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

Civ. No. 10175.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

Dec. 8, 1949.

Francis L. Giordano, Brooklyn, N. Y., attorney for plaintiffs.

William McHale, New York City, attorney for Louis Teitelbaum.

Frederick M. Garfield, New York City, attorney for Herman Haimovit and H. Ann Haimovit (Harold M. Harkavy, New York City, of counsel).

BYERS, District Judge.

These are motions by plaintiffs against the defendants who answer separately, to vacate notice of the taking of plaintiffs’ respective depositions in this City, in an action in which they seek recovery for rather vague personal injuries said to have been sustained while they were passengers riding in the automobile of the defendants Haimovit, driven by the defendant Weiss. That car is said to have been in collision with a car driven by defendant Teitelbaum, at Elkton, Maryland, on March 18, 1949.

The plaintiffs are residents of Peters-burg, Virginia, and all defendants are residents of New York. This-means that the cause is here pending by necessity rather than as a matter of choice. The plaintiffs seek (a) to have the examination take place in Petersburg because of the expense they will be put to in coming to this City, and to pay the plaintiffs’ attorney for attendance, or (b) to have the defendants pay the plaintiffs’ expenses in coming to New York, or (c) that the examination be upon written interrogatories.

The moving affidavits are by the plaintiffs’ attorney and reveal no situation comparable to that stated in Sullivan v. Southern Pacific Company, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 206. Nor does it appear why -the ■ plaintiffs, having embarked upon this litigation, should not assume all the incidents thereof which the law contemplates.

For failure to meet what is thought to be the necessary basis for exercising the discretion contemplated by Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the motions are denied, and the stays contained in the orders to show cause are vacated.

Settle order.
(March 18, 2008)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lester Achaibar, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 337]

In order for a guilty plea to be entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, a defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of the plea *(People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 403 [1995]). Although there is no mandatory catechism, a minimum requirement for a valid plea is that the defendant understands the direct penal consequences *(see People v Catu,*4 NY3d 242 [2005]).

*390Here, the plea minutes show only that prior to the allocution the prosecutor, defense attorney and court all agreed the disposition was an “open D,” that the prosecutor intended to make an unspecified recommendation at sentencing, and that defense counsel expected the prosecutor’s recommended sentence to be probation. During the allocution, defendant acknowledged he was pleading guilty to a class D felony, but there was no discussion of the meaning of that term or of the term “open D,” or any inquiry of defendant as to whether he understood the scope of possible sentencing. While defendant may have understood that he might be receiving some period of incarceration instead of probation, there is no indication anywhere in the record that he was informed of the range of sentences he could receive. Accordingly, we find the plea to be invalid.

This determination renders academic the other arguments defendant raises on his direct appeal, and also renders academic the appeal from the denial of the article 440 motion. Concur— Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
# table96_q12.1_size
£(^A\S^Jk^£^,

, J__UftfbJ^Q_j<22^

\<j__\cbo^

_(,fi yuc "trW frf fr e)H A<of da u>feg.-f kc -fcxA ^c ywi

:ii^__ti^

Voxci v\<d ^__vf of ~fU_ _:r. jup_ -f-fed.r ^s_^c pfetce } ux&>

b_a_6 fipuj v_.ml (no£A Ao__/\ |ppre _l HYftgrP/lf iMCM.^t^jl&fc

1^ _x£_>flfcP _D_tvf_ CLA_. U_A f>0 ^g_A_2_ CD_f <fl((. Qai\

AusiK-^doiivs, ^ggag&SL ^M______aoJS_:.

_Ie^__^^

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 20 201!

-A__lAcos!a3Clerk
# Requests Report

# image4.emf

# image5.emf

# image6.emf

# image7.emf

# image8.emf

# image1.emf

# image2.emf

# image3.emf

# image9.png
Pickering 

150, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007) (explaining that modification of primary 

physical custody is only warranted when there has been a change in 

circumstances and when the modification will serve the child's best 

interests); Rooney v. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540, 542-43, 853 P.2d 123, 124-25 

(1993). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

Gibbons 

cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division 

Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge 

Michael A. Root 

Michael Edward Dancer 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

"We have determined that this appeal should be submitted for 

decision on the fast track statement and response and the appellate record 

without oral argument. See NRAP 3E(g)(1); see also NRAP 3401). 

To the extent appellant's arguments are not addressed in this order, 

we conclude they lack merit. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A
# Result 8.3
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 961 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 961

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President 
should work with the Government of the United Kingdom to prepare for a 
 future free trade agreement between the United States and the United 
                                Kingdom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2020

Mr. Murphy of North Carolina submitted the following resolution; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President 
should work with the Government of the United Kingdom to prepare for a 
 future free trade agreement between the United States and the United 
                                Kingdom.

Whereas, on March 5, 1946, Sir Winston Churchill delivered the Iron Curtain 
        speech in Fulton, Missouri, solidifying the ``Special Relationship'' 
        between the United States and the United Kingdom;
Whereas, since the end of World War II, the United States and the United Kingdom 
        have been beacons of freedom to the world, standing together in the 
        fight against tyranny;
Whereas the Special Relationship between the United States and the United 
        Kingdom has enabled economic prosperity and security cooperation for 
        both countries for more than 70 years;
Whereas, on June 23, 2016, the people of the United Kingdom voted in support of 
        a referendum to leave the European Union;
Whereas the United Kingdom is an important trading partner with the United 
        States, with $232,000,000,000 in goods traded between the two countries 
        in 2017;
Whereas, on October 16, 2018, the United States Trade Representative expressed 
        the intention of the President to negotiate a free trade agreement 
        between the two countries after the United Kingdom leaves the European 
        Union; and
Whereas the constitutional power of making treaties with foreign nations 
        includes both the legislative and executive branches: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the United States should have a close and mutually 
        beneficial trading and economic partnership with the United 
        Kingdom without interruption; and
            (2) the President, with the support of Congress, should lay 
        the groundwork for a future trade agreement between the United 
        States and the United Kingdom.
                                 <all>
```
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors
Northeast Bancorp
Auburn, Maine

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-85206), (No. 33-32095), (No.
33-58538), (No. 33-32096) and (No. 33-87976) of Northeast Bancorp of our report
dated August 6, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Northeast Bancorp and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended June 30, 2004.

|Portland, Maine    | /s/ Baker Newman & Noyes 
|------------------ | -------------------------
|September 16, 2004 | Baker Newman & Noyes     
|                   | Limited Liability Company
**Exhibit 32**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code), each of the undersigned officers of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc.,(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of each officer’s knowledgethat:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter andsix months ended June 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| Date: August 10, 2007 |   | /s/ C. Randal Mills     |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                  |   | C. Randal Mills, Ph.D.  |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                  |   |                    |
| Date: August 10, 2007 |   | /s/ Cary J. Claiborne   |
|                  |   | Cary J. Claiborne       |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.  This certification “accompanies”the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is notto be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespectiveof any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

ANNE WILSON, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

HONEYWELL, INC., (FORMERLY 

ALLIED SIGNAL INC.) AND TRAVELERS 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 65 EM 2015 

ANNE WILSON, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY 

AND ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 66 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2015, as the challenged order is not a final 

one, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DISMISSED. See 42 Pa.C.S. §724(a) 

(stating that only final orders of the Commonwealth Court, sitting in its appellate 

jurisdiction, may be challenged through allocatur review).
EX-32
  ·   Section 1350 Certifications




GENEMEN
INC.





Pursuant
to Section  18U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
(subsection  (a) and (b)
of  section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,
United  States  Code),  each of
the  undersigned  officers  of Genemen
Inc.,  a Nevada  corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that:





The
Annual  Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  February
28, 2009  (the  "Form  10-K")  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-K  fairly presents,  in
all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.








Date:
April 2, 2009





/s/ Qiaozhen
Chen


Qiaozhen
Chen


Principal
Executive Officer


and
Principal Financial Officer
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 Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Nathaniel J.
Lipman, 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:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Dated: October 30, 2009              
|                                     
|/s/ Nathaniel J. Lipman              
|Nathaniel J. Lipman                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
BLS Technical Advisory Committee May 9, 2024

 

10:00 am Commissioner’s Welcome and Review of Agency Developments

10:30 am New Producer Price Index for Postsecondary Education

Presenter: Bonnie Murphy, BLS Office of Prices and Living Conditions

Jason Carnival, BLS Office of Prices and Living Conditions

Discussants: Alberto Cavallo, Harvard Business School 

Marshall Reinsdorf, Economic Consultant and Supporting Editor for the 

2025 SNA

12:00 pm Lunch

1:00 pm How to Use Matched Data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 

Injury Tracking Application (OSHA ITA) to Improve Survey of Occupational Injuries and 

Illnesses (SOII) Estimates

Presenter: Brittany Cheadle, BLS Office of Compensation and Working Conditions

Danny Friel, BLS Office of Compensation and Working Conditions

Discussants: Rebecca Andridge, Ohio State University

Jared Murray, University of Texas at Austin

2:30 pm Current Population Survey Modernization 

Presenter: Nicholas Johnson, BLS Office of Employment and Unemployment 

Statistics

Discussants: Kristen Olson, University of Nebraska

Ting Yan, Westat

4:00 pm Conclusion

All times Eastern Standard Time. Please contact BLSTAC@bls.gov for questions.

Virtual Registration at https://blstac.eventbrite.com
#### In the Matter of Lawrence Worner, Respondent, v Susan Gavin, Appellant.

[978 NYS2d 88]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Kiedaisch, J.), dated February 27, 2012, which denied, as untimely, her objections to an order of the same court (Krahulik, S.M.) dated December 5, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to terminate his child support obligation and directed her to pay child support to the father in the sum of $178 per week.

Ordered that the order dated February 27, 2012, is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for a determination of the mother’s objections on the merits.

Family Court Act § 439 (e) provides that a party filing objections must serve those objections upon the opposing party, and that proof of service must be filed with the court at the time that the party’s objections are filed. Here, the record indicates that, on January 19, 2012, the mother timely filed objections to the child support order dated December 5, 2011, which was mailed to the parties on December 15, 2011, and served a copy of those objections upon the father, but failed to file proof of service of the objections at the time of the filing, as required by Family Court Act § 439 (e). However, the mother, who was *957proceeding pro se, received a letter from the court dated January 19, 2012, the same day she filed her objections, informing her that she had failed to submit proof of service of her objections, and stating that she had two weeks within which to correct the defect and submit the appropriate documentation. The mother then filed proof of service with the court six days later. Moreover, the affidavit of service filed by the mother indicates that the father was served with a copy of her objections within the statutory 35-day period *(see*Family Court Act § 439 [e]), and the father filed a rebuttal to the mother’s objections. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Family Court should not have denied the mother’s objections on the ground that they were untimely *(see*CPLR 2001; *Matter of Nash v Yablon-Nash,*106 AD3d 740, 741 [2013]; *Matter of Perez v Villamil,*19 AD3d 501, 501-502 [2005]; *Matter of Corcoran v Stuart,*215 AD2d 340 [1995]; *see also Matter of Ogborn v Hilts,*262 AD2d 857 [1999]).

Since the Family Court failed to consider the mother’s objections on the merits, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for a determination of the objections on the merits.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the mother’s remaining contention. Mastro, J.E, Lott, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7776
ROBERT WILLIAM MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LYNN PHILLIPS, Director of Prisons; HAZEL KEITH, Manager, Combined Records, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-95-909-5-BR) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert William Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Martin v. Phillips , No. CA-95-909-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 1995). 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
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31403-31404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15393]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee will hold a 
meeting tentatively on July 15, 2009 at the Sierra Nevada College, 999 
Tahoe Boulevard, Incline Village, NV 89451. This Committee, established 
by the Secretary of Agriculture on December 15, 1998 (64 FR 2876), is 
chartered to provide advice to the Secretary on implementing the terms 
of the Federal Interagency Partnership on the Lake Tahoe Region and 
other matters raised by the Secretary.

DATES: The meeting will be held July 15, 2009, beginning at 9 a.m. and 
ending at 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Sierra Nevada College, 999 Tahoe 
Boulevard, Incline Village, NV 89451.
    For Further Information or to Request an Accommodation (one week 
prior to meeting date) Contact: Linda Lind, Lake Tahoe Basin Management 
Unit, Forest

[[Page 31404]]

Service, 35 College Drive, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, (530) 543-2787.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Items to be covered on the agenda include: 
(1) Lake Tahoe Southern Nevada Public Land Act (SNPLMA) Round 10 
update; (2) Status and preparation for SNPLMA Round 11; and, (3) Public 
Comment. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are 
open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the 
above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee 
during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing 
written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after 
the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin 
Management Unit at the contact address stated above.

    Dated: June 23, 2009.
Cheva Heck,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-15393 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
|   | • | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|   | • | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      combined predecessors of thePartnership. |
|--------|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|        Date: August 9, 2010 | /s/ MICHAEL E. MERCER                              |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Michael      E. Mercer                             |
|                             | Chief      Financial Officer of EV Management LLC, |
|                             | general      partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,        |
|                             | general      partner of EV Energy Partners, L.P.   |

----
# table15_q3.3_size
#### STORNELLI v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO.

No. 1667.

District Court, W. D. New York.

March 16, 1942.

*346William L. Clay, of Rochester, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Goodwin, Nixon, Hargrave, Middleton & Devans, of Rochester, N. Y. (Casper V. Baltensperger, of Rochester, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

A pre-trial conference in this case was held before this court on March 5, 1942. By agreement of parties the case was set down for trial for a day certain, to wit: March 18, 1942. At the pre-trial conference the Court emphasized one purpose as being to clear any preliminary matters preceding the date of trial. Plaintiff then indicated no purpose to take any deposition. Now two days before the date for trial, when it is evidently too late to procure the examination sought, this motion is made. Issue was joined in this suit June 25, 1935. Plaintiff, therefore, has had upwards of seven years in which to procure these depositions.

The motion is denied.