alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 157
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 158
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 159
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 160
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 161
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 162
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 163
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 164
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 165
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 166
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 167
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 168
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 169
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 170
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 171
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 172
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 173
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 174
Case 2:11-cv-01382-DMC-JAD Document 15 Filed 08/11/11 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 175
April 16 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JASON B

. JACKSON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00150

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fitzroy Morris, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 892]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated April 21, 2003 *(People v Morris,*304 AD2d 775 [2003]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 2, 2000.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Florio, Miller and Lunn, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert J. Terrano, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Del Taco Income Properties IV;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:  a)
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):  a)
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. Date: March 25, 2005
    
    /s/ Robert J. TerranoRobert J. TerranoExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer
#### Paul L. Francis, Plaintiff, v D & W Saratoga, Inc., Respondent, and Washington Title, Appellant. Amrit Puran, Intervenor-Respondent.

[856 NYS2d 137]

*598The appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that a claim made by the defendant D & W Saratoga, Inc. (hereinafter D & W), under a title insurance policy it issued to D & W was not covered under the policy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing D & W’s cross claims against it and, upon reargument, properly adhered to that determination.

The Supreme Court also properly determined that the appellant is obligated to defend D & W in the instant action under the terms of the title insurance policy. “[A]n insurer’s duty to defend its insured arises whenever the allegations in a complaint state a cause of action that gives rise to the reasonable possibility of recovery under the policy” *(Fitzpatrick v American Honda Motor Co.,*78 NY2d 61, 65 [1991]; *see Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v Cook,*7 NY3d 131, 137 [2006]). “However, an insurer can be relieved of its duty to defend if it establishes as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured under any policy provision” *(Allstate Ins. Co. v Zuk, 78*NY2d 41, 45 [1991]). The appellant failed to make that showing. Its contention that coverage for D & W’s claim is precluded under the policy because the basis for the claim, the conveyance of the subject property pursuant to a purportedly fraudulent deed, was not known to the appellant or was not part of the public record as of the effective date of the policy, is unavailing. “[A] title insurer will be liable for hidden defects and all matters affecting title within the policy coverage and not excluded or specifically excepted from said coverage” *(Citibank v Commonwealth Land Tit. Ins. Co.,*228 AD2d 635, 637 [1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. TR U/A DTD 12/ 01/98 v Stewart Tit. Ins. Co.,*37 AD3d 822, 824 [2007]). Here, the policy contains no specific exclusion from coverage in the event the deed conveying the property to D & W was fraudulent.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                  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

I,  Steven  Levin,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report of Twistee  Treat  Corporation  on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
November 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Interactive Marketing Technology, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ Steven Levin
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Steven Levin
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer

April 15, 2005
Exhibit 8.1
  Subsidiary*
    
    Year of Incorporation
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationHoshin GigaMedia Center, Inc.
    
    1998
    
    TaiwanGigaMedia Finance International Limited
    
    2000
    
    Cayman IslandsGigaMedia International Holdings Limited
    
    2004
    
    British Virgin IslandsCambridge Entertainment Software Limited
    
    2004
    
    British Virgin IslandsFunTown World Limited
    
    2005
    
    British Virgin IslandsGigaMedia Asia Limited
    
    2005
    
    British Virgin IslandsFunTown Hong Kong Limited
    
    1999
    
    Hong KongGigaMedia China Limited
    
    2005
    
    British Virgin IslandsCambridge Interactive Development Corporation (Quebec) Inc.
    
    2005
    
    CanadaCambridge Interactive Development Corporation
    
    1997
    
    U.S.A.Internet Media Licensing Ltd.
    
    2005
    
    British Virgin Islands
 
 *
    
    Includes significant subsidiaries of GigaMedia Limited only.
Kevin H. Marino 

John A. Boyle 

MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C. 

437 Southern Boulevard 

Chatham, New Jersey 07928-1488 

Tel: (973) 824-9300 

Fax: (973) 824-8425 

Counsel for Defendant 

Arthur A. Dornbusch II 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

----------------------------------------------------------------x 

KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BASF CATALYSTS LLC, ET AL., 

 

 Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-01754- JLL-JAD

DEFENDANT ARTHUR A. 

DORNBUSCH II’S NOTICE OF 

MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND 

AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE FOR 

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON 

WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED 

AND FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD 

FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED 

Document Electronically Filed 

----------------------------------------------------------------x 

TO: Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. 

Michael Coren, Esq. 

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C. 

127 Maple Avenue 

Red Bank, NJ 07701 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on a date to be set by the Court, Defendant Arthur A. 

Dornbusch II (“Dornbusch”), through his attorneys, Marino, Tortorella & Boyle, P.C. (Kevin H. 

Marino, Esq., appearing), will move before the Honorable Jose L. Linares, U.S.D.J., United 

States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 167 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 5427
2

Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102, for entry of an Order, pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), dismissing Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 

Class Action Complaint with prejudice as to Dornbusch for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted and for failure to plead fraud with particularity. 

 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of this motion, Dornbusch will rely 

on the Memorandum of Law submitted herewith. A proposed form of Order is also submitted 

herewith. 

 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Dornbusch respectfully requests oral 

argument on this motion. 

Dated: September 25, 2015 MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C. 

Chatham, New Jersey Attorneys for Defendant Arthur A. Dornbusch II 

BY: /s/ Kevin H. Marino 

KEVIN H. MARINO 

 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-ESK Document 167 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 5428
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of the Company
(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 Company.
 Date: August 14, 2008
    /s/  JAN SMILEKJan SmilekVice President, Finance
Acting Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1


      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


We, James Crigler and Byron Hudson, 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,  the Annual Report of American Pallet Leasing, Inc. on
Form 10-KSB/A for the annual period ended June 30, 2005 fully  complies with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that  information  contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all
material respects the financial  condition and results of operations of American
Pallet Leasing, Inc.



                                  By:   /s/ James Crigler
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                        James Crigler, Chief Executive Officer


                                  By:   /s/ Byron Hudson
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                        Byron Hudson, Chief Financial Officer
corn

Attorney for Third Party,

CVS Caremark.

lNITED SlATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, C.A. NC. 1 l-CR-00277 (SRC)

vs.

MICHAEL F. DURANTE, et al. ORDER

THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court by Edwards Wildman Palmer,

LLP. attorneys for Third Party CVS Caremark (hereinafter, “CVS”). and the Court having read

the moving papers served on counsel of record via hand delivery, and being satisfied that good

cause appears:

IT IS on this / day of 2012 ORDERED that:

1. Mark Benedetti is hereby designated as Custodian of Records thr CVS:

2. CVS Pharmacy will provide previously provided records under the September

2011 subpoena directly to Counsel for Defendant:

3. CVS Pharmacy will provide the records sought in the Fehruar 21. 2012

subpoena to the Court onl for In Camera review by the Court onl\:
ON. STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of Archon Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Paul W. Lowden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Grant L. Siler, Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:



| |  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                             |  |                 
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|Dated:                                       |  | January 14, 2008
|                                            
|/s/ Paul W. Lowden                          
|Paul W. Lowden                              
|Chairman of the Board and President         
|(Principal Executive Officer)               
|                                            
|/s/ Grant L. Siler                          
|Grant L. Siler                              
|Principal Accounting Officer                
|(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 491

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the adjustments to be made 

in determining export price and constructed export price. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mr. PICKERING (for himself, Mr. ROSS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. 

TURNER of Texas, Mr. WICKER, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the adjustments 

to be made in determining export price and constructed 

export price.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Duty Parity Act of 

5 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPORT PRICE AND CONSTRUCTED EXPORT PRICE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff 

8 Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677a(c)(2)(A)) is amended by 
2

•HR 491 IH 

1 inserting ‘‘(including countervailing duties imposed under 

2 this Act)’’ after ‘‘duties’’. 

3 (b) APPLICATION TO CANADA AND MEXICO.—Pursu4 ant to article 1902 of the North American Free Trade 

5 Agreement and section 408 of the North American Free 

6 Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the amendment 

7 made by this section shall apply with respect to goods from 

8 Canada and Mexico. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply with respect to determinations 

11 made under title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 that—

12 (1) are made with respect to investigations ini13 tiated or petitions filed after the date of enactment 

14 of this section; or 

15 (2) have not become final as of the date of en16 actment of this section.

Æ
#### The Augusto.1 Gudewill *v.*The Augusto.

*(District Court, E. D. New York,*

July 13, 1886.)

Carriers—Of Goods — Ships — Stowage — Opening Bales for Purposes of Stowage—Consequent Reduction in Value—Liability.

Certain bales of cork-wood were skipped in good order, on board of the bark Augusto. While on board, some of the bales were opened, apparently for the sake of stowage. In rebaling, woods of different sizes and quality were so mixed as to reduce their market value. The consignee refused to give a receipt for the same in good order, whereupon the ship-owner sold the goods. On suit brought by the consignee to recover the sound value of the goods, less the freight on the whole shipment, *held,*that libelant should recover that value.

In Admiralty.

*Hill, Wing & Shoudy,*for libelants.

*Ullo, Ruebsamen & Hubbe,*for claimants.

1

 Reported by R. D. *&*Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

Certain bales of cork-wood and cork were shipped in good order on the bark Augusto. While on board ship 62 bales were opened by cutting or otherwise, apparently for the sake of stowage. In rebaling these 62, woods of different sizes and quality were so mixed as to cause a serious reduction in the market value of the goods so mixed. The ship refused to deliver these 62 bales except upon receiving a receipt for the same in good order. The consignees refused to give such a receipt, and thereupon the ship-owner sold the goods. The consignee now, by this action, seeks to recover the sound value of these 62 bales, less the freight on the whole shipment. The ship rests her defense upon the fact proved that, subsequent to the original demand of a receipt in good order, she offered to deliver these bales, subject to the ship’s lien for freight. In reply, the libelants claim that, upon sending the receiving clerk, O’Brien, to the ship for the goods, in accordance with the offer to deliver sub*335ject to the ship’s lien for freight, the goods were again refused, unless a receipt in good order was given. The evidence is not as clear as it might lie as to the time of O’Brien’s demand, but I think the testimony justifies the opinion that the visit of O’Brien to the ship was in consequence of the oiler to deliver the goods, and, if so, it was of course subsequent to the offer. The testimony of O’Brien shows, therefore, that the offer to deliver was not adhered to; and, as the condition of the goods did not justify the ship in asking for a receipt in good order, a breach of tlie contract is proved. There seems to be no doubt as to the value of the goods in the 62 bales, and that value is the measure of the libelants’ damages resulting from the breach. The libelant must recover that value, viz., $1,368.20, less, of course, the freight on the whole shipment, which was $379.49.

Let a decree be entered in favor of the libelant for $988.49, with interest from August 19, 1881.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 132 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33486-33487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16393]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11776 and <greek-i>11777]


Alaska Disaster Number AK-00015

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Alaska (FEMA-1843-DR), dated 06/11/
2009.
    Incident: Flooding and Ice Jams.
    Incident Period: 04/28/2009 and continuing through 05/31/2009.
    Effective Date: 05/31/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/10/2009.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/11/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Alaska, dated 06/11/2009 is hereby amended 
to establish the incident period for this

[[Page 33487]]

disaster as beginning 04/28/2009 and continuing through 05/31/2009.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-16393 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P