alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Booker Archie, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 203]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of crimes arising from the possession and sale of cocaine on two separate occasions. Defendant seeks reversal of his conviction under the first count of the indictment charging him with the criminal sale of a controlled substance “to an undercover New York State Trooper” on the ground that the alleged sale was made to an informant and not the State Trooper. Although ordinarily “the identity of the person to whom [defendant] sold drugs is not a material element of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance” *(People v Pena [Roberto],*201 AD2d 676, 676-677, *lv denied*83 NY2d 1006, 85 NY2d 941), Supreme Court instructed the jury here that it was a material element. Nevertheless, contrary to the contention of defendant, the evidence establishes that the State Trooper acted in concert with the informant to purchase the cocaine from defendant. The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Kehoe, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350 certification of Chief Executive Officer





I, Joseph V. Vittoria, Chief Executive Officer of Puradyn Filter Technologies Incorporated (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



1.

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





May 14, 2008



| |              |                                                        
| | ------------ | -------------------------------------------------------
| | By:          | /s/ Joseph V. Vittoria                                 
| | Name:
Title: | Joseph V. Vittoria
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Shirley A. Vanaernam, Appellant, v Martin’s Foods of South Burlington, Inc., Doing Business as Super Shop N’ Save, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[716 NYS2d 923]

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Sise, J.), entered August 25, 1999 in Fulton County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order affirmed, upon the opinion of Justice Joseph M. Sise.

Crew III, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ECOPY, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 08-04227 JSW

No. C 08-04942 JSW

No. C 08-02912 JSW

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING

RECOMMENDATION OF

SPECIAL MASTER TO ADJUST

SCHEDULE

The Court has reviewed Special Master Meredith Martin Addy’s Recommendation to

adjust the schedule and adopts it in every respect. Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the

scheduling dates as set forth in the Recommendation in all related cases. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04942-JSW Document 119 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 1
#### §§ 219.104-219.109 [Reserved]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20680 Summary Calendar

KENNETH IVORY GANTHER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-93-CV-3523

____________________________________

June 11, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth Ivory Ganther (#610862) appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus, filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Ganther's argument that his appeal was affected by the district court's

failure to enter judgment on a separate document is unavailing because he filed a t imely noti ce of

appeal. S ee Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc.

, 784 F.2d 665,667-69 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Additionally, his constitutional rights to an

impartial jury were not impaired by the trial court's limit on his voir dire examination of the

prospective jury. S ee Ristaino v. Ross

, 424 U.S. 589, 594-95 (1976); King v. Lynaugh

, 850 F.2d

1055, 1058 (5th Cir. 1988).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases. /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE

RE VOLUMINOUS MOTIONS

Both sides filed many summary judgment motions. The Court has been patiently working

its way through them and has now issued four separate orders on them. By 9:00 A.M. FRIDAY,

APRIL 9, please advise the Court which, if any, remaining motions counsel truly needs an order

on, even if abbreviated, with one sentence each explaining why it cannot wait until the charging

conference or at least until the final pretrial conference. Do not use this as an opportunity to

submit more argument or authorities or evidence. One page will do. 

Dated: April 8, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02878-WHA Document 33 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1506.16 Does USADF report delinquent debts to consumer reporting agencies?

USADF may report delinquent debts to appropriate credit reporting bureaus and other automated databases through the cross-servicing agreement with BFS. Any such disclosure will be done in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(e) and the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 31 CFR 901.4, and in compliance with the Bankruptcy Code and Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. 552a.
#### Waldimar G. WITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janel Jenson GARDENER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-35118.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 19, 2007.

Waldimar G. Witt, Boise, ID, pro se.

Carlton R. Ericson, Esq., Naylor & Hales, Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Waldimar G. Witt, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his rights by imposing disciplinary sanctions against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Buono v. Norton,*371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on Witt’s procedural due process claims arising from *595his receipt of two Disciplinary Offense Reports (“DOR”) because Witt failed to show that he was deprived of a liberty interest, or subjected to an atypical and significant hardship in the terms of his confinement. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 483-87, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (A prisoner bringing a due process claim must show that he was deprived of a “liberty interest” or subjected to punishment that imposed an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on Witt’s substantive due process claims because Witt presented no evidence that the defendants acted in an arbitrary manner with regard to the DOR’s. *See Burnsworth v. Gunderson,*179 F.3d 771, 775 (9th Cir. 1999).

The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on Witt’s retaliation claims because Witt failed to state any facts to support the claims. *See Rhodes v. Robinson,*408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (a retaliation claim must allege that a prisoner was retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate penological goals).

Witt’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### § 223.2 Report of violations.

On receipt of information regarding a possible violation of the statutory or regulatory post-employment restrictions by a former employee and after determining that such information does not appear to be frivolous, the General Counsel shall provide such information to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and to the Criminal Division, Department of Justice. Any investigation or administrative action shall be coordinated with the Department of Justice to avoid prejudicing possible criminal proceedings. If the Department of Justice informs the Agency that it does not intend to institute criminal proceedings, such coordination shall no longer be required and the General Counsel is free to decide whether to pursue administrative action.
#### § 213.29 Suspension—general.

The CFO may suspend or terminate the Agency's collection actions on a debt where the outstanding debt principal does not exceed $100,000. Unless otherwise provided by DOJ delegations or procedures, the CFO refers requests for suspension of debts exceeding $100,000 to the Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, for approval. If prior to referral to DOJ, USAID determines that a debt is plainly erroneous or clearly without legal merit, the agency may terminate collection activity regardless of the amount involved without obtaining DOJ concurrence. The CFO may waive the assessment of interest, penalties, and administrative costs during the period of the suspension. Suspension will be for an established time period and generally will be reviewed at least every six months to ensure the continued propriety of the suspension.

[67 FR 47258, July 18, 2002, as amended at 86 FR 31145, June 11, 2021]
(June 21, 1977)

#### In the Matter of Robert Stewart, Appellant, v John F. Keenan, as Special Assistant Attorney-General of the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the State of New York, Respondent.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on March 14, 1977, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Sandler, J., in the minutes on oral argument, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Silverman, Lane and Yesawich, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27812]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, Destrehan Street Plant

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services gives notice of a 
decision to evaluate a petition submitted on behalf of a class of 
employees at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, Destrehan Street Plant, 
in Saint Louis, Missouri to determine whether all or some part of the 
class should be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the 
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. 
The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject 
to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:
    Facility: Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, Destrehan Street Plant, 
Saint Louis, Missouri.
    Locations: All locations in the Destrehan Street Plant.
    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All employees that conducted Atomic 
Energy Commission (AEC) work at the Destrehan Street Plant.
    Period of Employment: 1942-1957.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of 
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 
45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). 
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cf808c8e9c8f8c8b8ce1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d424e4c5e4d4e494e234a425b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 13, 2004.
James D. Seligman,
Associate Director for Program Services, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 04-27812 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donnie Ray BUSH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81-5056.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued May 17, 1982.

Decided June 17, 1982.

Steven R. Jaeger, Covington, Ky. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Patrick H. Molloy, U. S. Atty., Barbara B. Edelman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, CON-TIE, Circuit Judge, and HORTON,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Odell Horton, United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Donnie Ray Bush was tried and convicted for transporting a motor vehicle across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (1976). The trial from which this appeal is taken was the second such trial, the first having ended with a hung jury.

Appellant’s first stated issue on appeal is: The. trial court erred in permitting the government to read the prior testimony of witness Glenda Sue Griffith at the defendant-appellant’s retrial.

Our examination of this record revealed that the government made an effective and ample showing of efforts to procure said witness before seeking to read her prior testimony at the second trial. We agree with the District Judge that Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence was applicable to the situation confronting him.

Appellant’s second stated issue is: The trial court erred in permitting the witness Alma Cole to refuse to answer questions at the retrial that she freely answered at the first trial.

The record shows that Alma Cole was with defendant-appellant at critical times pertaining to his acquisition of the van. The record also demonstrates that she testified to certain relevant evidence, albeit re*469fusing to answer questions that pertained to his claim that he had purchased the van.

The District Judge correctly, we believe, treated her refusal to answer as her claim of Fifth Amendment privilege and gave the jury a cautionary instruction that her silence should not create an adverse inference as to defendant Bush.

We believe that both of the trial judge’s, rulings which are the subject of this appeal were within his discretion under the facts of this case. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-1173

___________ Guy Heide; Michael A. Kosel; * Duane Taylor, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Calvin L. Scovel, Office of the * Inspector General, U.S. Department of * [UNPUBLISHED] Transportation; Craig S. Singleton, * Office of the Inspector General, U.S. * Department of Transportation, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 2009 Filed: December 8, 2009

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Guy Heide, Michael Kosel, and Duane Ta ylor (plaintiffs) appeal following the district court’s 1 order dismissing their civil action and the court’s denial of their postjudgment motion. We conclude that plainti ffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter-2- or amend the judgment was filed more than te n days after the district court’s entry of judgment, and therefore did not toll the tim e for filing the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (stati ng as relevant that time to appeal runs from disposition of timely Rule 59(e) motion or from Rule 60 motion filed within 10 days of entry of judgment); cf. Sanders v. Clemco Indus. , 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988) (motion for reconsideration filed more than 10 days following entry of judgment does not toll time for appeal). Thus, plaintiffs’ January 9, 2009 notice of appeal was timely only as to the November 10, 2008 order denying th e motion to reopen, but not as to the underlying October 2, 2008 judgment. See Fed. R. App. 4(a)(1 )(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of judgment or order from which appeal is taken). Because, however, the Rule 59(e) mo tion was untimely, the district court’s November 10, 2008 order denying the motio n was a nullity, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review that order. See Sanders , 862 F.2d at 168 (if motion characterized as Rule 59(e) motion is un timely made, court loses jurisdiction over motion and any ruling on it becomes nullity); see also Arnold v. Wood , 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (this court lacked jurisdiction to review district court’s decision on untimely Rule 59(e) motion). Accordi ngly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying all pe nding motions as moot. See Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc, , 566 F.3d 771, 773 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts are obligated to consider sua sponte jurisdictional issues where it appears jurisdiction is lacking).

______________________________
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ROBERT H. MITCHELL, JR., 

AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE 

OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT H. MITCHELL,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-1585

JOHN E. LEMIEUX, INDIVIDUALLY, 

AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE 

OF THE ESTATE OF CURTIS F. MITCHELL 

AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE CURTIS F. 

MITCHELL LIVING TRUST, RICHARD F. 

MITCHELL AND JANET MITCHELL WILSON,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 10, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County,

Melissa Souto, Judge.

Michael Kangas, of BaumannKangas 

Estate Law, Tampa, for Appellant.

Patrick A. McGee, of McGee & Powers, 

P.A., Orlando, for Appellee, John E. 

Lemieux, Individually, as Personal 

Representative of the Estate of Curtis F. 

Mitchell and as Trustee of the Curtis F. 

Mitchell Living Trust.

No Appearance for other Appellees.
2

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Richardson v. Everbank, 152 So. 3d 1282, 1287-88 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2015) (holding appellate court cannot reweigh evidence considered by trial court; 

instead, appellate court can only decide whether competent, substantial evidence exists 

to support trial court’s decision).

PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., and MUNYON, L.T., Associate Judge, concur.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-727 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TELECOMMUNICATION 

Fixed and Mobile Services 

 Protocol between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MEXICO 

Signed at Mexico City July 27, 2005 

 with 

Appendices 
 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.” 
 MEXICO 

 Telecommunication: Fixed and Mobile Services 

 Protocol signed at Mexico City July 27, 2005; 

 Entered into force July 27, 2005. 

 With appendices.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JOHN A. SPANOS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 177 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 28th day of October, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
### §4347. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this chapter not to exceed $300,000 for fiscal year 1970, $700,000 for fiscal year 1971, and $1,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.

(Pub. L. 91–190, title II, §209, formerly §207, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 856, renumbered §209, Pub. L. 94–52, §3, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258.)
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4013 

To continue the employee payroll tax cut through 2012. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To continue the employee payroll tax cut through 2012. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Temporary Payroll 

5 Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2012’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 601 of 

8 the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, 

9 and Job Creation Act of 2010 (26 U.S.C. 1401 note) is 

10 amended to read as follows: 


ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4013 IH

1 ‘‘(c) PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY PERIOD.—The term 

2 ‘payroll tax holiday period’ means calendar years 2011 

3 and 2012.’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 601 of 

5 such Act (26 U.S.C. 1401 note) is amended by striking 

6 subsections (f) and (g). 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to remuneration received, and tax9 able years beginning, after December 31, 2011. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Paul J. Exner & Son v. John H. Sullivan Company.

Motion denied, with, ten dollars costs. Present —■ Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.