alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[938 NE2d 1006, 912 NYS2d 571]

#### Michael Aquino, Appellant, v Michael Higgins, Defendant, and John Higgins et al., Respondents.

Argued October 12, 2010;

decided November 18, 2010

*905APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Brown Chiari LLP,*Lancaster *(Samuel J. Capizzi*of counsel), for appellant.

*Dennis J. Bischof, LLC,*Williamsville *(Dennis J. Bischof*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the fourth cause of action against John and Heather Higgins reinstated.

There is an issue of fact as to whether defendants provided adequate supervision for minor guests who became intoxicated at their home and, in particular, whether defendants properly supervised their departure from the premises *(compare Rudden v Bernstein,*61 AD3d 736, 738 [2d Dept 2009]). Since the basis of any liability on defendants’ part, assuming proximate cause, rests on the duty to supervise *(see Appell v Mandel,*296 AD2d 514 [2d Dept 2002]), rather than their duty as landowners, it is not dispositive that the injury occurred off premises. As a result, summary judgment should not have been granted in defendants’ favor and the cause of action for negligent supervision should be reinstated.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Cipajrick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.
China Biologic Products, Inc. - Exhibit 10.19 - Prepared By TNT Filings
Inc.





       



Exhibit 10.19 




Supplementary Agreement 



(Translated Version) 

Party A: Shandong Institute of Biological Products 

Party B: Shandong Taibang Biological Products Co., Ltd. 

Party C: Logic Express Ltd. 

Due to the expansion of the production line in 2007, Party B
needs more fund to support its operation. Following the mutually and friendly
consultation to all parties, the following supplementary agreement is confirmed:


With reference to the loan agreement of RMB5,271,146.07
signed on November 30, 2006 among the Three Parties, all parties to the
agreement agreed that the maturity date be extended to August 31, 2008 with
other terms and conditions remain unchanged. 

Seal: Shandong Institute of Biological Products 

Seal: Shandong Taibang Biological Products Co., Ltd. 

Seal: Logic Express Ltd. 

Date: September 1, 2007
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

SILAS PIERCE AND ESTATE

SALES STARS

,

Appellant s

,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 2364

CHRISTOPHER KROHA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed September 30, 2016

Non

- Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County

, Mark J. Hill , Judge.

Pamela R. Masters , Daytona Beach, and Nicholas A. Shannin, of Shannin
Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant s

.

Sherri K. Dewitt

, Moses R. Dewitt and

Melissa L. Newmons , of Dewitt Law
Firm, P.A.

, Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

The trial court entered a default judgment after Appellants (defendants below) 1

filed a motion to dismiss and motion to clarify instead of an answer, as they had been

1 We use the term “ Appellants ” in the plural because that is the way the appeal is styled, and the arguments are framed as if two distinct d efendants were involved. In fact, it appears from the record that “Estate Sales Stars” i s simply a fictitious name for2 ordered to do. This was an abuse of discretion. Osheroff v. Os h eroff, 694 So. 2d 855

(Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Although the better practice to challenge this error would have been

a direct appeal, there is authority that it may be challenged by a motion to vacate the

judgment. T haw, Gopman & Assocs., P.A. v. Jack J. Greenberg, M.D. & Assocs

. , P.A.,

595 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly, w e reverse and remand this cause for

further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and COHEN , JJ., concur.

d efendant Pierce. Although the comp laint and other pleadings refer to the so

- called entity as “a Florida Corporation, ” Appellee’s process server ’s affidavit asserts to the contrary.
Indeed, if it is a corporation, it is not correctly named. A Florida corporation ’s name must

contain words such as “corporation,” “incorporated,” “company,” or abbreviations for the foregoing

. § 607.0401 (1), Fla. Stat. (2016). Although this issue is not raised in this a ppeal, the sloppy pleadings should be corrected to reflect the correct status and names of the parties.
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-50187 Summary Calendar

RICHARD A. GATHERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SHEILA E. WINDNALL, Secretary Air Force, Department of the U.S. Air Force,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CV-432) December 1, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Appellant Gathers app eals the grant of summary judgment

dismissing his employment discrimination s uit against his former

employer, the U. S. Air Force. He claimed racial discrimination

and retaliation were the cause of his adverse employment actions.

The Motion For Summary Judgment was referred to the magistrate

judge who submitte d a lengthy and detailed recommendation to the2

district court, which the court, after de novo review of the

summary judgment record, adopted.

On appeal, Gathers complains that the district court employed

the incorrect standard of review and that it failed to find that

another employee was treat e d differently than Appellant which

constituted discrimination. We have carefully reviewed the record,

the magistrate judge’s memorandum and the district court’s opinion

and find no error.

The fact that the Air Force may have applied an incorrect

regulat ion in requiring a resignation in order to grant leave

without pay does not establish discrimination because the evidence

is uncontradicted that this regulation was applied to everyone who

sought leave without pay.

Nor is there any evidence that the fact that Appellant had

filed a prior EEOC complaint played any part whatever in the

employment decisions regarding him.

Finally, the Air Force clearly established that the employee

Mello, to whom Appellant compares himself, was in fact in a very

different situation. That he was treated differently does not even

infer discriminatory motive, much less create a genuine issue of

material fact.

AFFIRMED.
#### State v. Nelson

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 150

No. 042P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-1677)

2. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Dismissed *ex mero motu*08/23/07

2. Denied 08/23/07
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

A TLA N TA

,_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The C o u rt o f Appea ls h ereb

y p a s s es the fo llo wi

n g order:

A2 4 D0 32 5 . DANNY RAY DUNN v . CARYN ALI SSA DUNN.

On A p ril 23, 2024, Danny Ray D u nn file d t h i s ap p lic atio n f or d isc retio nary

ap p eal, seek ing to ap p e al a Sep tember 1 4, 2021 ord e r. W e, ho w ev er, lac k j u risd ic tio n

bec au se his ap p lic atio n is u ntimely. To be timely, an a p p lic at i o n fo r d isc retio nary

rev iew mu st be f

iled w ithin 30 d ays o f entry o f the o rd er a t issu e. OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (d ).

The requ irements o f OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 are j u risd ic tio nal, and this Co u r t canno t ac c ep t

an ap plic atio n f

o r ap p eal no t m a d e i n c o mp lianc e t herew ith. Bo yle v

. S ta te , 1 9 0 Ga.

A p p

. 7 34, 7 34 ( 380 SE2d 57 ) (1 9 89 ). D anny Ray D u nn’ s instant ap p lic atio n w a s

u ntimely f

iled mo re than tw o years af ter entry of t h e o rd er he seek s to ap p eal. 1

A c c o rd ingly, the ap p lic atio n is hereby D I SM I SSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e i

s a t r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

.

1 See related c ase o f D un n v

. D un n , 36 3 Ga. A p p

. 1 32 (87 1 SE2d 30) (2022). May 10, 2024

05/10/2024
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2594 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on mixtures or coprecipitates 

of lanthanum phosphate, cerium-doped lanthanum phosphate, cerium 

phosphate, and terbium phosphate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on mixtures 

or coprecipitates of lanthanum phosphate, cerium-doped 

lanthanum phosphate, cerium phosphate, and terbium 

phosphate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OR COPRECIPITATES OF LAN4 THANUM PHOSPHATE, CERIUM-DOPED LAN5 THANUM PHOSPHATE, CERIUM PHOSPHATE, 

6 AND TERBIUM PHOSPHATE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.05 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2594 IS

1 mixtures or coprecipitates of lanthanum phosphate, ce2 rium-doped lanthanum phosphate, cerium phosphate, and 

3 terbium phosphate) is amended by striking the date in the 

4 effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

7 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
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 Summary of the CARS Act of 2009 and Notice of Upcoming Rulemaking Proceeding


Download file: Summary of the CARS Act of 2009 and Notice of Upcoming Rulemaking Proceeding
 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 >
No. 849.

#### Novick *v.*United States.

March 2, 1942.

*Mr. Jacob W. Friedman*for petitioner. *Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Berge,*and *Mr. W. Marvin Smith*for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 0856

_____________________________
R USSELL D OMINICK , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. J. Scott Duncan , Judge

.
June 7 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and R OWE and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Stephen N. Bernstein, Gainesville
, for Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### Iqbal Singh, Appellant, v City of New York Division of Housing Preservation and Development, Respondent.

Submitted June 1, 2010;

decided July 1, 2010

Motion for reargument denied *[see*14 NY3d 858 (2010)].
#### James Stanley BRANSCOMB, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.

No. 2006-3335.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 20, 2006.

James Stanley Branscomb, pro se.

*882
      *ORDER*

On September 21, 2006, the court issued an order allowing James Stanley Branscomb (“Branscomb”) 14 days to object to the transfer of this appeal to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. No objection has been received within the time allowed.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) Branscomb’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is transferred to the District Court.
No. 916.

#### Tuttle et al. *v.*Bell, County Treasurer.

March 2, 1942.

*Mr. Leland K. Neeves*for petitioners. *Mr. Charles J. McKeown*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 15

- 00249

- CR

Juan Gonzalez a/k/a Juan Gonzales Sr., a/k/a Juan Gonzalez Sr. v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2014

- DCR

- 1894

- I

JUDGMENT
THE THI RTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. May 26, 2016
exv4w7



 







    Exhibit 4.7



 




    BERKSHIRE
    HATHAWAY FINANCE CORPORATION



 



    OFFER TO EXCHANGE



 



    $750,000,000 principal amount
    of its 5.125% Senior Notes Due 2012




    unconditionally guaranteed by
    Berkshire Hathaway Inc., which have been registered




    under the Securities Act of
    1933, for any and all 5.125% Senior Notes Due
    2012,




    unconditionally guaranteed by
    Berkshire Hathaway Inc.



 


 




    Instructions
    from Beneficial Owner
    



 



    The undersigned acknowledge(s) receipt of your letter and the
    enclosed Prospectus and the related Letter of Transmittal in
    connection with the offer by the Company to exchange the
    Exchange Notes for Outstanding Notes.



 



    This will instruct you to tender the principal amount of
    Outstanding Notes indicated below held by you for the account of
    the undersigned, upon the terms and subject to the conditions
    set forth in the Prospectus and the related Letter of
    Transmittal.



 



    The undersigned represents that (i) the Exchange Notes
    acquired pursuant to the Exchange Offer are being obtained in
    the ordinary course of the undersigned’s business,
    (ii) the undersigned is not engaging, does not intend to
    engage, and has no arrangement or understanding with any person
    to participate in the distribution of such Exchange Notes,
    (iii) the undersigned is not an “affiliate,” as
    defined under Rule 405 of the Securities Act, of the
    Company and (iv) the undersigned is not acting on behalf of
    any person or entity that could not truthfully make these
    statements. If the undersigned is a broker-dealer, it
    acknowledges that it will deliver a copy of the Prospectus in
    connection with any resale of the Exchange Notes.



 



    Sign Here



 






    Signatures(s)













 






 



    Securities which are to be tendered:



 



    Tender all of the Outstanding Notes



 



    Aggregate Principal Amount*



 



    o  Outstanding
    Notes
    ­
    ­




     








    Name(s) (Please Print)







    Address







    Zip Code







    Area Code and Telephone No.



 



    Dated: ­
    ­           ,
    2007










 





 




		
	    * 	
    Unless otherwise indicated, it will be assumed that all of the
    Outstanding Notes listed are to be tendered.





    

    2
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE : SLADE ALAN MOORE § § § § § § No. 08

- 20

- 00066

- CR

Appeal from the County Court
of Andrews County, Texas (TC# 19

- 0258 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING The opinion and judgment issu ed on April 9, 2020 are hereby withdrawn. The following is the opinion of this Court.
Slade Alan Moore has moved for reconsideration of this Court's decision to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. We will grant the motion and reinstate the appeal. The Court initially dismissed this case because it appeared Appellant was attempting to appeal from an order denying a motion to quash an indictment, which is not an appealable interlocutory order. See Webb v. State , Nos. 10

- 12

- 00365

- CR, 10

- 12

- 00366

- CR, 20 12 WL 5697585, at *1 (Tex.App.

— Waco Nov. 15, 2012, no pet.). However, on rehearing, Appellant clarified that he sought to appeal the denial of his pre

- trial application for writ of habeas corpus challenging the constitutionality of a statute. The denial of a pretrial habeas corpus writ application2

is a final appealable order. See Ex parte Hinojos , No. 08

- 17

- 00077

- CR, 2018 WL 6629678, at *1 (Tex.App.

— El Paso Dec. 19, 2018, pet. ref’d)(not designated for publication)(noting that pretrial habeas corpus proceed ings are separate criminal actions allowing the applicant the right to an immediate appeal before trial begins); see also Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth
Dist. , 159 S.W.3d 645, 650 (Tex. 2005)(claims raised in a pretrial habeas application may be immediately reviewed in a direct pretrial appeal, even where the same claims could not be reviewed pretrial absent explicit statutory authorization if those claims had been raised simply by pretrial motion). Therefore, we grant Appellant’s motion to reconsider and reinstate this appeal. We hereby order the appellate timelines in this case to be reestablished. The reporter’s record is due thirty days from the date of this opinion.

April 30, 2020 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ. (Do Not Publish)
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATIONS**     OnMarch 30, 2006, Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-K”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thefollowing certifications are being made to accompany the Form 10-Q:**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated:March 30, 2006 /s/ JAMES L. FARES     James L. Fares  Chief Executive OfficerThe foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that:(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated:March 30, 2006 /s/ GEORGE STUART     George Stuart  Chief Financial OfficerThe foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether madebefore or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.