alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[920 NE2d 340, 892 NYS2d 284]

#### In the Matter of Edward J. Vomero, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Argued October 15, 2009;

decided November 19, 2009

*841APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Samuel L. Scollar,*Staten Island, and *Marc E. Scollar,*for appellant.

*Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,*New York City *{Tahirih M. Sadrieh*and *Edward F.X. Hart*of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.

*Passarello & LaRosa,*Staten Island *{John Z. Marangos*and *Richard A. LaRosa*of counsel), for GAC Catering, Inc., respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.

A local zoning board has broad discretion when reviewing an application for a zoning variance, but its determination may be set aside if the record reveals that “the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion” *(Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead,*2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004]). In this case, the zoning board’s decision to grant a use variance for the construction of a commercial structure in a residentiallyzoned area was an abuse of discretion. The physical conditions of the parcel relied on by the board did not establish that the property’s characteristics were “unique” as defined by New York City Zoning Resolution § 72-21 (a). Proof of uniqueness must be “peculiar to and inherent in the particular zoning lot” (NY City Zoning Resolution § 72-21 [a]), rather than “common to the whole neighborhood” *(Matter of Clark v Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead,*301 NY 86, 91 [1950], *cert denied*340 US 933 [1951]; *see also Dauernheim, Inc. u Town Bd. of Town of Hempstead,*33 NY2d 468, 471-472 [1974]). The fact that this residentially zoned corner property is situated on a major thoroughfare in a predominantly commercial area does not suffice to support a finding of uniqueness since other nearby residential parcels share similar conditions.

*842Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.
In the 1950s, scientific 

integrity was put into

question by a packet

of salt...

Sean AsTin John Astin Alexander Astin Nelson Kellogg Roald Schrack

WritteN & Directed by José Ricardo García & Produced by Leon Geršković

Evan Casey Adam Cooley Joel Snyder 

www.nist.gov/ad-x2 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
#### Rowland Gureje, Appellant, v Jasmine Richardson et al., Respondents.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided June 9, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]; *Eaton v State of New York,*76 NY2d 824 [1990]).
Exhibit 31.1    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Brandi Iannelli, certify that:  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of TJS Wood Flooring, Inc.;  1. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  2. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  3. I am the Companys certifying officer and am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company is made known to me, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Company's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.    4. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors:  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 26, 2008 By:/s/   Brandi Iannelli Name:  Brandi Iannelli Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

JOHN ELVIN TURNER, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK, 

Respondent. 

No. 67943 

FILED 

JUL i 2 2016 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

This pro se petition was docketed in this court on January 22, 

2015, without payment of the requisite filing fee. On February 17, 2015, 

petitioner submitted a motion for an order to waive Supreme Court filing 

fee. On February 3, 2016, this court issued an order directing petitioner to 

submit an affidavit in support of his motion within 30 days or the petition 

would be dismissed.' To date, petitioner has not paid the filing fee. 

Accordingly, cause appearing, the motion is denied and this petition is 

dismissed. 

It is so ORDERED. 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

TRACE K LINDEMAN 

By: %SULU 

'The order entered on February 3, 2016, was returned as 

undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

(0) 1Q47 
cc: John Elvin Turner 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

(0)-]947
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marion L. Alexander, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 353]

Lahtinen, J.E

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered May 3, 2011, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

In February 2007, after pleading guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance outside of the original container, defendant was sentenced to 45 days in jail and five years of probation. In 2009, defendant admitted to violating her probation and it was thereafter modified to include the requirement that she successfully complete the Clinton County Drug Court program, with the understanding that if she failed to complete the program, her probation would be revoked and she would be resentenced to a prison term of lVs to 4 years. In May 2011, defendant admitted to violating her probation and her drug court program agreement and County Court revoked defendant’s probation and resentenced her to a prison term of *V-k*to 4 years. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s contention that County Court abused its discretion in resentencing her without an updated presentence investigation report is not preserved for our review, inasmuch as our review of the record indicates that she failed to request an updated report, make an objection during resentencing or move to vacate the resentence *(see People v Warren,*87 *1112AD3d 1185, 1186 [2011]; *People v Clark,*80 AD3d 1079, 1079 [2011]; *People v Henkel,*37 AD3d 873, 873 [2007], *lv denied*8 NY3d 985 [2007]). Similarly, the lack of an indication in the record that defendant moved to withdraw her plea or vacate the judgment of conviction renders her claim that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel unpreserved for our review *(see People v Henkel,*37 AD3d at 873; *People v Bullis,*23 AD3d 835, 836 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 774 [2006]). Finally, as to defendant’s claim that her resentence is harsh and excessive, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the resentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Fitzgerald,*100 AD3d 1268, 1269 [2012], lv *denied*20 NY3d 1011 [2013]; *People v Wells,*69 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2010]).

Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golf Rounds.com, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Report’’), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 operation of the Company.

|                      |  |  |                                                                                                           |
|----------------------|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: June 26, 2007 |  |  | /s/ Robert H. Donehew                                                                                     |
|                 |  |  | Robert H. DonehewPresident (Principal Executive Officer) and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) |

----
#### Wilburn H. BROUGHTON, Plaintiff, v. HILL PACKING COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 7830.

United States District Court E. D. South Carolina, Columbia Division.

July 29, 1964.

*566Yarborough & Nettles, Florence, S. C., David S. Goldberg, Charleston, S. C., for plaintiff.

Robinson, McFaddin & Moore, William Elliott, Columbia, S. C., for defendant.

SIMONS, District Judge.

In his Complaint Wilburn H. Broughton sets out five causes of action for slander and a sixth for libel. The motions filed by the defendant refer only to the first cause of action.

The first cause of action alleges:

> “The defendant, its servants, agents and employees, during the period beginning on or about August 15,1960, and ending on or about October 3, 1960 and possibly continuing for some time thereafter, caused to be circulated among such persons the false, slanderous and defamatory information with knowledge of its falsity that plaintiff was a user of ‘bennies’.”

The defendant, pursuant to Rule 12 [e], moved to require a more definite statement of paragraph nine by setting out “the dates, times, places, the names of persons circulating the alleged slanderous statements, and the names of the persons to whom such information was circulated on each of the occasions referred to” in paragraph nine of the first cause of action.

Thereafter the defendant, pursuant to Rule 33, propounded interrogatories to the plaintiff. The first of these interrogatories was:

> 1. When was each of the slanders referred to in paragraph nine of the Complaint uttered?

> A. Where was each uttered ?

> B. ' Who was present?

> C. Who uttered the slander?

> D. Are these alleged slanders the same as those referred to in the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action?

> E. Did the plaintiff hear any of these slanders ?

> F. If so, which?

> G. If the plaintiff was not pres-sent, who informed him of' the alleged slanders?

The plaintiff answered this interrogatory in this fashion:

1. See the answers to Interrogatories 2, 3, 4 and 5 below.

The interrogatories referred to in this, answer (2, 3, 4, 5) asked for information, about the slanders alleged in the second,, third, fourth and fifth causes of action.. Therefore while the plaintiff has not made a direct answer to Interrogatory I D he has by referring to his answers, to Interrogatories 2, 3, 4 and 5 conceded that the first.cause of action alleges no, slander other than those pled in the second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action. His counsel so stated in oral argument.

 While the defendant was entitled to the information requested in its. motion for a more definite statement, [Boling v. Clinton Cotton Mills, 163 S.C. 13, 23, 161 S.E. 195, 199] the plaintiff’s answers to the interrogatories show that, the first cause of action is a duplication of those alleged in the second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action. It is, therefore,

Ordered that summary judgment in favor of the defendant be entered on the first cause of action. It is further

Ordered that the defendant shall have fifteen (15) days from the date hereon to file its responsive pleadings to the Complaint.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 November 23, 2005
 IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED
 
 Canada
    
    0-12014
    
    98-0017682(State or other jurisdiction
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)of incorporation)
 237 Fourth Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    
    T2P 0H6(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 1-800-567-3776
 
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 8.01 Other Events.
  Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (c)
    
    Exhibits.The following exhibit is furnished as part of this report on Form 8-K:
 99.1
    
    Press release of Imperial Oil Limited
announcing that the Mackenzie Gas Project proponents today
advised the National Energy Board that, given recent
progress in a number of key areas, the proponents are now
ready to proceed to public hearings on the proposed
project, with the expectation that recently negotiated
benefits and access agreement terms with northern
Aboriginal groups will be fully ratified and executed in
December 2005.
 SIGNATURES
   IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDate:  November 25, 2005
    By:
    /s/   Brian LivingstonName:
    Brian LivingstonTitle:
    Vice-President, General Counsel and
Corporate SecretaryBy:
    /s/   Brent LatimerName:
    Brent LatimerTitle:
    Assistant Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3964 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3964

 To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor 
                    of Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2006

   Mr. Lott introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor 
                    of Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce.

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

SECTION 1. SENATOR BLANCHE KELSO BRUCE COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMP.

    (a) In General.--The Postmaster General shall issue a commemorative 
postage stamp in honor of Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce.
    (b) Denomination and Design.--The commemorative postage stamp 
issued under this Act shall--
            (1) be issued in the denomination used for 1st class mail 
        up to 1 ounce in weight; and
            (2) bear such designs as the Postmaster General shall 
        determine.
    (c) Issuance Period.--The commemorative postage stamp issued under 
this Act shall--
            (1) be placed on sale as soon as practicable after the date 
        of the enactment of this Act; and
            (2) be sold for such period thereafter as the Postmaster 
        General shall determine.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Felix F. Donkor, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted May 18, 2009;

decided June 30, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elijahwon McNair, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 889]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered August 25, 2011, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the motion of John E Savoca for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant is granted, and he is *743directed to turn over all papers in his possession to the appellant’s new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Del Atwell, Esq., 39 5th Street, East Hampton, N.Y., 11937, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the appellant’s new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, and the respondent shall serve and file its brief within 30 days after the brief on behalf of the appellant is served and filed. By prior decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 21, 2011, the appellant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers, including a certified transcript of the proceedings, and on the briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

The brief submitted by the appellant’s counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]) was deficient. The body of the brief — which was only D/2 pages in length — did not contain a statement of facts, and did not contain any case citations. The brief failed to analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal *(see People v Singleton,*101 AD3d 909, 910 [2012]; *People v Ovalle,*99 AD3d 1023, 1024 [2012]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252, 256 [2011]). Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel acted “as an active advocate on behalf of his . . . client” *(Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d at 256 [internal quotation marks omitted]) or that he diligently examined the record, we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant *(see People v Singleton,*101 AD3d at 910; *People v Ovalle,*99 AD3d at 1024; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d at 258). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)*




In connection with the Annual Report of
SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the
“Partnership”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,
Kevin L. Foxx, President and Chief Executive Officer of SemGroup Energy Partners
G.P., L.L.C., and Alex G. Stallings, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of
SemGroup Energy Partners G.P., L.L.C., certifies, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his
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
Partnership.







/s/ Kevin L.
Foxx


Kevin L.
Foxx


President
and Chief Executive Officer of


SemGroup
Energy Partners G.P., LLC,


general
partner of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.




July 2,
2009







/s/ Alex G.
Stallings


Alex G.
Stallings


Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary of


SemGroup
Energy Partners G.P., LLC,


general
partner of SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P.




July 2,
2009









*A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Report.