alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(October 17, 2006)

#### A.F.C. Enterprises, Inc., Respondent, v New York City School Construction Authority, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 433]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Elliot, J.), dated August 27, 2004, as denied those branches of its motion which were to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3126 and to impose monetary sanctions on the plaintiff, and to disqualify the plaintiffs attorney.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint and to impose monetary sanctions on the plaintiff is dismissed, as that portion of the order was superseded by an order of the same court dated September 9, 2005, made upon renewal *(see A.F.C. Enters., Inc. v New York City School Constr. Auth.,*33 AD3d 737 [2006] [decided herewith]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to disqualify the plaintiffs attorney because of an alleged conflict of interest. Since the defendant is neither a present nor a former client of the subject attorneys, it has no standing to seek disqualification based on conflict of interest *(see Rowley v Waterfront Airways,*113 AD2d 926 [1985]; *Ogilvie v McDonald’s Corp.,*294 AD2d 550 [2002]; *Matter of Epstein,*255 AD2d 582, 583 [1998]; *Vanarthros v St. Francis Hosp.,*234 AD2d 450 [1996]). Florio, J.E, Krausman, Luciano and Skelos, JJ., concur.
|   | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2010, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Gordon Samson            |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer and  |
|   |   | Principal Accounting Officer |
|   |   | April 14, 2011               |

----
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of Navidea Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.



|Subsidiaries                       |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | Percentage Owned by Registrant |    
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------ | ---
|Cardiosonix Ltd.                   |  | Israel                        |  |                                | 100
|Cira Biosciences, Inc.             |  | Delaware, USA                 |  |                                | 90 
|RIGSTech I Corporation             |  | Delaware, USA                 |  |                                | 100
|Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Limited |  | United Kingdom                |  |                                | 100
S04F1433.

#### SIMPKINS v. SIMPKINS.

(603 SE2d 275)

Fletcher, Chief Justice.

Agnes Simpkins filed for divorce against William Simpkins in May 2001. At the time of trial, William Simpkins was living in a nursing home in Virginia and was represented at trial by his son and legal guardian, John Simpkins. William Simpkins died in October 2002. As executor of William Simpkins’ estate, John Simpkins appeals both the trial court’s final order of divorce and its finding of willful contempt against him. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding John Simpkins in contempt, and because we find no other error, we affirm.

Two days before the end of the trial, John Simpkins signed and filed an affidavit stating that a certain BB&T money market account contained over $99,000. The jury equitably divided the parties’ property on March 26,2002, and awarded the BB&T account to Agnes *524Simpkins. When John Simpkins finally submitted that account into the court’s registry on September 3, 2002, however, it contained less than $6,000.

Decided September 27, 2004

Reconsideration denied October 25, 2004.

*James D. Patrick,*for appellant.

Agnes Simpkins filed a motion to hold John Simpkins in contempt for willfully violating the court’s order with respect to the BB&T account, and the trial court held a hearing on the matter on September 11, 2002. Although John Simpkins did not personally appear as ordered by the court, his attorney argued that the money had been spent in compliance with the court’s prior orders pertaining to the use of marital funds. The trial court disagreed, and held Mr. Simpkins in contempt. The trial court also entered the final judgment of divorce on that day.

1. “In order for one to be held in contempt, there must be a willful disobedience of the court’s decree or judgment.”1 A trial court’s decision regarding the issue of contempt will not be reversed on appeal if there is any evidence to support it.2

Our review of the record shows that throughout the course of the divorce proceedings, an injunction was in place limiting the parties’ rights to transfer or dispose of the marital funds in their possession. In addition, statutory law in Georgia restricts a person’s right to dispose of marital assets after a divorce action has been filed.3 The trial court concluded that despite the existence of alternative funds, John Simpkins chose to allocate funds from the BB&T account to pay his own attorney fees and his father’s living expenses. Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that John Simpkins willfully violated its orders, we affirm the trial court’s order of contempt.

2. Because we are satisfied upon a review of the record that none of John Simpkins’ other arguments have any merit whatsoever, we affirm the trial court’s entry of the final judgment of divorce.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*525*Hirsch, Partin, Grogan & Grogan, Lynn L. Grogan, Lee Roy Grogan, Jr.,*for appellee.

1

*Gallit v.*Buckley, 240 Ga. 621, 626 (242 SE2d 89) (1978).

2

*Crowder v.*Crowder, 236 Ga. 612 (225 SE2d 16) (1976).

3

 OCGA § 19-5-7.
#### Riverside Syndicate, Inc., Respondent, v Eric Saltzman, Also Known as Eric F. Saltzman, et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

[852 NYS2d 840]

Landlord failed to “complete” service of the notice of petitions and petitions by filing proof of service (RPAPL 735 [2] [b]) at least five days prior to the date the petitions were noticed to be heard *(see*RPAPL 733 [1]). A summary proceeding is a special proceeding “governed entirely by statute . . . and it is well established that there must be strict compliance with the statutory requirements to give the court jurisdiction” *(Berkeley Assoc. Co. v Di Nolfi,*122 AD2d 703, 705 [1986], *lv dismissed*69 NY2d 804 [1987]; *MSG Pomp Corp. v Doe,*185 AD2d 798 [1992]). Thus, the court should have granted respondents’ motions to dismiss the petitions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. *[See*15 Misc 3d 138(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50925(U).]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 22, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 22, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0253. DARREN T. CENSULLO v. BONNIE L. CENSULLO.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2015V0090
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Albert KELLER v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Board of Parole.

Misc. No. 2859.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 8, 1964.

Albert Keller, in pro. per.

BODY, District Judge.

Albert Keller has filed a petition which he calls “Sur Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (Habeas Corpus Action)” which this Court will consider as a habeas corpus petition. The petitioner sets forth many allegations including that he was sentenced to not less than two years and not more than ten years for voluntary manslaughter on May 28, 1956; that he was released on parole on November 15, 1956; that he was committed for a violation of parole in 1958 (no day and month given); that he was again paroled on *April 22, 1962,*and that he was recommitted on *October 12, 1961*for a violation of parole. Obviously these dates are inconsistent for he is presently in confinement.

Further, he avers that his maximum sentence for parole violation is April 27, 1965, according to the information that he has received from the Pennsylvania Board of Pardons. He contends that this is error and that it exceeds his maximum by six months and seventeen days. This too must be erroneous for ten years from the date of sentence would be May 27, 1966.

Petitioner then avers that he filed a petition with the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, and up to this time he has not received a reply to his correspondence to the judge of his case, nor has there been an adjudication rendered on the petition.

Mr. Keller further avers that he filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and attached a copy of the letter of the Prothonotary of that court dated August 24, 1964 which states, inter alia:

> “ * * * I am returning your Petitions herewith for the reason that you must await the decision of the Court below in this matter.”

There is no point in reciting any further facts alleged for the petition on its face indicates that petitioner has filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and that the final decision is awaited. Accordingly, state remedies have not been exhausted.

Writ denied without prejudice.
HOGAN & HOGAN 

APPELLATE ADVOCACY AND TRIAL STRATEGY 

 

PENNZOIL PLACE 

711 LOUISIANA • SUITE 500 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-2721 

 

JENNIFER BRUCH HOGAN Telephone: (713) 222-8800 

Board Certified • Civil Appellate Law Facsimile: (713) 222-8810 

Texas Board of Legal Specialization www.hoganfirm.com 

 

46262_1 

April 23, 2015 

Via TexFile 

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk 

First Court of Appeals 

301 Fannin Street, Room 208 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Re: No. 01-14-00133-CV; United Services Automobile Association v. 

Joseph Hayes, Jr. and Joanne Hayes; in the First Court of Appeals, 

Houston, Texas. 

Dear Mr. Prine: 

Please note that Jennifer Bruch Hogan will present the oral argument on 

behalf of Appellants/Appellees, Joseph Hayes, Jr. and Joanne Hayes. The oral 

argument is set for Wednesday, April 29, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. 

All counsel are being notified by electronic service. Thank you for your 

assistance. 

 Sincerely, 

 /s/ Jennifer Bruch Hogan 

 Jennifer Bruch Hogan 

Attorney for Appellants/Appellees 

Joseph Hayes, Jr. and Joanne Hayes 

JBH/jlc 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00133-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/23/2015 8:27:24 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/23/2015 8:27:24 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
April 23, 2015

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk

First Court of Appeals

Page 2

46262_1

c:

Robert Tresch Owen 

Levon G. Hovnatanian 

Kevin G. Cain 

Christopher W. Martin

MARTIN, DISIERE,JEFFERSON & WISDOM, L.L.P.

808 Travis, 20th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

Via TexFile
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A1 65 3 . TI ARA S. J ONES v . AUTOMOTI V E CREDI T CORPORATI ON.

On J an u ary 9

, 2 0 1 5

, t he t ri al co u rt en t ered ju dg m en t ag ai n s t Ti ara J o n es i n t h e

am ou n t of $ 2 ,8 7 5.8 3

, p l u s $ 8 5 6 .3 2 i n i n t eres t

, $ 2 1 7

. 5 0 i n at t o rn ey fees

, an d $ 3 9 9 .7 8

i n co u rt co st s

. O n Feb ru ary 4

, 2 0 1 5 s h e fi l ed a n o t ice o f ap p eal d ecl a r i n g t h a t s h e

was ap p eal i n g t o t h e Su prem e Co u rt

. J o nes s u b s eq uen t l y am en d ed her n o t i ce o f

ap p eal t o i n d icat e th at s h e w as ap p eal in g t o t h i s Co u rt

. We

, h o wev er, l ack

ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

Pu rs uan t t o OCGA § 5-6 -3 5 (a) (6 ), ap p eal s i n al l act i o n s fo r d am ag es i n wh i ch

t h e ju d g m en t i s $ 1 0 ,0 00 o r l es s m u st co m p l y wi t h th e d i scret i o n ary ap p eal

p ro ced ures

. “ Al t h o u g h t h e g ran t o f a m o t i o n fo r s um m ary ju d g m e n t i s i n g en eral

d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e, wh ere t h e am o u n t o f t h e j u d gm en t i s [ $1 0 ,0 0 0] o r l es s

, an

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal i s req u i red .” Li g h twer k S t ud i o s v. Do or Un i t s of

Ga

. , 1 8 4 Ga. Ap p

. 1 4 8

, 1 4 9 (3 6 1 SE2 d 3 2 ) (1 9 8 7 ). Becau s e th i s s u i t i s an act i o n fo r

d am ag es an d th e ju d g m en t en t er e d w a s l es s t h an $ 1 0,0 0 0

, Jo n es was req u i red to

fo l l o w t he d is cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced ures t o o bt ai n ap pel l at e rev i ew. Becau s e s h e

fai l ed t o d o s o , t h e ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn 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 i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 05/14/2015 May 14, 2015
Exhibit 32
 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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  November 14, 2008
    /s/ Michael H. LeeMichael H. LeeChairman of the Board and
Chief Executive OfficerDate:  November 14, 2008
    /s/ Joel. S. WeinerJoel S. WeinerSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
@article{1211601,
  author = {Andrew Winchester and Travis Anderson and Jennifer Hite and Randolph Elmquist and Sujitra Pookpanratana},
  title = {Methodology and implementation of a tunable deep-ultraviolet laser source for photoemission electron microscopy},
  year = {2023},
  number = {253},
  month = {2023-07-26 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Ultramicroscopy},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935923},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2023.113819},
  language = {en},
}
#### Maria Auqui, as Guardian of the Property of Jose Verdugo, et al., Respondents, v Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 1, 2013;

decided June 27, 2013

Motion by New York State Bar Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motions for reargument herein *997granted and the brief is accepted as filed *[see*20 NY3d 1035 (2013)].

Judges Rivera and Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0541 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BEAU AVIDIYA,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 26 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 20 2023

06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0541
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7169

JAMAR DELMONT ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-05-4-FBS) Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 17, 2006 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamar Delmont Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jamar Delmont Robinson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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/                Greg Goldberg            |
|---------------------------------------------|
| Greg                Goldberg                |
| President                                   |
| (Chief                Executive Officer and |
| Chief                Financial Officer)     |
| October                20, 2008             |

----
June 20, 2014 www.bls.gov

BLS Technical Advisory Committee Agenda

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Conference Center, Rooms 7 and 8 

2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20212

8:30 Commissioner’s welcome and review of agency developments

9:00 Current and Potential Uses of Big Data at BLS

Presenters: Mike Horrigan and John Eltinge

Discussants: Alberto Cavallo (MIT), Steven Davis, Frauke Kreuter

 

10:30 Break

10:45 Current and Potential Uses of Big Data at BLS, continued

12:15 Lunch

1:30 Discussion of future priorities

 

2:00 Automated Coding of Survey of Occupational Illnesses and Injuries (SOII) Narratives

Presenter: Alex Measure 

Discussants: Steven Heeringa, Jimmy Lin (University of Maryland) 

2:30 Break 

2:45 Automated Coding of Survey of Occupational Illnesses and Injuries (SOII) Narratives, continued

3:30 Possible Addition of Certification/Licensure Questions to the Current Population Survey

Presenter: Anne Polivka

4:00 Approximate conclusion
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 847 

Expressing support for the designation of February 12, 2020, as ‘‘Darwin 

Day’’ and recognizing the importance of science to the betterment of 

humanity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2020 

Mr. HIMES submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of February 12, 

2020, as ‘‘Darwin Day’’ and recognizing the importance 

of science to the betterment of humanity. 

Whereas Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution by 

natural selection, which provides humanity with a logical 

and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity 

of life on Earth; 

Whereas the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection is strongly supported by the monumental amount 

of scientific evidence Charles Darwin compiled to support 

the theory and the modern understanding of the science 

of genetics; 

Whereas the human curiosity and ingenuity exemplified by 

Charles Darwin have promoted new scientific discoveries 


dlhill on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 847 IH 

that have helped humanity solve many problems and improve living conditions; 

Whereas the advancement of science must be protected from 

individuals unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change; 

Whereas the teaching of creationism in some public schools 

compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the 

education systems of the United States; 

Whereas Charles Darwin is a worthy symbol of scientific advancement on whom to focus and around whom to build 

a global celebration of science and humanity intended to 

promote a common bond among all the people of the 

Earth; and 

Whereas February 12, 2020, is the anniversary of the birth 

of Charles Darwin in 1809 and is an appropriate date to 

designate as ‘‘Darwin Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses support for the designation of 

3 ‘‘Darwin Day’’; 

4 (2) recognizes the importance of science to the 

5 betterment of humanity; and 

6 (3) recognizes Charles Darwin as a worthy sym7 bol for celebrating science, the achievements of rea8 son, and the advancement of human knowledge. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with BILLS