alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael I. Knopf et al., Appellants, v Michael Hayden Sanford et al., Respondents. Michael I. Knopf et al., Appellants, v Michael Hayden Sanford, Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 893]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered September 11, 2012, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to extend the notices of pendency, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the notices of pendency, filed on September 18, 2009, extended for a period of three years from the date of expiration of the notices.

Elaintiffs’ complaint asserts a cause of action for a constructive trust, and alleges that defendant Michael Sanford promised, in exchange for certain loans, that he would purchase two properties for the benefit of the subject hedge fund and provide plaintiffs with a mortgage on those properties, but has refused to transfer the properties to the hedge fund or to plaintiffs. This cause of action, as pleaded, was sufficient to support the issuance of the subject notices of pendency, since it seeks a judgment that “would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of, real property” (CFLR 6501; *Mazzei v Kyriacou,*98 AD3d 1088, 1090 [2d Dept 2012]).

Elaintiffs established good cause for extending the notices of pendency *(see*CFLR 6513). The evidence shows that the delay in ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss resulted in a stay of discovery and significantly delayed the adjudication of the action *(see L&L Painting Co. v Columbia Sussex*Corp., 225 AD2d 670, 670-671 [2d Dept 1996]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4276-4277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1177]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Advisory Circular 35-1, Certification of Propellers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory circular.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 
35-1, Certification of Propellers. This AC provides guidance and 
describes acceptable methods, but not the only methods, that may be 
used to demonstrate compliance with provisions of the requirements of 
part 35 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 
35).

DATE: The Engine and Propeller Directorate issued AC 35-1 on December 
29, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Federal Aviation Administration, 
Attn: Jay Turnberg, Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-111, 12 
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone: (781) 
238-7116; fax: (781) 238-7199; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d474c540359585f434f485f4a6d4b4c4c034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1bbb0a8ffa5a4a3bfb3b4a3b691b7b0b0ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a>.
    We have filed in the docket all substantive comments received, and 
a report summarizing them. If you wish to review the docket in person, 
you may go to the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you wish to contact the 
above individual directly, you can use the above telephone number or e-
mail address provided.
    How to Obtain Copies: A paper copy of AC 35-1 may be obtained by 
writing to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent 
Distribution Office, DOT Warehouse, SVC 121.23, Ardmore East Business 
Center, 3341Q 75th Ave., Landover, MD 20785, telephone 301-322-5377, or 
by faxing your request to the warehouse at 301-386-5394. The AC will 
also be available on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies (then click on ``Advisory Circulars'').

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.


[[Page 4277]]


    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts on December 29, 2008.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-1177 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER FOROUZESH,

individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56355

D.C. No. 

2:16-cv-03830-PA-AGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2018** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Alexander Forouzesh timely appeals from the dismissal with

prejudice of this diversity action, which alleged a variety of California tort and

statutory claims. On de novo review of this dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of

FILED

MAR 12 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1159

(9th Cir. 2012), we affirm.

The statutory claims fail as a matter of law because no reasonable consumer

would think (for example) that a 12-ounce "iced" drink, such as iced coffee or iced

tea, contains 12 ounces of coffee or tea and no ice. See Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838

F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying the "reasonable consumer" standard to

California claims and upholding the dismissal with prejudice of a similarly

speculative claim).

The fraud claim fails for the same reason because (even assuming that there

was a representation) justifiable reliance is absent. See Lazar v. Superior Court,

909 P.2d 981, 984 (Cal. 1996) (holding that justifiable reliance is a required

element of a fraud claim).

The claim for breach of express warranty fails because the complaint

contains no allegation that Defendant promised that the iced drinks in question

would contain a specific amount of liquid, as distinct from a total amount of liquid

and ice. See Viggiano v. Hansen Natural Corp., 944 F. Supp. 2d 877, 893–95

(C.D. Cal. 2013) (stating elements of express warranty claim in California).

2
Finally,

1

 the district court did not abuse its discretion, Leadsinger, Inc. v.

BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008), by denying leave to

amend. The court permissibly concluded that the defects in Plaintiff’s theories of

liability cannot be cured, so that the requested amendment would have been futile.

AFFIRMED.

1

 Plaintiff has waived any argument that dismissal of the additional claims

was erroneous, because his opening brief does not address those claims. Dilley v.

Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1995).

3
|   | 1. | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ending June 30,      2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for      the period ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      China Advanced Construction Materials Group,  Inc. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      January 14, 2009                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                             |   |
| /s/Xianfu Han                                    |   |
| Xianfu      HanPrinicipal      Executive Officer |   |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6076** 

KENNETH EDWARD BARBOUR , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

– Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. F. Bradford Stillman, Magistrate Judge. ( 2:09

- cv - 00302

- MSD

- FBS )

Submitted : May 20, 2010 Decided : May 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS , Circuit Judge s.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kenneth Edward Barbour, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Edward Barbour seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order directing the Respondent to answer his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2006) petition

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Barbour seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or
col lateral order. Accordingly, we deny what we construe as a motion to expedite a decision in this appeal and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

BRIAN O’NEAL WADDELL, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00034-RLV-5) 

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 26, 2009 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Tanzania Cannon-Eckerle, 

FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, 

North Carolina, Matthew R. Segal, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN 

NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Brian O’Neal Waddell appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United 

States v. Waddell, No. 5:02-cr-00034-RLV-5 (W.D.N.C. June 17, 

2008). See United States v. Hood, 556 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009). 

We deny Waddell’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32








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 WMS Industries, Inc. (“the Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, Brian R. Gamache,
Chief Executive 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:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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.








/s/ Brian R.
Gamache


Brian R.
Gamache


Chief
Executive Officer


February
7, 2008
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                        RETIREMENT OF CONRAD (LORD) BLACK

         Toronto, Canada, November 2, 2004 -- Hollinger Inc. ("Hollinger")
(TSX: HLG.C; HLG.PR.B) announced today the resignation of Conrad (Lord) Black as
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and a director of Hollinger, which resignation
will take effect at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on November 2, 2004.

         Hollinger's principal asset is its approximately 68.0% voting and 18.2%
equity interest in Hollinger International. Hollinger International is an
international newspaper publisher with English-language newspapers in the United
States and Israel. Its assets include the Chicago Sun-Times and a large number
of community newspapers in the Chicago area, The Jerusalem Post and The
International Jerusalem Post in Israel, a portfolio of new media investments and
a variety of other assets.

Media contact:
Jim Badenhausen
646-805-2006

                              www.hollingerinc.com
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 434 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility 

of designating the Wolf House, located in Norfolk, Arkansas, as a unit 

of the National Park System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability 

and feasibility of designating the Wolf House, located 

in Norfolk, Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park 

System, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Wolf House Study Act 

5 of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 434 IS

1 SEC. 2. FINDING. 

2 Congress finds that the Wolf House, located in Nor3 folk, Arkansas, is the oldest 2-story log structure and the 

4 oldest territorial courthouse west of the Mississippi River. 

5 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

6 In this Act: 

7 (1) HOUSE.—The term ‘‘Wolf House’’ means 

8 the structure known by that name located on High9 way 5 in Norfolk, Arkansas. 

10 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

11 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di12 rector of the National Park Service. 

13 SEC. 4. WOLF HOUSE STUDY. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, in consultation 

15 with the State of Arkansas, shall— 

16 (1) carry out a study on the suitability and fea17 sibility of designating the Wolf House as a unit of 

18 the National Park System; and 

19 (2) consider management alternatives for the 

20 Wolf House. 

21 (b) APPLICABLE LAW.—Except as provided by sub22 section (c), section 8(c) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 

23 1a–5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of the 

24 study required by subsection (a). 

25 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

26 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 
3 

•S 434 IS

1 to the Committee on Resources of the House of Represent2 atives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Re3 sources of the Senate a report describing the results of 

4 the study. 

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY




                                                               JURISDICTION OF
SUBSIDIARIES                                                    ORGANIZATION



DermaQuest, Inc.                                                Pennsylvania

MK Diabetic Support Services, Inc.                              Florida

Radamerica, Inc.                                                Maryland

RespiFlow, Inc.                                                 Florida

Steri-Pharm, Inc.                                               New York

The PromptCare Companies, Inc.                                  New Jersey
 
The PromptCare Lung Center, Inc.                                Delaware

Transworld Home HealthCare - Nursing Division, Inc.             Delaware

Transworld Healthcare Puerto Rico, Inc.                         Florida

Health Management, Inc. (49% owned through IMH                  Delaware
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 791 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 791

To suspend temporarily the duty on plasma flat panel screen assemblies 
                        for use in televisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2005

 Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
        referred to the Committee on FinanceYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on plasma flat panel screen assemblies 
                        for use in televisions.

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

SECTION 1. PLASMA FLAT PANEL SCREEN ASSEMBLIES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.85.44    Plasma flat       Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     panel screen                                                            31/2008          ''
                     assemblies for                                                                            .
                     use in
                     televisions
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     8529.90.53)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 632

AN ACT

To authorize the extension of unconditional and permanent

nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent normal trade

relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine, and

for other purposes.

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

2

S 632 ES

1 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

2 Congress finds that Ukraine—

3 (1) allows its citizens the right and opportunity

4 to emigrate, free of any heavy tax on emigration or

5 on the visas or other documents required for emigra6 tion and free of any tax, levy, fine, fee, or other

7 charge on any citizens as a consequence of the desire

8 of such citizens to emigrate to the country of their

9 choice;

10 (2) has received normal trade relations treat11 ment since concluding a bilateral trade agreement

12 with the United States that entered into force on

13 June 23, 1992, which remains in force and provides

14 the United States with important rights;

15 (3) has been found to be in full compliance with

16 the freedom of emigration requirements under title

17 IV of the Trade Act of 1974 since 1997;

18 (4) has committed itself to ensuring freedom of

19 religion and preventing intolerance;

20 (5) has committed itself to continuing its ef21 forts to return religious property to religious organi22 zations in accordance with existing law;

23 (6) has taken significant steps demonstrating

24 its intentions to build a friendly and cooperative re25 lationship with the United States including partici26 pating in peacekeeping efforts in Europe; and
†

3

S 632 ES

1 (7) has made progress toward meeting inter2 national commitments and standards in the most re3 cent Presidential runoff elections, including in the

4 implementation of Ukraine’s new elections laws.

5 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF

6 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO UKRAINE.

7 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN8 SION OF UNCONDITIONAL AND PERMANENT NONDISCRIM9 INATORY TREATMENT.—Notwithstanding any provision of

10 title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.),

11 the President may—

12 (1) determine that such title should no longer

13 apply to Ukraine; and

14 (2) after making a determination under para15 graph (1) with respect to Ukraine, proclaim the ex16 tension of unconditional and permanent nondiscrim17 inatory treatment (permanent normal trade relations

18 treatment) to the products of that country.

19 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

20 On and after the effective date of the extension under sub21 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod-
†

4

S 632 ES

1 ucts of Ukraine, chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act

2 of 1974 shall cease to apply to that country.

Passed the Senate November 18, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 632

AN ACT

To authorize the extension of unconditional and

products of Ukraine, and for other purposes.nent normal trade relations treatment) to thepermanent nondiscriminatory treatment (perma-
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-40133 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Antonio Ruiz, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 5:22-CR-947-2 

______________________________ 

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Antonio Ruiz has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Ruiz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

August 1, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-40133 Document: 00516841726 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
No. 23-40133 

2 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate 

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 23-40133 Document: 00516841726 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0331

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

KYLE JORDAN MILLHOUSE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 13, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 7 2021

07/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0331