alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jan Pyrka et al., Plaintiffs, v 38th St. Summit Corp. et al., Defendants. Alice Sant’Andrea, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v 242 West 38th Street Co. et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on September 9, 1990, which denied a motion and cross-motion for reargument of a prior motion as academic, but granted the motion and cross-motion for renewal, recalled on renewal an order of the same court (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on February 27, 1990, and, on renewal, *inter alia,*denied the third-party plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied the third-party defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, and dismissed the third-party defendants’ fourth and sixth affirmative defenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The third-party defendants’ appeal from the order entered on February 27, 1990, to the extent that the court denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for dismissal of the complaint, is dismissed, without costs, that order being superceded by the order entered on September 9, 1990.

This is one of several actions that have arisen out of a transaction whereby a building at 242 West 38th Street, in Manhattan, was acquired by a partnership, transferred to a related corporation, and then sold to an unrelated corporation. Allegedly, at closing the partnership, one of the partners, or both, arranged for financing that was either funded or guaranteed by third-party plaintiff Sant’Andrea and a corporation of which she was a principal. As part of the consideration for this transaction, Ms. Sant’Andrea received a lease for the 14th floor of the building. She has maintained that the lease mistakenly excluded an oral agreement with defendant Iraquí that the floor would be subleased and she would retain all rent in excess of $500 per month.

*288On renewal, the IAS court properly found that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether or not this oral agreement existed, the terms having been admitted by defendant Iraquí in his deposition, as well as various principals of the remaining defendants in this and related actions. Nevertheless, the IAS court properly found a triable issue of fact based on an assertion by the defendants of affirmative defenses and counterclaims based on usury. Allegedly, the loan was at 24% annual interest, with additional "bonuses” in excess of $17,000, raising a triable issue of fact on usury *(see, A.S.A.P. Funding Corp. v Fariello,*164 AD2d 973). Triable issues of fact exist with respect to the exact nature of the loan and the exact identity of the borrowers and lenders, precluding summary judgment. Since usury is now the primary issue in the instant litigation, there is also a triable issue of fact as to whether or not the third-party plaintiff had the intent to commit criminal usury, criminal intent being a matter determined according to circumstances *(People v Dellipizzi,*61 AD2d 961).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of the parties, and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Ross and Asch, JJ.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 8 -00221 -CV Ro be r t S c ot t, Co m m iss ion e rof Educ at ion , A c ti ng i n his Offic ialCa pac ity , A ppe lla nt v . Driscoll Independ ent School District, A ppellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 261ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-07- 0037 65, H ONO RAB LE JO HN K . DIETZ , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant Robert Scott, a cting in his officia l c apac ity as Commissi oner of Education, has informe d this Court t hat he no long er w ishes to pursue this a ppeal and has f

iled an unopposed motion to di smiss. W e grant a ppellant’s motion and dismi s s t h e ap p eal. SeeTe x. R. A pp . P. 42.1(a) .

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and He nson Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: June 12, 2008
September 17, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOAN HUDSON, INDIVID UALLY, A/N/F OF CORN ENIUS HAWKINS
, Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00507

- CV V.

ORION REAL ESTATE SE RVICES, INC. , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on February 20, 2013. Having consider ed the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Joan Hudson, Individually, a/n/f of Cornenius Hawkins.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Todd, True Name Frederick E. Monroe, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J., at resentence; Leon Becker, J., at plea and sentence), rendered on November 8, 1989, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of assault in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of *IV2*to *AV2*years and 2 to 6 years, respectively, to run consecutively with a sentence imposed in Queens County on September 6, 1988 unanimously affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in Queens County, but was released and failed to appear for sentencing. He subsequently pleaded guilty to assault and robbery in New York County in exchange for a promised sentence of two concurrent terms of 4 to 12 years, concurrent with the sentence to be imposed in Queens County, to be pronounced after defendant was sentenced in Queens County. Despite the latter promise, defendant was sentenced in New York County first. When he subsequently appeared for sentencing in Queens County, a sentence consecutive to the New York County sentence was imposed. On August 25, 1988, the defendant filed a motion to vacate the sentence, pursuant to CPL 440.20, claiming that he did not receive the promised sentence because he was sentenced before and not after the Queens County sentence. The motion was granted, by Justice Roberts and the sentence was vacated. The resentencing Court gave defendant the option to *386withdraw his plea or be resentenced. The defendant chose not to withdraw his plea, and was resentenced to the minimum time allowed, with the New York and Queens County sentences to run consecutively.

Defendant appeals the resentence which included consecutive sentences, claiming he still had not received that portion of the originally promised sentence of concurrent sentences.

The defendant was properly sentenced to consecutive sentences pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b) which provides that if a defendant is convicted of a violent felony offense committed while released on his own recognizance, but committed prior to the imposition of sentence on a pending felony charge, and if an indeterminate sentence is imposed in each case, such sentences *shall run*consecutively absent any mitigating circumstances. As the Court found no such mitigating circumstances, it lawfully sentenced the defendant to consecutive terms. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
----

**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**SECTION        1350 CERTIFICATION**

**OF        THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

|   | (1) | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months                  ended                  March 31, 2006 (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Order entered June 5 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 01385

- CR

RAMON MARTINEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. F12

- 61013

- S



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.
On May 20, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding wh y the
reporter’s record had not been filed. On June 2, 2015, we received the reporter’s record.

Therefore, in the interes t of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the May 20, 2015 order
requiring findings.
Court reporter Debi Harris did not include State’s Exhibit nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8, DVDs, with

the record she filed. Therefore, we ORDER court reporter Debi Harris to file, withi n SEVEN

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental record with State’s Exhibit nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8.
Appellant’s brief is due by J uly 27, 2015.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Debi Harris, court reporter, and to

counsel for all parti es.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### Joseph M. Cascioli Jr. et al., Respondents, v Gregory F. Gonzalez, Appellant.

Casey, J. P.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Dickinson, J.), entered November 1, 1989 in Putnam County, which granted plaintiffs leave to file a late note of issue.

Defendant seeks to appeal from an ex parte order, which is not appealable as of right under CPLR 5701 (a) *(see, Matter of King v Gregorie,*90 AD2d 922, *lv dismissed*58 NY2d 605, 822), and we decline to entertain the appeal as though it were a motion pursuant to CPLR 5704 (a) *(see, Matter of McKee v Coughlin,*142 AD2d 798). The matter involves a trial court’s authority to control its own calendar, and the proper procedure is for defendant to move on notice at Supreme Court to vacate the ex parte order *(see,*Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C5701;5, at 578).

Appeal dismissed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 1, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ William L. BallhausWilliam L. BallhausPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Date: February 16, 2010
Exhibit 12.1
  Residential
    Capital Corporation
  Exhibit 12.1 
    Computation of the Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    Three Months


Nine MonthsEnded September 30,


Ended September 30,2008


2007


2008


2007(Dollars in thousands)Net loss before adjustment for minority interest

$
(1,875,036
)

$
(2,236,366
)

$
(4,583,483
)

$
(3,357,348
)Income tax expense (benefit)


4,932



(119,442
)


88,089



16,187Equity-method investee distribution


5,551



10,991



65,313



41,628Equity-method investee loss (earnings)


1,038



13,355



15,621



(9,283
)Interest expense


894,505



1,680,746



3,041,928



5,082,307Interest portion of rental expense


8,507



10,719



25,483



33,663Earnings available to cover fixed charges

$
(960,503
)

$
(639,997
)

$
(1,347,049
)

$
1,807,154Fixed Charges:Interest expense

$
894,505


$
1,680,746


$
3,041,928


$
5,082,307Interest portion of rental expense


8,507



10,719



25,483



33,663Total fixed charges

$
903,012


$
1,691,465


$
3,067,411


$
5,115,970Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(a)














0.35     (a)
    
    The ratio calculation indicates a less than one-to-one coverage
    for the nine months ended September 30, 2007. Earnings
    available for fixed charges for the three and nine months ended
    September 30, 2008 and for the three months ended
    September 30, 2007 is negative, and therefore, no ratio to
    fixed charges is calculated and the earnings available for fixed
    charges is inadequate to cover total fixed charges. The deficit
    amounts for the ratio are $1.9, $4.4 and $2.3 billion,
    respectively. In addition, earnings available for fixed charges
    for the nine months ended September 30, 2007, was
    inadequate to cover total fixed charges. The deficit amount for
    the ratio was $3.3 billion.
# L_2007109DE.01005102.xml

| 26.4.2007 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 109/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2007

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 109/51

---

Berichtigung der Entscheidung 2006/399/EG der Kommission vom 20. Januar 2006 zur Festlegung von Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Entscheidung 2004/904/EG des Rates in Bezug auf die Förderfähigkeit von Ausgaben im Rahmen von Aktionen, die aus dem Europäischen Flüchtlingsfonds kofinanziert und in den Mitgliedstaaten durchgeführt werden

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 162 vom 14. Juni 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 162 vom 14. Juni 2006

Seite 5, Anhang, Titel von Regel Nr. 10:

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

Seite 5, Anhang, einleitender Satz von Regel Nr. 10:

anstatt:

„... die Kosten des Erwerbs von Grundstücken ...“

muss es heißen:

„... die Kosten des Erwerbs von unbebauten Grundstücken ...“.

---
# L_2006220EN.01000701.xml

| 11.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 220/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 220/7

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1216/2006

of 10 August 2006

amending the rates of refunds applicable to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 33(2)(a) and (4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The rates of the refunds applicable from 28 July 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1151/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The rates of the refunds applicable from 28 July 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1151/2006 (2).

| (2) | It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 1151/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 1151/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of refund fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1151/2006 are hereby altered as shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 August 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 10 August 2006.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN

Vice-President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 207, 28.7.2006, p. 23.

2

---

ANNEX

Rates of refunds applicable from 11 August 2006 to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty (1)

| CN code | Description | Rate of refund in EUR/100 kg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| In case of advance fixing of refunds | Other |
| 1701 99 10 | White sugar | 28,21 | 28,21 |

CN code

Description

Rate of refund in EUR/100 kg

In case of advance fixing of refunds

Other

1701 99 10

White sugar

28,21

28,21

---

(1)  The rates set out in this Annex are not applicable to exports to Bulgaria, with effect from 1 October 2004, to Romania with effect from 1 December 2005, and to the goods listed in Tables I and II to Protocol No 2 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 exported to the Swiss Confederation or to the Principality of Liechtenstein with effect from 1 February 2005.

---
#### PEOPLE’S BANK *v.*DELACEY MANER ET AL.

*Max F. Brunswick,*in support of the petition.

*Heidi Clark,*in opposition.

Decided February 18, 1998

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 17627) is denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Delroy Small, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered on April 22, 1988, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of *2Vs*to 7 years, 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 services 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—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
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
  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 4, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ William L. BallhausWilliam L. BallhausPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 12, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Lanfranco, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered May 12, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from four to twelve years unanimously held in abeyance and the matter is remitted for a *Wade*hearing.

The indictment charged defendant with selling heroin to an undercover police officer on August 4, 1988. The "confirmatory” identification of defendant by the undercover officer, to ascertain whether other officers had arrested the correct person, was not made until November 1, 1988, although the *179undercover officer also met with defendant for approximately ten minutes on October 20, 1988.

Defendant moved to suppress any identification testimony on the ground that the showup identification by the undercover officer was unnecessarily suggestive. He further alleged that because the identification took place three months after the transaction for which he was arrested, it was not merely confirmatory in nature. The Supreme Court disagreed and summarily denied defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony.

It was error to deny defendant’s motion for a *Wade*hearing. There is no categorical rule exempting from requested *Wade*hearings confirmatory identifications by police officers *(People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921). The identification of defendant, made almost three months after the sale for which he was arrested, cannot be considered merely confirmatory *(see, People v Hayes,*162 AD2d 410; *People v Rubio,*133 AD2d 475). A hearing was therefore required pursuant to CPL 710.60 (4) *(People v Newball,*76 NY2d 587; *and see, People v Gordon,*76 NY2d 595). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Asch, JJ.
### SCWC-12-0001072
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. KEVIN K.T. GUARD, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0001072; CASE NO. 1DTA-11-05472)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J
. , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k a n d W i l s o n , J J
. )



### Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Kevin K.T. Guard’s application for writ of certiorari filed on August 29, 2015, is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 30, 2015. Jonathan Burge for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0001072 30-SEP-2015 01:10 PM
STATE OF TEXAS 

vs. 

ARRON TRACE McLAREY 

NO. 12·15·00084-CR 

§ INTHE 

§ 

§ TWELFTH COURT 

§ 

§ OF APPEALS 

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

Now comes Arron Trace McLarey, Appellant in the above styled and numbered 

case, before the. decision in this Court has been delivered, and respectfully moves this 

Court to withdraw appellant's notice of appeal and dismiss this appeal, pursuant to 

Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Law Office of James Huggler 

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805 

Tyler, Texas 75702 

Tel: (903) 593·2400 

Fax: (903) 593·3830 

By:7H-----=-=-......,..------------ J mes Huggler 

tate Bar No. 00795437 

Attorney for Arron Trace McLarey 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00084-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

6/22/2015 1:36:01 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 6/22/2015 1:36:01 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF SMITH 

§ 

§ 

§ 

AFFIDAVIT 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared 

James Huggler, who after being duly sworn stated: 

"l am the attorney for the appellant in the above numbered and entitled cause. 

I have read ~ foregoing Motion to Dismiss Appeal and swea r that all of the 

allegations of fact contained therein arc true and correct." 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on J une l- L , 2015, to certify which 

witness my hand and seal of office. 

, .. ~: tm•,,_ AMIE JANE GONZAl EZ l~o. ~ Notary Public. State of Texas U .. J'1>E My Com mission Expires 

\~1,·;,;·; ~:~ July 19. 2018 ,,,, .. ,,,,, 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on June 1,.. L , 2015, a true a nd correct copy of the above 

and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Smith County, 

100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor, Tyler, Texas 75702, by hand delivery.