alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rocky Annunziato et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Richard Casparie et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 2.) Alice Stensland et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 3.) Robert Dadonna et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 4.) John E. Miesegaes, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 5.) John E. Miesegaes et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 6.) Vincent Acierno et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant. (Action No. 7.)

[824 NYS2d 115]

In seven related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mega, J.), dated September 21, 2004, as denied those branches of its motion which were to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and for summary judgment dismissing certain of the plaintiffs’ causes of action as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 214-c.

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

The plaintiffs and their decedents in these seven related actions all live or lived near the New York City Brookfields and/or Fresh Kills landfills in Richmond County, and allege in their complaints that exposure to carcinogens from the landfills caused them to contract various diseases, including leukemia, Hodgkins’ disease, and cancer. The City appeals from the denial of those branches of its motion which were to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and for summary judgment dismissing 38 of the plaintiffs’ causes of action as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 214-c.

The City argued, with respect to that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a cause of action, that the plaintiffs could not establish causation, relying upon an affidavit of one of the plaintiffs’ expert epidemiologists, dated October 5, 1994, submitted in connection with a prior motion, in which he stated that a scientific determination *951as to the cause of the plaintiffs’ illnesses had not yet been reached. It is clear, however, that the complaints in the related actions plead cognizable causes of action, including the element of causation. Moreover, the City’s proof submitted on that branch of the motion failed to conclusively establish that no cause of action exists (see *Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633 [1976]). As such, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a cause of action was properly denied.

Furthermore, the City failed to make a prima facie showing in support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing certain of the plaintiffs’ causes of action as time-barred, that, applying the statute of limitations (see CPLR 214-c [4]), the plaintiffs’ actions were not timely commenced. Miller, J.E, Crane, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROCKY DIETZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HILLARY BOULDIN,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-35377

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00036-RWA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Richard W. Anderson, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 4, 2015

Seattle, Washington

Before: FISHER, BEA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Rocky Dietz appeals from a judgment awarding him $15,000 in damages for

injuries stemming from an auto collision.1

 We affirm.

FILED

JUL 24 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 *This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

 We address Dietz’s argument that the district court erred by recalling the

jury after dismissal in an opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum

disposition.
1. Although Bouldin’s counsel violated the order in limine prohibiting

mention of Dietz’s past methadone use, given the limited nature of the breach, and

because the district court promptly issued a curative instruction, the district court

did not abuse its discretion when it concluded the violation of its order was not

prejudicial. See United States v. Randall, 162 F.3d 557, 559 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Furthermore, the district court did not clearly err by concluding that Bouldin’s

closing summation did not violate the order in limine prohibiting argument that

Dietz was motivated by secondary gain. See Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d

1101, 1115 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Dietz’s motions for mistrial on either of these grounds. See

id.

2. Because Dietz’s motion for summary judgment was denied based on a

disputed issue of fact that was subsequently resolved at trial, we lack jurisdiction to

review the denial. See Banuelos v. Const. Laborers’ Trust Funds for S. Cal., 382

F.3d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 2004). 

AFFIRMED.

2
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I, Russell A. Olson, Chief Financial Officer of Intcomex, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 15, 2010



/s/ Russell A. OlsonRussell A. OlsonChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
PD No: ------

STEVEN JAMES SEBRING IN THE TEXAS COURT 

VS. OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

STATE OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: 

COMES NOW, Appellant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filing this Motion 

for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review, and in support 

thereof would show: 

I. 

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty (60) years in the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. The trial court was the 337th District 

Court ofHarris County, Texas. The trial court cause number was 1323534. On June 25, 2015, 

the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas, affirmed appellant's conviction in 

appellate cause number 14-13-01046-CR. 

II. 

The current deadline for filing appellant's petition for discretionary review is July 27, 

2015. 

III. 

No previous extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review has been 

requested by appellant. 

PD-0921-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/22/2015 11:33:15 AM

Accepted 7/24/2015 9:02:22 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
IV. 

Appellant's counsel is requesting this extension due to scheduling conflicts which 

prevented him from completing his review of the Opinion from the Fourteenth Court of 

Appeals in this matter. Additional time is needed for the undersigned to evaluate the issues 

to be presented to this Court on petition for discretionary review. 

v. 

Appellant is requesting an extension until August 10, 2015 in which to file his petition 

for discretionary review in this matter 

VI. 

This request is not made for the purpose of delay but to insure Appellant's right to 

appellate review in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned prays that the Court will 

grant this Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review 

until August 10, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted, 

4615 Southwest Freeway, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77027 

Tel: (713) 552-1940 

Fax: (713) 626-0182 

email: Thendl283@aol.com 
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Thomas 

M. Henderson, who after being duly sworn by me, upon his oath did state that the 

informatio~~W~~:jn the above Motion fore ension of Time is true and correc ,,'' ..,\\~ ........... '.'11 /~ . ' . ~.,\V •• -:\p.RY P(/" ~ $ "-' /:f) A O><\'(('.~ 

2 :' " 't. . D\ O~ § f (J1 • ' j ~ :: ~:,.\ : :: 

:;. ·. "Ir. 't('-CQ : ::: 

~ \ ~OF_,.E.-f.' ,: ~ _,. • <::'L- I ' ~ 

~ v;,': .• -iP/RE.S/ S° ~11 ";',IV~ ·.z· · 2. 0\ ~,,,,,,~ ,,,, ' \\\ 111111 n' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A true and correct copy ofthis motion will be delivered to: 

Harris County District Attorney's Office 

Appellate Division 

120 I Franklin, 6111 Floor 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Thomas 1\1. Hen erson /
#### ST. LOUIS HEART CENTER, INC., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JACKSON & COKER LOCUMTENENS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-2585.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 15, 2013.

Filed: Feb. 28, 2013.

Phillip Andrew Bock, Bock *&*Hatch, Chicago, IL, Max G. Margulis, Margulis Law Group, Chesterfield, MO, Brian J. Wanca, Anderson & Wanca, Rolling Meadows, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James W. Childress, Scott Kehlenbrink, Childress *&*Ahlheim, Thomas Michael Ward, Brown & James, St. Louis, MO, Isaac Colunga, Bart T. Murphy, Ice & Miller, Lisle, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. (Heart Center) brought this suit against Jackson & Coker Locumtenens, LLC (Jackson), alleging violations of the Telephone Communications Protection Act. Jackson moved to dismiss, arguing that it had made a full settlement offer to Heart Center, and therefore, although the offer had been rejected, the case was moot. The district court1 denied the motion to dismiss, as well as Jackson’s ensuing motions for reconsideration and to certify the question for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). This appeal followed, in which Jackson argues that appellate jurisdiction exists under the collateral-order doctrine.2

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ appellate submissions, we conclude that the denial of Jackson’s motion to dismiss the case as moot, due to a settlement offer, is not a collateral order. *See Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.,*511 U.S. 863, 867-69, 114 S.Ct. 1992, 128 L.Ed.2d 842 (1994) (collateral-order doctrine comprises only district court decisions that are conclusive, resolve important questions completely separate from merits, and would render such important questions effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment; conditions for collateral-order are “stringent” and exception is “narrow”; holding that “right to avoid trial” negotiated in private settlement agreement could be adequately vindicated on appeal from final judgment). As a result, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. *See 28*U.S.C. § 1291.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. Jackson also moves to stay the appeal pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in another case. Given our disposition of this appeal, we do not reach Jackson’s motion.
# table172_q16.7_naics
PROB 12A

(73)

United States District Court

for

District of New Jersey

Report on Offender Under Supervision

Name of Offender: Jaquan Bowens Cr.: 10-00834-001

PACTS #: 60051

Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: THE HONORABLE DICKiNSON R. DEBEVOISE

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date of Original Sentence: 04/10/2012

Original Offense: Possession of a Weapon by a Convicted Felon

Original Sentence: 71 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release; $100 Special Assessment

Special Conditions: Alcohol/Substance Abuse Testing and Treatment

Type of Supervision: Supervised Release Date Supervision Commenced: 06/26/2015

NONCOMPLIANCE SUMMARY

The offender has not complied with the following condition(s) ofsupervision:

Violation Number Nature ofNoncompliance

1 The offender has violated the special supervision condition which states ‘You

shall refrain from the illegal possession and use of drugs, including

prescription medication not prescribed in your name, and the use of alcohol,

and shall submit to urinalysis or other forms of testing to ensure compliance.

It is further ordered that you shall submit to evaluation and treatment, on an

outpatient or inpatient basis, as approved by the U.S. Probation Office. You

shall abide by the rules of any program and shall remain in treatment until

satisfactorily discharged by the Court. You shall alert all medical

professionals of any prior substance abuse history, including any prior history

of prescription drug abuse. The Probation Officer shall supervise your

compliance with this condition.’

During a community contact on December 7, 2017, a urine sample was

requested from the offender, which tested positive for marijuana via a 10-

panel instant test. The offender verbally admitted to use approximately three

weeks prior to the contact date, and signed a Drug Admission Form.

Case 2:10-cr-00834-CCC Document 22 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 69
Prob 12A—page2

Claude Fields

U.S. Probation Officer Action:

This is the offender’s first act of noncompliance. He was verbally admonished for his actions and

informed that the Court would be notified ofthis noncompliance. Further, he was warned that any future

positive urinalysis would result in increased sanctions and/or violation proceedings. If Your Honor

approves, the probation office will increase urine monitoring for illicit drug use detection and requests

that this document be used as an official judicial reprimand.

Respectfully submitted,

Luis R. Gonzalez

cs::’f-2017.12.20

By: Gisella MBA1500

U.S. Probation Officer

Date: 12,20/2017

The Court’s endorsement ofthis petition willserve as an official written reprimand to the offender

unless the Court directs that alternative action be taken asfollows:

It’ Submit a Request for Modit’ing the Conditions or Term of Supervision

E Submit a Request for Warrant or Summons

E Other

Signature ofJudicial Officer

Date

Case 2:10-cr-00834-CCC Document 22 Filed 01/30/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 70
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA & Hon. Katharine S. Hayden
v. : Crim. No. 10-835 (KSH)
RICKY BOYD ‘ ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint
application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the
District of New Jersey (Lee M. Cortes, Jr., Assistant U.S.
Attorney, appearing), and defendant Ricky Boyd (Patrick McMahon,
Esq., appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the
proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and the defendant being
aware that he has the right to have the matter brought to trial
within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a judicial
officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United States
Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and as the defendant has consented to
such a continuance, and for good and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should
be continued for the following reasons:

(1) the failure to grant a continuance would
unreasonably deny counsel for the defendant and the attorney for
the government the reasonable time necessary for effective
preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence;

(2) As a result of the foregoing, pursuant to Title 18

United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7), the ends of justice served



by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the
public and the defendant in a speedy et

IT IS, therefore, on thig gd) “Gay of November, 2011,

ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued
until November 29, 2011; and it is further

ORDERED that jury selection will begin on November 28,
2011, and that trial is set for November 29, 2011; and it is
further

ORDERED that the period from the date of this order
through November 29, 2011 shall be excludable in computing time

under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

HON. KATHARINE S. HAYDEN
United States District Judge

Form and entry
consented to:

BEM Lag!

LEE M. CORTES, JR.
Assistant U.S. Attorney

PATRICK MCMAHON, Esq.
Counsel for defendant Ricky Boyd
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

This Certificate is being delivered
pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.

The undersigned, who are the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Omni Financial Services, Inc. (the issuer), hereby certify as follows:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of the issuer (the Report), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

Dated this 14th day of May, 2007.



/s/ Stephen M. KleinStephen M. Klein,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Constance E. PerrineConstance E. Perrine,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




43
ONE PRICE CLOTHING STORES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

    EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements
    No. 33-20529,  33-31623, 33-48091 and 33-61803 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
    1987 Stock  Option Plan,  the 1988 Stock Option Plan,  the 1991 Stock Option
    Plan and the Director Stock Option Plan, respectively, of One Price Clothing
    Stores,  Inc. of our report  dated March 14, 1997  appearing in Form 10-K of
    One Price Clothing Stores, Inc. for the year ended February 1, 1997.





    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
    Greenville, South Carolina

    April 23, 1997


<PAGE>
----

----

|   | 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      as of and for the period covered by theReport. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/      Martin Schacker        |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   | Martin      Schacker            |   |
|   | Co-Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|   | August      13, 2009            |   |

----
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imperiali, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel Imperato,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
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/
      Daniel ImperatoDaniel ImperatoPrincipal
      Financial
Officer




May 14,
2009
@misc{1213916,
  author = {David L. Duewer and Michael Nelson and Christina Cecelski},
  title = {CCQM_Retrospectoscope Quick Start: A beginner's guide to a data analysis system for visualizing results from CCQM studies},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-12 04:09:00},
  publisher = {NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956559},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8487},
  language = {en},
}
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) Cooper/Ports America LLC ) ) Under Contract No. HTC711-15-D-R036 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61462

W. Barron A. Avery, Esq. William T. DeVinney, Esq. William B. O'Reilly, Esq. Katherine L. McKnight, Esq.

BakerHostetlerLLP Washington, DC Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

Air Force Deputy ChiefTrial Attorney Caryl A. Potter III, Esq. Lt Col Byron G. Shibata, USAF Lt Col Sondra B. Nensala, USAF Christopher S. Cole, Esq. Danielle A. Runyan, Esq.

Trial Attorneys DISMISSAL FORLACK OF JURISDICTION The parties have filed ajoint motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the contracting officer's final decision was issued in errorprior to the certification ofappellant's claim. The Board grants the motion and hereby dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Dated: 3 April 2018

(Signatures continued) 

# LYND~lL1JL=

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appealsdministrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I concur

J. REID PROUTY Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61462, Appeal ofCooper/Ports America LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals