alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nikolaos Kitkas, Respondent, v Windsor Place Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent and Third Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendants. T & G Contracting Corp., Third-Party Defendant and Second Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent; Boca Electric Corp., Second Third-Party Defendant and Third Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 809]

*608“A motion on notice is made when a notice of the motion is served” (CPLR 2211; *see Russo v Eveco Dev. Corp.*256 AD2d 566 [1998]; *Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc.,*29 AD3d 560, 561 [2006]). Thus, contrary to the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, the initial motion for summary judgment made by the second third-party defendant/third third-party defendant Boca Electric Corp. (hereinafter Boca) was timely when it was served on all opposing counsel by mail on December 16, 2005 *(see*CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; *see also*Weinstein-Korn-Miller NY Civ Prac ¶ 2211.07). Boca’s subsequent service of an amended notice of motion, in order to schedule the return of the motion on a date permitted by the Supreme Court’s rules of practice, did not render the motion untimely *(see Rivera v Glen Oaks Vil. Owners, Inc.,*29 AD3d at 562). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to determine Boca’s motion on the merits. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.
£i: CguaF cF

ftecx<T/f cla*T of JflP&5 Q/JB&&T

Jul/JOjo/TT

rr

on

T Mi z~i FeJ/s to Eecz&fcul t//*t t/J£ J\/ojzc€ ofJ$te*f ///>s3a&

ri/£0 TM Tfc^ fcDa+r jfao T/frr j4u Mi $€6kje£S7z«tLA liccfc^^ &/>*zs>?^7. ffr*

l^QTd^sT ,JmO Z A* (-Omf^^J J? 7%fc &>i/ce$te* 6&u+<7S 3*z/H Z Tfrl 7?/5o &&7&1& A

JUi&tz (casus Gl J?£>c 7 jo 7#$. C&*&r«( &cufsf /leCkifc vf 7&a<, r/s&>u6>rt 7#t 3/&#

6zu^7y C/&-0 Office &*4 (c/L&MdQl 6>f //# /" Jjk#7*l <&f %£&&- of /wtfaf, fetacisw Mo, <2.

Ta/&PQ0Z&£ 7?55ZS/?wc<z <&f O&ustSef H 3, C<Z'uUzlt£&j 6&?y&u& 3s Acttoj of 4 (&l/vho

Oil 7671- 3u/iy Uffccff L'*5 Km (%v$r77*<7Z^A/// S&&P& //,4o Qntf**&*/?. Y/ uL-^c-t^w

YCi&u+tr T° J» o^Ja^/Zi AM&, /tw&s £e*x~s ^% (D&vzsse*, P?orz<^i /G+ /> /fe/ 7fe-A(

U'hb Os*uo»t 77Kh Mef >$l&:f /5~, Po/O J /Cu^o A^Jf/ £>7Sc
tJ<&. £**^Q*&l3j$ To
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report) of Marathon Acquisition Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael S. Gross, the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, 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, 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
Registrant.



|                     |  |                 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------
|/s/ Michael S. Gross
|Name:                |  | Michael S. Gross
|Date:                |  | August 11, 2008
Case 2:11-cr-00001-SDW Document 7 Filed 02/22/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 24
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

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), the undersigned officer of Cleartronic, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

|                         |        |        |        |                                                             |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |   |   |   |                                                        |
| Date: February 17, 2009 |   |   |   | /s/ Larry Reid                                              |
|                    |   | *By*   |   | Larry Reid                                                  |
|                    |   |   |   | Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |
S05Y0204.

#### IN THE MATTER OF TYRONE N. HAUGABROOK.

(606 SE2d 257)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master finding that Respondent Tyrone N. Haugabrook violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in Bar Rule 4-102 (d) as a result of his guilty plea to two felony counts of Filing a False Tax Return arising from his failure to accurately report his income for tax years 1993 and 1994, in violation of 26 USC § 7206 (1). Despite acknowledging that disbarment is generally the appropriate sanction for such violations, the special master observed that disbarment is not mandatory when mitigating factors warrant a lesser penalty. See *In the Matter of Calhoun,*268 Ga. 877 (494 SE2d 335) (1998). Among the mitigating factors found by the special master in this case are Respondent’s lack of a prior disciplinary record; his good reputation in the legal community and community at-large as evidenced by the strong support provided by numerous character witnesses at the evidentiary hearing before the special master and the voluminous letters and petitions submitted on Respondent’s behalf; his extensive volunteer activities; his obvious remorse and apparent rehabilitation; his good faith efforts to make restitution by resolving his outstanding tax liability; and the fact that his illegal actions were purely personal in nature and did not involve the practice of law, see *In the Matter of Calhoun, Jr.,*268 Ga. 675 (492 SE2d 514) (1997).

*722Decided November 22, 2004.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, K. Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*William R. Folsom, Copeland & Haugabrook, Roy W. Copeland,*for Haugabrook.

This Court does not take lightly Respondent’s felony convictions or the criminal behavior to which he has admitted. However, the Court notes that Respondent has already been punished through the criminal justice system and has accepted responsibility for his mistakes, which did not involve the practice of law. In light of his obvious remorse, his past and present service to his community, the fact that he had no prior disciplinary record, and his willingness to take full responsibility for his actions and the consequences thereof, this Court agrees with the special master that a one-year suspension and a public reprimand pursuant to Bar Rule 4-102 (b) (2) and (3) are the appropriate sanctions in this case. Accordingly, Haugabrook hereby is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year from August 9,2004, the date of the special master’s report. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c). In addition, it hereby is ordered that Respondent Tyrone N. Haugabrook be administered a public reprimand in open court pursuant to Bar Rules 4-102 (b) (3) and 4-220 (c) by a judge of the superior court where Haugabrook resides.

*One-year suspension and public reprimand.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

BECKY FIELDER 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

SCOTT LOWERY LAW OFFICES, 

P.C. 

 Defendant 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 2:10-cv-06556 

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, Becky Fielder, pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(i) of the Rules of the United States District Court, hereby dismisses the action 

captioned above, with prejudice. 

 BY:_/s/ Brent F. Vullings

 Brent F. Vullings, Esquire 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 Attorney I.D. #92344 

 Warren & Vullings, LLP 

 93 Old York Road 

 Jenkintown, PA 19046 

 215-745-9800 

 

Case 2:10-cv-06556-SRC-MAS Document 4 Filed 03/28/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 14
RCM 1.6

RCM 1.6 Cessation of Service/Relinquishment of Rights Revised February 18, 2014 Page 1 of 1

1.6.1 Railroad Work Applicants Must Stop

Refer to FOM-I-330.50

1.6.10 Last Pre-Retirement Nonrailroad Employer (LPE) Defined

Refer to FOM-I-330.15 for the definition of Last Pre-retirement Nonrailroad Employment 

(LPE) 

Refer to FOM-I-171O for an explanation of LPE entries on the annuity application
@article{1211111,
  author = {Chuanhong Liu and Robert Mcdermott and Britton Plourde and Andrew Ballard and Jonathan DuBois and Pete Hopkins and David Olaya and John Biesecker and Samuel P. Benz and Dan Schmidt and Joel Ullom},
  title = {Single Flux Quantum-Based Digital Control of Superconducting Qubits in a Multi-Chip Module},
  year = {2023},
  number = {4},
  month = {2023-06-24 04:06:00},
  publisher = {PRX Quantum},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935835},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.4.030310},
  language = {en},
}
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL09-21-001]

Take notice that on June 22, 2009, PacifiCorp submitted for filing a compliance filing pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and the Commission's May 21, 2009 Order, 127 FERC 61,144 (2009).

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 13, 2009.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-15731 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### J. C. NICHOLS CO. v. MID-STATES FREIGHT LINES, Inc.

No. 5665.

United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Oct. 18, 1949.

*554C. V. Kretsinger, Paul Van Osdol, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Lee Reeder, of Reeder, Gisler & Griffith, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The applicable rule is numbered 31, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Plaintiff’s motion is filed under paragraph {d) of said rule, and it is as follows: “After the service of interrogatories and prior to the taking of the testimony of the deponent, the court in which the action is pending, on motion promptly made by a party or a deponent, upon notice and good cause shown, may make any order specified in Rule 30 which is appropriate and just * * Rule 30 relates to depositions on oral examinations, and by paragraph (b) of said Rule orders for the protection of parties and deponents may be made. Among other limitations, the court may rule that the deposition “may be taken •only on written interrogatories”.

The object of written interrogatories is to elicit ultimate facts and to save •expense and time of the litigants. It would be an easy matter for the defendant to submit counter or cross interrogatories and, if from the answers, it may appear that right and justice require, then the defendant may be authorized to take oral deposition of the deponents. The showing made by the parties is not sufficient to justify the order requested by the defendant. Accordingly, said motion should be overruled and it will be so ordered.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 123 (Monday, June 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15357]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1834-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Arkansas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-1834-DR), dated April 27, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 20, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gerard M. 
Stolar, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of W. Michael Moore as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-15357 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
# table120_q14.1_size
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,292
<PP&E>                                         182,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,378
<BONDS>                                         43,338
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,742<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,732
<SALES>                                        178,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,020
<CGS>                                           43,994
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  171,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   132
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,051
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,378
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,673
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,673
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
<FN>
<F1>Item 5-02(31) net of treasury stock.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 938 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 938

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        April 23, 2020.
    Resolved, That House Resolution 935 is hereby adopted.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.1**



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 Quarterly Report of Opes Exploration Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ken Ralfs, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ Ken RalfsKen Ralfs 
Chief Executive Officer 
September 14, 2007
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 22, 2015

NO. 03-14-00407-CR

Jerryl Robinson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
Gibbon's 

Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 

853 (1991). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

clap. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge 

Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas 

Maier Gutierrez Ayon, PLLC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 2
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 135187 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### RAYMOND WARRING and Stephen J. Markman, 

### MARK H. WARRING, Justices 

### Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 135187 COA: 261497 Hillsdale CC: 04-000149-CZ TOTAL MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS INC., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e August 7, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p0211 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 19, 2008

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

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARSEN SARIBEKYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73655

Agency No. A079-781-457

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Arsen Saribekyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Mohammed v. Gonzales,

FILED

SEP 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73655

400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Saribekyan’s motion to

reopen as untimely because it was filed over three years after the BIA’s final order

of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed

within 90 days of final order of removal), and Saribekyan did not show he was

entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.

2003) (deadline for filing motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a

petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as

the petitioner acts with due diligence”), or that changed country conditions

warranted reopening, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.

INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.