alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne Hunter, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 963]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered on or about October 29, 1993, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8695 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to create a unique 

identification number for registered lobbyists, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Ms. PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to create 

a unique identification number for registered lobbyists, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Lobbying Disclosure 

5 Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. UPDATES TO THE LOBBYING DISCLOSURE SYSTEM. 

7 (a) WEBSITE.— 

8 (1) FILING.—The second sentence of section 

9 5(e) of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 

10 U.S.C. 1604(e)) is amended to read as follows: ‘‘The 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8695 IH

1 Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 

2 of Representatives shall jointly use one publicly 

3 available website for receipt and recording of filings 

4 under this Act.’’. 

5 (2) STORAGE.—Section 6(a)(9) of the Lobbying 

6 Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605(a)(9)) by 

7 striking ‘‘over the Internet,’’ and inserting ‘‘over the 

8 Internet on a website jointly maintained by the Sec9 retary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 

10 Representatives,’’. 

11 (b) UNIQUE IDENTIFIER.—Section 6(a)(3) of the 

12 Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3)) 

13 is amended— 

14 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara15 graph (A); 

16 (2) by adding ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon the 

17 end of subparagraph (B); and 

18 (3) by adding after subparagraph (B) the fol19 lowing: 

20 ‘‘(C) a system that assigns a unique identi21 fication number for each lobbyist for whom a 

22 registration or report is filed under this Act and 

23 discloses such identifier to the public as struc24 tured data as part of the lobbying disclosure 

25 downloads;’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8695 IH

1 (c) DEADLINE.—The Secretary of the Senate and the 

2 Clerk of the House of Representatives shall have one year 

3 from the date of enactment of this Act to fulfill the re4 quirements of the amendments made under this section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF GUIDO GAROFONE FOR A WRIT OF *HABEAS CORPUS.*GUIDO GAROFONE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued April 7, 1964

Decided May 4, 1964.

*245
      *Mr. Peter Murray,*Assistant County Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant *(Mr. Brendan T. Byrne,*Essex County Prosecutor, attorney).

*Mr. Samuel Weitzman*argued the cause for respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

Garofone was tried and convicted in a municipal court upon five charges. Pour were for crimes as to which Garofone waived indictment and trial by jury, and the fifth was for a disorderly persons offense. Upon *habeas corpus,*the trial court found a denial of due process because counsel was not furnished the defendant. *In re Garofone,*80 *N. J. Super.*259 *(Law Div.*1963). We certified the State’s appeal before argument in the Appellate Division.

It is conceded that Garofone was indigent. The trial court found (1) that Garofone was told by the magistrate that counsel would be assigned to him if he so wished; but (2) that the right to counsel was not waived because it did not appear that Garofone was expressly asked whether he affirm a*246tively waived his right to assigned counsel and elected to proceed without that aid. We gather the trial court may have doubted that the defendant really understood he could have counsel assigned to him without cost and hence concluded that a “waiver” could be found only if there was elicited from him “a conscious, coherent, affirmative indication that he does not desire the assistance of counsel” (80 *N. J. Super.,*at *p.*279). At any rate, we need not consider the subject of waiver bej'ond saying that our reading of the record persuades us that although Garofone was told of his right to be represented by counsel, he was not told that he could have counsel assigned without cost. That being so, we accept the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that there was no waiver.

As noted above, four of the five offenses were crimes, and as to them the right of an indigent to assigned counsel is clear. *B. B.*1:12 — 9(a). The trial court here held that the same right must be accorded to one charged with a disorderly persons offense notwithstanding such a charge is not one of crime. Since here this charge was tried along with charges of crime, the right to assigned counsel should not be disputed. We reserve, however, the question whether one tried for every disorderly persons offense must be furnished counsel. Ordinarily counsel is supplied upon request, and it may be that the incidence of indigency is much smaller because the cost of defense is less than on a charge of crime, but nonetheless the subject is troublesome, and since this case does not require a definitive decision, we think it better to withhold one.

The judgment is affirmed.

*For affirmance*—■ Chief Justice Welsttbaub, and Justices Jacobs, Pkootob, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 6.

*For reversal*— None.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 10, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00126-CV MEDICAL HYPERBARICS, INC., Appellant V. NASHIR KARMALI, Appellee
On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-17604

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justi ce Molberg, and Justice Goldstein Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal because it no
longer wishes to pursue the same. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

220126F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III / ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

MEDICAL HYPERBARICS, INC., Appellant

No. 05-22-00126-CV V.

NASHIR KARMALI, Appellee On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-17604. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee NASHIR KARMALI recover his costs of this appeal from appellant MEDICAL HYPERBARICS, INC.

Judgment entered May 10, 2022
This Workbook was prepared by Caliber Associates, Fairfax, VA for

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

under Contract #OJP-91-C-011.
#### Mary E. Hughes, Resp’t, *v.*The Metropolitan Elevated R. R. Co. *et al.,*App’lts.

*(New York Superior Court, General Term,*

*Filed January 6, 1890.)*

Appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion that the injunction in the judgment be perpetually and permanently suspended.

*Davies & Sapallo,*for app’lts; *Edwin M. Felt,*for resp’t

Sedgwick, Oh. J.

The disposition of a similar appeal in the case of *Watson*v. *The Same*Defendants, should be made in this casa

The order is to be reversed and the motion granted upon terms to be directed at the settlement of the order upon notice.

Freedman, J., concurs.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Marc E. Rothman, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that, to my knowledge:



| | (3) | the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the Annual Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (4) | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Motorola Mobility
Holdings, Inc.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: February 18, 2011



/s/ Marc E. RothmanMarc E. RothmanSenior Vice President, Chief Financial OfficerMotorola Mobility Holdings, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:11-cr-111

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

JAMES STEWART, 

Defendant.

ORDER

On June 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant Stewart’s guilty plea to Count

One of the Information charging him with conspiracy to distribute more than 28 grams of cocaine

base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846. Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to appear

on the matter before a District Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule

11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from

coercion, and had a basis in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00111-GCS Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/09/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Information. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of

conspiracy to distribute more than 28 grams of cocaine base. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:11-cr-00111-GCS Doc #: 31 Filed: 08/09/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
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
Joway Health Industries Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yuan Huang, Chief Financial
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 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2011



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Yuan Huang                                        
|Yuan Huang, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41465

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HUGO CORTES-FIGUEROA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-694-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hugo CortesFigueroa has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cortes-Figueroa has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41465 Document: 00513532727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2016
No. 15-41465

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-41465 Document: 00513532727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2016
January 16, 2013



United States Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Stret, N.E.

Washington DC 20549-7561



| | Re: | Easy Health Technologies Ltd. (formerly Glorious Pioneer
Investments Ltd.)
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission File Number (000-54022)



Commissioners:



We have read Item 16 of Form 20-F dated
January 16, 2013, of Easy Health Technologies Ltd. (formerly Glorious Pioneer Investments Ltd.) and are in agreement with the statements
contained therein insofar as they relate to our dismissal and our audits as of March 31, 2012 and 2011 and the related statements
of operations, stockholder’s equity and cash flows for the fiscal years then ended, for the period from January 5, 2010 (inception)
through March 31, 2010 and for the period from January 5, 2010 (inception) through March 31, 2012.



/s/Li and Company, PC

Li and Company, PC
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned,
certifies that to the best of his knowledge (1) this Quarterly Report of CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (this 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, and its results of operations for the quarters and six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009.



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ R. Byron Carlock, Jr.            
|Date: August 13, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | R. BYRON CARLOCK, JR.                
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit      32.1**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

|   | 1. | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended                June                30, 2007 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C.                §§78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | /S/                Pierre Cote                                                            |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Pierre                Cote                                                                               |
|   | Chairman                of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial                Officer |
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.10


                             CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION
                            NEVADA-LODE MINING CLAIM

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that DESERT PACIFIC EXPLORATION INC.,
Incorporate in Nevada, whose address is 12475 Overbrook Drive, Reno, Nevada
89511, has located and claimed the Little Ule #8 Lode Mining Claim in the
following quarter sections(s):

NE   1/4,    Section           Township 1N,        Range 32E,       MDB7M
NW   1/4,    Section           Township 1N,        Range 32E,       MDB&M
SE   1/4,    Section    2      Township 1N,        Range 32E,       MDB&M
SW   1/4,    Section           Township 1N,        Range 32E,       MDB&M

In Mineral County, Nevada, on the 30th day of October, 1996.

SAID CLAIM IS A LODE CLAIM, it being situated in the above mentioned County and
State, and is approximately 1500 feet long and 600 feet wide, such that 1475
feet is claimed in an North direction and 25 feet in a South direction from the
point of discovery (monument of location), at which the Notice of Location was
posted, together with 300 feet on each side of the monument of location and
center line of the Claim. The general course of the lode or vein is from the
North to the South.

THE NUMBER, LOCATION, AND MARKINGS On each monument are as follows:

         Location          Markings                Description
         --------          --------                -----------

No. 1 Northeast corner     diagram, metal tag      2"x2"xz4' wooden post
No. 2 Southeast corner     diagram, metal tag      2"x2"xz4' wooden post
No. 3 Southwest corner     diagram, metal tag      2"x2"xz4' wooden post
No. 4 Northwest corner     diagram, metal tag      2"x2"xz4' wooden post

A CLAIM MAP as required by NRS 517.040 is included as part of the work of
location.

Dated:  January 11, 1997

                RECEIVED                  DESERT PACIFIC EXPLORATION INC.
        Bur. Of Land Management
          9:00 A.M.  JAN 24 97            BY: /s/ Herb Duerr
          NEVADA STATE OFFICE                 Herb Duerr, President
             RENO, NEVADA
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 Quarterly Report of Sub-Urban Brands, Inc. on Form 10-QSB
      for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Joseph Shortal,
      Chief Executive Officer of Sub-Urban Brands, Inc., does hereby certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section .1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 the results of operations of the Company as of
      and
      for the periods covered by the Report.




Dated:
                August 20, 2007/s/
                Joseph ShortalJoseph
                Shortal, Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Christopher Prince.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
# C_2007140EN.01002001.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Crespinet v Commission

(Case T-261/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Promotion - Promotion year 2003 - Award of promotion points)

(2007/C 140/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alain Crespinet (Rosières, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision of the Commission by which promotion points were awarded to the applicant for the promotion year 2003 and the decision not to enter the applicant's name on the list of officials promoted to grade A5 for that promotion year.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders that each party is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that each party is to bear its own costs.

Orders that each party is to bear its own costs

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

1

---
**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, 2005, 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
        14, 2005