alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Norman R. Gill, Appellant, v Ronald Logan, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to declare the rights of the parties to certain premises, as affected by a stipulation agreement dated July 25, 1975, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 28, 1977, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion denied, and it is declared that plaintiff has no right to the disputed property under the terms of the stipulation. Generally, when a bona fide justiciable controversy has been presented, it is improper to dismiss a complaint seeking declaratory relief. On a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211, in such an action, it may be proper to proceed to a consideration of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claims on the merits (see *Boryszewski v Brydges,*37 NY2d 361; *St. Lawrence Univ. v Trustees of Theol. School of St. Lawrence Univ.,*20 NY2d 317; *Matter of Mandis v Gorski,*24 AD2d 181). Here the conceded facts are fully before the court and the only issues concern the interpretation of a written stipulation. Since the plaintiff’s claims rely entirely upon the stipulation, it is appropriate for this court to interpret that document rather than compel the parties to proceed with the unnecessary procedure of formally moving for summary judgment. Proceeding to the merits, we are in complete accord with the decision of Special Term that the unambiguous language of the stipulation creates the condition precedent of obtaining a divorce decree. The death of the plaintiff’s mother prevented accomplishment of that condition and, upon her demise, title to the disputed property lodged solely in the defendant. The plaintiff’s claims are palpably without merit and he has no right to the disputed property under the terms of the stipulation. However, since this is an action for a declaratory judgment, Special Term should have made an appropriate declaration rather than dismiss the complaint. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### (A) The People of the State of New York v. Charles Rosenthal; (B) The People of the State of New York v. Joseph Gallo.

[In each action] Enlargement of time granted. Concur — Valente, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


       In connection with the Annual Report of New York Regional Rail
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Joel Marcus, (Acting) Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Joel Marcus
   ----------------
    Joel Marcus
    Chief Financial Officer
    May 24, 2004
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-626.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TAXATION 

Information Exchange 

 Agreement between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and JERSEY 

Signed at Washington November 4, 2002 

 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
JERSEY 

Taxation: Information Exchange 

 Agreement signed at Washington November 4, 2002; 

 Entered into force June 26, 2006.
§ 192.42 Applicable benefits for captives. ( a ) When authorized by the Agency Head, a Principal, following release from captivity, may be paid (by advancement or reimbursement) for expenses incurred for subsistence, tuition, fees, supplies, books and equipment, and other educational expenses while attending an educational or training institution approved in accordance with procedures established pursuant to chapter 35 and 36 of title 38 U.S.C. Payments shall be available under this subsection for education or training which occurs on or before— ( 1 ) The end of any semester or quarter (as appropriate) which begins before the date which is 10 years after the day on which the Principal ceases to be in a captive status, or
( 2 ) If the educational or training institution is not operated on a semester or quarter system, the earlier of the end of any course which began before such date or the end of the sixteen-week period following that date.
( b ) A person eligible for benefits under this subsection shall not be required to separate from Government service in order to undertake the training or education. However, no educational assistance allowance shall be paid to any eligible person who is attending a course of education or training paid for under the Government Employees' Training Act and whose full salary is being paid to such person while so training.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13-4315

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MARK LAWRENCE,

 Appellant 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(No. 2-06-cr-00083-001)

District Judge: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 26, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, KRAUSE, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

__________________

JUDGMENT ORDER

___________________

 This cause came to be considered on the record from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted pursuant to Third 

Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 26, 2015. 

 While on appeal, the Government made certain concessions in its briefing for the 

first time. The District Court was, thus, unable to consider these concessions in rendering 

its decision. We hold that the District Court should have the opportunity to consider the 
Government's concessions in the first instance. For that reason, it is now hereby 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court that the District Court's order dated 

September 30, 2013 is VACATED and REMANDED. 

BY THE COURT,

s/ Michael A. Chagares

 Circuit Judge

ATTEST: 

s/Marcia M. Waldron 

Clerk 

Dated: September 30, 2015
§ 123.14 Import certificate/delivery verification procedure. ( a ) The Import Certificate/Delivery Verification Procedure is designed to assure that a commodity imported into the territory of those countries participating in IC/DV procedures will not be diverted, transshipped, or reexported to another destination except in accordance with export control regulations of the importing country.
( b ) *Exports.* The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may require the IC/DV procedure on proposed exports of defense articles to non-government entities in those countries participating in IC/DV procedures. In such cases, U.S. exporters must submit both an export license application (the completed Form DSP-5) and the original Import Certificate, which must be provided and authenticated by the government of the importing country. This document verifies that the foreign importer complied with the import regulations of the government of the importing country and that the importer declared the intention not to divert, transship or reexport the material described therein without the prior approval of that government. After delivery of the commodities to the foreign consignee, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls may also require U.S. exporters to furnish Delivery Verification documentation from the government of the importing country. This documentation verifies that the delivery was in accordance with the terms of the approved export license. Both the Import Certificate and the Delivery Verification must be furnished to the U.S. exporter by the foreign importer.
( c ) *Triangular transactions.* When a transaction involves three or more countries that have adopted the IC/DV procedure, the governments of these countries may stamp a triangular symbol on the Import Certificate. This symbol is usually placed on the Import Certificate when the applicant for the Import Certificate (the importer) states either ( 1 ) that there is uncertainty whether the items covered by the Import Certificate will be imported into the country issuing the Import Certificate;
( 2 ) that he or she knows that the items will not be imported into the country issuing the Import Certificate; or
( 3 ) that, if the items are to be imported into the country issuing the Import Certificate, they will subsequently be reexported to another destination. All parties, including the ultimate consignee in the country of ultimate destination, must be shown on the completed Import Certificate.
[58 FR 39299, July 22, 1993, as amended at 71 FR 20541, Apr. 21, 2006]
Exhibit 15.1

August 5,
2008

Securities
and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

We
are aware that Monster Worldwide, Inc. has incorporated by reference in its previously filed open Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-81843,
333-63631, 333-50699, 333-18937, 333-131899 and 333-151430) its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008,
which includes our report dated July 31, 2008 covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"),
that report is not considered part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the
Act. It should be noted that we have not performed any procedures subsequent to July 31, 2008.

/s/
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

New
York, New York

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1





Section 1350 Certification of Principal Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of INX Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark T. Hilz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, as amended; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By:
/s/ MARK T. HILZMark T. HilzChief Executive Officer











August 15, 2011
§ 215.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) It is the purpose and objective of the International Development Cooperation Agency and the Agency for International Development to collect information, revise personal data collection forms or processes, and maintain Agency records in a manner that will prevent an unwarranted invasion of privacy of those individuals who are the subject of Agency records.
( b ) These regulations establish the procedures by which an individual may obtain notification of the existence of Agency records pertaining to that individual, gain access to those records, request an amendment or correction to the records, and appeal adverse decisions to requests for amendment or correction of Agency records.
( c ) The Agency separately states and publishes in the Federal Register a public notice of the existence and character of systems maintained by the Agency, pursuant to the provisions of sections (e)(4) and (e)(11) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a; 88 Stat. 1896).
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Kathleen Connolly, on Behalf of Herself and Minor Children, Respondent, v. Waldorf Astoria Corp. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from death benefit award in a heart injury case. The decedent, 51 years of age, worked for the employer as a window washer and when the weather was inclement worked in the storeroom of the hotel doing a wide assortment of jobs. He had a pre-existing cardiac condition. On February 27, 1958 he was working in the storeroom moving lamps, tables and other furniture with one of his fellow employees. He first complained of pain when moving a table weighing about 20 pounds but failed to heed the suggestion of a coemployee that he see a doctor in the hotel and instead continued to work. About a half hour thereafter whilthey were moving a 70-pound table from the storeroom to a different floor and after leaving the elevator and while lifting the table weighing approximately 70 pounds he collapsed and shortly thereafter died. The facts present a preexisting heart disease case where at the time of the heart accident the worker was doing something of a strenuous nature while performing his normal work. Claimant’s doctor testified that the work he was doing “was definitely related to his demise ”, The doctors for the carrier disagreed and said it was due to the natural progression of a pre-existing heart condition. One of the doctors summarized by saying it was speculation to say that the work was associated with the fatal attack. In any event the issue was factual and therefore within the province of the board. The medical testimony differed here from that in *Matter of Burris*v. *Lewis*(2 N Y 2d 323), where an autopsy was performed and failed to disclose any recent heart injury and there was no evidence of a coronary thrombosis or occlusion. *Matter of Stang*v. *Pechman & Co.*(7 A D 2d 245) differs as there the nature of the work—assistant to the president — did not require any unusual physical effort or strain. The facts in this case are more closely associated with the factual issues in *Matter of Carlin*v. *Colgate Aircraft Corp.*(276 App. Div. 881, affd. 301 N. Y. 754). Decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board unanimously affirmed, with costs.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50888

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANIEL ISIDRO SOTELO LOPEZ, also known as El Bigotes,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-99-CR-1129-2-DB

- - - - - - - - - -

September 24, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Daniel Isidro Sotelo Lopez (Sotelo) appeals his sentence

for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000

kilograms of marijuana. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 846. He argues

that he should not have been held accountable for marijuana

involved in his brothers’ separate conspiracy. See U.S.S.G.
No. 01-50888

-2-

§ 1B1.3. He does not address his waiver, pursuant to his plea

agreement, of his right to appeal. 

The record demonstrates that Sotelo’s appeal waiver was

informed and voluntary. United States v. Portillo, 18 F.3d 290,

292-93 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566,

567 (5th Cir. 1992). The only appeal rights reserved by Sotelo

were (1) the right to appeal his eligibility for departure from the

minimum mandatory pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), (2) the right to

appeal any upward departure imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0,

and (3) the right to raise constitutional challenges to the

effectiveness of counsel or to prosecutorial misconduct by way of

a collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. at 7-8. Sotelo’s

argument that he should not be held accountable for relevant

conduct is not an appeal basis excepted from the waiver. It does

not represent an upward departure, see United States v. Gaitan, 171

F.3d 222, 223-24 (5th Cir. 1999), and this direct appeal does not

qualify as a collateral attack on the effectiveness of counsel or

on the prosecutor’s conduct. 

Although the Government asserted the appeal waiver in its

brief, defense counsel did not file a reply brief. He has

therefore failed to address the threshold issue before this court.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, James H. Long, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of I-Sector 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and
internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

    a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
    ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
    consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
    prepared;

    b) Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

    c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
    procedures and presented in this report my conclusions 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

    d) 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. I have disclosed, based on my 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 performing the equivalent
functions):

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

Date: November 15, 2004

/s/ James H. Long
---------------------------

James H. Long, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4422 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain staple fibers of 

viscose rayon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Mr. CARNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain staple 

fibers of viscose rayon. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN STAPLE FIBERS OF VISCOSE RAYON. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.33 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain staple fibers of viscose rayon) is amended by strik7 ing ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to goods entered, 

10 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4422 IH

1 the date that is 15 days after the date of enactment of 

2 this Act. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON LYNDALE COOPER,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-1516 SI (pr)

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL

MATERIALS 

The court's evaluation of the petition for writ of habeas corpus would be aided by a copy

of the transcript from petitioner's first trial. Respondent did submit a copy of that transcript with

his answer in Cooper v. McGrath, No. C 02-5569 SI, but that transcript was lodged (rather than

filed), and was discarded when the case file was sent to the court's long-term storage facility.

The court requests that respondent provide another copy of the transcript from the first trial as

an exhibit in this action. No later than May 14, 2010, respondent shall file a copy of the

transcript from the first trial or a declaration explaining why that transcript cannot be provided.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01516-SI Document 19 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 1