alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Third Department,

November, 1995

(November 2, 1995)

#### In the Matter of Thomas Rosati, Petitioner, v Daniel A. Senkowski, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 231]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Clinton County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

*676Petitioner was an inmate at a minimum security prison. As the result of an incident in which petitioner met with a female companion outside prison grounds to smoke a marihuana cigarette, petitioner was found guilty of smuggling, possession of a controlled substance and escape. He challenges only that part of the administrative determination finding him guilty of escape and argues that it is not supported by substantial evidence. Upon review of the record, we find that the misbehavior report and the testimony of the correction officer who prepared it constitute substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination. It is undisputed that petitioner was apprehended 30 to 50 yard southside facility grounds in a wooded area and that his companion was armed with a gun. Under these circumstances, the administrative determination must be confirmed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
No. 45047.

#### Protest 947897-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of squawker balloons and cigarette whistles composed in part of bamboo. Following Abstracts 40493 and 39509 the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 wa sustained as to both these items.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 1

I. GENERAL

District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD Date Adopted: 4/20/05 

Rule No: Rule 900 Regulation Title: Inspection of Public Records

- Disclosure Policy 

Date Submitted To ARB: 2/23/05 Date Last Amended or Revised: 3/8/84 

Pollutants Regulated By This Rule (Check): 

 NOx SO2 PM10 VOC _ TAC (Name of TAC) 

Is this rule intended to be sent to the EPA as a SIP revision? X Yes No.

SUMMARY OF RULE CHANGES: New rule ? Amended rule

Rule Repealed.

 

II. NET EFFECT ON EMISSIONS Increase Decrease X No change N/A

Emissions reduction commitment in SIP for this source category: 0.0 tons/year 

SCC/CES Code(s) Affected: na 

 Affected SIC Code(s): na 

Inventory Year to Calculate Changes in Emissions: na Affected Area: 

Future Year Control Profile Estimate ( VOC emissions): N/A

Tons/Year Baseline

Reductions Tons/year Control Percent Control Control

 Year (increases) Subject to Rule Level Control Level Factor

 N/A / = * 100 = % 1.00 - = 

 / = * 100 = % 1.00 - = 

 / = * 100 = % 1.00 - = 

 

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS District is: Attainment Nonattainment X Split

Approximate number of minor (<100 TPY) sources controlled by rule: na . Percent in nonattainment

area: na .

Number of major (? 100 TPY) sources controlled: NONE . Percent in nonattainment area: 0%
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 2

Location of Major Sources by City: N/A

 

IV. EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY N/A

Does rule include emission limits that are continuous? Yes; X No. 

If yes, those limits are in Section(s) N/A of the rule.

Other methods in the rule for achieving emissions reductions are: 

 

 

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS The rule contains:

1) Emission limits in Section(s) N/A .

2) Work practice standards in Section(s) na .

3) Record keeping requirements in Section(s) na .

4) Reporting requirements in Section(s) na .

 

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN X No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts Attainment

DISCUSSION:
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted), I, Claudio Gianascio, Chief Executive Officer
and  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies that, to
the best of his or her knowledge:
 
 1. The Company's Amended Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31,  2007, and
to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "PERIODIC REPORT")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in
the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report
and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic
Report.
 
 Dated:
September 9, 2008
 
 
 S/ Claudio
Gianascio_________________
 Claudio
Gianascio
 CEO &
CFO
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Oranco, Inc. and will be retained by Oranco, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
 
 THIS
CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SS. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED "FILED" BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF
SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
Exhibit 32





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.





The undersigned, who are the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Business Development Corporation of America (the “Company”), each hereby certify as follows:





To the best of his knowledge, the annual report of Form 10-K of the Company, which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 19 th day of March 2012





/s/ Nicholas S. SchorschNicholas S. SchorschChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Brian S. BlockBrian S. BlockExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, *Respondents, v.*Wayland N. Trumble, *Appellant.*

— Judgment of Sessions reversed, and appeal to that court from judgment of Police Justice dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Opinion by Bookes, J.
| Name: Baofeng Shuangrui Coal Mining Co., Ltd.            |   | Mineral Resource: Coal                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Address: Zhaozhuang Village, Daying Town, Baofeng County |   | Underground Mining                     |
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Mine: Shuangrui coal mine                                |   | Production: 150,000 metric ton/year    |
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Type of Company: Limited Liability Company               |   | Size of Mine: 0.4685 square kilometers |
|                                                     |   |                                   |
| Effective Period: From June 2007 to October 2011         |   |                                   |

|   | 1.   | 3755724.00, 38391582.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 2.   | 3755567.00, 38391833.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 3.   | 3755235.00, 38391865.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 4.   | 3755163.00, 38391975.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 5.   | 3754990.00, 38392004.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 6.   | 3754606.00, 38392145.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 7.   | 3754560.00, 38392000.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 8.   | 3754560.00, 38391865.50 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 9.   | 3754682.00, 38391865.00 |
|--------|----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 10.   | 3743687.00, 38391640.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 11.   | 3754600.00, 38391517.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|

|   | 12.   | 3755724.00, 38391488.00 |
|--------|-----------------|-------------------------|
No. 38926.

#### Protests 945869-G, etc., of Charles Bruning Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Perseverance Import Corp.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49290) the protests were sustained.
#### Frederick B. Potter, *Appellant, v.*Sylvanus K. Greene and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Barker, J.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30229 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN E. MILTON, III, Also Known as Boo Milton, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

No. 3:96-CR-17-1 No. 3:09-CV-987

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

John E. Milton, III, federal prisoner # 24395-034, was convicted of conU n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 19 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30229 Document: 00511637263 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2011No. 11-30229

spiring to possess crack and powder cocaine with intent to distribute. He challenges the denial of a motio n that he labeled as arising under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. His request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED

as unnecessary, because h e i s n o t challenging “the final order in a proceeding under” 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). In his filing with this court, Milton contends that relief under Rule 36 is proper because his arguments con c erning the district court’s alleged failure to comply with certain portions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 relate to ministerial matters. We disagree and discern no error in th e district court’s holding that Milton’s motion, which raised a claim that did not pertain to a clerical matter and that could have been presented earlier, was an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Orozco-Ramirez , 211 F.3d 862, 867 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Key , 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The judgment is AFFIRMED, and Milton’s m o ti o n to proceed in forma pauperisis DENIED.

2 Case: 11-30229 Document: 00511637263 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2011
#### Commonwealth to use of Jones, Appellant, *v.*Lennox.

Argued May 2, 1969.

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

*562May 28, 1969:

*Richard S. Clover,*for plaintiff.

*Matthew W. Bulloch, Jr.,*Second Deputy City Solicitor, with him *Nicholas M. D’Alessandro,*Assistant City Solicitor, and *Edward C-. Bauer, Jr.,*City Solicitor, for appellee.

*A. John May,*with him *David T. Sykes,*and *Duane, Morris & Heckscher,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.
#### Samuel Phillips *v.*William Mackella.

— Motion denied. (See opinion.)
6881

#### STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA *EX REL.*J. FRASER LYON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, v. CHARLESTON TURNVEREIN SOCIETY.

*Ruled by case of State of South Carolina em rel. J. Fraser Lyon, Attorney General,*v. *New Charleston Hotel Co., post,*120.

Petition in the original jurisdiction of 'this Court by J. Fraser L/yom, Attorney General, on behalf of State of South Carolina against Charleston Turnverein Society and Herman Stranni, to restrain them from- keeping a place where persons are accustomed to resort to- drink alcoholic liquors and beverages.

*Attorney General, J. Fraser*Lyon> for petitioner.

April *21,*1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

The facts in this case are similar to those set out in the opinion just filed, in the case of the *117
      *State of South Carolina, ex relatione, J. Fraser Lyon,*as Attorney General, *against The New Charleston Hotel Company et al.,*except as to the names of the respondents, dates and place where the nuisance is maintained.

It is, therefore, unnecessary to reiterate the reasons why the prayer of the petition should be granted.

It is the judgment of this Court that the respondents be perpetually enjoined from maintaining, using and keeping said place, where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors and beverages, and from permitting persons to resort to the said premises for the purpose of drinking alcoholic liquors and 'beverages.
#### ROSEMARY WARRENDER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN WALKER WARRENDER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued February 17, 18, 1964

Decided May 4, 1964.

*Mr. Samuel Levin*argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent.

*Mr. Leslie E. Cohen*argued the cause for defendant-appellant.

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

We affirm generally on the opinion of the Appellate Division, 79 *N. J. Super.*114*(App. Div.*1963).

*For affirmance*— -Chief Justice Weintbaub, and Justices Jacobs, Peancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and HaneMAN — 7.

*For reversal*— None.
#### Excelsior Merchandise, Ltd., Appellant, v Roslyn Bell et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 399]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring the rights of the parties to the proceeds of a certain life insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered July 20, 1994, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment, granted the cross motion of the defendant Roslyn Bell for summary judgment, and declared that Bell is the legal and equitable owner of the proceeds of the policy.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to establish that payment of the proceeds *498of the subject insurance policy to the defendant Roslyn Bell, the owner and beneficiary of the policy, would constitute unjust enrichment *(see, Paramount Film Distrib. Corp. v State of New York,*30 NY2d 415, 421, *cert denied*414 US 829). Under the facts of this case, the court properly granted Bell’s cross motion for summary judgment declaring that she is the owner of the subject proceeds *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
# Maryann**Castro V.** 

# Manuel**Castro**

# In**the Fourth** **Court Of** **Appeals Fourth Court** **Of Appeals** **District San** **Antonio Texas** **Bexar County** 

# ■',

# l0**Re: Court** **Of Appeals** **Number: 04-14-00785-CV** **Trial Court** **Case 2011** **-CI-15957**

# On**April 7th** **Here Comes** **Appellant Maryann** **Castro Filing** **motion to** **request oral** **Argument in** **Appellants Brief** **in the** **Agreement for** **Final Divorce** **Signed Oct** **30,2013 by** **Judge Canales** 

# Appellant**Maryann Castro** **pro-se and** **prays for** **the Court for** **relief and** **Justice. Maryann** **Castro-Appellant Pro-se** 

# 1501**Olive Jourdanton** **Texas 78026** **830-496-0133**

# M/-7H**Pacattitude2014@gmail.com**
#### S. Charles Welsh, surviving executor and trustee, Resp’t, *v.*The Metropolitan Elevated R. R. Co., App’lt.

*(New York Superior Court, General Term,*

*Filed January 6,1890.)*

Per Curiam.

The questions presented on this appeal are all determined by the decision in *Welsh*v. *The Manhattan R. R. Co.,*No. 1. For the reasons there stated the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Ingraham and Freedman, JJ., concur.
**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**





The
      undersigned, Jiaji Shang, the Chief Executive Officer of CHINA
      NEW
      ENERGY GROUP COMPANY (the
“Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.  The
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
      (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
      this 19th day of November 2008.




/s/
                Jiaji ShangJiaji
                ShangChief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      China New Energy Group Company and will be retained by China New Energy Group
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.





The
      forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      and
      is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
      made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
      language in such filing.
#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., a/c Sears, Roebuck & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6621.

Entry No. 705, etc.

Invoices dated Redditch, England, July 17, 1941, etc.

Entered at Chicago, III., August 21, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 16, 1946)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed-in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values less the additions made by the .importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8722)

#### E. Miltenberg Meadows Wye and Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 19877.

(Decided January 10, 1957)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*563Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been sub-

mitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> That the instant appeal for reappraisement covers flashlight bulbs from Hong Hong.

> That on or about the date of exportation the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in Hong Kong, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, packing included, was the entered value less the ocean freight as invoiced.

> That on or about the date of exportation the foreign value, as such value is defined in Sec. 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, was no higher.

> That the instant appeal for reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the entered value, less the ocean freight, as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Archibald D. O’Neill, *Respondent, v.*John Waller, *Appellant.*

— Motion for leave to go to Court of Appeals denied, without costs.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 19A

- PL

- 938 | July 6 , 2020 Page 1 of 2

OPINION ON REHEARING



### A PPELLANT 

### P RO 

### S E David Pannell Pendleton , Indiana 

### A TTORNEY S FOR 

### A PPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Natalie F. Weiss Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


### I N T H E 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

David Pannell , Appellant

- Plaintiff , v. 

### Bessie E. Leonard , Appellee

- Defendant

. July 6 , 2020 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 19A

- PL

- 938 Appeal from the La P orte Superior Court The Honorable Richard R. Stalbrink, Jr., Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46D02

- 1801

- PL

- 111



### Darden , Senior Judge .Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion on Rehearing 19A

- PL

- 938 | July 6 , 2020 Page 2 of 2

[1] 

### David Pannell has petitioned for rehearing of our m emorandum d ecision dated March 3, 2020

. 1 

### We grant rehearing for the limited purpose of correcting a factual error in the decision but otherwise affirm.

[2] 

### In our orig inal decision, we stated incorrectly t hat on March 6, 2 0 18 , the federal district court had dismissed Pannell’s complaint “ with prejudice. ” Pannell v. Leonard , Case No. 19A

- PL

- 938, *3 (Ind. Ct. App. March 3, 2020). Whereas , the federal district court had dismissed his complaint “ without prejudice , ” and remanded back to the trial court for consideration of any state

- law claims by Pannell

. Id.

[3] 

### Aside from the factual error , w e affirm our original memorandum decision in all a spe cts. Riley, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

1 Pannell captions his petition as a “Suggestion for Petition for Rehearing Enbanc

. ” Th e Court of Appeals of Indiana does not review decisions en banc.
No. 56502.

protests 178792-K (B), etc. (New York).

#### Air Clearance Ass’n, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**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**

 

I, Robert J. Zatta, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Rockwood SpecialtiesGroup, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc..

 
| Date: August 16, 2004                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ ROBERT J. ZATTA                        |   |
| Robert J. Zatta                            |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----