alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Elliot A. Santiago, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 515]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered July 11, 1994, which denied petitioner’s renewed application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In light of the failure to adequately explain the delay and the absence of actual notice to respondents, the court’s denial of petitioner’s application was not an abuse of discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF
                  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Mark B. Hoffman, hereby 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 Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 10-K to which this statement is an exhibit
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 such Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Commerce One, Inc.

Date: May 20, 2004

/s/ Mark B. Hoffman
Mark B. Hoffman
 Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION OF
                  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Charles Boynton, hereby 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 Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 10-K to which this statement is an exhibit
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 such Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Commerce One, Inc.

Date: May 20, 2004

/s/ Charles Boynton
Charles Boynton
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Excelligence Learning Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i)    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                     |  |                                        
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: March 5, 2004 |  | /s/ Richard Delaney                    
|                     |  | Richard Delaney Chief 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.
NovaGold Resources Inc.: Exhibit 4.10 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






CONSENT OF NORWEST CORPORATION

In connection with NovaGold Resources Inc.’s take-over bid
circular dated January 18, 2011 (the “Offer and Circular”) and registration
statement on Form F-8 originally dated January 18, 2011, and any amendments
thereto and any registration statements filed pursuant to Rule 429 under the
United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and any documents incorporated
by reference therein (the “Registration Statement”), I, Sean Ennis, on behalf of
Norwest Corporation, hereby consent to references to Norwest Corporation’s name
and to its involvement in the preparation of the technical reports entitled
“Technical Report, Rock Creek and Big Hurrah Project” dated February 21, 2008
and “Technical Report, Nome Placer Property” dated September 12, 2006
(collectively, the “Technical Reports”) in the Registration Statement and the
Offer and Circular, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of
information derived from the Technical Reports in the Registration Statement and
the Offer and Circular.

DATED: January 18, 2011

/s/ Sean Ennis      
Norwest
Corporation 
Sean Ennis 
Vice President, Mining
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Steed, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 409]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered December 6, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the jury should not have believed the testimony of the two victims who identified him because their descriptions of him were conflicting. Resolution of issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*GPL 470.15 [5]). The record demonstrates that the two victims had sufficient opportunities to observe the defendant on the night of the crime.

*690The sentence that was imposed is neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances of this case *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Balletta, J. P.,Copertino, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Luisa M. Mislan, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 93]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 31, 1993, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its original decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a housekeeper at a nursing home, was terminated from her employment because, despite prior warnings, she failed to call her employer to report that she was ill and could not come to work. The Board found that claimant’s actions constituted misconduct and, therefore, disqualified her from receiving benefits. Claimant contends that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because she had her daughter call to report her illness. Although claimant testified that she asked her daughter to call her employer and claimant’s daughter stated that she made the call before claimant’s 7:30 a.m. shift, the employer’s administrator testified that there was no entry of this call in the absence register and that claimant’s supervisor indicated that no such call had been received. In view of the latter testimony, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________________

No. 96-10862

___________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

VOLO ALAN NELSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(6:94-CR-016)

 ___________________________________________________

November 11, 1997

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Volo Alan Nelson appeals the sentence he received after he

pled guilty to one count of aiding or assisting the filing of false

or fraudulent federal income tax returns. For the reasons set

forth below, we affirm. 

Nelson was charged in a 38-count indictment with aiding or

assisting the filing of false or fraudulent federal income tax
2

returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). Pursuant to a plea

agreement, he pled guilty to Count I of the indictment. Applying

the 1995 Sentencing Guidelines, the district court sentenced him to

a 24-month term of imprisonment and a one-year term of supervised

release. The court also imposed a $3,000 fine and a $50 special

assessment. On appeal, Nelson contends that the district court’s

application of the 1995 Guidelines violated the Ex Post Facto

Clause because he would have received a lesser prison sentence

under the 1989 Guidelines, in effect at the time he committed his

offense.

We are precluded from reaching the merits of Nelson’s claim.

Nelson’s plea agreement contained a provision waiving his right to

appeal his sentence either on direct appeal or in a post-conviction

proceeding except where his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum

or constituted an upward departure. Even if we were to agree with

Nelson that the waiver in his plea agreement is invalid, we would

still conclude that Nelson has waived his right to challenge the

district court’s application of the 1995 Sentencing Guidelines. 

Prior to sentencing, Nelson adopted the findings of the

Presentence Report (“PSR”) prepared in his case, which applied the

1995 Sentencing Guidelines. At his sentencing hearing, Nelson

indicated that he adopted the PSR’s application of the 1995

Guidelines because “the ’89 guidelines have a two-level enhancement

that [is] not in the present ’95 guidelines, so they come out
3

identical.” By adopting the PSR’s application of the 1995

Guidelines, Nelson expressly waived his right to appeal the

application of those Guidelines. “Waiver, the ‘intentional

relinquishment or abandonment of a known right,’ is distinguishable

from forfeiture, the ‘failure to make the timely assertion of a

right.’” United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir.

1994) (en banc). Unlike forfeited errors, which are reviewed for

plain error, waived errors are “entirely unreviewable.” United

States v. Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995).

 AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Gloria J., Respondent. Erie County Department of Social Services, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1021]

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: The Erie County Department of *878Social Services appeals from an order dismissing its petition seeking an extension of foster care for Gloria J. We conclude that Family Court failed to consider the factors set forth in Social Services Law § 392 (5-a), and failed to render its decision "in accordance with the best interest of the child” pursuant to Social Services Law § 392 (6). Furthermore, given the positive foster care situation, the best interest of the child requires that the petition be granted. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Family Court, Mix, J. — Extend Foster Care.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard F. Ambury, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) 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 Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |  |  |                                    |  |                      
|----------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|            |  |  |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.           
|            |  |  |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY          
|            |  |  |  | By: STAR GAS LLC (General Partner)
|            |  |  | 
|May 5, 2005 |  |  |  | By:                                |  | /s/ Richard F. Ambury
|            |  |  |  | Richard F. Ambury                 
|            |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer           
|            |  |  |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P.           
|            |  |  |  | Star Gas Finance Company
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of First American Scientific Corp.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Calvin L. Kantonen, Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated this 12th day of February, 2007.



| | CALVIN KANTONEN        
| | -----------------------
| | Calvin L. Kantonen     
| | Chief Financial Officer

















---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1508 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1508

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the recruitment of 
           physicians in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2017

 Mr. O'Rourke (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire, 
   Ms. Stefanik, Ms. Titus, and Mr. Young of Alaska) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the recruitment of 
           physicians in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Get Veterans a Doctor Now Act''.

SEC. 2. RECRUITMENT OF PHYSICIANS IN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7402(b)(1) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or to be offered a contingent 
        appointment to such position,'' after ``position,''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
        following new subparagraph (B):
            ``(B)(i) have completed a residency program satisfactory to 
        the Secretary; or
            ``(ii) with respect to an offer for a contingent 
        appointment upon the completion of a post-graduate training 
        program, complete such a residency program by not later than 
        two years after the date of such offer; and''.
    (b) Oversight of Graduate Medical Education Programs.--The 
Secretary shall--
            (1) ensure that a recruiter or other similar official of 
        each Veterans Integrated Service Network visits, not less than 
        annually, each allopathic and osteopathic teaching institution 
        with a graduate medical education program within the Network to 
        recruit individuals to be appointed to positions in the 
        Veterans Health Administration; and
            (2) submit to Congress an annual report on the 
        implementation of paragraph (1), including the success of such 
        recruiting efforts.
                                 <all>
```
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1541 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain 

property related to the Fort Scott National Historic Site 

in Fort Scott, Kansas, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1541 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO ACQUIRE LUNETTE BLAIR. 

2 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize establishment 

3 of the Fort Scott National Historic Site, Kansas, and for 

4 other purposes.’’, approved October 19, 1978 (Public Law 

5 95–484) is amended— 

6 (1) in the first section— 

7 (A) by inserting ‘‘only’’ after ‘‘donation’’; 

8 and 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘: Provided, that the build10 ings so acquired shall not include the structure 

11 known as ‘Lunette Blair’ ’’; and 

12 (2) in section 2— 

13 (A) by striking ‘‘When the site of’’ and in14 serting ‘‘(a) When the site of’’; and 

15 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(b) The boundary of the Fort Scott National His17 toric Site established under subsection (a) is modified as 

18 generally depicted on the map referred to as ‘Fort Scott 

19 National Historic Site Proposed Boundary Modification’, 

20 numbered 471/80,057C, and dated February 2017.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 11, 2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1541 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acand for other purposes. National Historic Site in Fort Scott, Kansas, quire certain property related to the Fort Scott
Exhibit 10.7

                   [LETTERHEAD OF RICHARD CASSIM & ASSOCIATES]


Date: 24 December 2010

Our Ref: R Cassim

Your Ref: Dr Lisa Ramakrishnan



Dear Sir,

ISSUE OF SHARES: MOXISIGN (PTY) LIMITED

We confirm that in that in terms of the memorandum of understanding dated the 7
July 2010, you may now advise your auditors to proceed to issue 49% (forty nine
percent) of the authorized and issued shares in Moxisign (PTY) Ltd ("Moxisign")
to Hestifor (Pty) limited ("Hestifor").

I hereby confirm I am the attorney of record and agent for service for Hestifor,
the now confirmed BEE shareholder of Moxisign.

Once issued, would you kindly have the Hestifor share certificate confirming the
49% shareholding in Moxisign shares sent to my office.

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate contacting the writer.

Yours truly,

Richard Cassim & Associates


/s/ R Cassim
--------------------------
Per: R Cassim
#### State, Plaintiff, vs. Alt, Defendant.

*April 6*

May *1, 1934.*

The cause was submitted for the plaintiff on the briefs of the *Attorney General, J. E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general, and *Edmund H. Drager,*district attorney of Vilas county, and for the defendant on that of *Jonas Rad-cliff e*of Eagle River.

Fowler, J.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of violation of sec. 29.22 (1), Stats., which provides that: “No person shall carry with him in any vehicle or automobile, any gun or rifle unless the same is unloaded, and knocked down or unloaded and inclosed within a carrying case.”

The circuit judge certified to this court for answer whether an automatic repeating rifle is a loaded gun, within the meaning of the provision above quoted, that has in the magazine five cartridges loaded yvith powder and balls, but has no cartridge in the barrel, which gun is so constructed that by pulling back and releasing a plunger a cartridge from the magazine is inserted in the barrel, and the gun is cocked ready for firing by pulling the trigger which fires the gun, ejects the empty shell, and inserts a cartridge from the maga*388zine into the barrel and makes the gun ready for firing again by pulling the trigger.

The section of the statutes from which the above quotation is taken is contained in the chapter relating to fish and game. It is headed: “29.22 *General restrictions on hunting.*(1) *Prohibited methods,”*and begins with: “No person shall hunt game with any means other than the use of a gun held at arm’s length and discharged from the shoulder or a bcw and arrow.” It contains many restrictions on hunting besides the one first above quoted.

The purpose of the prohibition first above quoted, considering the heading, the language next above quoted, and the other restrictions in the section, manifestly is to prevent hunting from vehicles and automobiles. It aims to effect this purpose by preventing the carrying of guns ready for firing. A gun of the type and in the condition stated in the question is as ready for firing as an old-type gun would be that had a loaded cartridge in the barrel. Such a gun would unquestionably be a loaded gun within the meaning of the provision under which the defendant is prosecuted. To discharge such a gun, two motions would be required. The cock would have to be pulled back and the trigger pulled. Two like motions would discharge the gun of the question. We are therefore of opinion that the question submitted should be answered in the affirmative.

It is quite likely that apart from the particular provision involved, a gun as stated might, as an academic question, be considered as unloaded. Quite likely, also, it might be considered unloaded within a statute the purpose of which was to protect persons from injury by the gun’s accidental discharge. But in view of the fact that the purpose of the statute is to protect game rather than persons, we consider that a gun of the type and in the condition stated in the question is a loaded gun.

*By the Court.*— The question submitted is answered “Yes.”
#### Joy Silverman, Appellant, v Jeffrey Silverman, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 65]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered May 19, 1995, which denied plaintiffs motion for a stay of all aspects of the divorce trial, including fault and economic issues, to permit her to complete discovery and adequately prepare for trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Parties in a matrimonial action are entitled to exploration of each other’s assets and financial dealing, including their interests in business entities *(see, Lobatto v Lobatto,*109 AD2d 697, 699-700). Here, the Special Referee reported that he had reviewed the documentation and found that, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, plaintiff had received all but minor discovery items, and thus the court properly denied the stay. Nor did the order bifurcate the trial. Further, counsel has now had sufficient time to review the deposition transcripts and documentation. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.
# Inventory

# ExpertService Adivision ofthe American Chemical Society Phone: 800·631-1884,614-447-3870 Fax:614-447-3747 E-mail:answers@cas.org Web:www.cas.org/products/clienti INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT

Please print the above Cl\. Index Nama on the appropriate page of your 

### PHN. 

# 0 If this box is checked, CAS has made corraction(s) marked in red to your IES order, Please make the same correction(s) to your PMN before submitting· it to the EPl\., ATTACHMENT ONE: PMN Substance One (CONFIDENTIAL) CAS 2540 Olentangy River Road P.O. Box 3343 Columbus, Ohio 43210-0334 USA