alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mark Hampton, Inc., Plaintiff, v Morris H. Bergreen et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Mark Hampton, Respondent-Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered on January 12, 1990, which granted the motion by the additional defendant on the counterclaims, Mark Hampton ("Hampton”), to dismiss the defendants’ first counterclaim as against Hampton, individually, and which denied Hampton’s motion to dismiss the second counterclaim as against Hampton individually, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to grant Hampton’s motion to dismiss the second counterclaim as against Hampton individually, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Although on a motion addressed to the sufficiency of a complaint, the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and accorded every favorable inference *(Morone v Morone,*50 NY2d 481, 484 [1980]), nevertheless, "allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions, as well as factual claims either inherently incredible or flatly contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to such consideration” *(Roberts v Pollack,*92 AD2d 440, 444 [1983]; *accord, Gertler v Goodgold,*107 AD2d 481, 485, *affd*66 NY2d 946 [1985]; *Riffat v Continental Ins. Co.,*104 AD2d 301, 302 [1984]).

Upon examination of the record, we find that the IAS court did not err in dismissing defendants’ first counterclaim for contractual liability in connection with the rendering of design services for their home in Greenwich, Connecticut, *221against Hampton individually, where the defendants’ contractual claim is "flatly contradicted by documentary evidence” consisting of estimates, invoices, checks and correspondence, establishing the existence of an agreement between only the defendants and the corporate plaintiff *(Blackgold Realty Corp. v Milne,*119 AD2d 512 [1986], *affd*69 NY2d 719 [1987]).

We find, however, that the IAS court erred in refusing to dismiss the defendants’ second counterclaim premised upon negligence as against Hampton individually where, by reason of the contract between the defendants and the corporate plaintiff, defendants are unable to establish the threshold element of the existence of a duty flowing from Hampton individually to the defendants which is essential to a cause of action in negligence. *(Pulka v Edelman,*40 NY2d 781, 782 [1976]; *Febesh v Elcejay Inn Corp.,*157 AD2d 102, 104 [1990], *lv denied*77 NY2d 801 [1991].)

[The unpublished decision and order of this Court entered on February 26, 1991, as corrected on March 5, 1991, is recalled and vacated.] Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 7, 2016 521292 

________________________________

In the Matter of ZACHARY M.

and Others, Alleged to be 

Neglected Children.

OTSEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Respondent; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ASHLEY N.,

Appellant,

et al.,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 3, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________

Susan Patnode, Rural Law Center of New York, Castleton

(Cynthia Feathers of counsel), for appellant.

Steven E. Ratner, Otsego County Department of Social

Services, Cooperstown, for respondent.

Christine A. McCue, Central Bridge, attorney for the

children.

__________

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County

(Burns, J.), entered May 21, 2015, which granted petitioner's

application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article

10, to adjudicate respondents' children to be neglected.
-2- 521292 

Respondent Ashley N. (hereinafter the mother) and

respondent Russell M. are the parents of one child (born in

2010), and the mother has another child (born in 2013). Based on

allegations of, among other things, drug abuse and domestic

violence, petitioner brought a neglect petition. In July 2014,

the parties made admissions and consented to an order (eventually

entered in January 2015), which adjourned the matter in

contemplation of dismissal subject to respondents' compliance

with certain conditions for one year. Respondents failed to

comply with all the conditions, resulting in a violation

petition. At an ensuing appearance before Family Court, the

mother stipulated on the record to restore the neglect petition. 

She consented to findings based on her prior admissions and entry

of an order providing for petitioner's supervision for one year

while the children remained with her. Family Court issued such

an order in May 2015, and the mother now appeals.

The mother contends that the facts which she had previously

admitted were insufficient to establish neglect. However, the

order was entered upon consent. "It is well settled that no

appeal lies from an order entered upon a party's consent" (Matter

of Connor CC. [Jennifer DD.], 99 AD3d 1127, 1127 [2012]; see

Matter of Gabrielle S. [Reberick T.], 105 AD3d 1098-1099 [2013]). 

The mother "failed to move to vacate the order on the grounds

that [she] now raises" (Matter of Connor S. [Joseph S.], 122 AD3d

1096, 1097 [2014]; see Matter of Landon U. [Amanda U.], 132 AD3d

1081, 1086 n 1 [2015]; Matter of Cheyenne QQ., 37 AD3d 977, 978

[2007]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed (see e.g.

Matter of Jacob EE. [Autumn HH.], 118 AD3d 1179, 1179 [2014];

Matter of Trenton G. [Lianne H.], 100 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2012]). 

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.
-3- 521292 

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Filed 2/21/14 P. v. Kelley CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL KEL LEY,

Defendant and Appellant. B248328

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. NA092929)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed.

Hancock and Spears and Alan E. Spears, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 BACKGROUND

Defendant Michael Kelley was charged with one count of carrying a dirk or

dagger (Pen. Code

, § 21310) 1 and five prior prison terms ( § 667.5, subd. (b))

.

According to the probation report, officers conducted a parole search of defendant

and recovered a knife with a fixed blade locked in position

. On August 3, 2012,

d efendant pled guilty to the charge, and admitted the priors. He was sentenced to

eight years in state prison. Execution of sentence was suspended, and he was

placed on probation for three years and ordered to serve 365 days in the county

jail.

On February 2 7 , 2013, defendant admi tted he was in violation of probation

ba sed on his possession of methamphetamine. The trial court terminated probation

and imposed the suspended eight

- year sentence, with credit for 288 actual days

plus 148 days conduct credit

. Defendant appealed from the judgment.

After review of the recor d, appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed an

opening brief asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30

days raisin g any contentions that he wished us to consider. No response has been

received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues

exist, and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende

procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate

review of the judgment entered against him in this case. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000)

528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112

- 113.)

1 All section references are to the Penal Code.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is a ffirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, J.

We concur:

EPSTEIN, P. J.

MANELLA, J.
November 7 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IKECHUKWU CHRIS OBUD ULU , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 01143

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification**

**Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

|                                                 |   |   |                                                                                   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: August              14, 2007   |   |   | /s/ Bob              Marbut                                        |
|                                                      |   |   | Name: Bob              MarbutTitle:  Co-Chief Executive              Officer |
|                                                 |   |   |                                                                                   |

|                                                   |   |   |                                                                                           |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: August                14, 2007   |   |   | /s/  Ron                Chaimovski                                    |
|                                                        |   |   | Name: Ron                ChaimovskiTitle:  Co-Chief Executive                Officer |
|                                                   |   |   |                                                                                           |

----
#### In the Matter of Scott Williamson, Petitioner, v Lee P. Brown, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated October 6, 1989, which, after a hearing, ordered that petitioner forfeit ten days’ pay upon the finding that petitioner wrongfully received items without tendering payment, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and. the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Jerome Hornblass, J.], entered May 24, 1990), is dismissed, without costs.

Petitioner was found to have accepted food and soft drinks from the operators of a diner without paying for them. The Hearing Officer’s finding that the petitioner’s testimony was not credible, in conjunction with the testimony of disinterested investigators of the Internal Affairs Division, constituted substantial evidence in support of the determination of guilt. *(Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443.) Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1438

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Jaysen Lane Heyer,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

Submitted: November 12, 2018

Filed: November 16, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jaysen Heyer appeals the sentence the district court

1

imposed after he pleaded

guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to a drug offense. His counsel has

1The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.
moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. In a pro se brief,

Heyer argues that he did not understand the consequences of his guilty plea, that the

plea agreement was breached, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an

unreasonable sentence. The sentence was below the advisory Guideline range. The

court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no

indication that the court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant

factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman, 741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013)

(standard of review); see also United States v. Torres-Ojeda, 829 F.3d 1027, 1030

(8th Cir. 2016). We further conclude that Heyer’s claims that he did not understand

the consequences of his guilty plea and that the sentence constituted a breach of his

plea agreement are refuted by his testimony at the plea hearing and the terms of the

plea agreement. See Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997); see

also United States v. Bahena, 223 F.3d 797, 806-07 (8th Cir. 2000). Additionally, we

decline to consider Heyer’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct

appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Renee Chapman, Contact Representative, or Theresa Kingsberry, Legal Assistant, Federal Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room H-303, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3100.

By Direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-5606 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 a.m.]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1954 

To suspend temporarily the duty on p-nitrotoluene. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 28, 2009 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on p-nitrotoluene. 

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

3 SECTION 1. P-NITROTOLUENE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 p-Nitrotoluene (CAS No. 99– 

99–0) (provided for in subheading 2904.20.10) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1954 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1892 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1892

        To suspend temporarily the duty on methyl sulfonic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on methyl sulfonic acid.

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

SECTION 1. METHYL SULFONIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Methanesulfonic     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        acid (CAS No. 75-                                                  31/2011.......
                        75-2) (provided
                        for in subheading
                        2904.10.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 3.13
                    CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                               OF

                  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                       * * * * * * * * *



     California Energy Operating Company, a corporation organized

and  existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation  Law

of the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:



    FIRST:     That in lieu of a meeting, the sole stockholder of

said  corporation  has  given unanimous written  consent  to  the

following amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation  of  said

corporation:



    RESOLVED,   that   the   Certificate  of   Incorporation   of

    California  Energy Operating Company be amended  by  changing

    the   first  sentence  thereof  so  that,  as  amended,  said

    sentence shall be and read as follows:



    "The  name of the Corporation is CalEnergy Operating  Company

    (the "Company")."



     SECOND:    That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted  in

accordance with the applicable provisions of Sections 242 and 228

of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.



      IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  said  Certificate  of  Amendment  of

Certificate  of Incorporation has caused this certificate  to  be

signed  by  Steven  A. McArthur, its Senior Vice  President,  and

attested by Douglas L. Anderson, Assistant Secretary, as of  this

26th day of March, 1996.



              CALIFORNIA ENERGY OPERATING COMPANY, INC.



              By:  /s/ Steven A. McArthur
                 Steven A. McArthur
                 Senior Vice President



ATTEST



By:  /s/ Douglas L. Anderson
   Douglas L. Anderson
   Assistant Secretary
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1842 

To modify the provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 

States relating to returned property. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To modify the provisions of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States relating to returned property. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO 

4 RETURNED PROPERTY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The article description for head6 ing 9801.00.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

7 United States is amended by inserting after ‘‘exported,’’ 

8 the following: ‘‘or any other products when returned with9 in 3 years after having been exported,’’. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1842 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
From:MatthewTodd<ToddMapi.org>Date:July14,2015at1:17:06PMEDTTo:“BruceMoore(Moore.Bruce@epamail.epa.gov)”<Moore.BruceepamaiI.epa.gov>Cc:“DavidCozzie(Cozzie.David@epamail.epa.gov)”<Cozzie.Davidepamail.epa.gov>,“Garwood.gerri@Epa.gov”<Garwood.gerriEa.gov>Subject:APIMeetingAgendaBruce,Copiedbelowisaproposedagendafortomorrow’smeeting.We’llseeyouat8:45inthelobby.MattTime(ET)Topic9:00—9:10Introductions9:10—9:25NESHAPReconsideration9:25—9:30NSPS1.5AmendmentsSchedule9:30—10:30ControlTechniqueGuidelines10:30—10:45BREAK10:45—11:20NSPS2.0-ReviewAPItechnicalfeedbackprovidedtoEPA11:20—11:30SourceDetermination11:30—12:00NSPSElectronicReportingProposedRulewEPA’sGerriGarwoodfVOOfQ,Iatue/7?J c t:lv__

EPA___ Cjt 1

t- 1

Csr___Ac/,1jIqç

/

//

c&q 7?’ f4Ezsq C,f//444c’V6Ai-

‘r’-_____ LAJi LtJYt4

S

M1.

91

WiLLIAYtI. —-r cvc’

_-v.7‘.r.4v1yOttt-LLL.J€dA4)

a‘:

.Cz(k, (\&5

V)

(cr- hLi JI%

Aj(yJ—

‘r--—-

C

I tA- 1 -tJ.S

jetety

“j

‘

I—

.44-L-_-_-‘

/5./%A— 1’h1 N0’’4------— ••

•‘Q A Nbr,

VhL

(f//( 1 D

/P4 (_C’b’(j

it
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Chris Craddock, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Sky Harvest Windpower Corp. (the Company) hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for
      the period ended February 28, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                    

Date: April 16, 2010

/s/ Chris CraddockChris CraddockChief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer, Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sky Harvest
Windpower Corp. and will be retained by Sky Harvest Windpower Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---