alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 4, 2014 518773 

________________________________

In the Matter of ROLAND MARTIN,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting 

Commissioner of Corrections 

and Community Supervision, 

et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 21, 2014

Before: Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

__________

Roland Martin, Wallkill, appellant pro se.

__________

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court

(Gilpatric, J.), entered February 18, 2014 in Ulster County,

which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, sua sponte,

dismissed the petition, and (2) from a judgment of said court,

entered May 6, 2014 in Ulster County, which denied petitioner's

motion to renew.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to

challenge the omission of merit time eligibility in the

computation of his sentence. He failed to serve respondents as

required by the order to show cause, prompting Supreme Court to

dismiss the petition sua sponte. Supreme Court, in a separate

judgment, denied petitioner's subsequent motion to renew. 

Petitioner now appeals from both judgments.

Initially, we note that there is "no right of appeal from

an ex parte [judgment/order], including [one] entered sua
-2- 518773 

sponte," such as Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition here

(Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]; see CPLR 5701 [a]

[2]; [b] [1]; Matter of Barnes v Schroyer, 120 AD3d 1492, 1492

[2014]). Under the circumstances presented here, we decline to

treat the notice of appeal from that judgment as an application

for leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [c]; Matter of Barnes v

Schroyer, 120 AD3d at 1492). Petitioner sought renewal pursuant

to CPLR 2221 and, while perhaps more properly viewed as one to

vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015, the judgment denying that motion

presents the salient issues for review. 

Turning to Supreme Court's denial of that motion, we

affirm. "The failure of an inmate to serve papers as directed by

an order to show cause requires the dismissal of the petition on

jurisdictional grounds, absent a showing by the inmate that

imprisonment presented an obstacle to compliance" (Matter of

Rodriguez v Fischer, 117 AD3d 1298, 1298 [2014] [internal

quotation marks and citations omitted]). Petitioner failed to

comply with the service requirements of the order to show cause

and, contrary to his assertion, the evidence presented in his

motion indicated that the obstacles preventing him from complying

with those requirements were self-created. Thus, Supreme Court

properly denied petitioner's motion (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; 5015

[a] [2]).

Peters, P.J., Stein, Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.,

concur.
-3- 518773 

ORDERED that the appeal from the judgment entered February

18, 2014 is dismissed, without costs.

ORDERED that the judgment entered May 6, 2014 is affirmed,

without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20549



FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934



March 16, 2004Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)

EXABYTE CORPORATION(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



|Delaware                                       |  | 0-18033                  |  | 84-0988566                       
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) |  | (Commission File Number) |  | (IRS Employer Identification No.)

2108 55th Street
Boulder, Colorado 80301(Address of principal executive offices)

(303) 442-4333Registrant's telephone number, including area code





INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT

Item 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.

Exhibit	Description

99.1		Press Release, dated March 16, 2004.



Item 12. Results of Operations and Financial Condition

On March 16, 2004, Exabyte announced in a press release its final fourth quarter results and related information. The press release is attached as an Exhibit to the Form 8-K.



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereto duly authorized.

|     |                |  |    | EXABYTE CORPORATION
|---- | -------------- |  | -- | -------------------
|     |                |  |    | (Registrant)       
|     |                |  |    |                    
|Date | March 23, 2004 |  | By | /s/ Amy J. Perius  
|     |                |  |    | Amy J. Perius      
|     |                |  |    | Corporate Secretary



EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit	Description

99.1		Press Release, dated March 16, 2004.
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10352

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAMIRO CALDERON-RENTERIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-274-ALL-D

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

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ramiro CalderonRenteria raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
MEMORANDUM

Date: June 10 , 2013 To: Docket # EPA
–HQ
– OAR
– 2012
– 0580 RE: Call with ARCA On June 10 , 2013, EPA staff participated in a conference call with Jack Cameron and Neville Perera of Appliance Recy cling Centers of America, Inc. (ARCA), and Brian Conners of ARCA Advanced Processing, LLC (ARCA AAP) . EPA participants were Cindy Newberg, Sally Hamlin, and Melissa Fiffer . This conference call was about the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking **Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:**  **Revision of the Venting Prohibition for Specific Refrigerant Substitutes**  (78 FR 21871) . Topics included considerations during disposal of small appliances containing hy drocarbons. EPA staff described the proposed rule a nd process for submitting comments.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Bergamo Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Sohail Parekh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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/ Sohail Parekh
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Sohail Parekh
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

                                                     November 19, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### George S. Moshier v. The City Council of the City of Galesburg.

1. *Mandamus—In Procedings to Disconnect*Territory.—The decision in the case of Higgins et al. v. The City Council of the City of Galesburg, 96 Ill. App. 471. is decisive of this case.

Mandamus.—Appeal from the Circuit Court of Knox County; the Hon. George W. Thompson, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the April term, 1901.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed July 12, 1901.

Williams, Lawrence & Welsh, attorneys for appellant.

Armour Moreland, attorney for appellee; J. A. McKenzie, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

George S. Moshier filed a petition in the court below against the city council of the city of Galesburg for a mandamus to compel said city council to disconnect from the city of Galesburg eighty acres of land owned by him. The case is in all respects substantially the same as that disclosed by the record in the case of Higgins and others against the city council of the city of Galesburg, in which we file an opinion this day. Substantially the same briefs are filed in both cases. Defendant here filed but five pleas, but they set up the same defenses as the pleas in the Higgins case; and this case was disposed of in substantially the same manner as that. What was said in that case is decisive that in our opinion the court in this case should have *503carried the demurrers to the replications to the third and fourth pleas back to said third and fourth pleas and sustained them to said pleas; should have sustained the demurrer to the fifth plea and should not have carried that demurrer back to the petition. W e are unable to comply with the appellant’s request that we direct the court below to award a peremptory mandamus, because the issues of fact joined upon the first and second plea are yet to be tried.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, **Maureen Lamb**, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 3 of Photon Dynamics, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting./s/ Maureen Lamb **Maureen Lamb**
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7643** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. HUMBERTO DIMAS

- GARCIA, a/k/a Tito , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:10

- cr - 01104

- RMG

- 8 ; 2:14

- cv - 01069

- RMG )

Submitted : April 28, 2015 Decided: May 5, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Humberto Dimas

- Garcia , Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Peter Thomas Phillips, Assistant U nited States Attorney , Charleston, South Car olina, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant U nited States Attorney , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Humberto Dimas

- Garcia seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying r elief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showi ng of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). 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 o f 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 t he 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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dimas

- Garcia has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



| |  | EXHIBIT 99.2
| |  | ------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection with the Annual Report of Cronos Global Income Fund XVI (the
Registrant) on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John
Kallas, the Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., the General
Partner of the Registrant, certify, based on my knowledge, that:



| | (i)  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and                                                 
| | ---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Registrant.

March 25, 2003



| | /s/ John Kallas
John Kallas, Chief Financial Officer
Cronos Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Registrant
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

|* |  | This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be
filed with the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit31.1

I, Christopher G. Payan, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this Form 10-K of Emerging Vision, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

3.    Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the period presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internalcontrol over financial reporting; and

5.    Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date:     March 31,2005                

/s/Christopher G. Payan                

Christopher G. Payan Chief ExecutiveOfficer

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MICHAEL JUDE LAREDO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellees.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00073-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20110C10680)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is the motion of Brock Benjamin, retained attorney for the 

Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause. 

Before the Court can act on this motion it is necessary for the trial court to hold a hearing. 

The trial court is directed to conduct a hearing to determine whether Appellant has retained new 

counsel or is indigent and entitled to the appointment of counsel. The hearing should be held no 

later than April 23, 2013. The court is authorized to enter any orders it deems necessary, including 

an order appointing appellate counsel. The court reporter is directed to prepare a transcription of 

the hearing and file it with this Court within ten days after the hearing is held.

If the court determines that Appellant is not indigent, the court shall make written findings 

of fact and conclusions of law and file same with the trial court clerk. The county clerk shall

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing any orders entered by the trial court related to the 

1
hearing, including an order appointing counsel if Appellant is entitled, and the written findings of

fact, if any, and file it with this Court by May 3, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.