alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anna Davila, Appellant, v Elvin Galarza, Respondent.

[638 NYS2d 475]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated July 14, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion to restore the case to the calendar and, upon doing so, dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to CPLR 3404.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant’s motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Since there is no evidence that a note of issue was filed in the action placing the action on the court’s calendar *(see,*CPLR 3402), the court incorrectly relied on CPLR 3404 in dismissing the action. Rather, the provision governing dismissal of this action was CPLR 3216 *(see,*Seigel, NY Prac §§ 375, 376, at 556-*309561 [2d ed]). However, since no demand to file a note of issue within 90 days was served, dismissal under CPLR 3216 would also have been improper *(see,*CPLR 3216 [b]). The contention of the defendant and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation that the complaint should have been dismissed on the alternative ground that the plaintiff settled with a codefendant is without merit *(see,*Insurance Law § 5210; *White v Ramirez,*159 Mise 2d 925). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 42954.

#### Protest 986454-G of Danbury & Bethel Fur Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 41389 the fur pieces in question were held dutiable as waste at 10 percent under paragraph 1555 as claimed.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00003 - CR NO. 02 - 15 - 00004 - CR NO. 02 - 15 - 00005 - CR

DIJON LEFAYE NOBLES APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 396TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COUR T NO S . 1380625D, 1380626D , 1380627D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- On October 3, 2014, pursuant to a plea bargain , Appellant Dijon LeFaye Nobles pled guilty to three separately charged counts of debit card abuse, and
the trial court sentenced h e r to fourteen months’ confinement in a state jail facility in each case, with the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant did not file a

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 motion for new trial in any of her cases . H er notice of appeal in each case was therefore due November 3, 2014, but it was not filed until December 19, 2014. 2

Because of our concern that we have no jurisdiction over th e s e appeals based on the untimely filed notices of appeal , and also because the trial court’s
certification states that th e s e cases are plea

- bargain ed and that A ppellant
therefore has no right of appeal , we informed Appellant by letter on January 1 2 , 2014, that th e appeals could be dismissed absent a response showing grounds for continuing the m

. We received no response. A notice of appeal that complies wit h the requirements of rule 26 is essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. 3 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time, this court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. 4 Accordingly, we dismiss th e s e appeal s for want of jurisdiction.

2 See Tex. R. App. P. 26 .2(a)(1).

3 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1); Castillo v. State , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

4 Castillo , 369 S.W.3d at 198; Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).3 PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 5, 2015
#### Harriet M. West and Frank D. West, *as Administrators, etc., Respondents, v.*John H. Kiersted and Alexander Kiersted, *Appellants.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Learned, P. J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DEMAUL CORTEZ SIMMONS, a/k/a Raider,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-02-653)

Submitted: August 20, 2004 Decided: September 14, 2004

Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney,

Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Demaul Cortez Simmons appeals from the order of the

district court denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from

his person. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Simmons’ sole claim on appeal is that the district court

erred when it concluded that Detective Joseph Capitano did not

exceed the scope of a lawful frisk when he removed contraband from

Simmons’ pocket. We review the district court’s factual findings

for clear error, while reviewing its legal determinations de novo.

United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). 

Under the “plain-feel doctrine,” an officer may seize

nonthreatening contraband discovered during a protective Terry*

pat-down search if the pat-down was justified and the contraband’s

contour or mass made its identity immediately apparent upon

touching it. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76 (1993);

United States v. Swann, 149 F.3d 271, 275 n.3 (4th Cir. 1998). Our

review of the record discloses that Detective Capitano immediately

identified the contraband as unlawful narcotics upon touching the

item. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s

decision denying Simmons’ motion to suppress. 

We affirm the judgment of the district court. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Tammie A.
Quinlan, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certifies that (1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Income Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (this 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of March 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, and its results of operations for the quarter ended March 31, 2005.



|                   |  |        |  |                                                  
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |        |  | /s/ Tammie A. Quinlan                            
|Date: May 11, 2005 |  | Name:  |  | Tammie A. Quinlan                                
|                   |  | Title: |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
----

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 

The undersigned, Terence Yap, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA SECURITY &SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that: 

-  The Company's Quarterly Report on  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report"), fully complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and  Information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results  of operation of the Company. 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this5th day of May 2008. 

/s/ Terence Yap Terence Yap Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc.and will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

December 28, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00881

- CV

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO

, Appellant

v.

Elena HERRERA

, Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Tr ial Court No. 2017

- CI

- 10253 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Unopposed Motio n for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The appellant ’ s brief is due on January 16, 2019.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

I N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 28th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Balanced Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                             
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund



|                                                                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                  
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                      
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund

Date: August 14, 2009
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. PATR IC K C HARLES THOM AS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30294

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-00038-DLC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L . C hriste nse n, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Pa tric k C h arle s Thom a s a ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

w arding re stitution to the gove rnm e nt in theam ount of $162,865.36, following Thom a s’ s guilty -ple a

c onvic tion for c onve rsion of se c ure d prope rty , in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 658. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED

FEB 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Thom a s c onte nds tha t the distric t

c o urt e rre d by

awarding re s titution ba se d on the va lue of prope rtie s c onve rte d by him be c a use the gove rnm e nt subse que ntly forgav e pa

ym e nt on theloa

n s for whic h the prope rtie s se rve d a s c olla te ra l, pursua nt to a se ttle m e nt re a c he d in K

e e pse aglev . Vilsak. W e ne e d not re a c h this issue be c a

use Thom a s ha s a dm itte d tha t he did not m e e t

the re quire m e n ts unde r the K e e pse aglese ttle m e nt. The gove rnm e nt ha s re c e ntly obta ine d a

c ivil judgme nt a ga inst Thoma s , ba se d on the c ourt’ s finding tha t Thom a s m a de a fraudule nt K e e pse aglec la im . S

e e Unite d State

s v . Thomas , No. 4:13-c v-00094-B M M (D. M ont. 2014). W e have re v i e we d

Thom a s’ s pro se supple m e nta l brie f and de c l ine to c onside r Thom a s’ s c la i m

of ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of tria l c ounse l be c a

use the re c o rd is insuffic ie ntly

de ve lope d to e va luate tha t c la im on dire c t a

ppe a l, a nd Thom a s’ s le ga l re pre se ntation wa s not so inade quate a s to obviously de ny his right to c o unse l. S

e e Unite d State

s v . Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 2011). Thom a s’ s re m a ining c o n te ntions la c k m e rit. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 3 0 2 9 4 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Blacks, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 793]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered October 4, 1993, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that reversible error took place when the prosecutor asked him during cross-examination why he did not tell a police officer that the victim had attacked him. As only a general objection was raised to this question at trial, the issue is not preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. Generally, a defendant’s postarrest silence cannot be used for impeachment purposes *(see, People v Conyers,*52 NY2d 454, 459). However, if a defendant speaks to the police and omits exculpatory information which he presents for the first time at trial, the defendant may be impeached with the omission *(see, People v Savage,*50 NY2d 673, 679, *cert denied*449 US 1016; *People v Spinelli,*214 AD2d 135; *People v West,*212 AD2d 651; *People v Harrison,*149 AD 2d 434). Furthermore, although the defendant’s statement was not admissible as evidence-in-chief because it was obtained in violation of the defendant’s *Miranda*rights, it was properly used for impeachment purposes *(see, People v Maerling,*64 NY2d 134; *People v Wise,*46 NY2d 321; *People v Harris, 25*NY2d 175, *affd*401 US 222).

The defendant’s remaining contention that the conviction should be reversed because of certain of the prosecutor’s summation remarks is similarly unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Comer,*73 NY2d 955; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951) and is, in any event, without merit *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Brown,*180 AD2d 549). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
No. 64207.

protest 58/16947 (New York).

#### H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

                    On March 8, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, announcing the agenda for the Commission's open meeting to be held on March 15, 2007.                           ( print page 12605)    

Take notice that the docket numbers for the item listed as “C-4” are revised to read as follows:

“C-4 CP06-448-000 and CP06-449-000”.

A corrected version of the Sunshine Notice for the March 15, 2007 open meeting will be posted in the Commission's eLibrary system and the Commission's Web site. 

This Notice is issued pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b. Chairman Kelliher, Commissioners Kelly, Spitzer, Moeller and Wellinghoff, voted to issue this notice on March 9, 2007.

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7-4836 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Placeholder: confidential business information item 

Arkema CBI Comment on 12-17-10 

For more information please contact David Donaldson by phone at 202-343-9086 or by 

email at donaldson.david@epa.gov.
#### Catharine M. Raymond, *Respondent, v.*Joseph Husson and others, *Appellants.*

Part of order denying retaxation affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Larry S. Kramer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MarketWatch.com, Inc.;



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. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



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



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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



c)
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. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons 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: May 17, 2004
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/    Lawrence S. Kramer                  
|                   |  |                                            
|                   |  | Lawrence S. Kramer, Chief Executive Officer