alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(December 10, 1990)

#### Jacques Alexandre, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 71415.)

In a claim for damages for unjust conviction and imprisonment pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 8-b, the claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Weisberg, J.), dated April. 7, 1989, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the State of New York and against him.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In June 1983 the claimant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree stemming from the discovery of a nine-millimeter pistol beneath the counter behind which he was standing at the grocery store where he worked. He was incarcerated pursuant to the conviction, but the conviction was reversed by this court on the ground that the circumstantial evidence presented by the People did not exclude alternate reasonable explanations for the presence of the gun consistent with the defendant’s innocence *(see, People v Alexander,*111 AD2d 177). The defendant was released from prison on May 20, 1985.

In August 1985 the claimant brought the instant claim, and after a nonjury trial, judgment was entered in favor of the State. We now affirm.

It was the claimant’s burden to prove that he was innocent of the underlying charge by clear and convincing evidence *(see,*Court of Claims Act § 8-b [5]). Contrary to the claimant’s contentions, the proof he submitted, being equivocal and open to opposing inferences, did not meet his burden of proof.

In view of our determination, we need not address the other contentions raised by the claimant. Lawrence, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
LocalRuleNotice ofandAssignment ofRelatedGase inAppeals[sample;file aspartof notice ofappeal]AsrequiredbytheLocalRules RelatingtoAssignmentofRelatedCases toandTransfersofRelated Cases betweentheFirstand FourteenthCourtsofAppeals,Icertifythat thefollowing related appealororiginalproceedinghasbeenpreviouslyfiledineithertheFirst or FourteenthCourtofAppeals:NoneCaption:Trial courtcasenurnber:Appellate courtcasenumber:ofcertifyngaorprosepalzIDate]Note:SeeLocalRulesfor the definitionsof"underlyingcase,""related,"and"previouslyfiled."ACCEPTED01-14-00990-CVFIRST COURT OF APPEALSHOUSTON, TEXAS12/31/2014 3:03:16 PMCHRISTOPHER PRINECLERK
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trimol Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of 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:





(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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.





No purchaser or seller of securities or any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose.  The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.




/s/ Boris BirshteinBoris BirshteinChief Executive OfficerTRIMOL GROUP, INC




November 12, 2010




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Trimol Group, Inc. and will be retained by Trimol Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Open Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Louis Hernandez, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                           /s/ LOUIS HERNANDEZ, JR.
                               -------------------------------------------------
                                              Louis Hernandez, Jr.
                               Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

March 16, 2005
#### Louis Palostrada, Respondent, v Rosetta Modugno, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*for permanent injunctive relief to abate interference with an easement of ingress and egress, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered December 23, 1988, which denied her motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered upon her default in appearing and answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the court did not err by refusing to vacate the default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Upon our review of the record, including the original court file which contains motion papers and affidavits of service which were omitted from the appellant’s appendix, we are satisfied that she was in fact personally served with, among other things, the summons and complaint herein, and thus there is no basis to vacate the default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317.

Furthermore, we are in complete agreement with the court’s determination that the appellant failed to advance a meritorious defense. Indeed, the record reveals quite clearly that the easement in question covers a common driveway shared by the residence of the plaintiff and the adjacent house owned, but apparently not occupied, by the defendant. The 1924 grant of the easement unambiguously describes it as one for ingress and egress along "the alley or strip between [the two buildings] * * * which easement shall exist as long as both buildings retain their present location and lines”. Considering the language of the grant and the attendant facts and circumstances *(see, City of New York v Govin,*80 App Div 618; *Board of Educ. v Nielsen,*21 Misc 2d 368), and implying a reasonable use for the easement *(see, Missionary Socy. of Salesian Congregation v Evrotas,*256 NY 86), we find that the *674grant is adequately specific and not, as the appellant alleges, so ambiguous as to be ineffective.

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 579 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1857 

To establish a compliance deadline of May 15, 2023, for Step 2 emissions 

standards for new residential wood heaters, new residential hydronic 

heaters, and forced-air furnaces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 

Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. SHELBY, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mr. WICKER, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. TESTER) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 

Reported by Mr. BARRASSO, without amendment 

A BILL 

To establish a compliance deadline of May 15, 2023, for 

Step 2 emissions standards for new residential wood 

heaters, new residential hydronic heaters, and forcedair furnaces. 

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


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1857 RS

1 SECTION 1. STEP 2 COMPLIANCE DEADLINE FOR NEW RESI2 DENTIAL WOOD HEATERS, NEW RESIDENTIAL 

3 HYDRONIC HEATERS, AND FORCED-AIR FUR4 NACES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the final rule enti6 tled ‘‘Standards of Performance for New Residential 

7 Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and 

8 Forced-Air Furnaces’’ (80 Fed. Reg. 13672 (March 16, 

9 2015)), the compliance deadline for Step 2 emissions 

10 standards shall be May 15, 2023. 

11 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES.—Not 

12 later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

13 the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agen14 cy shall finalize such technical and conforming changes to 

15 rules and guidance documents as may be necessary to im16 plement subsection (a). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS

amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 579 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1857 

A BILL 

To establish a compliance deadline of May 15, 

heaters, and forced-air furnaces. residential wood heaters, new residential hydronic 2023, for Step 2 emissions standards for new 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 

Reported without amendment 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.12

                                                         As of February 17, 2005

Sunrise Securities Corp.
641 Lexington Avenue
25th Floor
New York, New York 10022

                  Re:   International Metal Enterprises, Inc.
                        -------------------------------------

Gentlemen:

                  This letter will confirm the agreement of the undersigned to
purchase warrants ("Warrants") of International Metal Enterprises, Inc.
("Company") included in the units ("Units") being sold in the Company's initial
public offering ("IPO") upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Each
Unit is comprised of one share of Common Stock and two Warrants. The shares of
Common Stock and Warrants will be separately tradeable beginning 20 trading days
after the earlier of the exercise in full or expiration of the underwriters
over-allotment option (as described in the Company's final prospectus for its
IPO).

                  The undersigned agrees that this letter agreement constitutes
an irrevocable order for Sunrise Securities Corp. ("Sunrise") to purchase for
the undersigned's account within the forty-trading day period commencing on the
date separate trading of the Warrants commences ("Separation Date") up to
_____________ Warrants at market prices not to exceed $0.70 per Warrant
("Maximum Warrant Purchase"). Sunrise (or such other broker dealer(s) as Sunrise
may assign the order to) agrees to fill such order in such amounts and at such
times as it may determine, in its sole discretion, during the forty-trading day
period commencing on the Separation Date. Sunrise further agrees that it will
not charge the undersigned any fees and/or commissions with respect to such
purchase obligation.

                  The undersigned may notify Sunrise that all or part of the
Maximum Warrant Purchase will be made by an affiliate of the undersigned (or
another person or entity introduced to Sunrise by the undersigned (a
"Designee")) who (or which) has an account at Sunrise and, in such event,
Sunrise will make such purchase on behalf of said affiliate or Designee;
provided, however, that the undersigned hereby agrees to make payment of the
purchase price of such purchase in the event that the affiliate or Designee
fails to make such payment.

                  The undersigned agrees that neither he nor any affiliate or
Designee shall sell or transfer the Warrants until after the consummation of a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar business
combination and acknowledges that, at the option of Sunrise, the certificates
for such Warrants shall contain a legend indicating such restriction on
transferability.

                                                     Very truly yours,





                                                     ------------------
Second Amendment to Promissory Note - BASF



 Exhibit 10.33 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  
 FOR VALUE
RECEIVED, on this 1st day of May, 2005, Nanophase Technologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(“Debtor”), hereby further amends that certain $1,293,895 Promissory Note dated September 14, 2000 (the “Note”) executed by the Debtor on October 6, 2000 in favor of BASF Corporation (“BASF”), and previously amended by
that certain First Amendment to the note executed by the Debtor on March 11, 2003, as set forth below. 
  
 The Note as initially amended is hereby further amended to strike the last sentence in the second paragraph of the Note and replace such stricken sentence
with the following: 
  
 “Commencing with the first delivery
of Z-Cote coated by Debtor (the “First Delivery Date”), the principal and interest due under this note shall be repaid through the issuance by Debtor of a credit on all invoices for coating at the rate of [* * *], until such time as all
principal and interest due under this note has been paid; provided further that all principal and interest which remains outstanding after June 1, 2007 shall become immediately payable upon demand by BASF.” 
  
 This Second Amendment amends the Note and any other documents or agreements
delivered by the Company in connection with the Note. Except as amended herein, the Note shall remain in full force and effect and shall be incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Debtor has signed this Second Amendment to
Promissory Note as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	Nanophase Technologies Corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/    Joseph Cross
	 	 	Joseph Cross, President


  
 Agreed to, acknowledged and
accepted 
 as of the date first written above by 
  

			
	BASF Corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/    Simon Medley
	 Its:
	 	 Simon Medley
 Group Vice President, Fine
Chemicals


  
 * * * CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED
– this confidential portion has been omitted from this document and filed separately with the Commission.
<PAGE>  

                THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE Dated May 11, 1990


                This amendment entered into January 23 1996
           shall be effective March 1, 1996 and CANCELS previous
                       AMENDMENT #1 and AMENDMENT #2


Paragraph #1  Ropak Laboratories has changed name to Invitro
              International.

Paragraph #2  Invitro International as of March 1 will vacate the
              Northerly 5334'+ or - of the building and 45% of the parking
              and rent only the southerly 8556'+ or - of the building and
              55% of the parking. 

Paragraph #3  Term.  The Term of this amended lease shall be from March 1
              1996 to February 28,1998.  (24 months)

Paragraph #4  Rent shall be $6,400 payable in advance on the first day of
              each month.  Lessee shall pay Lessor $6,400 upon execution
              hereof as rent for March 1996.

Paragraph #5  Security deposit  $16,400 total.  $10,516 is presently on
              deposit leaving a balance $5,884 to be paid upon the signing
              of this amendment.

New Paragraph #6:   The lessee agrees to pay the monthly water bill for the
                    entire facility but will pay for electrical and gas
                    consumption only in the space occupied by InVitro
                    International.  The Lessor agrees to install new electric
                    and gas meters to permit separate billing for these
                    utilities in the two portions of the building.  The Lessor  
                    also agrees to perform the following minor repairs: repair
                    of leaks in the roof, replacement of damaged ceiling tiles,
                    repair of damaged rear door, and repair of garbage bin area.


/s/ Dale Kellogg                            /s/ W. Richard Ulmer
-----------------------------               --------------------------------
          LESSOR                                       LESSEE
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1863 

To clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within the borders of 

a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to regulation 

under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or any other provision of 

law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate interstate 

commerce. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

A BILL 

To clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within 

the borders of a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to regulation under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 or any other provision of law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate 

interstate commerce. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Native Species Protec5 tion Act’’. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1863 IS

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF INTRASTATE SPECIES. 

2 (a) DEFINITION OF INTRASTATE SPECIES.—In this 

3 Act, the term ‘‘intrastate species’’ means any species of 

4 plant or fish or wildlife (as those terms are defined in sec5 tion 3 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

6 1532)) that is— 

7 (1) found entirely within the borders of a single 

8 State; and 

9 (2) not part of a national market for any com10 modity. 

11 (b) TREATMENT.—An intrastate species shall not 

12 be— 

13 (1) considered to be in interstate commerce; 

14 and 

15 (2) subject to regulation under— 

16 (A) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

17 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or 

18 (B) any other provision of law under which 

19 regulatory authority is based on the power of 

20 Congress to regulate interstate commerce as 

21 enumerated in article I, section 8, clause 3 of 

22 the Constitution of the United States. 

Æ 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Notices]               
[Page 22890]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-155]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6981]

 
Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period for the Proposed 
Keystone XL Pipeline Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice--Extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: In response to requests from several organizations, the 
Department of State (DOS) is extending the public comment period for 
the Keystone XL Pipeline Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(DEIS). The Department of State had originally set the end of the 
comment period at May 31, 2010. The Department has decided, in response 
to the requests noted above, to extend the comment period until 
Wednesday, June 16, 2010. The original notice of availability of the 
DEIS was published by EPA in the Federal Register on April 16, 2010 [75 
FR 19969]. A second notice that listed the public comment meetings and 
additional information on the DEIS was published in the Federal 
Register on April 20, 2010 [75 FR 20653].

DATES: Comments on the DEIS should be received or postmarked no later 
than Wednesday, June 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments by the following methods:
     Electronically, using the online comment form, available 
on the Keystone XL Project Web site: http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov. This is the preferred method for commenting.
     By mail addressed to: Elizabeth Orlando, Keystone XL 
Project Manager, U.S. Department of State, OES/ENV Room 2657, 
Washington, DC 20520. Please note that DOS mail can be delayed due to 
security screening.
     Fax to: (202) 647-1052, attention Elizabeth Orlando.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the proposed 
Project or the DEIS contact Elizabeth Orlando, OES/ENV Room 2657, U.S. 
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, or by telephone (202) 647-
4284, or by fax at (202) 647-1052. You may also visit the Project Web 
site: http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov.

    Dated: April 23, 2010.
Willem H. Brakel,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy, Bureau of Oceans and 
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2010-10165 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50858

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRE GIBSON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-238-1

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andre Gibson, federal prisoner # 28834-180, appeals, pro se, the district

court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration of its order granting the

Government’s motion to reduce Gibson’s sentence from 108 to 96 months

pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). Gibson asserts the

Government breached its agreement to recommend a greater reduction.

A motion for reconsideration in a criminal proceeding is timely if filed

within the period allotted for noticing an appeal; in this instance, within ten

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
2

days of the order granting the Rule 35(b) motion. See United States v. Brewer,

60 F.3d 1142, 1143-44 (5th Cir. 1995); FED. R. APP. P. 4(b). Gibson’s motion,

however, was filed more than fifteen months after the order. Accordingly, it was

untimely. See United States v. Cook, 670 F.2d 46, 48-49 (5th Cir. 1982). 

AFFIRMED.