alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth *v.*Davis, Appellant.

Submitted September 30, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Mitsmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*William F. Garuthers,*for appellant.

*Henry A. Martin,*Assistant District Attorney, and *Joseph M. Loughran,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

January 24, 1969:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones,

David Earl Davis (appellant) was convicted in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Westmoreland County of murder in the second degree on March 5, 1965, and *268sentenced to a prison term of ten to twenty years. No post-verdict motions were filed nor an appeal taken. On October 24, 1967, appellant filed a petition for a post-conviction hearing under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, §1, 19 P.S. §1180-1. This petition was denied without a hearing on December 6, 1967. A petition for reconsideration was also dismissed without a hearing on January 10, 1968. Appellant appealed from the order of dismissal to our Court.

Appellant alleges as grounds for a hearing that he was not informed of his right to the assistance of counsel on direct appeal as required by *Douglas v. California,*372 U.S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814 (1963). We have held that if the appellant alleges a violation of his right to counsel on appeal and this contention is not disproved on the face of the record, the appellant is entitled to a hearing. *Commonwealth v. Zaffina,*432 Pa. 435, 248 A. 2d 5 (1968); *Commonwealth v. Johnson,*431 Pa. 522, 532, 246 A. 2d 345 (1968); *Commonwealth v. Sapp,*428 Pa. 377, 238 A. 2d 208 (1968).

The Commonwealth does not deny that the appellant would be entitled to a hearing under these circumstances. Instead, it argues that appellant did not raise this contention under this present appeal and that, therefore, he has waived the defect. See §4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act. Admittedly, appellant’s petitions below are not clear. It is true that appellant did not check the appropriate box for obstruction of the right to appeal on the post-conviction form provided by the Commonwealth.. On the next page, however, he alleges that “I was denied counsel to take, prepare and perfect an appeal.”- Considering the fact that the petition was drafted by the appellant himself, we feel that it is sufficiently clear to raise the issue of denial of counsel. We conclude, therefore, that appellant has not waived this defect.

*269Order reversed and the matter remanded to the court below for an evidentiary hearing.

Mr. Justice Mtjsmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.
**EXHIBIT
      10.6**




**NON-EXECUTIVE
      DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY SHEET**




At
      a
      meeting of the Board of Directors of NDS Group plc (the “Company”) held on
      October 30, 2006, it was unanimously resolved that the annual remuneration
      payable to the independent non-executive Directors of the Company for the fiscal
      year ending June 30, 2007 shall be:




1.
            
            Annual
                Fee
            
            $
            77,5002.
            
            Audit
                Committee Membership
            
            
            11,0003.
            
            Audit
                Committee Chairmanship
            
            
            15,000





**Other
      Compensation**




The
      independent non-executive directors of the Company are eligible to participate
      in the NDS 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
EXHIBIT 13.1

ALESTRA, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Rolando Zubirán Shetler, the Chief Executive Officer of Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V. (the
Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010, as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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 Company.

Date: May 12, 2011



Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V.By:

/s/ Rolando Zubirán ShetlerRolando Zubirán ShetlerChief Executive Officer


This certification
accompanies the report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically
incorporated it by reference.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Interchange Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuer other certifying officer 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 small business issuer, is made known to
us by others within the small business issuer, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 11, 2005
    
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer and Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)
#### EDWARD FEELY, Plaintiff, *v.*THOMAS F. BUCKLEY, Appellant, Impleaded with JAMES S. FEELY and Others, Respondents.

*Conveyance of real estate to husband and wife*— they *take as tenants in common since the enactment of chapter*90 *of*1860.

Where real estate has been conveyed to a husband and wife, since the passing of the married women’s act (chap. 90 of 1860), they take an estate as tenants in common, and not an estate in entirety.

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term confirming the report of a referee, upon an application for surplus moneys arising on a sale upon the foreclosure of a mortgage.

The premises were conveyed to Thomas F. Buckley and Mary Ann Buckley, his wife, by a deed dated November 25, 1879. The referee held that they took an estate as tenants in common and awarded one-half of _ the surplus to the husband and the other half to the heirs-at-law of the wife.

*McGuire db JZuhn,*for Thomas F. Buckley, appellant..

*John N.*Shorter, for Feely and others, respondents. '

Barnard, P. J.:

Before the statute of 1860, (chap. 90), in reference to the rights and liabilities of husband and wife, a deed to a husband and wife conveyed an estate in entirety. *(Wright*v. Saddler, 20,N. Y., 320). The Bevised Statutes (1 B. S., 727, part 2, chap. 1, title 2, art. 2, § 44) which enacts that every estate granted to two or more persons in their own right, shall be a tenancy in common unless expressly declared to be a joint tenancy, did not cover the case of a conveyance to husband and wife before the acts .to protect married women were passed. These acts give the right to married women to hold property conveyed to them as their sole and separate property.

' The decisions under the Bevised Statutes alone had no further force after the passage of the acts to protect married women were passed.

Before 1860, married women were under disability. After that they could take as if unmarried. The Bevised Statutes now apply

*452to married women, because as to the grant to herself and husband, she is to be deemed as if unmarried. *(Meeker*v. *Wright,*76 N. Y., 262,)

The order should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Dvtcmaw. J., concurred; Gilbebt, J., dissenting.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
#### Morris Robinson, *Appellant v.*John R. Lent, *Respondent*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Gilbert, J.
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. EDWARD CAVANAGH, Appellant, *v.*DAVID McADAM, a Justice of the Marine Court of the City of New York, Respondent.

*Mandamus to compel a judicial officer to act*— when *the court, on proof that the pa/rticula/r officer’s time was taken up with other matters', will refuse it, in the exercise of its discretion*— *Code of Civil Procedure, secs.*3334, 3338.

The relator applied for a writ of *mandamus,*commanding a justice of the Marine Court to entertain an application for summary proceedings .to remove a tenant from demised premises for the non-payment of four dollars and fifty • cents as rent. From tlie return of the justice it appeared that the application was denied because his time was required for and devoted to other business, having precedent demands upon him as a member of the court.

*Reid,*that the court properly refused to order the writ to issue.

Appeal from an order made , at a Special Term, denying an application for a writ of *mm damns.*

*Bosooe H. Charming,*for the appellant.

*Ilenry Wehle,*for tlie respondent.

Daniels, J.:

The writ was' applied for because the justice declined to entertain an application for summary proceedings to remove a tenant from demised premises for the non-payment of four dollars and fifty cents rent. The time of the justice appears, by his return, to have been required and devoted to other business having precedent demands upon him as a member of the court. And because of that circumstance he was reasonably excusable for not entertaining the application, although the Code has declared that the judge or justice to whom such a petition is presented must thereupon issue a precept (Code Civ. Pro., § 2238), for’ it did not declare that he must also withdraw his time and attention from the other necessary business of the court for that purpose, and while the language of the section is mandatory in its terms it still could not have been intended to deprive him of the original discretion vested in judicial officers. *(Spears*v. *Mayor, etc.,*12 N. Y., 442.)

If he had been the only officer to whom such an application could *285regularly be ruadé a very different consideration would arise in the case, but by section 223é of the Code of Civil Procedure a variety of other officers were vested with the same power to whom the relator had the right to apply. And his application for this writ, instead of bringing his case before one of these other officers, indicates the existence of the disposition rather to annoy the justice proceeded against than to invoke the powers of the court for the purpose of redressing and vindicating a legal right. There is nothing in *De Hart*v. *Hatch*(3 Hun, 375), countenancing such a proceeding, and as the allowance of the writ was subject to the discretion of the court *(People ex rel. Faile*v. Ferris, 76 N. Y., 326), that was, under the circumstances presented, very wisely exercised in refusing to order the writ to be issued.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J. concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs.
[rioexhibit4002.gif]















EXHIBIT 4









CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the inclusion of our report dated March 14, 2007, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd. (the Company) as at December 31, 2006 and 2005 and the consolidated statements of operations and deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006.





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Toronto, Canada

Ernst & Young LLP

March 28, 2007

Chartered Accountants
"Jane Staveley" 

<jstaveley@exponent.com>

02/16/2012 10:26 AM

To EHPV-Program-Submissions@EPA

cc

"Franz, Christina" 

<Christina_Franz@americanchemistry.com>, "Ralph Parod" 

<ralph.parod@basf.com>, "David A Cortes" 

bcc

Subject Revised test plan and robust summaries for C4 (CAS No. 

170373-17-8)

On behalf of BASF Corporation, the attached submission is made under the EHPV Program. A 

revised test plan and revised robust summaries are hereby being submitted for C4, or 

3-thiophenamine, N-[(1S)-2-methoxy-1-methylethyl]-2,4-dimethyl-, CAS No. 170373-17-8. 

Please note that the original submission in September 2008 was for the racemic C4, which has a 

different CAS Number (87676-07-1). This submission uses the correct CAS Number, for the 

chiral molecule. 

As explained in the cover letter, the robust summaries have been entered into HPVIS but a pdf 

file is attached for your convenience.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank you. 

Jane Staveley

Senior Managing Scientist

Ex

ponent®

1000 Centre Green Way, Suite 200

Cary, NC 27513

Phone: 919-228-6480

Mobile: 919-961-0987 

Fax: 919-228-6501
Email: jstaveley@exponent.com

www.exponent.com

 - C4 submission Letter.pdf - C4 Revised final test plan 2-16-12.pdf - C4 revised final 

RS.pdf
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8221 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8221

   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the 
removability of aliens who are charged with any crime related to their 
       participation in pro-terrorism or antisemitism rallies or 
                            demonstrations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2024

Ms. Van Duyne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the 
removability of aliens who are charged with any crime related to their 
       participation in pro-terrorism or antisemitism rallies or 
                            demonstrations.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hamas Supporters Have No Home Here 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ALIENS CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME RELATED TO THEIR PARTICIPATION IN 
              PRO-TERRORISM OR ANTISEMITISM RALLIES OR DEMONSTRATIONS.

    (a) Participants in Pro-terrorism or Antisemitism Rallies or 
Demonstrations Who Are Charged With a Crime.--Section 212(a)(3) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
                    ``(H) Participants in antisemitism rallies.--Any 
                alien who is charged with any crime related to their 
                participation in pro-terrorism or antisemitism rallies 
                or demonstrations is inadmissible.''.
    (b) Ineligibility for Relief.--Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
                    ``(D) Ineligibility for relief.--Any alien who is 
                charged with any crime related to their participation 
                in pro-terrorism or antisemitism rallies or 
                demonstrations.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 237(a)(4)(B) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(B)) is amended by striking 
``subparagraph (B) or (F)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B), (F), or 
(H)''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 13.1

ALESTRA, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Rolando Zubirán Shetler, the Chief Executive Officer of Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. the Companys
annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (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 Company.

Date: March 31, 2009



Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V.By:

/s/ Rolando Zubirán ShetlerRolando Zubirán ShetlerChief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies the report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except as to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporated it by reference.
#### Donn S. Dupuy, Respondent, v Hayner Hoyt Corporation et al., Appellants.

[634 NYS2d 17]

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and denying defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing that cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a fellow worker at ground level lost his grip on one end of a portable concrete conveyor and plaintiff was unable, because of the weight of the concrete on the conveyor, to continue holding the other end above his head. The conveyor struck plaintiff, knocking him down onto the scaffolding on which he was standing. Because plaintiff did not fall from an elevated work site and the object causing his injury was at the same level as plaintiff, Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply *(see, Rodriguez v Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care,*84 NY2d 841; *Maracle v DiFranco,*197 AD2d 877). Thus, we modify the order on appeal by granting defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and denying plaintiff’s motion. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.—Labor Law.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.
No. 45034.

#### Protests 546640-G, etc., of A. J. Capone Co. et al. (New York).

*480Opinion by

Evans, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10759 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Noel Mandujano,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:20

- CR

- 15

- 2

Before **Higginbotham, Higginson,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
The attorney appointed to represent Noel Mandujano has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mandujano has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 20, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10759 Document: 00516173549 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2022No. 21

- 10759

2 the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 21-10759 Document: 00516173549 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2022
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

99–011 1995

104th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 104–67

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF

BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COURT, PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. 2075

MAY 2, 1995.—Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered

to be printed

(iii)
(1)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19