alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Amy M. GRACI, Debtor.

No. 05-18224 B.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York.

Sept. 23, 2008.

*692Penney, Maier & Wallach, Mark S. Wal-lach, Esq., of counsel, Buffalo, NY, Attorneys for the Chapter 7 Trustee.

David W. Polak, Esq., West Seneca, NY, Attorney for the Debtor.

*DECISION & ORDER*

CARL L. BUCKI, Chief Judge.

Prior to the filing of her petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, Amy M. Graci had initiated proceedings in the United States District Court to recover damages for a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.). For this reason, on Schedule C to her bankruptcy petition, Ms. Graci claimed an exemption under the New York Debtor and Creditor Law for the amount of any such recovery. When the Chapter 7 trustee then filed a timely objection to the claim of exemption, this court issued its order preserving the trustee’s objection until such time as the District Court would decide the underlying cause of action. Ms. Graci has now obtained judgment, so that the trustee renews his request for a decision on the merits of the exemption.

In claiming an exemption, the debtor relies upon Debtor and Creditor Law § 282(iii)(3)(iii). This subdivision allows a debtor to exempt, from property of the bankruptcy estate, “a payment, not to exceed seventy-five hundred dollars on account of personal bodily injury, not including pain and suffering or compensation for actual pecuniary loss, of the debtor or an individual of whom the debtor is a depen-dant.” The debtor contends that because her disability arose from a personal bodily injury, any claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act should be deemed to seek a recovery for personal bodily injury. In the view of this court, however, such argument would violate the language and direction of the exemption statute.

The debtor’s recovery under the Americans with Disabilities Act represented the *693payment of damages on account of discriminatory conduct, and not on account of personal bodily injury. The involvement of a preexisting bodily injury may indicate the defendant’s motive, but the defendant did not cause the bodily injury and such bodily injury does not provide the basis for damages in the present instance. Hence, no portion of the recovery can be said to arise from personal bodily injury, so as to implicate any exemption under section 282(iii)(3)(iii) of the Debtor and Creditor Law.

For the reasons stated herein, the debt- or may not receive an exemption for the recovery obtained by reason of her claim under the Americans with Disability Act. Accordingly, the trustee’s objection to that exemption is in all respects sustained.

So ordered.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH MOSER, dba Marketing Support

Systems,

Petitioner,

v.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA,

Respondents. No. 21

- 70099

FCC No. EB

- TCD

- 18

- 00028267

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Federal Communications Commission

Submitted March 1 6 , 2023 * *

Before: WALLACE, D. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Kenneth Moser seeks review of a forfeiture order issued by the Federal

Co mmunications Commission (“FCC”)

, hol ding that Moser, doing business as

Marketing Support Systems, violated the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, 47 U.S.C.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

MAR 16 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

§ 227(e) , by conducting a large

- scale robocalling campaign using false caller

identification information to display a number belonging to a business rival

. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The district cou rt has exclusive jurisdiction over the petition because Moser

seeks to avoid enforcement of a forfeiture order. See 47 U.S.C. § 504(a) ( “The

forfeitures provided for in this chapter . . . shall be recoverable . . . in a civil suit in

the name of the Unite d States brought in the district where the person or carrier has

its principal operating office [.]”); Dougan v. F.C.C. , 21 F.3d 1488, 149 1 (9th Cir.

1994) ( “We hold that 47 U.S.C. § section 504(a) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the

district courts to hear enforcement suits by the government, and suits by private

individuals seeking to avoid enforcemen t.”).

DISMISSE D

.
Exhibit 10.53











Exhibit 10.53




Oral Agreement





	•	 	This oral arrangement was entered into on May 13, 2011, between Mr. Xuchun Wang and the
shareholders of Ruixing Group Co., Ltd.






	•	 	Mr. Wang will act as nominee on behalf of Ruixing Group’s shareholders until such time
as his nominee role is terminated by a majority of Ruixing Group’s shareholders.






	•	 	Mr. Wang receives no compensation for acting as a nominee.
	 
	•	 	Mr. Wang will act at the direction of Mr. Guangyin Meng as to key decisions affecting the
beneficial option holders of SMSA, except as to decisions to exercise the options in SMSA, including any
change in control transaction such as a merger with a third party, in which case unanimity of the option
holders of SMSA is required.






	•	 	If Mr. Wang fails to follow instructions of Ruixing Group’s shareholders, the latter may
pursue all legal remedies available against Mr. Wang.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Simone Blank, Chief Financial Officer of 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 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.



|                 |  |  |  |                                                     
|---------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|February 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ SIMONE BLANK                                    
|                 |  |  |  | Simone Blank                                        
|                 |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Sirona
Dental Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order filed March 19, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-20-00054-CV

__________

RYAN BROUSSARD, Appellant

V.

IPSCO TUBULARS, INC. D/B/A TMK IPSCO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-19-08-1063-CV

O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal from an order in which the trial court denied a 

special appearance, Appellant, Ryan Broussard, has filed in this court a motion to 

stay all proceedings, including discovery, in the underlying suit. At the time that 

Appellant conferred with Appellee, IPSCO Tubulars, Inc. d/b/a TMK IPSCO,

Appellee opposed the motion to stay. Appellee has since filed a response in this 

court in which Appellee indicates that it “has withdrawn its opposition to Appellant’s 

Motion to Stay Pending Interlocutory Appeal.” 
2

Appellants’ motion to stay is granted. Accordingly, all proceedings below are 

stayed pending further order of this court or final disposition of the interlocutory 

appeal in this cause. See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.3. 

PER CURIAM

March 19, 2020

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2014

SANDRA LEANO,

Appellant,

v.

AMY SMITH and JOHN MENDEZ,

Appellees.

No. 4D14-1519

[November 19, 2014]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Laura M. Watson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

14-00167 (42).

Kathleen K. Pena of Legal Aid Services of Broward County, Inc., 

Plantation, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Sandra Leano challenges two orders: (1) an order dismissing 

her petition for temporary custody of a minor child by extended family, 

pursuant to chapter 751, Florida Statutes, and (2) an order issued in 

connection with indirect criminal contempt proceedings initiated by the 

court. The dismissal of Leano’s custody action is affirmed without further 

comment. The order entered as the result of the contempt proceedings is, 

however, reversed. The order is tantamount to an order of contempt and 

was entered absent compliance with the procedural safeguards mandated 

by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
ex10-2.htm



Exhibit 10.2


 


 JUHL VALLEY VIEW, LLC


1702 17TH STREET SE


PIPESTONE, MN 56164




 


November 29, 2011







Pearl Nicholas Trust


500 Sheridan Road


Wilmette, IL 60091


Attn: Pearl Nicholas, Trustee







Re:           Juhl Valley View, LLC







Dear Trustee:







In connection with that certain subscription for Common Membership Units (the “Units”) of Juhl Valley View, LLC (the “Company”), dated November 29, 2011, by and between Company and Pearl Nicholas Trust (the “Purchaser” and together with the Company, the “Parties”), the Company agrees to the commitments to Purchaser as set forth herein to accommodate a specific circumstance of Purchaser.  No further signature of Purchaser shall be required for the commitments set forth herein to be the separate, valid, binding and effective agreement of the Company to Purchaser.







The Company and the Purchaser confirms, acknowledges and agrees to the following:







As of January 1, 2017 and thereafter, the Purchaser may exercise its option (a “Put Right”) to require the Company to purchase all or any part of its units in Company then held by the Purchaser for a price in cash equal to the present value (determined using a discount rate of eight percent (8%) per annum) of the (i) estimated future distributions (as reasonably determined) to be made to Purchaser net of (ii) estimated future income allocations (as reasonably determined) for which no distributions are projected to be made (the “Put Right Purchase Amount”).  The closing shall be dated as of the Purchaser’s date of the notice (any time at or after January 1, 2017) or as otherwise mutually agreed.







The Put Right Purchase Amount shall be due and payable within one month of the date of Purchaser’s due exercise of the Put Right by its written notice provided to the Company.  Addresses for notices is as set forth in Company’s limited liability company agreement.







If the Company fails to pay in full the Put Right Purchase Amount hereunder in cash on the date such amount is due in accordance with this Letter Agreement, the Company will issue a promissory note with a maturity date not exceeding thirty-six months and pay interest thereon at a rate equal to the lesser of 12% per annum or the maximum rate permitted by applicable law, accruing daily from such date until the Put Right Purchase Amount, plus all such interest thereon, is paid in full.







This Letter Agreement may not be amended, modified in any respect or assigned without the written consent of the Company and the Purchaser.  This Letter Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to the principles of conflict of laws.


 


 




	 	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Juhl Valley View, LLC	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By: 	 
	 	 	
John Mitola, its Manager
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

COMMUNITY CENTRAL BANK CORPORATION
FORM 10-QSB (continued)

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    Three Months Ended
                                        March 31,
                                 2005                2004
                                ------              ------
                                   (In thousands, except
                                      per share data)
<S>                             <C>                 <C>
BASIC

Net Income                      $  752              $  548
/ Weighted Average Shares        3,043               2,823
                                ------              ------

Basic Earnings Per Share        $ 0.25              $ 0.19
                                ======              ======

DILUTED

Net Income                      $  752              $  548
/ Weighted Average Shares        3,129               2,891
                                ------              ------
Diluted Earnings Per Share      $ 0.24              $ 0.19
                                ======              ======
</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Dominick Giaquinto, Appellant, v Commissioner of New York State Department of Health, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Submitted March 17, 2008;

decided March 20, 2008

Motion by Peter VoIImer, Esq. for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that a revised brief, with the motion exhibits attached thereto, may be served and filed. Three copies of such brief must be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 18

- 00 225

- C V



### ____________________

JOSEPH D. JOHNSON , Appellant

V.

VICKERY DIRT, LLC , Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On A ppeal from the 258 th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. CIV29964

__________________________________________________ ______________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Joseph D. Johnson , filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The

motion is voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of this Court. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed a notice of appeal. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice2 Submitted on J u l y 2 5

, 2 0 1 8

Opinion Delivered J u l y 2 6

, 2 0 1 8

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 752 

To establish a scorekeeping rule to ensure that increases in guarantee fees 

of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shall not be used to offset provisions 

that increase the deficit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2015 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. TESTER, Mr. 

CORKER, Ms. HEITKAMP, Mr. VITTER, Mr. DONNELLY, Mr. KIRK, Mr. 

HELLER, Mr. SCOTT, and Mr. MORAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To establish a scorekeeping rule to ensure that increases 

in guarantee fees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shall 

not be used to offset provisions that increase the deficit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING THE USE OF GUARANTEE FEES 

4 AS AN OFFSET. 

5 In the Senate, for purposes of determining budgetary 

6 impacts to evaluate points of order under the Congres7 sional Budget Act of 1974, any previous budget resolution, 

8 and any subsequent budget resolution, provisions conVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:15 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S752.IS S752

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 752 IS

1 tained in any bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or con2 ference report that increases, or extends the increase of, 

3 any guarantee fees of the Federal National Mortgage As4 sociation and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corpora5 tion shall not be scored with respect to the level of budget 

6 authority, outlays, or revenues contained in such legisla7 tion. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>    
CAPSTAR HOTEL COMPANY
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996

THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF CAPSTAR HOTEL COMPANY AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
1996 AND DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS, AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>          
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS       
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996 
<CASH>                                         9,161   
<SECURITIES>                                       0   
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,146   
<ALLOWANCES>                                     125   
<INVENTORY>                                      650   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              24,102   
<PP&E>                                       222,516   
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,692   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               247,105   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         13,334   
<BONDS>                                       73,554   
<COMMON>                                           0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0   
<PREFERRED>                                        0   
<OTHER-SE>                                   159,464   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 247,105   
<SALES>                                            0   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              77,128   
<CGS>                                              0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 63,647   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              34,000   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            10,428   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,073   
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,092   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,981   
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                1,956   
<CHANGES>                                          0   
<NET-INCOME>                                      25   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0   
                                        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 15.2








James Stafford
 James Stafford, Inc.

Chartered Accountants

Suite 350 – 1111 Melville Street

Vancouver, British Columbia

Canada V6E 3V6

Telephone +1 604 669 0711

Facsimile +1 604 669 0754

www.JamesStafford.ca




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 We consent to the incorporation of our report dated 17 April 2014 with respect to the financial statements of Pacific Therapeutics Ltd. (the “Company”), which comprise the statements of financial position as at 31 December 2013 and the statements of loss and comprehensive loss, cash flows and changes in shareholders’ deficiency for the year ended 31 December 2013, in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company dated 30 April 2014.
 
 
 James Stafford
 Vancouver, Canada
Chartered Accountants
 30 April 2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

JERRY LEE MAYS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

CHRIS RANKINS, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 22-5047 

(D.C. No. 4:22-CV-00225-GKF-JFJ) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before HOLMES, EID, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Jerry Lee Mays, an Oklahoma prisoner proceeding pro se,1

 seeks a certificate of 

appealability (COA) to appeal from the district court’s determination that his most recent 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 application is an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application 

that it lacked jurisdiction to consider. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Mr. Mays has filed 

an application for a COA, and what appears to be a supplement to his application. 

Having reviewed both pleadings, we deny a COA and dismiss this appeal. 

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Because Mr. Mays appears pro se, we liberally construe his filings. Garrett v. 

Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But we do not make 

arguments for pro se litigants or otherwise advocate on their behalf. Id. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 23, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-5047 Document: 010110728329 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 Page: 1
2 

To obtain a COA, Mr. Mays must show “that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right 

and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in 

its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Mr. Mays previously sought relief under § 2254 and was unsuccessful. See Mays 

v. Dinwiddie, 441 F. App’x 575, 576, 577 (10th Cir. 2011). He has not obtained this 

court’s authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive 

application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move 

in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider 

the application.”). No reasonable jurist would find it debatable that the district court was 

correct in its procedural ruling that his most recent application was an unauthorized 

second or successive application, and the court properly dismissed it. See In re Cline, 

531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008). 

We deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We note that Mr. Mays filed a motion 

for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs and fees, then attempted to 

file a second such motion that is largely identical to the first. We grant his first motion, 

and deny the second as moot. 

Entered for the Court 

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 22-5047 Document: 010110728329 Date Filed: 08/23/2022 Page: 2