alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Christian Bermeo, Appellant, v Yvette Rios et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 469]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (DeEhillips, J.), dated September 20, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

*614Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the facts, and as an exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for an evidentiary hearing in accordance herewith; and it is further,

Ordered that pending the outcome of the hearing, the subject child shall continue to reside with the maternal grandmother, and the present visitation rights of the father shall remain in effect.

The child who is the subject of the instant proceeding was born in April 1995. On August 1, 2001 the Family Court issued an order awarding custody of the child to the maternal grandmother, upon the consent of the parents, and awarding the father visitation with the child at specified times.

In December 2004 the father sought custody of the child. The Family Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, finding that the petition failed to state a cause of action. We reverse.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court erred in dismissing the petition. *“As*between a parent and a nonparent, the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persistent neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances” *(Matter of Wilson v Smith,*24 AD3d 562, 563 [2005]; *see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]). The burden of proof is on the nonparent to prove such extraordinary circumstances *(see Matter of Darlene T,*28 NY2d 391, 394 [1971]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether extraordinary circumstances exist *(see Matter of Cambridge v Cambridge,*13 AD3d 443 [2004]; *Matter of Lewis v Johnson,*302 AD2d 756, 757 [2003]; *see also Matter of Esposito v Shannon,*32 AD3d 471 [2006]) and, if so, for a determination as to the child’s best interest.

In light of the foregoing, we need not consider the father’s remaining contention. Miller, J.E, Luciano, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
# Find Funding Opportunities
# Children: X & Y Chromosome Variations

### Trisomy X Research Study of Children & Young Adults

**Enrolling nationally from around the country**

This research study will help all of us better understand behavior and mental health in children and young adults with Trisomy X. The study is currently enrolling children and young adults ages 6 to 25 with Trisomy X.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7605

DESMOND CHARLES LAWRENCE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LIEUTENANT DAMON, in his individual capacity,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-97-155-3-19-BC)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Desmond Charles Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson,

II, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Lawrence v. Damon, No. CA-97-155-3-19-BC (D.S.C. Oct. 10, 1997). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF M.H.,

A CHILD. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00191

- CV

Appeal from

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2014DCM1307)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant = s motion to dismiss and concludes the

motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed, in accordance with the opinion of

this Court. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order that be cause Appellant is

indigent, no order regarding costs is made. We further order that this decision be certified below

for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD M cCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Darryl C., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent. Presentment Agency, Appellant.

Decided October 18, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the two-Justice dissent at the Appellate Division is not on a question of law *(see*CPLR 5601 [a]).
Mutual Contractual Release







DATE

June 26, 2011



PARTIES

Sentry Petroleum (Australia) Pty. Ltd.

ACN 130 631 953 (Sentry), a company duly incorporated in Australia, and with a registered office located at 38 Milson Street, South Perth WA 6151, Australia

Sino American Oil Company(Sino), a company duly incorporated in Nevada, United States, and with a registered office located at 5190 Neil Road, Suite 430, Reno Nevada, 89502

RECITALS



A.

Sentry and Sino entered into an Option Agreement on March 14th, 2011.



B.

Each of Sentry and Sino agree to mutually terminate the Option Agreement and to release each other from all and any further liability under the Option Agreement, including the breakup fee, defined in the Option Agreement.



C.

Effective Immediately.



SIGNATURES



/S/ PAUL BOLDY

___________________________

Paul Boldy, CFO & Director

SENTRY PETROLEUM (Australia) PTY. LTD



/S/ RON HUGHES

___________________________

Ron Hughes, President, CFO & Director

SINO AMERICAN OIL COMPANY
*Wednesday, April 30, 1997*

MERIT DOCKET

97-771.

#### State ex rel. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Bruzzese.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for writs of mandamus and prohibition and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed, *sua sponte.*

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer, J., concurs and would also award respondent reasonable attorney fees.

Douglas, J., dissents and would grant an alternative writ.
H. Res. 3 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2019. 

Resolved, That a committee of two Members be appointed by the Speaker on the part of the House of Representatives to join with a committee on the part of the Senate to notify the President of the United States that a 

quorum of each House has assembled and Congress is ready 

to receive any communication that he may be pleased to 

make. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# NINDS R35 No Cost Extension Policy

              - R35 research program awards from NINDS can have a single no cost extension (NCE).
              - It is not automatically granted, as grants should typically not be going beyond an 8th year. Thus, NINDS R35 NCEs require prior approval by the Program Officer/Grants Specialist at the time of official request pursuant to their 8th year.
              - A second NCE is not allowed under any circumstances.
----

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 | CHINA TEL GROUP, INC. |                        |
|--------------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
|                                 |                  |                        |   |
| Dated:  November 15, 2010  | By:                   | /s/ Carlos A. Trujillo |   |
|                                 |                  | Carlos A. Trujillo,         |   |
|                                 |                  | Chief Financial Officer     |   |
|                                 |                  |                        |   |
EXHIBIT 12



Bausch & Lomb Incorporated

Statement Regarding Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(Dollar Amounts In Millions)



|                                                                                                   | December 27, 2003 | December 28, 2002
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | -----------------
|Earnings from continuing operations before provision for 
     income taxes and minority interests | $      197.0      | $      137.0     
|                                                                                                   |                   |                  
|Fixed charges                                                                                      | 54.7              | 54.1             
|                                                                                                   |                   |                  
|Current period amortization of capitalized interest                                                | 0.2               | 0.3              
|                                                                                                   |                   |                  
|Capitalized interest                                                                               | (1.1)             | (0.1)            
|Total earnings as adjusted                                                                         | $      250.8      | $      191.3     
|                                                                                                   |                   |                  
|Fixed charges:
     Interest (including interest expense and capitalized
     interest)            | $         54.2    | $        53.9    
|                                                                                                   |                   |                  
|Portion of rents representative of the interest factor                                             | 0.5               | 0.2              
|                                                                                                   |                   |                  
|Total fixed charges                                                                                | $         54.7    | $       54.1     
|                                                                                                   |                   |                  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                                 | 4.6               | 3.5
#### PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. (BOWEN et al., Third-Party Defendants).

Nos. 2077, 2140.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

Oct. *7,*1941.

*242Ryan, Sinnott & Miller and Jack L. Sacks, all of Chicago, 111., for plaintiff.

Wilson & Mcllvaine, of Chicago, 111., for Maryland Casualty Co.

Dent, Weichelt & Hampton, of Chicago, 111., for American Surety Co. of New York.

Cassidy, Knoblock & Sloan, of Peoria, 111., for A. L. Bowen and Blanche Fritz.

BARNES, District Judge.

These cases come before the court on motions of A. L. Bowen and Blanche Fritz, third-party defendants, to dismiss the complaints and the third-party complaints.

The motions to dismiss raise, generally speaking, three points: First, that the court does not have jurisdiction because the third-party defendants are residents of the same state as the plaintiffs; second, that the third-party complaint is prematurely brought for the reason that, under the terms of the agreement between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendants, the third-party defendants agreed to pay the third-party plaintiff its loss, costs, charges, suits, damages, etc., which third-party plaintiff shall sustain or incur, which loss, costs, etc., have not yet been sustained or incurred by third-party plaintiff; and third, that the complaint does not state a cause of action against the defendant and third-party plaintiff.

1. The court is of the opinion that the first point is not well taken. The weight of authority is that an independent basis of jurisdiction is not necessary to support a third-party proceeding. Crum v. Appalachian El. Power Co., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 138; Bossard v. McGwinn, D.C., 27 F.Supp. 412; Morrell v. United Air Lines, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 757; Kravas v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 66; Sussan v. Strasser, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 266; Malkin v. Arundel Corp., D.C., 36 F.Supp. 948.

2. Rule 14, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, reads, in part, as follows: “ * * * a defendant may move * * * for leave as a third-party plaintiff to serve a summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is *or may be*liable to him or to the plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him. * * * ” This rule, and particularly the words “or may be,” italicized above, indicates that the third-party complaint is not prematurely brought. The court is of the opinion that the second point is not well taken.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sentry Petroleum Ltd. for the quarter ended November 30, 2010, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:



(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sentry Petroleum Ltd. for the quarter ended November 30, 2010 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2010, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sentry Petroleum Ltd.



|       |                                         
|------ | ----------------------------------------
|By:    | RAJ RAJESWARAN                          
|Name:  | Raj Rajeswaran                          
|Title: | Principal Executive Officer and Director
|Date:  | January 13, 2011                        
|By:    | PAUL BOLDY                              
|Name:  | Paul Boldy                              
|Title: | Principal Financial Officer and Director
|Date:  | January 13, 2011                        













---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 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 Kingston Systems Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ralph E. McKittrick,
Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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.

                              KINGSTON SYSTEMS INC.




                               By: /s/ Ralph E. McKittrick
                                   -------------------------------
                                   Ralph E. McKittrick
                                   Chief Executive Officer

                                   July 14, 2006
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Lekan J. Bowen, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted April 29, 2013;

decided June 25, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
**Exhibit
      99.4**








CERTIFICATE
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report (the “Report”) on the Form 10-QSB of
      Mortlock Ventures Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended September 30,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof,
      I, William Timmins, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
      Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
      and belief:





1.
      The
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
      15
      (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
      The
      information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.




Date:
      November 3, 2006





WILLIAM
      TIMMINS


William
      Timmins


Chief
      Accounting Officer


Chief
      Financial Officer and Director








-1-
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14689]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 1


Collection of Debts Owed by Reason of Participation in a Benefits 
Program

CFR Correction

    In Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 0 to 17, 
revised as of July 1, 2008, on page 91, in Sec.  1.911, remove 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4).

[FR Doc. E9-14689 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of HIGH END VENTURES, INC., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Thomas Forzani, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Lance R. Larsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (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.



/s/ Thomas Forzani



Thomas Forzani, Chief Executive Officer

February 14, 2007

/s/ Nadir Walji



Nadir Walji, Secretary/Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer



February 14, 2007



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HIGH END VENTURES, INC. and will be retained by HIGH END VENTURES, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 36 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 36

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that congressional 
  redistricting should be reformed to remove political gerrymandering.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 10, 2019

Mr. Lowenthal (for himself and Mr. Fitzpatrick) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that congressional 
  redistricting should be reformed to remove political gerrymandering.

Whereas political gerrymandering occurs when politicians draw their own 
        congressional district lines to protect their self-interest at the 
        expense of creating districts that reflect communities of interest;
Whereas political gerrymandering can result in decreased electoral competition 
        between congressional candidates, and in turn decreased responsiveness 
        by Members of Congress to their voters' interests;
Whereas political gerrymandering can be used to split or pack certain 
        demographic and political groups into congressional districts in order 
        to disproportionately diminish their representation in Congress;
Whereas political gerrymandering can be used to protect the majority party and 
        punish the minority party;
Whereas political gerrymandering can decrease Americans' faith and trust in 
        congressional elections;
Whereas political gerrymandering is generally harmful to our democracy;
Whereas many States have taken great strides to ameliorate political 
        gerrymandering, ranging from Hawaii and California to Arizona and Ohio;
Whereas the United States Constitution provides the authority for Congress to 
        regulate elections and redistricting; and
Whereas the Supreme Court has affirmed Congress' authority provided in the 
        United States Constitution to regulate elections and redistricting: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
congressional redistricting should be reformed to remove political 
gerrymandering.
                                 <all>
```