alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**LESLIE SMITH,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 19 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 13th day of April, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Kamal Aziz Tadros, M.D., as Assignee of Nadia Joseph, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>MVAIC, Appellant. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Marshall &amp; Marshall, PLLC (Tracy Bader Pollak of counsel), for appellant.Law Office of Melissa Betancourt, P.C. (Melissa Betancourt of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered July 12, 2018. The order denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, with $30 costs, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment. </p><p>Since plaintiff's assignor was aware of the identity of the owner of the vehicle in which plaintiff's assignor was a passenger at the time of the accident, plaintiff, as assignee, was required to exhaust its remedies against the vehicle's owner before seeking relief from defendant (<i>see Hauswirth v American Home Assur. Co.</i>, 244 AD2d 528 [1997]; <a href="../2014/2014_50414.htm" target="_blank"><i>Compas Med., P.C. v MVAIC</i>, 42 Misc 3d 150</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50414[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014]). Here, plaintiff did not demonstrate that it had exhausted its remedies against the owner of the vehicle (<a href="../2011/2011_51878.htm" target="_blank"><i>see BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC</i>, 33 Misc 3d 131</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51878[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]; <a href="../2011/2011_52517.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also BLR Chiropractic, P.C. v MVAIC</i>, 36 Misc 3d 129</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52517[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment is denied.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 13, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Robert STRANGE, et ux. v. IMPERIAL POOLS, INC. et al.

No. 86-CC-2524.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Imperial Pools, Inc.; Vinyl Works Inc.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or *414review, & supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 134317; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 86-1254.

Granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AF 11-0244

IN RE THE RULES FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MONTANA 

# FILED JUL 09 2020
Bowen Greenwoad Clerk of Suprerne Court O R D E tate of Montana

Some 2020 graduates of the Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana have petitioned this Court to adopt emergency temporary rules allowing diploma privilege for admission to the State Bar of Montana in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most petitioners are scheduled to sit for the Montana Uniform Bar Exam on July 28-29,2020. After review of the petition, the Court deems it appropriate to order an expedited response. IT IS ORDERED that the State Bar ofMontana and/or the Montana Board ofBar Examiners are given until Monday,July 13, 2020, within which to file a response to the petition. No reply briefshall be filed. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to counsel for Petitioners,the State Bar ofMontana,and all members ofthe Montana Board ofBar Examiners. DATED this Cr

iz-day ofJuly,2020. For the Court,

ChiefJustice 07/09/2020

Case Number: AF 11-0244
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Paul Kim, Chief Financial Officer of Cogent, Inc. (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: November 8, 2006



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|/s/ PAUL KIM                                                  
|Paul Kim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

New Hampshire Thrift
Bancshares, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-31737, No. 333-66305, and
No. 333-115591) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-157328) on Form S-3 of New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated March 25, 2011 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of New Hampshire Thrift
Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, cash flows and comprehensive income, for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 2010 which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc.

LOGO

SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts

March 25,
2011



LOGO
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2265 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain hydration systems. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain hydration 

systems. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN HYDRATION SYSTEMS WITH A CARGO 

4 STORAGE FROM 111 TO 700 CUBIC INCHES. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2265 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Insulated hydration systems 

with an outer surface of textile materials whose interior 

incorporates a flexible plastic 

container of a kind for storing and dispensing potable 

beverages through attached 

flexible tubing and which 

have a cargo storage capacity 

from 111 through 700 cubic 

inches (provided for in subheading 4202.92.30) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.2
         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE ACT
         ------------------------------------------------

     I, Peter Scholl hereby certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Rotoblock
Corporation.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this quarterly report.

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

4. The other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and we have:

a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
    material information relating to Rotoblock Corporation, including
    its subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within
    those entities, particularly during the period in which this
    quarterly report is being prepared;

b)  evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and
    procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
    filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
    our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.  The other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to our auditors and the audit committee of our
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)  that there were no significant deficiencies in the design or
    operation of internal controls which could adversely affect our
    ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
    and have further advised our auditors that there we are not aware
    of any material weaknesses in our internal controls; and

b)  that there was no fraud, whether or not material, that involved
    our management or other employees who have a significant role in
    our internal controls; and

6.  The other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
that there were no significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation.

                                   Rotoblock Corporation, Registrant

Dated: December 15, 2004           /s/ Peter Scholl
                                   -------------------------------------
                                   By: Peter Scholl, Chief Executive
                                   Officer, President and Chairman of
                                   the Board of Directors
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

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

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| January                  31, 2007 | /s/                  Richard                  Ivanovick                  Richard                  Ivanovick |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | Chief                  Financial Officer                                                                    |

----
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

September 10, 2010 

via email and regulations.gov 

Paul L. Gretch 

Director, Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Delta Air Lines, Inc. Seasonal Service Notification 

 (Nashville-Cancun, Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta) 

Docket DOT-OST-2005-22228 

 

Dear Mr. Gretch: 

By Order 2010-3-12, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) was granted, inter alia, certificate authority to 

engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail on the NashvilleCancun and Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta routes. Pursuant to footnote 6 of Order 2010-3-12, 

Delta hereby provides notice to the Department that going forward Delta will provide service on 

the Nashville-Cancun and Los Angeles-Puerto Vallarta routes on a seasonal rather than on a 

year-round basis. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

cc: esta.rosenberg@dot.gov; linda.lundell@dot.gov; brian.hedberg@dot.gov; 

info@airlineinfo.com; msinick@ssd.com; carl.nelson@aa.com; hkamen@coair.com; 

dan.weiss@coair.com; jhill@dowlohnes.com; robert.land@jetblue.com; jyoung@yklaw.com; 

dkirstein@yklaw.com; john.fredericksen@suncountry.com; jeffrey.manley@united.com; 

steve.morrissey@united.com; howard_kass@usairways.com; 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com; pmurphy@lopmurphy.com; EFaberman@wileyrein.com; 

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com; patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com; 

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8076

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY EDWARD DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:06-cr-00063-sgw-mfu-1; 7:09-cv-80143-sgw-mfu)

Submitted: July 29, 2010 Decided: August 18, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Edward Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Edward Davis seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. In this case, while Davis’ appeal was 

proceeding, he obtained the relief he sought. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit32.2**

 

Certification

 

Thiscertification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”) for the yearended December 31, 2004 of CRIIMI MAE Inc. (the “Issuer”).

 

I,Cynthia O. Azzara, Chief Financial Officer, certify that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(i)                                     the Form 10-Kfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

(ii)                                  theinformation contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

 

 
|  March 8, 2005 |   |                       | /s/ Cynthia O. Azzara |
|---------------------|--------|----------------------------|-----------------------|
| DATE                |   | Cynthia O. Azzara          |
|                |   | Executive Vice  President, |
|                |   | Chief Financial  Officer   |
|                |   | and Treasurer              |

 

----
#### Dwight JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-3365.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 12, 1988.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the order revoking his probation and resentencing him to a term of four and a half years imprisonment. After pleading guilty to burglary and petit theft, appellant received a probationary split sentence (one year and a day imprisonment followed by two and a half years probation). While serving the probation portion of this sentence he admitted he violated probation and was resentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding the original sentence but within the guidelines. He appeals the new sentence on double jeopardy grounds.

In *Poore v. State,*531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988), the supreme court held that double jeopardy does not forbid the imposition of a longer period of incarceration when a defendant violates probation in a probationary split sentence. Therefore, we affirm the sentence entered by the trial court in this matter on the authority of *Poore v. State.*

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge 

Robert F. Saint-Aubin, Settlement Judge 

Pico Rosenberger 

Pecos Law Group 

Muije & Varricchio 

Nutile Pitz & Associates 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 03, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 03, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A20D0434. KENNETH THOMPSON v. TAWANDA MICHELLE THOMPSON. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 1511078
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2450 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3-benzenedicarbonitrile. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3- 

benzenedicarbonitrile. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 1,3-BENZENEDICARBONITRILE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.06 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 1,3-benzenedicarbonitrile) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2450 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 9/24/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CLARA J. ARAUJO and MARY E.

MARTINEZ,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 96-4057

(D.C. No. 95-CV-234-W)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, LOGAN, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Defendants Clara J. Araujo and Mary E. Martinez, appearing pro se, appeal

the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny

their motions to vacate, set aside or correct sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. They claim entitlement to relief on the grounds that (1) the evidence of

drugs in their car should have been suppressed at trial, (2) they received

ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, and (3) they are entitled to the benefit of

18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

We review de novo the district court’s legal rulings, its interpretation and

application of the federal sentencing guidelines, and its legal conclusions

regarding the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Rogers v. United States,

91 F.3d 1388, 1392 (10th Cir. 1996). The district court’s findings of fact are

reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 336,

338 (10th Cir. 1996). We have carefully reviewed the district court record and

the materials submitted by the parties. We affirm the judgment of the district

court for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated December 29, 1995. 
-3-

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah is

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio 

Circuit Judge