alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 26, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-273 Lower Tribunal No. 21-6474

________________ 

### Noham Kilinsky , Appellant,

vs. 

### Bank Leumi Le-Israel, Ltd ,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Law Offices of David S. Cohen, LC, and Lee N. Bernbaum and David S. Cohen (Orlando), for appellant. The Lieberman Law Firm, P.A., and Mendy Lieberman, for appellee.
Before EMAS, SCALES and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See § 55.606(1)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (providing in pertinent part: “The out-of-country foreign judgment shall not be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if . . . [t]he defendant, prior to the commencement of the proceedings, had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with respect to the subject matter involved. . .”); Kramer v. von Mitschke-Collande, 5 So. 3d 689, 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (once a judgment creditor presents a foreign judgment which on its face awards a monetary sum certain and is final, conclusive, and capable of enforcement, the burden shifts to the judgment debtor to specify and establish a ground for non-recognition of that foreign judgment). See also Vuillermin v. Mitsubishi Elec. Europe BV, 233 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding a defendant “may not avoid the foreign judgment based on lack of personal service [where] he failed to raise the issue initially in the foreign court of competent jurisdiction”).
From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. BRIAN PARINI, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-93-10752 DECISION

On December 23, 2008, the defendant was sentenced for violations of the conditions of a suspended sentence as follows: Count I: A commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, for the offense of Burglary, a felony; and Count II: A commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, for the offense of Burglary, a felony. Counts I and II shall run concurrently with each other and with the sentence in Cause No. DC-06-484. The Court recommended that the Defendant have mental health screening at MASC followed by the Intensive Supervision Program.

On August 6, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Ethan Lerman. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or *59increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of August, 2009.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Lynette Caban, Respondent.

Submitted July 27, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 51 AD3d 455.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 25, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-00365-CV TAMEKA STAPLES, Appellant V. E.H. WALSH CCP, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-01350-E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright The docketing statement and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard dated April 1, 2016, we informed appellant the docke ting statement in this case was due. We cautioned appellant that failure to file the docketing statement within ten days might result in the dismissal of this appeal without further noti ce. By letter dated July 20, 2016, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verifi cation of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to provide written documentation she had b een found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appell ant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, the cler k’s record has not been filed,–2– appellant has not provided the required documen tation, nor has appellant otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

160365F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TAMEKA STAPLES, Appellant
No. 05-16-00365-CV V. E.H. WALSH CCP, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-01350-E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee E.H. WALSH CCP recover its costs of this appeal from appellant TAMEKA STAPLES.
Judgment entered October 25, 2016.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1191

WILLIAM ALEXANDER LARA

- ELIAS , Petitioner ,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : October 24, 2017 Decided: November 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by un published per curiam opinion

. Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland , for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Derek C. Julius, Assistant Director, Jason Wisecup , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Res pondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Alexander Lara

- Elias, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) . We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Lara

- Elias’ merits hearing befo re the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that La ra - Elias’ asylum application is time

- barred

. See Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 196

- 97 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that express language of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012) prevents review of IJ’s finding that applicant did not establish changed or extraordinary circumstances). Accordingly, we dismiss in part the petition for review. Concerning the Board’s denial of withhold ing of removal and protection under the CAT, we conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decis ion. See INS v. Elias

– Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Eligible vehicles - imported from other countries (Non-Canadian)


Download file: Eligible vehicles - imported from other countries (Non-Canadian)
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 5, 2018 t0226

Order 

Clerk

March 5, 2018

155751

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155751

COA: 335968

Wayne CC: 92-000261-FH

GENE ARTHUR BRIDGES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 29, 2017 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
S. 643

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

An Act

To amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to reauthorize State mediation programs.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF STATE MEDIATION PROGRAMS.

Section 506 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C.

5106) is amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2010’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### In the Matter of Rachel Lawson, Respondent, v Ritchel Lawson, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 854]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Thomas W. Polito, Ref.), entered November 3, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, awarded petitioner sole custody and primary physical residence of the parties’ children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this custody proceeding pursuant to article 6 of the Family Court Act, respondent father appeals from an order modifying a prior custody order by, inter alia, awarding sole custody and primary physical residence of the parties’ children to petitioner mother. We reject the father’s contention that Family Court placed undue emphasis upon evidence of his private immoral conduct. The record establishes that the court did not consider the moral implications of the father’s extramarital relationship. Instead, the court carefully considered that evidence only in evaluating the father’s history of impulsiveness and his inability to put the needs of the children before his own *(see Matter of Adriano D. v Yolanda A.,*94 AD3d 448, 449 [2012]; *Matter of Galanos v Galanos,*28 AD3d 554, 555 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 711 [2006]; *Granata v Granata,*289 AD2d 527, 528 [2001]). Indeed, the court properly determined that evidence of the father’s infidelity or sexual indiscretions was not relevant except in those contexts *(see Sitts v Sitts,*74 AD3d 1722, 1723 [2010], *lv dismissed*15 NY3d 833 [2010], *lv denied*18 NY3d 801 [2011]). Contrary to the father’s further contention, there is a sound and substantial basis in the record to support the court’s determination that it was in the children’s best interests to award sole custody to the mother, and thus we will not disturb that determination *(see Matter of Tisdale v Anderson,*100 AD3d 1517, 1517-1518 [2012]; *Capodiferro v Capodiferro,*77 AD3d 1449, 1450 [2010]). Finally, contrary to the father’s contention, the court did not deny him visitation on the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. In addition to visitation during the children’s February and April school vacations and the majority of their summer vacation, the court awarded the father “reasonable [visitation] time with the children whenever he travels to the children’s residence during their periods of residence *1394with the [mother].” Thus, the order provides the father with an opportunity for visitation on the holidays in question. In the event that the mother frustrates the father’s exercise of such visitation, his remedy is to file a violation petition. Present— Scudder, PJ., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
FORM OF ITEM
1123 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICER




March 12,
2008




Merrill
Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.


250 Vesey
Street
 4 World
Financial Center, 10th
Floor
 New York,
New York 10080
 LaSalle
Bank National Association
 Attention:
EDGAR Team
 135 South
LaSalle Street, Suite 1511
 Chicago,
Illinois 60603
  Ambac
 Attn:
Consumer Asset-Backed Securities Group
 One State
Street Plaza
 New York,
NY 10004
  Re:
                Pooling
      and Servicing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of May 1, 2007, among
      Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as depositor, Home Loan Services,
      Inc., as servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee,
      relating to First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed
      Certificates, Series 2007-FFC
   I, Steven
A. Baranet, Vice President, of Home Loan Services, Inc. (the "Servicer"), hereby
certify that:
 A review
of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding calendar year and of the performance
of the Servicer under the Agreement has been made under my supervision;
and
  To the
best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year or a portion thereof,
or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material
respect, I have specified
below each such failure known to me and the nature and status
thereof.
     /s/ Steven A. Baranet
      Loan
Services
 P.O. Box 1838
 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-1838
  
 Home Loan Services is
      a subsidiary
                  
                  GU-004
      (01-07)of Merrill Lynch Bank
      and Trust Co., FSB
### EXHIBIT23.2

###  

###  

###  

### Consent of IndependentCertified Public Accountants

 

         

Ramp Corporation

New York, New York

 

 

          We hereby consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.333-32308, 333-85483, 333-100650, 333-103196, 333-105822, 333-110838, 333-112321and 333-113156) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-31684, 333-57558 and 333-73578) of RampCorporation (formerly known as Medix Resources, Inc.) of our report dated April8, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements as of and for theyear ended December 31, 2003, which appears in this Form 10-K.

```
  
```

/s/BDOSeidman, LLP

BDOSeidman, LLP
 

New York, NewYork

April 14, 2004
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the Annual Report of ILLUSION DIGITAL SYSTEMS, INC., a Colorado
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), AL
Kennedy, President and Secretary of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 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 Company.






March 30,
2009




/s/ AL
      KennedyAL
      KennedyPresident
      And Secretary
              (Principal
      Executive Officer and
              Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)







[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ILLUSION DIGITAL SYSTEMS, INC and will be retained by ILLUSION
DIGITAL SYSTEMS, INC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.]
#### UNITED STATES Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL FRUITS AND VEGETABLES CORPORATION, David Pai (also known as Shih Wei Pai), and Jason Pai (also known as Chung Sheng Pai), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2006-1532.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 19, 2006.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. RApp. P. 42(b).
#### State v. Pearson

Case below: 178 N.C. App. 563

No. 426P06

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1306)

Denied 01/25/07
Events          

# Public Meeting: Initial Decision That Certain ARC and Delphi Air Bag Inflators Contain a Safety Defect

Thu, 10/05/2023

Share:*Facebook**Twitter**LinkedIn**Mail*

Event Details:

### Location

United States Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590            See map: Google Maps

**October 5, 20239:30 a.m. ET**

----

**EVENT RECORDING**

----

NHTSA will hold a public meeting regarding its initial decision that certain frontal driver and passenger air bag inflators manufactured by ARC and Delphi through January 2018 contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety and should be recalled.

The public meeting will be held at USDOT headquarters in Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. ET on October 5, 2023.

Registration for in-person attendance closed on September 22. 

----

Those wishing to submit written submissions must submit them, with the docket number identified in the heading of the Initial Decision, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, mail, hand delivery, or fax as outlined in the Initial Decision before the close of business on October 20, 2023.

----

*NHTSA is committed to providing equal access to this event for all participants, and people who need accommodations should send a request to Carla.Bridges@dot.gov no later than close of business on September 22, 2023.*
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.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,

Board Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-11843 Filed 5-18-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE P
The District Court of the 1st Judicial District. County of Lewis and Clark.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. SHAWN WELLER, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. CDC-2007-207 DECISION

On March 20, 2008, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: In conjunction with having been declared a persistent felony offender, the defendant is sentenced to the Montana Department of Corrections for a period of twenty-two (22) years, with seventeen (17) years suspended, for the offense of Driving or in Actual Physical Control of a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs; and Count II: A commitment to the Lewis and Clark County Jail for a period of six (6) months, with all of that time suspended but two (2) days, for the offense of Driving While License Suspended/Revoked, a misdemeanor. Counts I and II shall run concurrently with each other and with the sentence imposed upon defendant in Cause No. ADC-2002-173.

On August 5, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

*70Done in open Court this 5th day of August, 2010.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.