alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Developing a National Ocean Policy:								Mid-term Report of the								U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
This report includes a brief history of national ocean policy, an overview of the Commission mandate and organization, highlights of invited testimony and public comment through June 2002, and a list of commission products and future commission activities.Developing a National Ocean Policy*(pdf, 480k)*

The report also includes three appendices which are available for download. Appendices I and II can either be downloaded in their entirety or by section.

**Appendix I: A Synthesis of Testimony Organized by Policy Topic, September 2001-November 2002.** (This link leads to an updated electronic version of this document which was released by the Commission in June 2003. The updated version includes highlights of the presentations made to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy at its public meetings from September 2001 through November 2002.) **Appendix II:****A Summary of Testimony Indexed by Presenters, September 2001-April 2003****.** (This link leads to an updated electronic version of this document which was released by the Commission in June 2003. The updated version includes overviews of invited testimony and public comment before the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy at its public meetings from September 2001 through April 2003.)**Appendix III:****Toward a National Ocean Policy: Topics and Related Issues***(pdf, 540k)*

(top)
****

Main Page

Full							      Color Final Report

Archive of Commission Documents

Revised July 10, 2003 by Ocean Commission Webmaster |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

842 

KA 11-00415 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RAYNA A. KELLY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SUSAN C. MINISTERO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell

P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered December 2, 2010. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the

fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her

plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law §

155.30 [1]) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth

degree (§ 165.45 [1]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right

to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. 

Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily,

and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), we conclude that the valid waiver of the

right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of

the sentence because Supreme Court failed to advise defendant of the

potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of

incarceration (see People v Newman, 21 AD3d 1343; People v McLean, 302

AD2d 934; cf. People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91

NY2d 733, 737), and there was no specific sentence promise at the time

of the waiver (cf. People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6

NY3d 852). Nevertheless, on the merits, we conclude that the sentence

is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 29, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 47981.

#### Protest 563781-G of A. Hirschberger (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was sustained.
No. 61979.

#### John Edgar Staren *v.*United States,

protests 188347-K, etc. (Nogales).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Christopher Doran, Chief Financial Officer of Doranetti Music Inc., certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Doranetti Music Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this 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; and

(c)	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 (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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 the 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  March 22, 2006

/s/ Christopher Doran	Christopher Doran
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Pelican Financial,Inc., does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of PelicanFinancial, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report’)that

 

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

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Date: August  13, 2004 | /s/ Charles  C. Huffman                |   |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Charles C.  Huffman                    |
|                   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |                                   |
|                   |                                   |
| Date: August  13, 2004 | /s/ Howard  M. Nathan                  |   |
|                   | Howard M.  Nathan                      |
|                   | Principal  Financial Officer           |
|                        |                                        |        |  |

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and isnot being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
Case: 2:10-cv-01012-EAS-TPK Doc #: 29 Filed: 03/30/12 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T10:22:08-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
# C_2007199EN.01005301.xml

| 25.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/53

---

Action brought on 20 June 2007 — De Fays v Commission

(Case F-62/07)

(2007/C 199/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Chantal De Fays (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. -P. Guhuchten and Ph. Reyniers, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 16 March 2007 dismissing the Applicant's pre-litigation claim for damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 16 March 2007 dismissing the Applicant's pre-litigation claim for damages;

| — | order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 25 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 25 000;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant brought a complaint against the Authorising Authority's decision of 15 September 2006 awarding her damages of EUR 500 only as compensation for non-material loss suffered as a result of the drawing up of her Career Development Reports (CDR) for 2003, 2004 and 2005. By the contested decision the Authorising Authority dismissed that complaint.

In support of her action, the applicant submits that the procedures for drawing up the CDR at issue were late and created a state of uncertainty as to the development of her career. Moreover, the repetition in each of the CDRs of allegedly hurtful and inappropriate content gave rise to non-material damage. The Commission failed to respect the obligations placed on it by the principles of respect for human dignity, sound administration, the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and, by analogy, the Community rules applicable to harassment at work (1).

1

---

(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23); Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ 2004 L 373, p. 37); Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).

1

---
#### Jane Montgomery, Resp’t, *v.*The Long Island Railroad Company, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed February 10, 1890.)*

TTegligencb—Evidence.

In an action for injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence, an expert may properly be allowed to testify that the precise injuries had been occasioned by a fall, and that they are permanent.

*823Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.

Action for injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence.

*E. B. Hinsdale,*for app’lt; *Dailey & Bell,*for resp’t

Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that the defendant suddenly started its horse car upon which she was a passenger as she was getting off, and threw her down and injured her severely. She testified" to the injuries she had received. An expert witness was asked whether such injuries could be produced by a fall, and whether they were permanent The evidence was objected to and admitted. The ruling was accurate and proper. The fact that the precise injury had been occasioned by the fall was proper.

The surgeon aided the testimony by showing that the injury was such as a sudden fall would produce. The permanent nature of the injuries could be proven by skilled men who knew the fact. Such witnesses must not speculate, but must be able to testify to» a result reasonably certain to happen from the injury. There was, no such testimony as was condemned in the case of *Strohm*v. *N. Y., Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co.,*96 N. Y., 305. The surgeon testified that the injuries were permanent. The verdict is not against the evidence. This question was passed upon when the. appeal from the order granting a new trial was considered and decided by this court The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Dykhan and Pratt, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEMARCUS ANTOINE MILLS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-330

[April 21, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Dan L. Vaughn, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312007CF001248A.

Martin L. Roth of Martin L. Roth, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., CIKLIN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10921 Summary Calendar

IMOGENE MARSH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ROBERT E. RUBIN, Secretary of the Treasury, Defendant-Appellee,
and GARY O. BOOTH; MARTY BERDAN; FRANK WHITTAKER; DON WHITLOCK; LINDA STEUWE; MARCIE GAITHER, Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:92-CV-1836-G
- - - - - - - - - - July 18, 1996 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Imogene Marsh appeals the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c), of her Title VII complaint. She argues that she submitted sufficient evidence at trial toNo. 95-10921 - 2 - establish her prima facie case of employment discrimination based

on race and retaliation. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Marsh v. Brady et al. , No. 3:92-CV-1836-G (N.D. Tex. Sep. 25, 1995). Marsh’s motion to have her reply brief filed out of time is GRANTED. AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v THEODORE C. CHISHOLM, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 352, 41 CMR 352

*353No. 22,757

March 27, 1970

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Norman L. Blumenfeld,*and *Captain Monte Engler*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain William R. Steinmetz*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

This is another ease involving consideration of paragraph 38a, Headquarters, United States Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, Directive 37-6. In United States v Benway, 19 USCMA 345, 41 CMR 345 (1970), this Court determined that the directive could be punitively applied. The directive, therefore, will support Chisholm’s conviction under specifications 1 and 2 of Charge II of purchasing money orders in excess of the maximum monthly amount.

The decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Ferguson concur.
**Exhibit
      32**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**




In
      connection with the report of Integrated Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
      "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Chinmay
      Chatterjee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect.
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.






***/s/
      Chinmay
      Chatterjee***


Chinmay
      Chatterjee, Chief Financial Officer


and
      Chief
      Financial Officer





Dated:    
      November 17, 2006
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Asia Carbon Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guo Yun Yao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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/Guo Yun Yao

Date:March 31, 2011Guo Yun YaoChief Executive Officer
# C_2007183EN.01003801.xml

| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/38

---

Action brought on 12 June 2007 — Gaedertz v OHIM — Living Byte Software (GlobalRemote)

(Case T-209/07)

(2007/C 183/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Johann-Christoph Gaedertz (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E. M. Gerstenberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Living Byte Software GmbH

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 April 2007 in Case R 272/2005-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 April 2007 in Case R 272/2005-4;

| — | Declare Community trade mark No 1 466 499 ‘GlobalRemote’ invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Community trade mark No 1 466 499 ‘GlobalRemote’ invalid;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘GlobalRemote’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 1 466 499).

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Living Byte Software GmbH.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: In particular, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since the Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought is devoid of the necessary distinctive character and is of a purely descriptive nature.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 11, 2018January 17, 2018

No. 04-17-00840-CR

Richard DIAZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1987CR1809

Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on January 17, 2018.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of January, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court