alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Ronald Davidson, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[635 NYS2d 558]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court (Dadd, J.) (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.— CPLR art 78.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
No. 52647.

protest 56334-K (Philadelphia).

#### Charlotte Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of thé invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on entries 7443 and 84, The protest was sustained to this extent.
Opinion issued February 7, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00334-CV

———————————

NEAT HOME INVESTORS, LLC, IGNACIO FLORES, AND LETICIA 

RAMIREZ, Appellants

V.

FRANK GRANDE AND SUZAN GRANDE D/B/A CJ PROPERTIES, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 and Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. CI55015

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Neat Home Investors, LLC, Ignacio Flores, and Leticia Ramirez, 

representing that “all matters presently pending before the Court have been 

resolved,” have filed a notice of dismissal, which we construe as a motion to dismiss 
2

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party has filed a notice of 

appeal, and no opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c). Further, 

although the motion does not include a certificate of conference, more than ten days 

have passed and no party has responded to the motion. See TEX.R.APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 

10.3(a).

We reinstate the appeal, grant appellant’s motion, and dismiss the appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.
Before the First Division,

January 27, 1943

No. 47958.

#### Protest 30432-K of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In view of stipulation of counsel and from an examination of the illustration attached thereto it appears that the articles, in question consist of a hand gear ship’s wheel mounted on a binnacle stand, and that it is obvious that the addition of a glass top makes the articles suitable for use as tables, but that no glass tops were imported with them. The court was satisfied that the articles are partly finished tables rather than parts of tables and therefore fall within the provision of the trade agreement, and that the greater part by far of the table to be finished is incorporated in each of the imported articles, namely, the binnacle stand and the wheel, and the only part lacking is the glass top. The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 412 and T. D. 49753 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Christian Brule, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Sunergy, Inc., for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sunergy, Inc.



Date:  May 14, 2008

By:



Christian Brule, President, Chief Executive Officer

and principal executive officer
#### John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company et al. v. Julian Banerji

Superior Court, Suffolk, SS

No. CA95316E

Memorandum Dated October 26, 2000

Doerfer, J.

Findings and Rulings were entered in this matter on March 14, 2000 [12 Mass. L. Rptr. 405] and judgment entered thereon on July 24, 2000. The defendant now moves under Mass.R.Civ.P. 52 and 59 for amended findings and judgment on attorneys fees, and to amend or vacate findings on presumptive disability.

Motion for amended findings and judgment on attorneys fees.

For the reasons spelled out in the decision on March 14, 2000, the court declines to amend its findings and judgment. The issue was fully considered by the court in connection with it’s the findings and rulings in this case. The court is still of the opinion that the exception carved out by the Supreme Judicial Court in *Preferred Mutual Ins. Co. v. Gamache,*426 Mass. 93 (1997), and expanded in *Rubenstein v. Royal Insurance Co. of America,*429 Mass: 355 (1999), does not extend to the facts of this case.

Motion to amend or vacate finding on presumptive disability issue.

The court declines to amend or vacate its finding on presumptive disability. The issue was placed before the court for a factual determination and the court is not persuaded to change its finding. The evidence presented showed that Baneiji does not have total and permanent loss in the use of “one hand and one foot” as required to qualify as a “presumptive disability” under paragraph 5.1 of Hancock’s policy.

III. Costs

Defendant shall be awarded his statutory costs as the prevailing party in this matter.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas M. Zech, certify
that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of MEI Pharma, Inc.;
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                                                     
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 16, 2017 |  | /s/ Thomas M. Zech                                                  
|                        |  | Thomas M. Zech Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 31 (c)**CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony J. Orlando, Chief Executive Officer and President certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co., Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:August 15, 2005       By: /s/ Anthony J. Orlando       Anthony J. Orlando  Chief Executive Officer and President
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the
Company), for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven C. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven C. Jacobs                                
|Steven C. Jacobs                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: August 14, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randolph Davis, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 373]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County *359(Dolan, J.), rendered October 11, 1994, convicting him of attempted forgery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that the hearing court erred in denying his application to suppress inculpatory statements made by him to the police. "It is well settled that the determination of the suppression court, with its advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses, must be accorded great weight and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record” *(People v Overton,*188 AD2d 491, 492; *see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Richard,*215 AD2d 601). Given the logical and consistent police testimony which amply supports the hearing court’s determination with respect to the issues of custody and defendant’s receipt and voluntary waiver of his rights, we discern no basis in the record for disturbing the court’s conclusion. Similarly, "[ijssues of credibility are primarily to be determined by the hearing court * * * and, in the event the proof permits the drawing of conflicting inferences, the choice is for the trier of the facts and should be upheld unless unsupported by the evidence” *(People v Oates,*104 AD2d 907, 910). The defendant’s claims that he invoked his right to counsel and that the police employed coercive tactics to obtain his statements presented pure credibility issues which the hearing court resolved against him. Given the record before us, we decline to disturb the court’s determination of these issues. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
fuel

FormulationIDfuel

SubtypeID RVP sulfurLeve l ETOH

VolumeMTBE VolumeETBE

VolumeTAME Volumearomatic Content olefin

Contentbenzene

Content e200 e300 BioDiesel EsterVolumeCetan

e Index PAH ContentT50 T90 3850 12 10 23.3286 10 0 0 0 19.4554 11.12 0.6605 58.2972 89.3116 0 0 0 182.883 300.72 3869 12 16 22.4484 10 0 0 0 19.6138 11.12 0.5705 61.0491 92.2464 0 0 0 177.267 287.38 3870 12 11.25 22.9514 10 0 0 0 19.5233 11.120.62193 59.4766 90.5694 0 0 0 180.476295.003 3871 12 8.8 23.3286 10 0 0 0 19.4554 11.12 0.6605 58.2972 89.3116 0 0 0 182.883 300.72 3872 12 14.5 22.9514 10 0 0 0 19.5233 11.120.62193 59.4766 90.5694 0 0 0 180.476295.003 3899 12 10.65 22.9514 10 0 0 0 19.5233 11.120.62193 59.4766 90.5694 0 0 0 180.476295.003 20011 20 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exhibit 31.4**CERTIFICATION**I, Mark A. Pytosh, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co., Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: October 30, 2006               By: /s/ Mark A. Pytosh Mark A. Pytosh      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
47
#### United States *v.*Melba B. Rodriguez (Valley Made Potato Chip Co.)

No. 6290.

Entry No. 106-H.

Invoice dated Monterrey, Mexico, September 1, 1943.

Certified September 1, 1943.

Entered at Hidalgo, Tex., September 2, 1943.

(Decided July 16, 1946)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Joseph E. Weil,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Orville*I. *Cox (William Whynman,*associate counsel, of counsel) for * the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This is a collector’s appeal for reappraisement of Pineret clips or bobby pins imported from Mexico on September 2, 1943. The merchandise was invoiced at 15 pesos per carton and entered and appraised at 15 pesos per carton plus stamps.

At the trial it was stipulated as follows:

> Mr. Weil. I ask Mr. Whynman to stipulate in this case, Reappraisement 153637-A, that the merchandise consisted of bobby pins imported from Mexico, made of steel.

> *257Mr. Whynman. So agreed.

> Mr. Weil. That the price at which this imported merchandise was freely offered for sale in Mexico was 19.25 pesos a great gross, Mexican currency, plus 0.88 per centum sales tax a great gross, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States and at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States.

> Mr. Whynman. So agreed.

> Mr. Weil. That the foreign value was higher than the export value of this merchandise.

> Mr. Whynman. So agreed and stipulated.

On the agreed state of facts, I hold that the foreign value is the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise and that such value is 19.25 pesos a great gross, Mexican currency, plus 0.88 per centum sales tax. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Edward P. Davison v. Edward Elliott.

After a transcript of a justice’s judgment has been legally filed in the Circuit Court under the statute, it is not in tbo power of that Court to allow an appeal from the judgment.

*Heard July 9th.*

*Decided July*11th.

Certiorari to Ingham Circuit.

On October 19, 1858, Davison recovered a judgment against Elliott before a justice of the peace of Ingham county, and after execution returned unsatisfied, filed a transcript of the same in the Circuit Court, May 20, 1859, and took execution thereon. July 19, 1859, on application of defendant, the Circuit Court made an order that defendant be allowed to appeal, from said judgment, and an appeal was taken accordingly. The plaintiff appeared in the Circuit Court, and moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason, among others, that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to make an order allowing an appeal, after a transcript has been filed. This motion was denied, and the plaintiff removed the proceedings to this court by certiorari.

*J. W-*Longyear, for plaintiff in error.

*Shaw (&*Brunson, for defendant in error.

Campbell J.:

This case depends entirely upon the power of a Circuit Court to allow an appeal from a justice after a transcript of the justice’s judgment has been legally filed in the Circuit Court. The statute must be taken together, and construed so as to harmonize its various provisions. In the section allowing the court, upon proper cause, to permit an appeal to be made, there is no limitation of time. But a transcript which can not be filed until a justice’s execution has been returned unsatisfied, becomes when filed of the same force as a judgment of the Circuit Court, *253and the justice has no further control over the proceedings: — 2 *C. L.*§§ 3832, *3786-7-8.*We think this puts an end to the authority of the Circuit Court to grant an appeal. The order of the Circuit Court must be quashed for want of jurisdiction in the premises.

The other Justices concurred.
2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-25-2006

In Re: George Salemo

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-3730

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: George Salemo " (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 298.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/298
HPS-149 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 06-3730

________________

IN RE: GEORGE SALEMO,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the 

United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 92-cr-00547)

_____________________________________

Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

August 31, 2006

Before: CHIEF JUDGE SCIRICA, WEIS AND GARTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES 

(Filed : October 25, 2006)

_______________________

 OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM

George Salemo has filed a mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651,

seeking, in essence, to compel the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

to comply with an order issued by this Court in his prior action docketed at C.A. No. 04-

1530, see In re Salemo, 130 Fed.Appx. 564, 2005 WL 1111761 (3d Cir. May 11, 2005),

and assert jurisdiction over his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. After Salemo
filed his mandamus petition, the District Court entered an order rescinding its prior order

wherein it had concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his § 2255 motion. In

accordance with our decision in In re Salemo, 130 Fed.Appx. at 566, 2005 WL 1111761,

*2, the District Court indicated that it would consider Salemo’s motion as if it were the

first § 2255 motion filed by petitioner. Additionally, the District Court entered an order

on October 5, 2006, directing the government to file a response to Salemo’s § 2255

motion within thirty days.

Accordingly, insofar as the District Court has done that which Salemo has sought

to have this Court compel it to do, the petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied as

moot.