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

[634 NYS2d 249]

—Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered November 7, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of operating a motor vehicle while ability impaired by drugs.

In June 1994 defendant was the subject of two accusatory instruments, one charging him with the traffic infraction of driving on sidewalks (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-a) and the second with the class A misdemeanor crime of operating a motor vehicle while ability impaired by drugs (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [4]). Defendant thereafter signed a waiver of indictment (see, CPL 195.10) providing that, in satisfaction of the pending charges, he would be prosecuted by a superior court information charging him with the crime of driving while ability impaired by drugs (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [4]) as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1] [c]). The felony charge was based on an apparent conviction of defendant within the previous 10 years of driving while intoxicated as a misdemeanor. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge set forth in the superior court information.

The conviction must be reversed. Under CPL 195.10, a defendant may only waive indictment and consent to be prosecuted by a superior court information where he or she has been "held * * * for the action of a grand jury” (CPL 195.10 [1] [a]). A defendant can only be ordered held for the action of a Grand Jury (1) following waiver of a hearing on a *felony*complaint *(see,*CPL 180.30 [1]), or (2) upon a finding made at the conclusion of a hearing on a *felony*complaint that there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed a felony *(see,*CPL 180.70 [1]). Here, defendant was originally charged with only a traffic infraction and a misdemeanor and not a felony. Thus, at the time defendant waived indictment and consented to be prosecuted on a superior court information, he was not being held for Grand Jury action with respect to the offense charged in the superior court information *(see,*CPL 195.10, 195.20). His waiver was, therefore, ineffective and the superior court information on which he was prosecuted was jurisdictionally defective *(see, People v Rancka,*193 AD2d 1124, *870
      *lv denied*82 NY2d 725; *People v Johnson,*187 AD2d 990). As a consequence, defendant’s conviction is a nullity *(see, People v Sledge,*90 AD2d 588, *Iv denied*58 NY2d 977).

Mikoll, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, guilty plea vacated, superior court information dismissed and matter remitted to the County Court of Schenectady County for further proceedings on the accusatory instruments.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00308-CV

LAREDO MEDICAL CENTER, Dr. Fermin Romero-Arreloa M.D., J. Claudio R.N., and 

Laredo Medical Center Vein Center assumed name Laredo Texas Hospital Co. L.P.,

Appellants

v.

Isza MELENDEZ,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVT001771D1

The Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that Appellee Isza Melendez recover her costs of this appeal from Appellants 

Laredo Medical Center, Dr. Fermin Romero-Arreloa M.D., J. Claudio R.N., and Laredo Medical 

Center Vein Center assumed name Laredo Texas Hospital Co., L.P.

SIGNED December 4, 2013.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
#### Mohammad Resa Mohammad Pour, Plaintiff, v Gibraltar Transmissions, Defendant.

District Court of Suffolk County, Sixth District,

September 18, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mohammad Resa Mohammad Pour,*plaintiff *pro se. Seymour Roy*for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Joseph M. O’Donnell, J.

There does not appear to be any previous determination, or rule, or comment to determine the question of whether a corporate defendant may, in a small claims action, implead an additional defendant per subdivision (i) of section 3935.28 of the Suffolk County District Court Rules (22 NYCRR 3935.28 [i]).

Small claims is unavailable to a corporation as a plaintiff. (UDCA, § 1809, subd 1.) It may appear as a defendant by counsel (CPLR 321) or in certain circumstances, without counsel (UDCA, § 1809, subd 2).

Corporate status carries with it restrictions as well as immunities. The simplified procedure of small claims is designed for individual claimants.

If a corporate defendant were permitted to implead another party, it would thereby become a "third party-plaintiff” and would accomplish by other method something that it is not permitted to do initially.

At the risk of multiplicity of actions counterbalanced against what is deemed to be the underlying philosophy of the Small Claims Part, the issue presented is answered in the *233negative. A corporate defendant should not be permitted to implead a third party in a small claims action.

This matter remains on the trial calendar for October 10, 1978, at Sixth District Court, Patchogue, New York, at 9:30 A.M.
No. 49259.

#### Protest 824288-G of Psaki Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the cheese in question is similar to the Provolone cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). In accordance therewith it was held to be properly dutiable upon the basis of the net weight of the cheese as returned by the United States weigher, not including the weight of the strings, less 2)4 percent for inedible coverings. A 2)4 percent allowance was made for other cheese stipulated to be similar to the Sbrinz; cheese the subject of Abstract 42146. Protest sustained to this extent.
No. 40241.

#### Protest 883922-G of J. L. Hopkins Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 37263 and *Knickerbocker Mills Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 48959) laurel and marjoram leaves were held free of duty under paragraph 1722 as claimed.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50517 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN MANUEL MARTINEZ-CARRILLO, also known as Manuel Martinez, also known as Juan Carrillo, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1741-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Manuel Martinez-Carrillo raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

<5- ^o4

STATE OF TEXAS

PENALTY FOR

PRIVATE USE

12/3/2014

MCVAY, ABEL ALFRED Tr. Ct. No. 137

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant's Pro Se motion for an extension

of time in which to file the Petitidn-JpV Discretionary Review. The time to file the

petition has been extended to Friday, "February 13, 2015. NO FURTHER

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary

Review must be filed with The Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

ABEL ALFRED MCVAY """ SPN# 01871959

HARRIS COUNTY JAIL

1200 BAKER ST.

H(

Ct. No.

A^SPQs

0 2 1W

G&$No.901-1<3=0( MAILED FROM ZIPp^57^4

P1TNE7 BQ»,VES

$ 00.265 £-00997&R
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  Big  Flash   Corporation(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Edward F. Cowle, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/ Edward F. Cowle
-----------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Principal Accounting Officer
April 14, 2005

     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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
** Exhibit23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF THE INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM—DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**

        Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-38392 and No. 333-68820 of VIA NET.WORKS, Inc. onForm S-8 of our report dated April 25, 2005, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of VIA NET.WORKS, Inc. as of and for the years endedDecember 31, 2003 and 2004 appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of VIA NET.WORKS, Inc. 
|             |   |   |
|------------------|--------|--------|
| London,  England |   |   |
| April 25,  2005  |   |   |
|                  |        |        |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----

 

----
#### Aaron B. Olmstead, *Appellant, v.*Sanford Bowen, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Before the First Division,

May 16, 1955

No. 59067.

protests 787317-G, etc. (New York).

#### Kung Chen Fur Corpn. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1643, *supra.*
#### The Town of Thompson, *Respondent, v.*William Norris, *Appel*lant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements on opinion of Special Term. Learned, P. J., not acting.
No. 64950.

#### Aut Customs Brokers, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/2546 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed prior to liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COLLEEN M. BRADLEY,

Appellant

v.

WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 58 MAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at 

No. 682 MD 2020, dated 

April 1, 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 21, 2023

AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2023, the order of the Commonwealth Court is 

AFFIRMED. The appellant’s application for relief requesting leave to file a supplemental 

brief is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, Mark Glusing, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of 649.COM INC.;

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

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statement, and other financial
     information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 the annual report is
          being prepared;

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

     (c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
     on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent function):

     (a)  all significant deficiencies 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 weakness 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

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether 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.


/s/ Mark Glusing                            Date: March 29, 2005
-----------------------------
Mark Glusing
President / Director


<PAGE>
No. 45013.

#### Protest 999893-G of Wecoline Products Corporation (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

On the authority of Abstract 43512 the claim for free entry under paragraph 1732 was sustained. The facts and legal situation were ffound to be identical with those in *Mitsui*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 3, C. D. 411) where it was held that the merchandise was not subject to duty under the provisions of the Revenue Act.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GHAYOOR KHAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72392

Agency No. A075-478-717

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Ghayoor Khan, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

JUL 09 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72392

abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and

we deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Khan’s motion to reopen as

untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final order, see

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Khan failed to present sufficient material, previously

unavailable evidence of changed circumstances in Pakistan to qualify for the

regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (BIA

did not abuse its discretion where evidence of changed country conditions was not

material to petitioner’s claim, and petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case

for asylum); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical

question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner

who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded

fear of future persecution.”).

We reject Khan’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all factors,

because Khan has not overcome the presumption that the BIA considered the entire

record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DEREK THOMAS KELLY,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00044

- CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 2

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20170C09263 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### John Williamson, *Respondent, v.*Henry M. Newhall and others, *Appellants.*

Judgment modified as directed, and affirmed as modified, without costs. Opinion by Daniels, J.
#### Harold J. McLaughlin, Respondent, v New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

June 28, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (L. Kevin Sheridan*and *Renee Modry*of counsel), for appellant. *Harold J. McLaughlin,*respondent *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment reversed, without costs, and matter remanded to the court below for further proceedings.

The defendant correctly took into account, when computing plaintiff’s pension, the withdrawal of funds made by plaintiff from the pension fund. Although it appears that such with*59drawal was made with the consent of the Board of Estimate and the Mayor, the defendant is not estopped from subtracting the actuarial equivalent of the deficiency caused thereby from the amount due plaintiff (see 21 NY Jur, Estoppel, Ratification and Waiver, § 83). However, as noted by this court on the prior appeal (96 Misc 2d 56), the delay in making payment to plaintiff was unreasonable in the absence of any explanation therefor. Consequently, the matter must be remanded to the court below for a determination of interest due for the period of unreasonable delay (see *Post v New York City Employees’ Retirement System,*41 AD2d 606).

Concur: Buschmann, P. J., and Mangano, J.; Kirsch, J., taking no part.
cphi10kex102123114.htm





 









 



Re: Service about being [Job Position] of China Pharma Holdings, Inc.


[Date/Month/Year]







Dear [             ],







On behalf of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), I am pleased to welcome you to join the Board as [Job Position]. I look forward to working with you. Your starting date will be the date on which the Board approves your engagement and your engagement for this term will end on the date of the next annual shareholders meeting.







Your compensation will consist of the following:



	
1)  

	
A retainer of $[        ] per year, payable quarterly within [  ] days of the end of the quarter;








	
2)  

	
Options to purchase [  ] shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, with an exercise price $[  ] per share which is determined by the average stock price of [  ] days before [Date/Month/Year]. The options will vest on the anniversary date from the date the Board approves your appointment. The options granted is under the Company’s 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan.












If you agree to the terms and conditions stated above, please sign and date this letter below.







I look forward to working with you and sincerely hope that your service will be enjoyable and rewarding.







Sincerely







Chairman of the Board


China Pharma Holdings, Inc.







Response:


This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the recipient.







By: _____________________________







Date: ___________________________
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration Buffalo District Advisory Council located in the geographical area of Buffalo, New York, will hold a public Federal advisory meeting on Wednesday, April 18, 2007, starting at 10 a.m. EST. 

The meeting will take place at the SBA Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center, located at 130 S. Elmwood Avenue, 5th Floor, Buffalo, New York. 

*The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following topics:*                     (1) FY 2007 Mid-year report; (2) SBA Program updates; (3) SBA's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan (MREIDL); (4) Disaster Assistance Customer Service Center Tour and Update;  (5) District Small Business Week; (6) District SBA Business Matchmaking, Awards Luncheon & Expo; (7) Roundtable Discussion on Small Business Issues.                 

Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Franklin J. Sciortino, District Director, Buffalo District Office, in writing by letter or fax no later than Friday, March 30, 2007, in order to be put on the agenda. Franklin J. Sciortino,  District Director, Buffalo District Office, U.S. Small Business Administration, Niagara Center, 540 Niagara Center, 130 S. Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202; telephone (716) 551-4301 or fax (716) 551-4418. 

Matthew Teague, 

Committee Management Officer.

 [FR Doc. E7-5222 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P