alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert K. Garrison, Appellant, v Carole M. Garrison, Respondent.

[859 NYS2d 307]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered June 21, 2007 in Ulster County, which partially granted defendant’s motion to, among other things, enforce the terms of a stipulation of settlement.

The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement which was incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce. Subsequently, defendant moved to, among other things, enforce the stipulation. Although many issues were raised before Supreme Court, this appeal concerns only that provision of the stipulation which requires plaintiff to subdivide certain real property known as the Home Farm and convey one parcel to the parties’ daughter, another parcel to the parties’ son, and the remaining parcel to plaintiff* and the parties’ son as joint tenants with right of survivorship. During the proceedings before Supreme Court, defendant contended that plaintiff violated that provision by failing to obtain the required municipal subdivision approvals and transfer the property. In opposition, plaintiff argued that he had made a good faith attempt to comply with the stipulation, but that his subdivision application was still pending before the Town of Shawangunk Flanning Board. Supreme Court ruled in defendant’s favor on this issue, ordering plaintiff to obtain all municipal approvals necessary to subdivide the Home Farm and to convey the parcels within 120 days.

*928Plaintiff appeals, arguing for the first time that he should be relieved from the stipulation on the grounds that it is unconscionable or, in the alternative, unenforceable because it lacks definite terms. These contentions, which are in substance challenges to the stipulation of settlement itself, should have been raised before Supreme Court on a motion to set aside the stipulation *(see Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold,*48 NY2d 51, 55 [1979]; *Gaudette v Gaudette,*234 AD2d 619, 621 [1996], *appeal dismissed*89 NY2d 1023 [1997], 91 NY2d 885 [1998]) rather than on this appeal from the court’s order enforcing it. Consequently, these issues, which are the only issues raised by plaintiff herein, are not reviewable on this appeal *(see Gaudette v Gaudette,*234 AD2d at 621).

Peters, Carpinello, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*

 We note that while, at one point, Supreme Court’s decision indicated that the joint tenancy would be shared with defendant, not plaintiff, it is apparent from a review of the remainder of the decision, as well as the stipulation, that this reference was incorrect.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual report on Form 10KSB of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund VI, LP, (the Partnership) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive
Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 8, 2007



|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                                                       
|Dean L. Cash                                                                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial
Services, LLC (General Partner)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131079 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: 131079 

 COA: 263673 

Wayne CC: 90-003140 

TYRONE ROOSEVELT GARLAND, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1023 

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. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

February 23, 2007

Mr. Edward John "Jack" O'Neill Jr.

Howrey, L.L.P.

1111 Louisiana, 25th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

Mr. Vincent L. Marable III

Paul Webb, P.C.

221 N. Houston Street

Wharton, TX 77488

RE:Case Number:  06-0159

Court of Appeals Number:  14-04-01108-CV

Trial Court Number:  2002-22690-A

Style:THE CITY OF HOUSTON

v.

STEVE WILLIAMS, ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  (Justice O'Neill not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0159Page 1**
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ERIC FLORES,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-09-00273-CR

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20090D03111)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Eric Flores, pro se, filed notice of appeal to challenge the trial court’s denial of his “motion

for relevancy of evidence.” We do not have jurisdiction to review this interlocutory order. See

TEX.CODECRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 44.02 (Vernon 2006)(“[a] defendant in any criminal action has the

right of appeal under the rules hereinafter prescribed”); TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(a)(2)(a defendant “has

the right of appeal under Code of Criminal Procedure article 44.02 and these rules” in every case in

which the trial court “enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order”). We therefore dismiss

the appeal.

January 6, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
Exhibit 32.01




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




I, Gary Herman, certify that:




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital Creative Development Corporation for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:




(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 op ations of the Company.






Date: June 3, 2011/s/ Gary HermanGary HermanPresident
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47510]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22075]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Renewal of Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 
Charter

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as 
amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that under the 
authority and in furtherance of the objectives of 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), 
the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget, and the Comptroller General of the United States (the 
sponsors) have agreed to continue an advisory committee to consider and 
recommend accounting standards and principles for the federal 
government. Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-
7350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Wendy M. Payne, Executive 
Director, 441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or 
call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463.

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Wendy M. Payne,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2017-22075 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          59,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  246,001
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               305,208
<PP&E>                                       5,881,534
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,705,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,098,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,245
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,098,766
<SALES>                                      1,423,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,434,133
<CGS>                                        1,179,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,179,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               169,773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             84,958
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    84,958
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alex Francisco GARCIA ARGUEDAS, also known as Alex Garcia, also known as Alex Francisco Garcia, also known as Alex Garcia-Arguedas, also known as Alex Garcia Argtuedas, also known as Alex Francisco Garcia-Arguedas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-20858.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 4, 2011.

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

Lourdes Rodriguez, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Alex Francisco Arguedas, Post, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, ELROD and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alex Francisco Garcia Arguedas entered a plea of guilty to a one-count indictment of having been found illegally present in the United States subsequent to having been convicted of a felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). He was sentenced to serve 29 months in prison and a three year term of supervised release. He subsequently appealed.

The attorney appointed to represent Garcia has now 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). If an *Anders*brief is adequate on its face, as is the case here, then we “confine our scrutiny of the record to the portions of it that relate to the issues discussed in the brief.” *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229, 233 (5th Cir.2011) (not yet published); *see also United States v. Garland,*632 F.3d 877, 879 (5th Cir.2011) (“if counsel submits a brief meeting [the *Anders*standard], we will no longer independently scour the record looking for nonfrivolous issues”) (not yet published). Garcia has filed a pro se response. His only argument, essentially, is that this court should reconsider *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) — where the Supreme Court rejected the argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional as applied and on its face— in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Although we acknowledge that Garcia is attempting to preserve his argument for review by the Supreme Court, we have held that this issue “no longer serves as a legitimate basis for appeal.” *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007) (holding that this argument is “fully foreclosed” by the Supreme Court’s decision in *James v. United States,*550 U.S. 192, 213 n. 8, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 167 L.Ed.2d 532 (2007)); *see also United States v. Olalde-Hernandez,*630 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir.2011). Therefore, our independent review of the record, *471counsel’s brief, and Garcia’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

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.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of 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, M. Brinkley Morse, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Quest Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Quest Software, Inc.



By:

/s/    M. BRINKLEY MORSEName:

M. Brinkley MorseTitle:

Vice President, Finance and Operations and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.01**

** **

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Gary Herman, Chief Executive Officer ofDigital Creative Development Corporation., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 of Digital Creative Development Corporation.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes 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 thisreport;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, 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 certifyingofficer 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 proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

(b)  Not applicable

(c)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d)  Disclosed in the report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over 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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 21, 2011

/s/ Gary Herman

Gary Herman

President
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Brooke Group Ltd. on Form S-3 (File No. 33-38869 and File No. 33-63119) and Form
S-8 (File No. 333-24217 and File No. 333-50189) of: (i) our report, dated April
8, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statements schedule of Brooke Group Ltd. and Subsidiaries as of December 31,
1997 and 1996, and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995 and
(ii) our report, dated March 31, 1998 on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of New Valley Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December
31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995,
which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A No. 2.

/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. 
COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Miami, Florida 
June 1, 1998
Exhibit 31.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Vincent C. Smith, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Quest Software, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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 definedin 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, includingits 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 conclusionsabout 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 theregistrant’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 overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying 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 performingthe equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 10, 2004
EXHIBIT 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-203096 on Form F-3 of our reports dated July 28, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Tata Motors Limited and its subsidiaries (the
Company or Tata Motors) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the convenience translation of the Indian rupee into U.S. dollar amounts), and the effectiveness of Tata
Motors internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F ofTata Motors for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016.



|                                 |  | 
|-------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP |  | 
|Mumbai, India                    |  | 
|July 28, 2016                    |  |
Exhibit 10.2

 

April 30, 2018

 

TO:                           SL Green Realty Corp.

420 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor

New York, New York 10170

Attn:  Chief Legal Officer

 

The undersigned (“Executive”) hereby consents to the reduction of the aggregate per annum minimum base salary payable pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Amended and Restated Employment and Noncompetition Agreement between SL Green Realty Corp. and Executive, dated as of February 10, 2016 (the “Employment Agreement”), from $1,350,000 to $1,250,000, which reduction shall be effective for calendar year 2018 (retroactive to January 18, 2018), and that such reduction in salary shall not constitute Good Reason (as defined in the Employment Agreement).

 

[Signature Page Follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Letter Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

 

	
SL   GREEN REALTY CORP.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   Andrew S. Levine
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Andrew   S. Levine
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
Chief   Legal Officer, General Counsel and Executive Vice President
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
EXECUTIVE
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   Marc Holliday
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
Marc   Holliday