alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irv Tregerman, D.D.S., Appellant-Respondent, v Neal Auerbach, D.D.S., Respondent-Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 442]

*504Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered August 29, 2012, awarding defendant-counterclaim plaintiff the sum of $174,322.37 as against plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Orders, same court and Justice, entered June 15, 2012, and August 15, 2012, which, respectively, to the extent appealed from, upon reargument, vacated the provision in an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 15, 2011, granting defendant-counterclaim plaintiffs motion for summary judgment for acceleration of a note, and, inter alia, set forth a payment schedule, with appropriate interest rates, for past due and future amounts owed defendant, consistent with the terms of the note, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff appealed from the September 2011 order (the original decision granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on his counterclaim); according to plaintiffs preargument statement, that appeal would have raised the same issues as his current appeal. After granting him an enlargement of time within which to perfect his prior appeal *(see Tregerman v Auerbach,*2012 NY Slip Op 86288[U] [1st Dept 2012]), we dismissed it for failure to prosecute *(see Tregerman v Auerbach,*2013 NY Slip Op 63982[U] [1st Dept 2013]).

“[A] dismissal for want of prosecution bars litigation of the issues which could have been raised on the prior appeal” *(Bray v Cox,*38 NY2d 350, 354 [1976]). Although we have discretion to entertain a second appeal *(see e.g. Faricelli v TSS Seedman’s,*94 NY2d 772, 774 [1999]), we decline to exercise it in this case *(see Rubeo v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co.,*93 NY2d 750, 756 [1999]). Contrary to plaintiffs claim, the *Bray*rule applies even when there has been a subsequent judgment *(see Cohen v Akabas & Cohen,*79 AD3d 460, 461-462 [1st Dept 2010]; *Combier v Anderson,*34 AD3d 333, 334 [1st Dept 2006]).

Furthermore, plaintiff is not aggrieved by the August 2012 orders from which he appeals; they *granted*the relief he had requested by reducing the amount of interest he had to pay.

With respect to the remaining orders, the motion court properly granted reargument; plaintiff mentioned section 12 of the parties’ dissolution agreement in his opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion, so he did not improperly raise it for the first time on reargument. On the merits, the motion court properly determined that, due to the interplay of section 12 and the promissory note, plaintiff was not in default, that, therefore, defendant was not entitled to acceleration of the note, and that statutory interest was not owed from the “date of the *505breach,” but from the date, June 11, 2012, that plaintiffs obligation to pay under the note was determined. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Freedman, Richter and Feinman, JJ.
#### State v. Gary

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 692

No. 034A07

1; Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-154)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

1. _

2. Allowed 06/27/07
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of the Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. (the Company) hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2009 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    Manish Singh                  
|                        |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Manish Singh, Ph.D.                  
|                        |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2684 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2684

       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Fenamidone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Fenamidone.

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

SECTION 1. FENAMIDONE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.38 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Fenamidone) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
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>
```
# F I L E D

Jul y 1, 1998 C e c i l W . C r o w son A p p e l l a t e C o u r t C l e r k I N T H ECOUR

T OFAP P E A L S OFT E NNE S S E E A T NAS HVI L L E B E NNI EDAY an d KARE

N DAY, )

) P e titio n e r s / A p p e lla n t s , ) ) A ppea

l N o . v . ) 01- A

- 01- 9708- C h - 00442 ) C I T Y OFDE CHE

RD,OT I S B. ) F r ankl i n C hanc e r y S M I T H , J R . , M AYOR, ) N o . 14, 381 HANK WE DDI NGT ON, BI L LVAN ) HOOS I E R ,F RANK GR

E E N , a n d ) DARYL DONE Y , COM

M I S S I ONE R S )

) R esp o n d e n t s /A p p ell

e e s . ) 

## CONC URR I NG OP I N I O N
I conc u r i n the r e s u l to f th e m a

j o rity opi n i on but

w oul d base t

hat r e s u l ton d iff e r e n t re a s o n i n g . I n M c C a lle n v . C

ity o f M e m phi s , 786 S. W
. 2d 633 ( 1990) the Supr e m e C ourtab andone

d the di f f e r ent s t anda r d s of r evi e w bet w e e n com m on l a w c e rtio r a ri a n d d e c l ar a t o r y ju d g m e n t a n d h e l d : W het her th e act i o n by the l ocal go vernm ent a l body i s l egi s l a t i ve or a d mi n i s tra tiv e in n a t u r e , the C o u rt s h o u l d re f r a i n fr o m s u b s titu tin g its j udgm ent

f o r the br oad di s c r

e t i onary au t h o rity o f th e lo c a l gover n ment a l body. A n in v a lid a tio n o f th e a c tio n s houl d t ake pl a ce onl y w hen t

he de c i s i on i s cl

e a r l y i l l ega l , ar b i tr a r y , or ca p r i c ious . T h e r e f o r e , th

is a c t i o n (ina c t i o n ) b y th e C i t y o f D echerd C o m mi s s i o n e r s s hou l d be r

evi e w ed a c co r d i ng t o that

s t anda r d . M y revi

e w of th i s r e co r d do e s not le a d to th e c o n c l u s i o n th a t th e d e c i s i o n is " c l e arly ille g a l, a r b itra r y o r capric i o u s . " T

heref ore,the C han cer y C o u r tdecree sh o u l d b e af f i r m ed. Fur t her , I am m oved t o com m ent on the pa r agr aph r ega r d i ng l egi s l a t

o r s . M a n y f orces af f ectthe l egi s l a t i ve p r ocess at any l e v e l; s o m e good, s o me not. T h e j udi c ia r

y s houl d ne v e r

be us u rp l egi s l a t

i ve f unct i on; but w e s houl d be avai l abl e as a check o n l egi s l a t i ve act i o n s w h i ch are unco nst i t u t i o n a l or out s i d e l e g i s l a tiv e p r o v i n c e .

_______________________ __________

W A LTER W
. BU S S A RT, S P E C I A LJ UDGE
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that:

         (i)      the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for
     the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with
     the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

     Dated: April 27, 2004                    /s/ Richard S. Wallington
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Richard S. Wallington
                                             Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Granger Group et al., Appellants, v Town of Taghkanic et al., Respondents, and Alan Wilzig et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 3, 2011;

decided February 22, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 106 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12893]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set orth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Initial Review Group; Minority Programs Review Subcommittee 
A.
    Date: June 29, 2009.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The George Washington University Inn, 824 New Hampshire 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    Contact Person: Mona R. Trempe, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 
3AN12, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3998, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2c6c0d7dfc2d7dfddf2dfd3dbde9cdcdbda9cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1c5c3d4dcc1d4dcdef1dcd0d8dd9fdfd8d99fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 21, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-12893 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Biobehavioral and Behavioral Sciences Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         June 23-24, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites Washington, DC, 1250 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marita R. Hopmann, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6911,                         *hopmannm@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 19, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-12223 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40887 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Matthew Sells,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 139

- 1

Before **Clement, Southwick,** and **Higginson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Matthew Sells, federal prisoner # 28879

- 078 , seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 8, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40887 Document: 00516386731 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2022No. 21

- 40887

2 To proceed IFP, the litigant must demonstrate both financial eligibility and a n onfrivolous issue for appeal. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982)

. Because Sells’s arguments are not frivolous and he qualifies financially, we **GRANT** his motion to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) . However, we dispense with further briefing because although his arguments are not frivolous, the record shows that there was no abuse of discretion. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997)

.
A district court may modify a defendant’s sentence, after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, if “extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant such a reduction” and “ a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commis sion .” § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review a district court’s decision denying compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 69 3 (5th Cir. 2020)

. While Sells asserts that he is at a heightened risk of severe illness from
COVID

- 19 because he suffers from asthma, diabetes, and hypertension,
the se conditions , when coupled with the fact that his medical conditions are well managed with medication and monitoring , are not extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant ing a reduced sentence. See United States v. Rodriguez , 27 F.4th 1097, 1100

- 01 (5th Cir. 2022) . Moreover, even if he
demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons in support of a reduced sentence, the district court properly considered the relevant § 3553(a)
factors

. See Chambliss , 948 F.3d at 69 3.
Based on the foregoing, we **AFFIRM** the district court’s decision denying the motion for compassionate release

. Case: 21-40887 Document: 00516386731 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2022
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2612 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital camera lenses 

measuring approximately 70 mm or more. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lightweight digital 

camera lenses measuring approximately 70 mm or more. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIGHTWEIGHT DIGITAL CAMERA LENSES MEAS4 URING APPROXIMATELY 70 MM OR MORE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2612 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Lenses designed for digital 

cameras, the foregoing with a 

focal length measuring approximately 70 mm or more 

but not over 200 mm and 

weighing between 1,535 and 

1,545 grams (provided for in 

subheading 9002.11.90) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of World Trade Center Bombing Litigation. Steering Committee et al., Respondents, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Appellant.

Submitted March 21, 2011;

decided March 24, 2011

Motion by Defense Association of New York, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


        Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Emile
Loria, M.D., the Chief Executive Officer of Epimmune, Inc. (the "Company"), and
Robert De Vaere, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.



Dated:  August 13, 2002



 /s/ Emile Loria                                /s/ Robert De Vaere
---------------------------------              ---------------------------------
Emile Loria, M.D.                              Robert De Vaere
Chief Executive Officer                        Chief Financial Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2647 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lithium ion electrical storage battery. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. BUNNING introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on lithium ion electrical 

storage battery. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LITHIUM ION ELECTRICAL STORAGE BATTERY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Lithium ion electric storage 

batteries, certified by the importer for use in hybrid electric motor vehicles (provided 

for in subheading 

8507.80.80) ........................... 2.4% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2647 IS

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS