant, or to the appellant’s credibility. Further, the Supreme Court properly declined to admit into evidence a copy of an order in underlying litigation as cumulative to testimony already received concerning the outcome of that litigation *(see Cor Can. Rd. Co., LLC v Dunn & Sgromo Engrs., PLLC,*34 AD3d 1364 [2006]; *Clemons v Vanderpool,*289 AD2d 1078, 1079 [2001]). Mastro, J.E, Miller, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### Barbara Stewart, as Executor of Archibald Stewart, Deceased, Respondent, v Guy E.C. Maitland et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[869 NYS2d 784]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered November 7, 2007, awarding plaintiff $2,866,402.75 against defendants Maitland, Guida, International Registries and Oban, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since plaintiffs counsel’s opening statement at trial was not part of the evidence, it did not “open the door” to conversations between the decedent and the judgment debtors herein, or otherwise constitute a waiver of the provisions of CPLR 4519, concerning the subject memorandum of agreement (see *Matter of Wood,*52 NY2d 139 [1981]; *cf. Matter of Berardini,*238 App Div 433, 435 [1933], *affd*263 NY 627 [1934]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl McCarthy, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 803]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County *765(Kron, J.), rendered February 24, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence in light of, inter alia, certain alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the People’s witnesses. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]; *People v Kinard,*96 AD3d 976 [2012]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court’s handling of a certain jury note violated the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in *People v O’Rama (78*NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]) is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Mateo,*53 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2008]; *People v Cintron,*273 AD2d 84 [2000]), and we decline to reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2254 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2254

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
 of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Office of 
 the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs 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, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Office of 
 the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs 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, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, 
              OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND 
              REGULATORY PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

     Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Office of the 
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $901,000.
                                 <all>
```
|   | (1)      | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,  and |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2)      | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      at the date and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 6, 2009                                                   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                |
| /s/      Dean Marks                                                      |
| Dean      MarksChief      Executive Officer (Principal ExecutiveOfficer) |

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10868]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,103]


Dan Draexlmaier Automotive North America, Duncan, SC; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 4, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Dan Draexlmaier Automotive North 
America, Duncan, South Carolina. The workers at the subject facility 
are engaged in program management, sales and logistics related to the 
production of interior systems for automobiles.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10868 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE> 1

Exhibit 99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diatect International Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the "Report"), I,
Jay W. Downs, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/S/ Jay W. Downs

Jay W. Downs
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
#### In the Matter of Michael Brennan et al., Appellants, v Metropolitan Transportation Authority et al., Respondents.

[972 NYS2d 2381]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered January 27, 2012, denying petitioners’ motion to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners’ stated ignorance of the requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e is not a reasonable excuse for failure to timely file a notice of claim (see *Rodriguez v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. [Jacobi Med. Ctr.],*78 AD3d 538 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*17 NY3d 718 [2011]). Petitioners also failed to demonstrate that the delay was due to petitioner Michael Brennan’s injuries since he returned to work well before the motion to serve a late notice of claim was filed.

Although the absence of a reasonable excuse does not compel denial of the motion (see *Renelique v New York City Hous. Auth.,*72 AD3d 595 [1st Dept 2010]), petitioners also failed to show that respondents or their insurance carrier had actual knowledge of the claim in that there was no evidence that the supervisor’s report or witness statement were provided to respondents. Respondents’ search of their files failed to disclose these documents or the presence of an inspector employed by respondents on the scene at the time of the accident. The documents provided by petitioners’ concerning Michael Brennan’s workers’ compensation claim are insufficient since they do not state any facts suggesting that his injuries were due to respondents’ negligence or that they are vicariously liable for the conduct of petitioner’s employer.

Moreover, with respect to prejudice to respondents, it is uncontested that the conditions at the scene of the accident have changed (see *e.g. Matter of DelValle v City of New York,*242 *438AD2d 382 [2d Dept 1997]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ.
Order entered August 29 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 10
- 01133
- CV
ELIZABETH W. CELMER , Appellant

V.
CHARLES MCGARRY , Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. DC
- 09
- 3023
- E



### O RDER Appellee’s August 27, 2013 unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing is GRANTED . It is ORDERED that the time for filing appellee’s motion for rehearing is extended from August 23, 2013 to August 30,
2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

 

 

KPMG Auditores Independentes

Rua Arquiteto Olavo Redig deCampos, 105 - 11o andar

Edifício EZ Tower - TorreA

CEP 04711-904 – SãoPaulo/SP

C +55 11 3940-1500

kpmg.com.br

 

 

November 11, 2019

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

 

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

We were previously principalaccountants for Gafisa S.A., and, under the date of April 27, 2018, we reported on the consolidated financial statements of GafisaS.A. as of and for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingas of December 31, 2017. On April 27, 2018, we were dismissed. We have read Gafisa S.A.'s statements included under Item 16F ofits Form 20-F dated November 11, 2019, and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagreewith Gafisa S.A that BDO RCS Auditores Independentes were not engaged regarding the application of accounting principles to a specifiedtransaction, the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on Gafisa S.A.’s consolidated financial statements and neithera written report was provided to Gafisa S.A. or oral advice was provided that BDO concluded was an important factor consideredby Gafisa S.A. in reaching a decision as to the accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue.

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

/s/ KPMG AuditoresIndependentes
Confirmation Agreement dated May 8, 2007



 Exhibit 10.9 
 CONFIRMATION 
 THIS CONFIRMATION (the “Confirmation”) is executed by and
between HUNGARIAN TELEPHONE AND CABLE CORP., a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware (“HTCC”), and TDC A/S, a company organized under the laws of Denmark (“TDC”) on May 8,
2007. 
 WHEREAS, the parties have on March 6, 2007, entered into a secondment agreement (the “Secondment
Agreement”) relating to the secondment by TDC of the services of ALEX WURTZ (the “Principal”) to HTCC upon the terms set out in the Secondment Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties wish to cancel the secondment of the services of the Principal with effect as of April 30, 2007; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties hereto confirm their mutual agreement with respect to cancellation
of the secondment of the services of the Principal as follows: 
 1. Cancellation of Secondment. With reference to Clause 2(i) of the
Secondment Agreement the parties hereto confirm their agreement to cancel the secondment of the Principal with effect from May 1, 2007. 
 2. Reimbursement. HTCC shall remain liable for reimbursement of the fees, costs and expenses set out in Clause 4 of the Secondment Agreement in accordance with the terms set out in the Secondment Agreement to the extent that such
fees, costs and expenses relate to the period until April 30, 2007. HTCC shall not be liable for reimbursement of any fees, costs or expenses relating to the period from May 1, 2007 and onwards. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, HTCC and TDC have executed this Confirmation as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	HUNGARIAN TELEPHONE AND CABLE CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John B. Ryan

		 	Name: John B. Ryan
		 	Title: Chairman, Audit Committee


  

			
	TDC A/S
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jesper Theill Eriksen

		 	Name: Jesper Theil Eriksen
		 	Title: President, TDC Mobile International
#### Debra H., Appellant, v Janice R., Respondent.

Submitted August 10, 2009;

decided September 1, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 460.

Motion by Citizens’ Committee for Children of New York et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted, three copies of the brief to be served and an original and 24 copies filed within 30 days.
#### Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Respondent, v Jared King, Appellant.

Submitted March 16, 2009;

decided May 12, 2009

Motion by Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
#### State v. Garibay

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 463

No. 301P06

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-444)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 05/03/07

3. Denied 05/03/07
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rigoberto Benitez, Appellant.

Submitted January 5, 2009;

decided February 12, 2009

Motion to dismiss the appeal herein granted and appeal dismissed, without prejudice to defendant making a motion to reinstate the appeal should he return to this Court’s jurisdiction (s*ee People v Diaz,*7 NY3d 831 [2006]).

*735Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-16 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00796]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-334-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 01/13/15 
Negotiated Rates--ConEdison Energy Inc. (HUB) 2275-89 to be effective 
1/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150113-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-335-000.
    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 2015 Third 
Revised Volume No. 1 Title Page Change to be effective 1/14/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150113-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-336-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 20150113 Contact 
Information Change to be effective 1/14/2015.
    Filed Date: 1/13/15.
    Accession Number: 20150113-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/26/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 14, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00796 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 15, 2009 

Order 

 

September 15, 2009 

136680(103) 

 

EDITH KYSER, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 136680 

v COA: 272516 

Leelanau CC: 04-006531-CZ 

KASSON TOWNSHIP, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Michigan Municipal League for 

extension to August 31, 2009 of the time for filing their brief amicus curiae is 

considered and it is GRANTED.
#### In the Matter of Quincy Wade, Appellant, v Dale Artus, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Decided June 9, 2009

*873Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mountains West Exploration, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).

I, Douglas Stukel, Treasurer and principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(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.

 

|                 |   |   |              |                          |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|-------------------------------|
| Dated:  May 21, 2007 |   |   | /s/Douglas Stukel |
|                 |   |   |              | Douglas Stukel, Treasurer     |
|                 |   |   |              | (principal financial officer) |