alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Harold Richtman, Deceased. Jewel Chait et al., Appellants; Mona Richtman et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 197]

—In a contested probate proceeding, the objectants appeal from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated June 17, 1994, which, upon dismissing all objections to probate, admitted the decedent’s will to probate.

Ordered that the decree is affirmed, with costs payable by the objectants.

The objectants claim that the decedent lacked testamentary *641capacity, the will was not duly executed, its terms were the result of undue influence, and the Surrogate erred in not granting a continuance and allowing further testimony as to these issues.

The evidence fully supported the Surrogate’s findings that the will was properly executed and that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity. The evidence demonstrated that the decedent understood the nature and consequences of executing a will and understood the extent of his property and to whom he was devising it. His rationale for the bequests he made was expressed in the will itself *(see, Matter of Bush,*85 AD2d 887, 888).

The objectants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that the will was procured by undue influence. A mere showing of opportunity and even of motive to exercise undue influence is insufficient, without additional evidence that such influence was actually exercised *(see, Matter of Walther,*6 NY2d 49; *Matter of Bush, supra,*at 888-889).

The objectants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### Obadiah Stephens, *Appellant, v.*Peter Cornell, *Respondent.*

— Judgment of County Court reversed, and that of justice affirmed, with costs.
No. 64949.

#### Wm. Turino Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/2491 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930..
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

I, Ajay Bansal, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Tercica, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Tercica, Inc.

Date: August 2, 2007



By:

/s/ Ajay BansalAjay BansalChief Financial Officer


This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Tercica, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form
10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
EXHIBIT 21.1





VIA NET.WORKS, INC.


CORPORATE STRUCTURE AS OF December 31, 2001





The following table indicates the name, subsidiary relationships and jurisdiction of formation of VIA NET.WORKS, Inc.s direct and indirect subsidiaries.





Name

Jurisdiction of Formation1. VIA NET.WORKS NY Corp.

New York2. VIA NET.WORKS Holdco, Inc.

DelawareA VIA NET.WORKS Europe Holding B.V.

Netherlands1. VIA NET.WORKS Nederland B.V. (100%)

Netherlands2. bART Holding B.V. (100%)

Netherlands(a) Home Vision B.V

Netherlands(b) Xenovic B.V.

Netherlands(i) bART Den Haag B.V.

Netherlands(ii) bART Noord Nederland

Netherlands(iii) bART Midden Nederland

Netherlands(iv) Arameta B.V.

Netherlands3. VIA NET.WORKS Portugal-Tecnologias de Informacao, S.A. (100%)

Portugal(a) Expobyte-Conferencias e Exposicoes, S.A.

Portugal4. VIA NET.WORKS Espana, S.L. (100%)

Spain5. VIA NET.WORKS Ireland Limited (77%)

Ireland6. VIA NET.WORKS IRUCo. Limited (100%)

Ireland7. VIA NET.WORKS Deutsche Holding GmbH (100%)

Germany8. VIA NET.WORKS Deutschland GmbH (100%)

Germany9. VIA NET.WORKS U.K. Holding Limited (100%)

U.K.10. VIA NET.WORKS U.K. Limited (100%)

U.K.(a) Netlink Internet Services Limited (100%)

U.K.(b) U-Net Limited (100%)

U.K.(c) Worldwide Web Services Limited (100%)

U.K.(i) Alphadial Limited

U.K.(d) iway Limited (100%)

U.K.(i) i-way Oxford Ltd.

U.K.(e) VIA NET.WORKS Holdco Italy S.r.L.(10%)

Italy11. VIA NET.WORKS Holdco Italy S.r.L(90%)

Italy12. VIA NET.WORKS Italia S.p.A. (100%)

Italy13. VIA NET.WORKS (Schweitz) AG (100%)

Switzerland14. VIA NET.WORKS France Holding SAS

France15. VIA NET.WORKS France S.A.(100%)

France16. Net4You EDV Dienstleistungs und Handelges.m.b.H (Net4You) (57.5%)

Austria3. VIA NET.WORKS Holding Cayman

Cayman IslandsA. VIA NET.WORKS Argentina, S.A. (100%)

ArgentinaB. ServiceNet S.A. (100%)

ArgentinaC. VIA NET.WORKS Brasil, S.A. (100%)

Brazil4. VIA NET.WORKS Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (100%)

Mexico5. SurfTrade U.S.A., Inc. (100%)

DelawareA. SurfTrade Portugal S.A.

PortugalB. SurfTrade Ltda

Brazil6. VIA NET.WORKS U.S.A., Inc. (100%)

Georgia




1
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN GORHAM, Jr., Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant

9 USCMA 89, 25 CMR 351

No. 11,016

Decided March 28, 1958

*First Lieutenant Lawrence R. Fullem, Major Frank G. Stetson,*and *Captain John F. Christensen*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*First Lieutenant Jon R. Waltz*and *Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Robert E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

We granted the accused’s petition for review to consider two claims of error affecting one of the two charges of which the accused was convicted. The Government concedes the correctness of one of the claims and moves to remand the case to the board of review for further proceedings. See: United States v Williams, 8 USCMA 325, 24 CMR 135; United States v Gittens, 8 USCMA 673, 25 CMR 177.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the board of review for action consistent with this opinion.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Judge Latimer concurs in the result.
No. 58128.

protests 135908-K, etc. (Seattle).

#### Border Brokerage Co. *v.*United States,

*512Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 33, C. A. D. 525), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. It was held that the value of the items involved is the percentage of the appraised value of said power saws, as noted in green ink on the invoices by the examiner.
No. 55337.

#### Oteo Trading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 162480-K (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

 Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

December 14, 2016

Order 

Clerk

December 14, 2016

154549(21)

KIMBERLY MARIE MARIK,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 154549

v COA: 333687

Macomb CC, Family Division: 

 11-037046-DC

PETER BRIAN MARIK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the joint motion of the Michigan Coalition of 

Family Law Appellate Attorneys and the Legal Services Association of Michigan to 

participate as amici curiae and to file a brief in support of the application for leave to 

appeal is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on December 6, 2016, is accepted for 

filing.
No. 45061.

#### Protests 812390-G, etc., of A. Cohen & Sons Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the atomizers are similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140. In accordance therewith the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) was sustained.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8325 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations 

to ensure due process rights for physicians before any termination, restriction, or reduction of the professional activity of such physicians 

or staff privileges of such physicians. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2024 

Mr. RUIZ (for himself, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Ms. PORTER, and Mr. 

MURPHY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

to issue regulations to ensure due process rights for 

physicians before any termination, restriction, or reduction of the professional activity of such physicians or 

staff privileges of such physicians. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Physician and Patient 

5 Safety Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8325 IH

1 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS TO ENSURE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS 

2 FOR PHYSICIANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

4 Human Services shall issue final regulations to provide 

5 that physicians who have been granted medical staff privi6 leges at a hospital have a fair hearing and appellate review 

7 through appropriate medical staff mechanisms before any 

8 termination, restriction, or reduction of the professional 

9 activity of such physicians or staff privileges of such physi10 cians at such hospital. 

11 (b) REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATIONS.—The regula12 tions described in subsection (a) shall provide that— 

13 (1) a hearing or appellate review may not be 

14 denied through a third-party contract; 

15 (2) a physician shall not be requested or re16 quired to waive their rights to such a hearing or ap17 pellate review as a condition of employment, either 

18 with the hospital or with a third-party contractor; 

19 and 

20 (3) any such hearing or appellate review shall 

21 be confidential and not reportable to any entity, in22 cluding the National Practitioner Data Bank or fu23 ture workplaces or employers, unless there is an on24 going threat to patient safety, or as otherwise re25 quired under the reporting requirements for hosVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:27 Jun 07, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8325.IH H8325

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8325 IH

1 pitals established by the National Practitioner Data 

2 Bank. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The final regulations pro4 mulgated under subsection (a) shall take effect not later 

5 than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### John L. Sutherland, *Executor, etc., Respondent, v.*Lauren C. Woodruff, *Appellant.*Same *v.*Same.

Judgment affirmed with costs. Opinion by Brady, J.
No. 59089.

protest 242012-K (New York).

#### Alexander J. Tatti *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the papers in this case disclosing nothing which would tend in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness . attaching to the decision of the collector, the protest was overruled. ■
No. 61940.

#### Railway Express Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 321428-K (Tampa).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
#### Henry *K.*Sanger and others v. Wesley Truesdail and others.

A plea in bar was interposed in Chancery, and the Circuit Judge, instead of passing upon it, reserved the question of its sufficiency for the opinion of the Supreme *Court.*— Held, that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction of the question; the Constitution having conferred upon it appellate jurisdiction only, except in certain specified cases, of which this was not one.
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 of Highland Hospitality Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas W. Vicari, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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: November 7, 2006



/s/ Douglas W. VicariExecutive Vice President andChief 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

Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code), the undersigned officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, (the
Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) 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.



|Date: February 12, 2010
|-----------------------
|                       
|                       
|                       
|                       

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 01, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 01, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0405. ZULMA RODRIGUEZ v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

15A03950
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1024 

KA 12-01871 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT M. KNAPP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

CHARLES MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H.

Fandrich, A.J.), rendered September 25, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of endangering the welfare of a child. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law, that part of the omnibus motion

seeking to suppress defendant’s statements is granted, and a new trial

is granted on count two of the indictment. 

Same Opinion by PERADOTTO, J. as in People v Knapp ([appeal No. 1]

___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 14, 2014]). 

Entered: November 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1971-079 Idaho/Oregon]


Idaho Power Company; Notice of Tribal Consultation Meetings

March 14, 2007.
    The Commission will hold a series of meetings with the Indian 
Tribes potentially affected by the relicensing of the Hells Canyon 
Project, to discuss issues addressed in the draft environmental impact 
statement (EIS). The meetings will be held as follows:

March 29, 2007

    Burns Paiute Tribe, Boise, Idaho (location and time to be 
announced).

March 30, 2007

    Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, 10 a.m., Tribal Headquarters, Duck Valley 
Indian Reservation, Owyhee, Nevada.
    Interested parties may attend as observers. The meetings will be 
transcribed by a court reporter, so that the transcript can be placed 
in the record of this proceeding.
    Individuals interested in attending the meetings can contact Alan 
Mitchnick at (202) 502-6074 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#741518151a5a191d00171c1a1d171f34121106175a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="63020f020d4d0e0a17000b0d0a000823050611004d040c15">[email protected]</span></a>, for the time 
and location of the meetings or for more information.

 Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5349 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60287 Summary Calendar

ABDUL KARIM Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A79 011 669
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abdul Karim seeks review of an order by the Board o f Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen the removal proceedings against him. He argues that the BIA should have exercised its authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) to reopen the removal proceedings against him sua sponte

. The BIA denied Karim’s motion, finding that no exceptional circumstance warranted the exercise of its authority to sua sponte reopen Karim’s proceedings. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 31, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-60287

2 This court cannot undertake review of an agency’s discretionary determination where there is “no meaningful standard against which tojudge the agency’s exercise ofdiscretion.” H eckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985). There are no guidelines directing the BIA’s decision whether to reopen removal proceedings on its own motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Therefore, this court has nojurisdiction to reviewthe BIA’s decision to deny Karim’s motion for a sua sponte reopening of his removal proceedi ngs. See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 220 (5th Cir. 2008); Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249–50 (5th Cir. 2004). See also, e.g., Lenis v. U.S. Atty. Gen. , 523 F.3d 1291, 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing cases). We decline Karim’s invitation to revisit this court’s holding in Enriquez-Alvarado

. See Burgev. Parish ofSt. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999) (“It is a firm rule of this circuit that in the absence of an intervening contrary or superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United States Supreme Court, a panel cannot overrule a prior panel's decision”). Additionally, we note that the denial of Karim’s motion for reopening under § 1003.2(a) does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. See Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that
a discretionary decision to deny a motion to reopen does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest). Accordingly, Karim’s petition for review is DISMISSED.
JACKIE LIGE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1828

____________ _________________/

Opinion filed July 12, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. John L. Miller , Judge

.

Jackie Lige, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED

.

ROWE, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT T. HOFF, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 246, 41 CMR 246

*247No. 22,602

February 20, 1970

*Lieutenant James S. Bailey,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Anthony A. Derezinski,*for Appellee, United States. JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

In United States v Johnson, 18 USCMA 436, 40 CMR 148 (1969), we reversed as to sentence because the president failed to inform the court when voting on proposed sentences it should begin with the lightest proposal and continue in this manner until a sentence is adopted by the concurrence of the required number of members. See also United States v Newton, 18 USCMA 562, 40 CMR 274 (1969); United States v Conner, 19 USCMA 74, 41 CMR 74 (1969); United States v Dues, 19 USCMA 130, 41 CMR 130 (1969).

In the case at bar, the president failed to give any instructions on voting procedure, paragraph 765(2), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition); United States v McDowell, 19 USCMA 151, 41 CMR 151 (1969). Prejudicial error is apparent. United States v Johnson, supra. Reversal as to sentence is required.

The decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing on sentence may be ordered.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge DAR-DEN concur.
No. 49277.

#### Protests 28598-K, etc., of Globe Shipping Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The court was satisfied that the claim was well founded and it was uncontradicted that the sheets are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Globe Shipping Co., Inc.*(31 C. C. P. A. 95, C. A. D. 254), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the merchandise in question was held dutiable under paragraph 304 as steel sheets at the appropriate rate, depending upon the value thereof per pound. The protests were therefore sustained to this extent.