alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ticketmaster Corporation et al., Appellants, v Carlos Lidsky et al., Respondents.

[665 NYS2d 666]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about August 6, 1996, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 26, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this tort action, the IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ causes of action for defamation on the grounds that the allegations made in the complaints in previous class actions were absolutely privileged since they were pertinent and relevant to those proceedings *(see, Park Knoll Assocs. v Schmidt,*59 NY2d 205, 209) “by any view or under any circumstances” *(Martirano v Frost,*25 NY2d 505, 507), and “the protection is complete, irrespective of the motive with which [the words were] used” *(Marsh v Ellsworth, 50*NY 309, 311-312). Further, contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, defendants did not disseminate or deliver copies of the complaints to the public or the media *(see, Williams v Williams,*23 NY2d 592, 599; *Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assocs. v Ohio-Nuclear, Inc.,*608 F Supp 1187, 1195).

*143The motion court also properly dismissed the tenth cause of action alleging prima facie tort since the basis for such claim cannot be a lawsuit *(see, Curiano v Suozzi,*63 NY2d 113, 118), the class actions were not based on “disinterested malevolence” *(WFB Telecommunications v NYNEX Corp.,*188 AD2d 257, 258, *lv denied*81 NY2d 709), and plaintiffs failed to itemize special damages *(see, Leather Dev. Corp. v Dun & Bradstreet,*15 AD2d 761, *affd*12 NY2d 909). The eleventh cause of action for interference with economic relations was also properly dismissed for failure to show that defendants’ “sole motive was to inflict injury and that [defendants] employed unlawful means to do so” *(Nifty Foods Corp. v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.,*614 F2d 832, 838).

Finally, since the “[assertion of unfounded allegations in a pleading, even if made for improper purposes, does not provide a basis for liability under [Judiciary Law § 487]” *(Thomas v Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield,*115 AD2d 999, 1000, *appeal dismissed*67 NY2d 1005), Supreme Court properly dismissed the twelfth cause of action. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1396. CARLOS A. RAMIREZ v. THE STATE.

This appeal was docketed in this Court on May 4, 2022. Appellant’s brief was

thereafter due to be filed on or before May 24, 2022. See CT. OF APP. R. 23 (a)

(“Appellant’s brief shall be filed within 20 days after the appeal is docketed.”). Each

notice of docketing informs an appellant “that failure to file the enumeration of errors

and appellant’s brief within the time required may result in the dismissal of the appeal

and/or appropriate sanctions.” CT. OF APP. R. 13; see CT. OF APP. R. 23 (a) (“Failure

to file within [20 days of docketing], unless extended upon motion for good cause

shown, may result in the dismissal of the appeal, and may subject the offending party

and/or counsel to sanctions, including contempt.”). Because appellant has neither

timely filed its initial brief nor timely requested an extension of time in which to do

so, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

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.

June 07, 2022

06/07/2022
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home > FTDO > Commissioner Sola Attends Cruise Forward Summit to Talk About Zero Emission Efforts in the Maritime Industry

Commissioner Sola Attends Cruise Forward Summit to Talk About Zero Emission Efforts in the Maritime Industry


Posted on:


December 14, 2023 Commissioner Sola sitting on a chair before a TV cameraCommissioner Louis E. Sola participated on a panel at the Cruise Forward Summit that addressed “Pathways to Net Zero Emissions by 2050” for maritime transport.



The Cruise Lines International Association organized the summit held in Miami, FL from November 29, 2023 through December 1, 2023.



Commissioner Sola highlighted regulatory issues related to maritime decarbonization efforts and discussed his vision for the role the Federal Maritime Commission could play in helping the shipping industry meet its 2050 net zero emission targets.



He referenced his November 8th, 2023 letter to President Biden that conveyed his concerns about the “lack of coherent benchmarks” in the International Maritime Organization’s zero emission initiatives. Thus, calling upon an alternate marine fuels challenge to improve regulatory policies and funding support from the United States government for port infrastructure.



The panel took place on November 30th, 2023. The Commissioner continues to show his support in the transition to alternate marine fuels by speaking to industry experts across the country. Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
Form of Letter Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.13 
 2020 CHINACAP ACQUIRCO, INC. 
                                        
 , 2007 
 Surfmax Corporation 
 221 Boston Post Road East

 Suite 410 
 Marlborough, MA 01752 
 Gentlemen: 
 This letter will confirm our agreement that,
commencing on the effective date (“Effective Date”) of the registration statement for the initial public offering (“IPO”) of the securities of 2020 ChinaCap Acquirco, Inc. (the “Company”) and
continuing until the consummation by the Company of a “Business Combination” (as described in the Company’s IPO prospectus), Surfmax Corporation shall make available to the Company certain limited administrative, technology and
secretarial services, as well as the use of certain limited office space and utilities, as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 221 Boston Post Road East, Suite 410, Marlborough, MA 01752 (or any successor location). In
exchange therefore, the Company shall pay Surfmax Corporation the sum of $7,500 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	2020 CHINACAP ACQUIRCO, INC.
		
	By:	 	  
		
	Name: By:	 	  
		
	Title: By:	 	  


  

			
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	
	SURFMAX CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	  
		
	Name:	 	  
		
	Title:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commissioner Dye Meets with NRF\u2019s Strategic Supply Chain Council & Trade Advisory Committee","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"KyIIXz8HJP\"><a href=\"\/commissioner-dye-meets-with-nrfs-strategic-supply-chain-council-trade-advisory-committee\/\">Commissioner Dye Meets with NRF\u2019s Strategic Supply Chain Council & Trade Advisory Committee<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commissioner-dye-meets-with-nrfs-strategic-supply-chain-council-trade-advisory-committee\/embed\/#?secret=KyIIXz8HJP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Dye Meets with NRF\u2019s Strategic Supply Chain Council & Trade Advisory Committee” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"KyIIXz8HJP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Order entered September 2, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00662-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.C.V., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-08826

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal. 

By order dated June 24, 2016, we abated this appeal to allow the trial court to conduct a 

hearing and determine whether to appoint counsel for appellant. We have received the trial 

court’s findings of fact and its order denying appellant’s request for appointed counsel. 

Appellant’s brief on the merits is due SEPTEMBER 22, 2016. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         12,572
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,572
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,225
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          140
<OTHER-SE>                                      8,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,572
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,925
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (652)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                16,601
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,676
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32


                           BIG CAT MINING CORPORATION
                              A Nevada Corporation

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Big Cat Mining Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Craig Christy, President,
Chief Executive Officer, and Phil Mudge, Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 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.




Dated September 10, 2004              /s/ Craig Christy
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Craig Christy,
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       /s/ Phil Mudge
                                       ------------------------
                                       Phil Mudge,
                                       Chief Financial Officer
1 

### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before F.D. MITCHELL, J. R. MCFARLANE, K.J. BRUBAKER Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARK A. MIEARS ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN SECOND CLASS (E

- 5), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201400434
GENERAL COURT

- MARTIAL`

**Sentence Adjudged:** 30 July 2014

. **Military Judge:** Col Paul H. McConnell, USMC

. **Convening Authority:** Commander, Navy Region Mid

- Atlantic,
Norfolk, VA

. **Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation:** CDR S.J. Gawronsk i,

JAGC, USN

. **For Appellant:** CAPT Bree A. Ermentrout, JAGC, USN. **For Appellee:** Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

**2 9**  **January 2015**

**--------------------------------------------------- OPINION OF THE COURT** 

**---------------------------------------------------**

T HIS OPINION DOES NOT SERVE AS BINDING PRECEDENT, BUT MAY BE CITED AS
PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY UNDER NMCCA RULE OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 18.2.

PER CURIAM:

A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted the appellant, in accordance with his pl eas, of one specification each of wrongfully committing indecent conduct and knowingly possessing at least one image of child pornography in violation of Articles 120 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920 and 934. The appellant was s entenced to confinement for 24 months, reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a2 dishonorable discharge. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged and, except for the punitive discharge,

ordere d it executed.

Although the appellant’s case was submitted to this court without assignment of error, we note that the convening authority, in taking action, failed to indicate disapproval of the adjudged forfeitures as required by the pretrial agreeme nt. The convening authority separately suspended automatic forfeitures pursuant to the defense counsel’s request and waived them in his action. We will take appropriate corrective action in our decretal paragraph. Otherwise, after careful examination

of the record of trial, we are satisfied that the findings and

the sentence are correct in law and fact and that no further error materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appella n t occurred. Arts. 59(a) and 66(c), UCMJ.

The findings and on ly that part of the sentence which extends to confinement for 24 months, reduction to the lowest enlisted pay grade, and a dishonorable discharge are affirmed.
United States v. Cox , 46 C.M.R. 69, 72 (C.M.A. 1972)

.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL
Clerk of Court
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Search Home
 OTI
 January 12, 2024

Commission Advisory Regarding Red Sea Surcharges

Posted January 12, 2024 The Commission recognizes that the threat to commercial shipping imposes costs on the maritime transportation industry. The FMC has announced a hearing to explore Red Sea shipping issues. Under statutory authority, the Commission...

Categories:News ArticlesAugust 31, 2023

Industry Advisory – Names of Non-Compliant NVOCCs Posted to FMC Website

Posted August 31, 2023 The Federal Maritime Commission will begin posting the names of Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) that do not publish a tariff, contrary to Commission regulations (46 C.F.R. §520.3(a)). The public is advised that the...

Categories:Industry Advisory,News ArticlesJuly 13, 2023

Industry Advisory — Requirements for Doing Business with NVOCCs and OFFs

The Federal Maritime Commission reminds Common Carriers, including Vessel-Operating Common Carriers (VOCCs), they must meet their compliance obligations when doing business with Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers (NVOCCs) and Ocean Freight Forwarders (OFFs). Common Carriers must verify...

Categories:Industry Advisory,News ArticlesJanuary 10, 2023

Industry Advisory—Requirement to Maintain Accurate Information on FMC Form FMC-1

The Federal Maritime Commission reminds common carriers and marine terminal operators they must maintain an accurate Common Carrier Tariff and MTO Schedule Registration Form (FMC-1). Any changes to information submitted through the FMC-1 must immediately be...

Categories:News Articles Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer  of Legacy Wine & Spirits International, Ltd. (the "Company"),  hereby certify, based on  my  knowledge,  that  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company  for  the  quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies  with  the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934  and that information contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company.



Date: August 19, 2009

/s/Jaclyn Cruz

Jaclyn Cruz

Chief Financial Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTHER PORTILLO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70334

Agency No. A075-512-287

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

 Esther Portillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s order pretermitting her application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

FILED

MAY 10 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70334

questions of law, Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir.

2009), and we grant the petition for review.

The BIA decided this case without the benefit of our decision in MercadoZazueta v. Holder, in which we held that for purposes of satisfying the five years

of lawful permanent residence required under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1), a parent’s

status as a lawful permanent resident is imputed to the unemancipated minor

children residing with that parent. 580 F.3d at 1113-16. Accordingly, we grant the

petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings. See INS v.

Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.