alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kathleen Pascazi, Plaintiff, v Michael Pascazi, Defendant. Stelvio Holdings, LLC, Appellant, v DiMedici Ventures, LLC, Respondent.

[859 NYS2d 372]

In an action for the partition and sale of real property, the plaintiff Stelvio Holdings, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Alessandro, J.), dated July 25, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant DiMedici Ventures, LLC, which was to change venue of the action and consolidate it with an action entitled *Pascazi v Pascazi,*pending in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, under index No. 1235/06, and denied its cross motion to disqualify counsel for the defendant DiMedici Ventures, LLC.

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

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in changing the venue of this matter to Supreme Court, Dutchess County *{see*CPLR 510 [3]) and consolidating it with an action pending in that county *{see*CPLR 602).

The appellant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Motion by the appellant pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 to impose sanctions upon the respondent and the respondent’s counsel. Cross application by the respondent to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it has been rendered academic. By order to show cause dated December 14, 2007, the parties or their attorneys were directed to show cause before this Court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the above-entitled appeal on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic by an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 30, 2007. By decision and order dated January 14, 2008, the motion to dismiss the appeal, the motion to impose a sanction upon the respondent and the respondent’s *667counsel, and the cross application to dismiss the appeal were held in abeyance and referred to the panel of justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the order to show cause and the papers filed in response thereto, upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the cross application, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the motions and the cross application are denied. Spolzino, J.E, Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such schedules.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                         304,758
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,748,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    3,747,520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,228,730
<PP&E>                                         3,553,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,919,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,292,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,902,192
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10,357
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,453,817
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,292,957
<SALES>                                        2,223,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,223,732
<CGS>                                          2,132,595
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,815,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               31,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             31,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (622,936)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (200,185)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (422,751)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (422,751)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.08)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FORM 10Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,531,747
<SECURITIES>                                11,941,221
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,790,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,647,174
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,182,140
<PP&E>                                         883,183
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,206,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,555,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           11,700
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,607,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,206,458
<SALES>                                      7,826,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,920,788
<CGS>                                       10,178,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,652,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,200)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (194,203)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,704,902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (213,667)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,491,235)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,491,235)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATES:

Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its Continuation on Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

This Meeting Will be Closed to the Public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

                        Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.                              ( print page 46811)    

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

* * * * *

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Laura E. Sinram,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2017-21801 Filed 10-4-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Jose DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20404

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Patricia Ann Shackelford, Shackelford Law Firm, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Juan Jose De La Cruz, Minersville, PA, pro se.

*378Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Jose De La Cruz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v.*California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). De La Cruz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents *no*nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2949 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend preventive-health and 

research programs with respect to prostate cancer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2009 

Mr. LOBIONDO (for himself and Mr. HOLDEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend preventive-health and research programs with respect to prostate cancer. 

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 ‘‘Prostate Cancer Re5 search and Prevention Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

7 ACT. 

8 (a) PREVENTIVE HEALTH MEASURES.—Section 

9 317D of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b– 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2949 IH

1 5) is amended by striking subsection (l)(1) and inserting 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of car4 rying out this section, there are authorized to be ap5 propriated such sums as may be necessary for each 

6 of the fiscal years 2004 through 2015.’’. 

7 (b) NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.—Section 

8 417A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285a– 

9 7) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For 

11 purposes of carrying out this section, there are authorized 

12 to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for 

13 each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2015. Such author14 ization of appropriations shall be in addition to the author15 ization of appropriations established in section 402A(a).’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Steven E. West, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sunterra Corporation;



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 officer 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 conclusion
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c. 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 of financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):



a. all significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control of financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and



b. Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ STEVEN E. WEST     
|Steven E. West         
|Chief Financial Officer
|Dated: May 10, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         967,892
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      34,690,189
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,610,743)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,314,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     22,467,915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,229
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,256,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,314,458
<SALES>                                      5,976,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,976,757
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,097,002
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,647,225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                968,748
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            968,758
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                720,712
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   968,748
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                              POLYMER GROUP, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Fiscal Year
                                                        -----------------------
                                                         1999    1998    1997
                                                        ------- ------- -------
<S>                                                     <C>     <C>     <C>
Basic:
  Net income........................................... $33,440 $19,704 $15,428
  Average common shares outstanding....................  32,000  32,000  32,000
  Net income per common share--basic................... $  1.05 $  0.62 $  0.48
Diluted:
  Net income........................................... $33,440 $19,704 $15,428
  Average common shares outstanding....................  32,089  32,000  32,000
  Net income per common share--diluted................. $  1.04 $  0.62 $  0.48
</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132563 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132563 

 COA: 262682 

Wayne CC: 04-012688-01

OSCAR BECK, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2007 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 32.2.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, David M. Young, Chief Financial Officer of TESSCO TechnologiesIncorporated, (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

# 1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-K ofthe Company for the period ended April 1, 2007, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

# 2.   The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

| Date:   June  13, 2007 |   | /s/ David M. Young |   |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|--------|
|                             |   | David M. Young     |   |   |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Reportpursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.

 

----
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0360. CARLOS BOJORQUEZ v. MFG CHEMICAL, INC. et al.

Carlos Bojorquez seeks to appeal an adverse workers’ compensation decision.

The record shows that the Appellate Division of the State Board of Workers’

Compensation (the “Board”) denied Bojorquez’s request for benefits on October 5,

2016. Bojorquez filed an appeal to the superior court, but we cannot determine from

the application materials the date that the notice of appeal was filed. Nonetheless, on

February 21, 2017, the superior court entered an order affirming the Board’s decision

by operation of law after finding that neither party had requested a hearing within the

time required by OCGA § 34-9-105 (b). Bojorquez filed this application on March 21,

2017. We lack jurisdiction.

OCGA § 34-9-105 (b) requires the filing of a notice of appeal to the superior

court within 20 days of the Board’s decision. In this case, Bojorquezwould have been

required to file his notice of appeal by October 25, 2016. OCGA § 34-9-105 (b)

provides, in relevant part, that “if the court does not hear the case within 60 days of the

date of docketing in the superior court, the decision of the board shall be considered

affirmed by operation of law . . . .” Here, because the appeal to the superior court

should have been filed by October 25, 2016, the decision was affirmed by operation

of law on Saturday, December 24, 2016. This is the date that controls for purposes of

filing a timely discretionary application. See OCGA § 34-9-105 (d); Synthetic

Industries v. Camp, 196 Ga. App. 637, 637-638 (396 SE2d 518) (1990). The superior

court’s subsequent order was a mere nullity. See MacKenzie v. Sav-A- Lot Food Store,

226 Ga. App. 32, 34 (1) (485 SE2d 559) (1997).

In order for this Court to have jurisdiction, we must have a timely filed

April 13, 2017
application for discretionary appeal. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57)

(1989). An application is timely if it is filed within 30 days of the entry of the order

the applicantseeks to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582

(420 SE2d 393) (1992). Here, Bojorquezhad untilMonday,January 23, 2017 – 30 days

from December 24, 2016 – to filehis application for discretionary appeal. Accordingly,

his application, which was filed on March 21, 2017, is untimely and is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill, 204 Ga. App. at

582.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/13/2017