alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-40697

Summary Calendar

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS ALBERTO CORTES-ZUNIGA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-96-CR-108-1

April 27, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Alberto Cortes-Zuniga appeals the district court’s

judgment revoking his probation. Cortes-Zuniga argues that the

district court’s revocation of his probation violated his Fifth

Amendment right to due process, his Sixth Amendment right of

confrontation, and was not supported by sufficient evidence.

This court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

a district court’s decision to revoke probation for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831, 836 (5th Cir.
1996). The district court must find a probation violation based on

a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Constitutional challenges

are reviewed de novo. United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509

(5th Cir. 1995).

There was no evidence introduced at the revocation hearing.

The probation officer did not testify. The laboratory report of

the breathalyser test was not introduced into evidence. In short,

there was no evidence at all introduced at the revocation hearing

to prove the allegations of probation violations in the petition.

Cortes-Zuniga did not admit to any of the allegations but pleaded

not true. The district court did not conduct an inquiry into the

existence of good cause which would abrogate Cortes-Zuniga’s right

to confrontation. Cortes-Zuniga’s probation was revoked solely on

the allegations in the petition.

We hold that there was insufficient evidence of a probation

violation and that Cortes-Zuniga’s due process and confrontation

rights were violated. The district court’s judgment revoking

Cortes-Zuniga’s probation and imposing a nine-month sentence is

REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for a new revocation hearing.

We do not address Cortes-Zuniga’s sentencing issues, and we DENY AS

MOOT the government’s motion to supplement the record.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
519.001 Definitions.

Parent topic: Part 519 - Small Business Programs
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carol Russell, certify that:

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

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. I am 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 I have:

         a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is
made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as
of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

         a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  May 14, 2007
                                                           /s/ Carol Russell
                                                               -------------
                                                               Carol Russell
                                                               Treasurer
#### Edith Bolte Kutz Trust, Appellant, v Atlantic Coast Construction, LLC, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 100]

In an action to recover on a mortgage note brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), dated February 8, 2006, which denied the motion and, sua sponte, dismissed the action.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, dismissed the action, is treated as an application for leave to appeal from that portion of the order, and leave to appeal is granted *(see*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the action is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination on the merits of the motion.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiff established that it properly commenced this action by submitting a copy of the summons with the notice of motion, and supporting papers, date-stamped by the Westchester County Clerk on September 29, 2005 *(see*CPLR 304, 3213; *Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Frenkel,*8 AD3d 390, 391 [2004]). The plaintiff also submitted a copy of the request for judicial intervention, and receipt for the filing fee, both date-stamped by the Westchester County Clerk on September 29, 2005. The filing of papers with the Westchester County Clerk is tantamount to furnishing papers to the court pursuant to CPLR 2214 *378(c) *(cf. Lue v*Daniels, 284 AD2d 508 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s sua sponte dismissal of this action was improper. Since the Supreme Court did not consider the merits of the motion, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for such a determination. Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
### FW: Veolia SOB Veolia SOB Reed, Michael Michael Michael to: David Ogulei 12/14/2012 04:23 PM History: This message has been replied to.



### If this language needs to be changed I will let you know.

Michael T. Reed, CAAPP Unit Manager Illinois Environmental Protection Agency BOA/DAPC/Permit Section 1021 N. Grand Ave East Springfield, Illinois 62794 Michael.Reed@illinois.gov Office: 217.782.4651 | Fax 217.524.5023 E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message, including any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only. This e-mail and any attachments might contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named recipient, or if you are named but believe that you received this e -mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return e -mail and promptly delete this e-mail and any attachments and copies thereof from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any copying, distribution, dissemination, disclosure or other use of this e-mail and any attachments is unauthorized and prohibited. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege or claim of confidentiality , and any prohibited or unauthorized disclosure is not binding on the sender or the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency . Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Pressnall, Chris Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 4:16 PM To: Reed, Michael Cc: Armitage , Julie Subject: Veolia SOB

On February 26, 2007, the Illinois EPA referred Veolia to the Illinois Attorney General for violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations, and the HWC MACT. On March 5, 2010, after receiving additional information, the Illinois EPA referred additional violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Illinois Pollution Control Board Regulations, and the HWC MACT.

My suggested language above. Unfortunately, I need to leave as I have to pick up my car at the shop. I will monitor my email from home over weekend /Monday should additional tweaks be

necessary.

Christopher Pressnall Assistant Counsel Illinois EPA (217) 782-5544 chris.pressnall@illinois.gov

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege . If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail orany attachment is prohibited

. If you have received this e

- mail in error

, please notify me immediately

by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system . Thank you for your cooperation.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

650 

TP 16-01796 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF TROY WASHINGTON, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT. 

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. ARNOLD OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Michael M.

Mohun, A.J.], entered October 4, 2016) to review a determination of

respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that

petitioner had violated various inmate rules. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination so appealed from is

unanimously modified on the law and the petition is granted in part by

annulling that part of the determination finding that petitioner

violated inmate rule 107.10 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [8] [i]) and as

modified the determination is confirmed without costs and respondent

is directed to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all

references to the violation of that inmate rule. 

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78

proceeding, transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g),

seeking to annul the determination, following a tier III hearing, that

he violated various inmate rules. As respondent correctly concedes,

the determination that petitioner violated inmate rule 107.10 (7 NYCRR

270.2 [B] [8] [i] [interference with employee]) is not supported by

substantial evidence. We therefore modify the determination by

granting the petition in part and annulling that part of the

determination finding that petitioner violated that rule, and we

direct respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record

all references thereto. Inasmuch as petitioner has already served the

penalty and there was no recommended loss of good time, there is no

need to remit the matter to respondent for reconsideration of the

penalty.
-2- 650 

TP 16-01796 

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination finding

that he violated the remaining three inmate rules is supported by

substantial evidence (see generally People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66

NY2d 130, 139). Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies with respect to his further contention that the Hearing

Officer was biased against him because he failed to raise it in his

administrative appeal, and this Court “has no discretionary power to

reach [it]” (Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, 1071, appeal

dismissed 81 NY2d 834).

Entered: May 5, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Named Executive Officer Merit Increases effective January 30, 2006



 Exhibit 10.4 
  
 Named Executive Officer Merit Increases 
 Effective January 30, 2006 
  

				
	 NAME / TITLE

	  	2006 ANNUAL
BASE SALARY


	 Neil S. Novich
     Chairman, President
     and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	825,000
		
	 Jay M. Gratz
     Executive Vice President,
     Chief Financial Officer and
     President – Ryerson Tull Coil Processing
	  	$	510,000
		
	 Gary J. Niederpruem
     Executive Vice President
	  	$	510,000
		
	 James M. Delaney
     President – Customer Solutions Team
     and Chief Procurement Officer
	  	$	272,000
		
	 Stephen E. Makarewicz
     President – Ryerson Tull South
	  	$	295,000
### §§2481 to 2484. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–314, §6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3444

Section 2481, Pub. L. 85–568, title IV, §401, as added Pub. L. 94–39, §8, June 19, 1975, 89 Stat. 222, related to congressional declaration of purpose and policy. See section 20161 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.

Section 2482, Pub. L. 85–568, title IV, §402, as added Pub. L. 94–39, §8, June 19, 1975, 89 Stat. 222, defined "upper atmosphere". See section 20162 of Title 51.

Section 2483, Pub. L. 85–568, title IV, §403, as added Pub. L. 94–39, §8, June 19, 1975, 89 Stat. 222, authorized research program. See section 20163 of Title 51.

Section 2484, Pub. L. 85–568, title IV, §404, as added Pub. L. 94–39, §8, June 19, 1975, 89 Stat. 223, related to international cooperation. See section 20164 of Title 51.
!"		 #	$
%



"&'# %(
)"!"**(")!"  #	$
))*%+

,-




,
 

, 
 ,
 
 ,   , 
,,-





,,




 &'$.))#%(
 !"!"
)"
)
#	$
))%#%/'
,
,,-

,

0





,


,
,0-


1
,  1!!234

 56

3,"#6%# %#$%3,'
-$






7KH +RQRUDEOH -DPHV * &DUU 8QLW

1RUWKHUQ 'LVWULFW RI 2KLR VLWWLQJ E\ GHVL



5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//

3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUF

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )

)LOH 1DPH D

	


!7389:'2;89

<<<<<<<<<<<<

4,&+$(/ 9(15< '0,7+


"##

$



!('(5$/ /85($8 2)

=5,6216

%


"##




1,&
'

:?

@

	A93+
,

'
C1

?
!
,C1

/C@:289?1&D98

$133?


 	




 	


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<





4
,9'
EF$
4











=:3$&32144
,9 '
   ,


 ,  

   


 
,

, *&'$.""',1

&'
G-
$

,1


)" )" ),
,


()*
"&
	


*
"&'"** #)%8
,3,"#6%#%3,'
-$

&-


 , 
,   ,  
 !31="#%

	"+)","*%'-+%)'","+!'-)*%

'0
H
,,
'

,

!,

/ =
 
,
',1

,,
'

,,'
C#%
,
28'22
  
 
,  , 
 ,

 

 ,,
,0 ,
,6
(# %


0

,, 
,,,,H
',1(#"%
 H
   
 
   /  =


I
,,
,
(J#%
H



,




    ,, ,,( #
%  5H



,,I
J
,

	
 	



5 
     


 I 
(J  #	%  /


,,


    
,  
 ,, ,
 -    






 &'$.),,-





,,

%.+).

'





  ', 1






'

',

"))
H
'
 ;2K '
 1  H


,/=)0
,
,
/=3
, ?
  D, $=
9=
G

 1
, 	 ))	 H

,,


 
,
 ,,
 
 

.))#%(+

" 
,

)"!"*	*   !"   H
,

1    1-


8-



 ,
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 71814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27280]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 92-237; DA 04-3830]


Cancellation of the December 10, 2004, Conference Call Meeting of 
the North American Numbering Council

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On December 7, 2004, the Commission released a public notice 
announcing the cancellation of the December 10, 2004, conference call 
meeting of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The intended 
effect of this action is to make the public aware of the cancellation 
of the NANC's conference call meeting. This notice of the cancellation 
of the December 10, 2004, NANC conference call meeting is being 
published in the Federal Register less than 15 calendar days prior to 
the previously scheduled conference call meeting to ensure that the 
public is made aware of the cancellation of the federal advisory 
committee's December 10, 2004, conference call meeting as soon as 
possible.
    This statement complies with the General Services Administration 
Management regulations implementing the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 
See 41 CFR 101-6.1015(b)(2).

ADDRESSES: Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, The Portals II, 
445 12th Street, SW., Suite 5-A420, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Blue, Special Assistant to the 
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at (202) 418-1466 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85c1e0e7eaf7e4edabc7e9f0e0c5e3e6e6abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e1a3b3c312c3f36701c322b3b1e383d3d70393128">[email protected]</span></a>. The fax number is: (202) 418-2345. The TTY number 
is: (202) 418-0484.

Federal Communications Commission.
Sanford S. Williams,
Attorney, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline 
Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-27280 Filed 12-8-04; 1:18 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 10.15

    AGREEMENT ON TRANSFER OF EQUITY INTEREST OF HENAN ZHONGPIN FOOD CO., LTD.
       DATED AUGUST 16, 2005 BETWEEN ZHU XIAN FU, BEN BAO KE, SI SHUI CHI,
                 WANG QING HE, LIU ZHAO YANG, AND WANG JUAN JUAN
         ("TRANSFERORS") AND FALCON LINK INVESTMENT LTD. ("TRANSFEREE")

             Zhu Xian Fu, Ben Bao Ke, Si Shui Chi, Wang Qing He, Liu Zhao Yang,
and Wang Juan Juan ("Transferors") agree to transfer 100% equity interest of
Henan Zhongpin Food Co., Ltd. to Falcon Link Investment Limited (the
"Transferee"), a British Virgin Islands company. In consideration for the
transfer, the Transferee shall pay to the Transferors a total purchase price of
RMB 20,940,000.00. Upon completion of said transfer, the Transferors shall hold
no equity interest in Henan Zhongpin Food Co., Ltd., and the Tranferee shall
hold 100% of the shares of Henan Zhongpin Food Co., Ltd. As a result, Henan
Zhongpin Food Co., Ltd. shall be re-registered as a wholly foreign-owned
enterprise according to laws of the People's Republic of China.
Case3:08-cv-01335-JSW Document54 Filed06/22/10 Page1 of 1

AND ORDER THEREON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Jeffrey S. White

Case 3:08-cv-01335-JSW Document 55 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 1
The Honorable Elmo B. Hunter, United States District Judge

1

for the Western District of Missouri.

 The Honorable Frank W. Koger, Chief Judge, United States

2

Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-2285

___________

In re: Karen Marie Zentz, *

*

Debtor. *

___________________________ *

*

Terry Adams, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Appellant, * Western District of Missouri.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Karen Marie Zentz, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: January 11, 1996

 Filed: April 4, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

 Terry Adams appeals the decision of the District Court affirming

1

the Bankruptcy Court, which held that attorney fees awarded to Adams in

2

a post-dissolution proceeding to enforce child visitation rights against

his ex-wife, Karen Zentz, were dischargeable in Zentz's bankruptcy. The

Bankruptcy Court specifically found that Zentz's attorney fee debt to Adams

was not
-2-

a result of "willful and malicious" conduct by Zentz so as to be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), and the District Court affirmed

this finding. The facts and procedural history surrounding this case are

reported in Adams v. Zentz, 963 F.2d 197 (8th Cir. 1992), and we need not

repeat them here. 

Having carefully considered the record, we conclude that no error of

law or fact appears, and we affirm the judgment of the District Court for

the reasons set forth in its well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### CLARK & SAUNDERS *vs.*MOBILE SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS.

[gaknisement on judgment.]

1. *What constitutes public corporation.*— The Mobile school commissioners, as established by the act “ to regulate the system of public schools in the county of Mobile,” (Session Acts 1853-4, p. 100,) constitute a municipal or public corporation.

2. *Against whom garnishment lies.*— A public or municipal corporation is not amenable to the process of garnishment, under'the laws of this State; and this exemption involves no violation of the first article of the constitution, which declares that “ no set of men are entitled to exclusive, separate emoluments or privileges, but in consideration of public services.”

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mobile.

Tried before the Hon. C. W. Rapier.

The appellees ia this case were summoned by process of garnishment,' on the 6th March, 1860, as the debtors of Charles Mareehal, against whom the appellants had obtained a judgment, in the circuit court of said county, on the 21st April, 1859. The garnishees appeared, and answered, by way of plea, that they were a public corporation under the act of 1854, entitled “An act to regulate *622the system of public schools of the county of Mobile,” (Session Acts 1853-4, p. 190 ;) and therefore prayed that the garnishment might be .quashed. The circuit court overruled a demurrer to the plea, and quashed the garnishment; and its judgment is here assigned as error.

E. S. Blount, for appellants.

P. Hamilton, *contra.*

A. J. WALKER, O. J.

The Mobile school commissioners certainly constitute a municipal or public corporation. In the Mayor and Aldermen of Mobile v. Rowland, (26 Ala. 498;) it was decided, that such corporations are not amenable" to the process of garnishment; and the legislature, by a special enatment, bringing private 'corporations within the operation of the garnishment law, has very clearly manifested a positive design to leave municipal corporations free from the influence of such law. Pamphlet Acts of 1855-56, p. 6. We think, therefore, it is certain that municipal corporations are not subject to garnishment in this State, and we are content to abide by the decision above cited.

It is contended, that this failure to include municipal corporations among the legal persons liable to be garnisheed, involves the bestowment of a peculiar privilege, in violation of the first section of the bill of rights. We do not yield our assent to tbis argument. It can make no difference to a corporation, whether it’ pays a debt which it owes to its creditor, or to one to whom he is indebted. It is, therefore, no benefit, or peculiar privilege, to be exempt from the process of garnishment, returnable to a court of law, whereby the payment will be directed to be made to the person to whom its creditor is indebted, instead of the creditor himself.

Judgment affirmed.