alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued April 30, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-12-01110-CV

VARUN TREHAN, Appellant

V.

NORTH CYPRESS MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1006168

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Varun Trehan has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file 
2

brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did 

not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. 

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daneall Bowman, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.), rendered January 4, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On November 9, 1987, Vincent Knight and Linden Roach were returning from Aqueduct Racetrack when they stopped off at a grocery store. Once in the store, Knight was confronted by the defendant and his codefendant, Stephen Den-ham, who had a gun. The defendant and his codefendant pretended to be police officers and then robbed the victims. After the crime was committed, Knight and Roach got into Roach’s car and drove away towards Jamaica, Queens. Shortly thereafter, Roach’s car stopped at a stop sign, and the defendant and the codefendant drove up beside Roach’s car. The defendant fired a couple of shots, hitting Roach, and then got out of his car, broke the window of Roach’s car, and fired several more shots into the car, this time hitting Knight. The codefendant then commandeered Roach’s car and drove the two wounded men for 5 to 10 minutes. Eventually, Knight was able to escape and summon police help. The police apprehended the defendant and codefendant shortly thereafter.

Since the People limited the theory of their case in the indictment, bill of particulars, and their opening statement to the shooting incident and not the incident occurring at the grocery store, the defendant could not have been validly convicted for any crimes arising from the grocery store incident *(see,*NY Const, art I, § 6; *Matter of Corbin v Hillery,*74 NY2d 279, 290, *affd sub nom. Grady v Corbin,*495 US 508, 110 S Ct 2084; *People v Spann,*56 NY2d 469, 472-473).

Nevertheless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find, despite the defendant’s contentions, that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Additionally, since the defense counsel moved to set aside the verdict after the jury had been discharged, the claim that the verdict was repugnant was unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Harris,*128 *838AD2d 432). In any event, there is nothing inconsistent or repugnant about the jury’s verdict *(see, People v Higdon,*162 AD2d 957; *People v Harris, supra).*Brown, J. P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# L_2006006EN.01003101.xml

| 11.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 6/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 6/31

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 32/2006

of 10 January 2006

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).

| (2) | Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 at 11 500 t. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 at 11 500 t.

| (3) | It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 January 2006 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

2.   Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of February 2006 for 6 802,347 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 January 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1118/2004 (OJ L 217, 17.6.2004, p. 10).

2

---
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Solely in connection with the filing of the QuarterlyReport of Mosaic Nutraceuticals Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned CharlesTownsend, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, does herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 
| November 14, 2005 |                                    |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|              |                                    |
|              | /s/ CHARLES TOWNSEND                    |   |
|              | CHARLES TOWNSEND                        |   |
|              | PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND |
|              | PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER             |

 

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00221-CV

Robert Scott, Commissioner of Education, Acting in his Official Capacity, Appellant

v.

Driscoll Independent School District, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-07-003765, HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Robert Scott, acting in his official capacityas Commissioner of Education,

has informed this Court that he no longer wishes to pursue this appeal and has filed an unopposed

motion to dismiss. We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: June 12, 2008
#### Elaine Murphy et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered May 17, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiffs’ motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs allege that they were injured as a result of defendant’s negligence when an unidentified metal object fell from an elevated train structure on March 8, 1982 and struck their *237vehicle. Plaintiffs filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness on September 23, 1987 and the case was scheduled for the conference calendar on October 23, 1987. Despite publication of notice of the scheduled conference, plaintiffs failed to appear, and the case was accordingly dismissed from the calendar.

Over two years later, in December 1989, plaintiffs moved to vacate their default and to restore the case to the calendar, contending that the law firm representing them was in the process of a merger and was unaware of the scheduled conference.

In order to rebut the presumption that the action was abandoned, plaintiffs must demonstrate that their cause of action is meritorious, that there is a sufficient excuse for the delay, that there was no intent to abandon the action and that defendants will not be prejudiced by restoring the case to the calendar. *(Condurso v Thumsuden,*84 AD2d 802, 803, *appeal dismissed*55 NY2d 953.) Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently rebut the presumption. As to the merits of the action, there is a lack of evidence to indicate that the metal object was the NYCTA’s equipment or that it was in the exclusive control of the NYCTA. Indicative of the intent to abandon the action is that plaintiffs did not seek to restore the case to the calendar for over two years.

The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting plaintiffs’ law office failure excuse. Plaintiffs, during the merger, were sufficiently organized to file a note of issue and certificate of readiness. They certainly should have been aware of the scheduled calendar conference. Moreover, both plaintiffs and their counsel were negligent for not inquiring as to the status of the case for over two years. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-599]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2011-C-0878]


Mars, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that 
Mars, Inc., has filed a petition proposing that the color additive 
regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of spirulina blue, 
an extract made from the biomass of Anthrospira platensis (spirulina), 
to color candy and chewing gum.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Felicia M. Ellison, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, (240) 402-1264.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1))), notice is given that a 
color additive petition (CAP 2C0293) has been filed by Mars, Inc., c/o 
Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G St. NW., suite 500 West, Washington, DC 
20001. The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in 
part 73 (21 CFR part 73) Listing of Color Additives Exempt From 
Certification to provide for the safe use of spirulina blue, an extract 
made from the biomass of Anthrospira platensis (spirulina), as a color 
additive in candy and chewing gum.
    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(k) that this action is 
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant 
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    Dated: January 6, 2012.
Dennis M. Keefe,
Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2012-599 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
# L_2007061EN.01005601.xml

| 28.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 61/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 61/56

---

Corrigendum to Commission Directive 2006/60/CE of 7 July 2006 amending Annexes to Council Directive 90/642/EEC as regards the maximum residue levels of trifloxystrobin, thiabendazole, abamectin, benomyl, carbendazim, thiophanate-methyl, myclobutanyl, glyphosate, trimethysulfonium, fenpropimorph and clormequat

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 206 of 27 July 2006
  )

In the contents and in the title on page 1:

for:

‘Commission Directive 2006/60/CE ...’,

read:

‘Commission Directive 2006/60/EC ...’.

---
Exhibit
13.1  CERTIFICATION
BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS CREATED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Buhrmann NV (the Company), does hereby certify that, to such
officers knowledge:  1.The
Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31,
2003 (the 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated June 21, 2004/s/ Frans H.J. KoffrieFrans H.J. KoffrieChief Executive Officer  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and 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.  
   CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS CREATED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Buhrmann NV (the Company), does hereby certify that, to such
officers knowledge:  1.The
Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31,
2003 (the 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated June 21, 2004/s/ Floris F. WallerFloris F. WallerChief Financial Officer  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely
to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and 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.
#### Andrew J. Duell et al., Individually and as Executors of Manny E. Duell, Deceased, Appellants, v Goldstick, Weinberger, Feldman, Alperstein & Taishoff, P. C., et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on December 27, 1990, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Karla Moskowitz, J., with costs. No opinion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nevin Mawhinney, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Levittan, J., at plea and sentence; Michael Dontzin, J., at suppression hearing), rendered on November 13, 1989, convicting defendant of attempted sodomy in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of from one to three years imprisonment, 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.

We have also considered the arguments raised by defendant in his *pro se*supplemental brief and find them to be both unpreserved and without merit.

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 the 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 by made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.
#### Jerry M. Schwartz, Respondent, v Murray B. Felton et al., Defendants, and Sutton & Towne Suburban, Inc., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant Sutton & Towne Suburban, Inc., from a resettled order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), entered October 26, 1989.

Ordered that the resettled order and judgment is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice O’Shaughnessy at the Supreme Court in his decision dated August 31, 1989.

We further note that the appellant’s claim that res judicata or collateral estoppel bars adjudication of the issue raised by the plaintiff is without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7921** 

KENYA LASHAN MARTIN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:13

- cv - 00128

- RLV )

Submitted : February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5 , 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenya Lashan Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenya Lashan Martin , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Martin v. United States , No. 5:13

- cv - 00128

- RLV (W.D.N.C. Nov. 12, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2



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



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Thrive World Wide, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012, I, James Stearrett, Chief Financial
Officer and Principle Accounting Officerof Thrive World Wide, Inc., hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:



3.          Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



4.          The
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Thrive World Wide, Inc.



Dated: August 16, 2012

| | By                                                   | /s/ James Stearrett
| | ---------------------------------------------------- | -------------------
| | James Stearrett, Chief Financial Officer and        
| | Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer and Principle
| | Accounting Officer)
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2109 

To reduce temporarily the duty on mixtures of imidacloprid ((1-[(6-Chloro3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-imidazolidinimine) with cyfluthrin ((R)- 

cyano-(4-fluoro-3-phenoxy)phenyl)methyl (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-dichloroethenyl)- 

2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1-carboxylate) or its beta-cyfluthrin isomer. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on mixtures of imidacloprid 

((1-[(6-Chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2- 

imidazolidinimine) with cyfluthrin ((R)-cyano-(4-fluoro3-phenoxy)phenyl)methyl (1R,3R)-3-(2,2- 

dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane-1-carboxylate) 

or its beta-cyfluthrin isomer. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2109 IS

1 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF IMIDACLOPRID ((1-[(6-CHLORO-3- 

2 PYRIDINYL)METHYL]-N-NITRO-2- 

3 IMIDAZOLIDINIMINE) WITH CYFLUTHRIN ((R)- 

4 CYANO-(4-FLUORO-3-PHENOXY)PHENYL) 

5 METHYL (1R,3R)-3-(2,2-DICHLOROETHENYL)- 

6 2,2-DIMETHYLCYCLOPROPANE-1- 

7 CARBOXYLATE) OR ITS BETA-CYFLUTHRIN 

8 ISOMER. 

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

10 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

11 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

12 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures of imidacloprid ((1- 

[(6-Chloro-3- 

pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2- 

imidazolidinimine) (CAS No. 

138261–41–3) with 

cyfluthrin ((R)-cyano-(4- 

fluoro-3- 

phenoxy)phenyl)methyl 

(1R,3R)-3-(2,2- 

dichloroethenyl)-2,2- 

dimethylcyclopropane-1- 

carboxylate) (CAS No. 

68359–37–5) or its betacyfluthrin isomer, including 

application adjuvants (provided for in subheading 

3808.91.25) ........................... 2.4% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

16 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS