alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MORAN v. SHUBERT et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

March 25, 1946.

Henry A. Maccaro, of New York City, for plaintiff..

Klein & Weinberger and Abraham Males, all of New York City, for defendants.

CAFFEY, District Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, (1) to the extent of stating the date or the approximate date' of and the means of identifying the certificate of copyright registration, mentioned in item 2 of the notice of motion, that item is allowed and the remainder thereof is disallowed; (2) to the extent of stating the date or the approximate date and the substance of the notice and request mentioned in item 6, that item is allowed and the remainder thereof is disallowed; and (3) to the extent of stating the date or the approximate date and substance of the request mentioned in item 8, that item is allowed and the balance thereof is disallowed. Engler v. General Electric Co., D.C.S.D. N.Y., 32 F.Supp. 913, 915 last paragraph.

Pursuant to Rules 26(a), 30(a), 33, 45(a) and 45(d), items 3, 5, 7 and 9 are allowed and items 1, 4, 10, 11 and 12 are disallowed in their entirety. Folly Amusement Holding Corp. v. Randforce Amusement Corp., D.C.,S.D.N.Y., 32 F.Supp. 361, 366, 367.

Settle order accordingly on two days’ notice.
**Exhibit 13.1****Certification Pursuant To Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code)**Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Commonwealth Bank of Australia Limited, an Australiancorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”)of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.Date: 8 November 2006/s/ Ralph J. NorrisName: Ralph J. Norris
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                   3,815,517
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              430,541
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                 43,338
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         4,648,559
<PP&E>                                     217,543
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           4,836,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      949,196
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   106,717
<OTHER-SE>                               3,780,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             4,836,807
<SALES>                                  2,884,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,926,335
<CGS>                                      950,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            4,093,085
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,166,750)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,166,750)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,166,750)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.12)





</TABLE>
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
MATTIE LOMAX, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

CAPITAL RENTAL AGENCY, INC., AMERICAN INVESTMENT SERVICES, GREGORY

SCHWEITZER, MYRNA B. PALLEY, Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2023

- 1458

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida in No. 1:09

- cv

- 21347

- RLR, Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Mattie Lomax moves for “entry of default,” ECF N o. 7

at 1 ; responds to the court’s March 23, 2023

, show cause
order , ECF No. 8; and seeks “leave to amend [her] exhibit
list and to admit into evidence certain additional [exhibits]

, ” ECF No. 9 at 1

. Appellees move for an extension of Case: 23-1458 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 06/08/2023LOMAX v. CAPITAL RENTAL AGENCY

, INC

. 2

time to respond to the court’s March 23, 2023

, order , which
Ms. Lomax moves to strike

. The court dismisses this appeal.

In May 2009, M s. Lomax filed a notice of removal from

state court for her action alleging violation of landlord obligations and retaliatory practices . The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida remanded
the case to state court on May 20, 2009 , and de nied Ms.
Lomax’s motion for reconsideration on February 17, 20 1 0

. Ms. Lomax filed a notice of appeal on January 24, 2023, seeking review of the remand order.

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S.205, 214 (2007), and, in order to be timely, a notice of appeal must generally be filed within 30 days after entry of final judgment, 2 8 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Here, Ms. Lomax filed her notice more than 13 years after the district court’s remand order. At least because of this untimeliness, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, and we cannot transfer under 28 U.S. C. § 1631

. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

June 8 , 2023
Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow Acting Clerk of Court Case: 23-1458 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 06/08/2023
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GAREN SHAMEYAN,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-70987

Agency No. A045-639-232

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 8, 2016** 

Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Garen Shameyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his motion to reconsider and

reopen.

FILED

DEC 19 2016

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 this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Shameyan’s only argument on appeal—that the BIA erred in not reopening

his case in light of our decision in Quintero-Salazar v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 688 (9th

Cir. 2007)—involves an exercise of the BIA’s sua sponte authority.

1

 See In re

G–D–, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999). Shameyan does not claim that the

BIA made any legal or constitutional error, cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588

(9th Cir. 2016), and we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision

not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, see Mejia–Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d

818, 823–24 (9th Cir. 2011). 

PETITION DISMISSED.

1

 Shameyan waived his claims that the BIA erred in rejecting Dr. Jasmine

Tehrani’s psychological evaluation, and that the BIA erred in reaffirming its prior

decision denying equitable tolling. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,

1259 (9th Cir. 1996). 

2
#### In the Matter of Alton C. Hutchinson, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 506]

Egan Jr. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered August 29, 2012 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying petitioner’s grievance.

In February 2007, petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced an action in federal court claiming that correction officers had violated his constitutional rights. Petitioner agreed to accept $7,500 in settlement of his claim, and that agreement was reduced to a court order in July 2011. Shortly thereafter, the Director of the Office of Victim Services of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision notified the New York State Office of Victim Services (hereinafter OVS) of the award. As a result, OVS commenced an action for damages on behalf of one of petitioner’s victims and obtained a temporary restraining order that enjoined petitioner from accessing the settlement funds. In response, petitioner filed a grievance, alleging that the director impermissibly reported the settlement to OVS. Ultimately, the Central Office Review Committee denied petitioner’s grievance, after which he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. Judicial review of the denial of an inmate grievance is limited to whether such determination was arbitrary and capricious, irrational or affected by an error of law *(see Matter of Abreu v Fischer,*97 AD3d 877, 878 [2012], *appeal*
      *1246
      *dismissed*19 NY3d 1096 [2012]; *Matter of Brooks v Fischer,*95 AD3d 1578, 1578 [2012]). Initially, we reject petitioner’s assertion that reporting of the settlement was in violation of Executive Law § 632-a. While that statute requires notification when the value of a payment to a prisoner exceeds $10,000, nothing in the law prohibits the reporting of a lesser amount *(see*Executive Law § 632-a [2] [a] [ii]). Additionally, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4036 [I] provides that, 1£[i]n accord with the provisions of the federal Prisoners Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Department shall make reasonable efforts to notify crime victims that monetary damages are about to be paid to an offender pursuant to a civil action against a federal, state or local correctional facility.” The directive further provides that, upon receipt of notice of the imminent payment of an award, the Department’s Office of Victim Assistance “shall notify” OVS so that the latter may notify victims and assist them with a civil action should they wish to pursue one (Dept of Corrections & Community Supervision Directive No. 4036 [IV] [B]). Accordingly, we discern no basis upon which to overturn the denial of petitioner’s grievance. Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION
OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jack E. Davis, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arizona Public Service
Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Arizona Public Service Company. Date: March 16, 2005. /s/ Jack E. DavisJack E. Davis
President and Chief Executive Officer
 I, Donald E. Brandt, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arizona Public Service
Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Arizona Public Service Company. Date: March 16, 2005. /s/ Donald E. BrandtDonald E. Brandt
Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.2
                               ASHLAND INC.


                         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 Annual  Report of Ashland Inc.  (the  "Company") on
Form 10-K/A as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, J. Marvin Quin, Chief Financial  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, to the best of
my knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a)
         or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




/s/ J. Marvin Quin
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
March 20, 2003
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 Indian Health Service
 AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: Notice is given that the Director of Indian Health Service (IHS), under the authority of sections 321(a) and 322(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 248 and 249(b)), Public Law 83-568 (42 U.S.C. 2001 (a)), and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1601 
                        *et seq.*), has approved the following rates for inpatient and outpatient medical care provided by IHS facilities for Calendar Year 2009 for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries and beneficiaries of other Federal programs. The Medicare Part A inpatient rates are excluded from the table below as they are paid based on the prospective payment system. Since the inpatient rates set forth below do not include all physician services and practitioner services, additional payment may be available to the extent that those services meet applicable requirements. Section 1880 of the Social Security Act authorizes Medicare Part B payment to hospitals and ambulatory care clinics operated by IHS or by an Indian Tribe or Tribal organization. Calendar Year 2009**Inpatient Hospital Per Diem Rate (Excludes Physician/Practitioner Services)**Lower 48 States
$1,906Alaska
2,238**Outpatient Per Visit Rate (Excluding Medicare)**Lower 48 States
268Alaska
446**Outpatient Per Visit Rate (Medicare)**Lower 48 States
230Alaska
407**Medicare Part B Inpatient Ancillary Per Diem Rate**Lower 48 States
397Alaska
705**Outpatient Surgery Rate (Medicare)**Established Medicare rates for freestanding Ambulatory Surgery Centers.( print page 27555)**Effective Date for Calendar Year 2009 Rates**Consistent with previous annual rate revisions, the Calendar Year 2009 rates will be effective for services provided on/or after January 1, 2009 to the extent consistent with payment authorities including the applicable Medicaid State plan.
 Dated: February 4, 2009. Robert G. McSwain, Director, Indian Health Service.


[FR Doc. E9-13644 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Booker, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 592]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel F. FitzGerald, J), rendered February 19, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. After defendant and his accomplices emptied three display shelves of fragrances, none of the stolen goods were recovered. However, the store manager was able to estimate their value without resort to *372speculation. The witness provided a detailed explanation of the basis of her estimate that the property was valued at $5,844, and there was ample evidence supporting the inference that the stolen items were valued in excess of the statutory threshold of $1,000 *(see People v Sheehy,*274 AD2d 844, 845 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 938 [2000]; *see also People v Bravo,*295 AD2d 213, 214 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 556 [2002]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
EXHIBIT
      32











CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL


OFFICER
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Daniel
      Dror II, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
      Atlantis International Corporation on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
      Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of Atlantis International Corporation





Date:
      January 28, 2008





By:
      /s/ Daniel Dror
      II


Daniel
      Dror II


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Principal
      Accounting Officer
Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. 

Attorneys and Counselors

One Riverway | Suite 1400 | Houston, TX 77056 | (713) 403-8210 | Fax: (713) 403-8299

Kevin F. Risley

Direct Dial: (713) 403-8295

krisley@thompsoncoe.com

Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law

Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Austin

Dallas

Houston

Los Angeles

Saint Paul

May 28, 2015 

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

 

Hon. Christopher Prine 

Clerk, Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

301 Fannin, Suite 245 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Re: Case No. 14-14-254-CV, Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation and Commerce 

& Industry Insurance Company v. Exxon Mobil Corporation 

Dear Mr. Prine: 

This correspondence is to advise the Court that Kevin F. Risley will present oral 

argument on behalf of Appellant Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation on Thursday, June 11, 

2015. 

Thank you.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kevin F. Risley

Kevin F. Risley 

cc: All Counsel of Record – Via Electronic Filing

ACCEPTED

14-14-00254-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

5/28/2015 3:17:05 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/28/2015 3:17:05 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CREDENCE SYSTEMS CORPORATION**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Credence Systems Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David A. Ranhoff, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

 

(2)    the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Date:    January 13, 2005
halb_ex108.htm

EXHIBIT 10.8
  
  
  
  
 	 
	1
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	2
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	3
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	4
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	5
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	6
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	7
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	8
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	9
	

	 

  
  
 	 
	10
No. 4820.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### BANK OF PACHUTA vs. CRANOR LUMBER CO.

J. Armstrong for plaintiff and appellee.

F. Kernan for defendant and appellant.

ST. PAUL, J.

This suit is brought by the holder of three drafts drawn on defendant and duly accepted. The answe.r denies the authority of the persons who accepted the drafts on behalf of the defendant, also, that any consideration was received.

Defendant made no appearance in the District Court, nor has it made any here.

*18November 29, 1909.

The Court a qua, “after hearing pleadings and evidence, ’ ’ gave judgment for plaintiff as prayed for. That evidence is not in the transcript, but the presumption is that it was sufficient to support the judgment. Johnson vs. Spearing, 15 La. 232. Nor do we perceive any error of law in the judgment.'

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Number of G

Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Operations Re

Portland 50 $2,655,096 49 $2,520,908 1 $Sacramento 62 $6,794,012 62 $6,969,881 0 ($Phoenix 48 $2,538,617 47 $2,599,885 1 St. Paul 119 $4,451,539 120 $4,384,444 (1) Tulsa 65 $1,769,493 64 $1,715,393 1 OK City 51 $1,582,635 49 $1,509,200 2 Washington DC 27 $6,711,142 28 $6,782,735 (1) Totals 422 $26,502,533 419 $26,482,447 3 Portland Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.Sacramento California, and Northern NevadaPhoenix Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada.St. Paul Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, WTulsa Kansas, and Eastern Oklahoma.OK City Western Oklahoma and Texas.Washington DC Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and New Source: Compiled from gaming operation audited financial statements received by the NIGC throu

National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Gaming Revenues (in thousands) by Regio

Fiscal Year 2010 and 2009

Fiscal Year 2010 Fiscal Year 2009 Increas

Note: Three operations changed their Fiscal Year End Date for 2010 reporting and included only 9 monrevenue in 2010.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Jorge Escalante,

 

 Appellant,

v.

Claudia B. Escalante,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00067-CV

Appeal from the

388th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2015DCM8192)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until May 7, 2019. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Lyda Ness Garcia, the Appellee’s attorney, prepare 

the Appellee’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 7, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2

nd day of April, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.