alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FBB Asset Managers, Inc., Appellant, v Esther Freund et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 301]

In an action, inter alia, to set aside certain alleged fraudulent conveyances and a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5225 (b), inter alia, to enforce a money judgment, which were consolidated, FBB Asset Managers, Inc., appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated August 6, *5742001, which granted the motion of Esther Freund, Leopold Freund, and Jewelers World, Inc., to dismiss the action and the separate motion of those parties to dismiss the proceeding, and (2), as limited from its brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated January 28, 2002, as denied that branch of its motion which was for leave to renew.

Ordered that the order dated August 6, 2001, is reversed, on the law, the motions are denied, and the complaint and the petition are reinstated; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated January 28, 2002, as denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to renew is dismissed as academic, in light of the determination on the appeal from the order dated August 6, 2001; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.

Contrary to the contention of the respondents Esther Freund, Leopold Freund, and Jewelers World, Inc., their defense that the appellant corporation was dissolved by proclamation of the New Jersey Department of the Treasury before the commencement of the instant action and proceeding speaks to the plaintiffs legal capacity to sue, and not to the sufficiency of its claims for relief. Therefore, they were bound to raise this defense in their answers, or in a motion to dismiss made prior to answering. They took neither step, and thus waived that defense *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [3]; [e]; *Harte v Richmond County Sav. Bank,*224 AD2d 585 [1996]; *Erljur Assoc. v Weissman,*134 AD2d 321 [1987]; *Lorisa Capital Corp. v Gallo,*119 AD2d 99 [1986]). The same holds true for the defense based on Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) *(see RCA Records v Wiener,*166 AD2d 221 [1990]).

The respondents’ remaining contentions either are academic in light of our determination, or without merit. Smith, J.P., McGinity, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, DC
 FORM 10-Q/A
 (Amendment No. 2)
 (Mark One)
 þ
    
    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED June 30, 2009
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM ____________ TO ____________
 Commission File number 0-25033
 Superior Bancorp
  Delaware
    
    63-1201350(State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 
 
  þ o
  o o
  Large accelerated filer oAccelerated filer þNon-accelerated filer o(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)Smaller reporting company o  o þ
  Class
    
    Outstanding as of June 30, 2009Common stock, $.001 par value
    
    10,111,684




---



##### Table of Contents



Explanatory Note
   
    
    established formal procedures, applied on a consistent basis, for the measurement of
fair values and the determination of any potential OTTI were in place;
    
    these formal procedures were performed by competent and experienced personnel, and
reviews were conducted at the appropriate levels regarding key assumptions and
methodologies, and finally;
    
    established formal procedures for the recording and disclosure of these fair value
measurements and OTTI existed and were conducted by competent and experienced personnel.
    2




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURESITEM 6. EXHIBITSSIGNATURESEX-31.1EX-31.2EX-32.1EX-32.2    Table of Contents  
 ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
        
    
    established formal procedures, applied on a consistent basis, for the measurement of
fair values and the determination of any potential OTTI were in place;
    
    these formal procedures were performed by competent and experienced personnel, and
reviews were conducted at the appropriate levels regarding key assumptions and
methodologies, and finally;
    
    established formal procedures for the recording and disclosure of these fair value
measurements and OTTI existed and were conducted by competent and experienced personnel.
  3




---



##### Table of Contents



ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
  31.1
    
    Certification of principal executive officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a).31.2
    
    Certification of principal financial officer pursuant to 13a-14(a).32.1
    
    Certification of principal executive officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.32.2
    
    Certification of principal financial officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
 4




---



##### Table of Contents



Date: December 11, 2009
    By:
    /s/ C. Stanley BaileyC. Stanley BaileyChief Executive Officer Date: December 11, 2009
    By:
    /s/ James A. WhiteJames A. WhiteChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) 5
No. 10-7988.

#### Sixtos Alonso Garcia, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1192, 131 S. Ct. 1031,

178 L. Ed. 2d 852,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 648.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 394 Fed. Appx. 985.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dechean V. Rankine, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 890]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered June 6, 2016, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Sanders,*25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; *People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737 [2006]; *People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570, 575 [1998]) precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 9 [1989]).

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Superior Bancorp;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and 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
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors:
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ James A. White

James A. WhiteChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
# Puget Sound’s Acosta named DLA Distribution Employee of the Quarter

/ Published Dec. 15, 2015
PUGET SOUND, Washington, 
Jose “Sonny” Acosta, distribution facilities manager at DLA Distribution Puget Sound, Wash., has been selected as one of DLA Distribution’s Employees of the Quarter for fourth quarter fiscal year 2015 for his sustained superior performance, exceptional leadership, meticulous attention to detail, and innovative contributions as retail site director.  

According to Navy Cmdr. Mark Peace, DLA Distribution Puget Sound commander, despite only serving as retail site director since July, Acosta has made momentous contributions to streamlining retail processes and improving warfighter support by ensuring the material was in customers’ hands when needed.  “He performed in an exemplary and highly professional manner proven by improved retail metrics,” said Peace. 

Peace adds that Acosta was instrumental in the restructuring of multiple significant functional areas of the distribution center.  He directly assisted the commander in a significant re-organization of DLA Distribution Puget Sound’s retail staff that enhanced productivity, streamlined overhead burdens and improved overall command efficiencies in supporting Navy Shipyard maintenance.   

He was also integral in recognizing the need to redistribute manpower assigned, reduce the employee to supervisor ratio and create a workplace more conducive to maintaining the current workforce by creating growth positions.  

Safety driven, Acosta provided significant hands-on leadership and mentoring to first-line supervisors.  He implemented a weekly safety muster that is the core of DLA Distribution Puget Sound’s almost nonexistent safety incident rate, said Peace.  

Acosta also drove the consolidating efforts of Navy shop stores into one large facility, which will reduce receipt-to-stow metrics and improved material availability for release to the customers in a more efficient and effective manner while freeing up premium storage real estate.  

“Mr. Acosta’s actions have built a culture of trust that will allow continued future partnering, consolidation, process improvement and efficiencies keeping DLA Distribution Puget Sound relevant and literally exciting our customers,” said Peace.
# C_2014315EN.01005601.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/56

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — CMC France v Commission

(Case T-236/13) (1)

1

((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/94

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CMC France (Châtenois, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | CMC France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

CMC France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
J

- S01008

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : THEODORE STEVE GRIER, a/k/a STEVEN GRIER , :

: Appellant : No. 121 WDA 2014 Appeal from the PCRA Order entered on January 14, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, No. CP

- 02

- CR

- 0007431

- 2004 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J. : FILED FEBRUARY 5, 2015 Theodore Steve Grie r, aka Steven Grier (“Grier”) appeals from the Order denying his Petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). 1 We affirm. The PCRA court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history in its Opinion, which we incorporate herein by reference. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/22/14, at 1

- 3 (unnumbered). On appeal, Grier raises the following issue for our review: “Whether [Grier] was entitled to a new trial based upon the after

- discovered evidence of Taili Thompson [(“Thompson”),] who would testify that all drugs found at the bar belonged to [] Thompson and not [Grier], [Grier] had no drugs on

1 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541

- 9546.J

- S01008

- 15

- 2

-

him, and [Grier] did not assault any offi cers?” Brief for Appellant at 3 (capitalization omitted). Grier points out that he presented Thompson as a witness at trial, but that Thompson was deemed “unavailable” because he invoked his privilege against self

- incrimination. Id . at 12 Grier assert s that Thompson reasserted his willingness to testify on Grier’s behalf in an Affidavit dated February 6, 2013, but could not recall if he ever communicated to Grier a willingness to testify prior to executing the Affidavit. Id . Accordingly, Grier claims , he has complied with the PCRA timeliness requirements. Id . at 12

- 13. Grier points out that, at the evidentiary hearing conducted by the PCRA court, Thompson testified that Grier did not assault any officer, did not possess any drugs, and the drugs foun d at the bar belonged to Thompson. Id . at 13

- 14. Grier asserts that, when he saw police entering the bar, Thompson dropped the drugs on the floor, near Grier. Id . at 14. Grier contends that Thompson’s testimony constitutes exculpatory evidence which, i f believed by the fact finder, would have resulted in a different verdict. Id . at 16

- 18. The PCRA court set forth the relevant law, addressed Grier’s claim, and concluded that it lacks merit for the reason that Grier could have raised the issue previousl y. See PCRA Court Opinion, 9/22/14, at 3

- 5 (unnumbered). We agree with the sound reasoning of the PCRA court, and affirm on this basis. See id

.J

- S01008

- 15

- 3

-

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 2/5/2015Circulated 01/22/2015 04:15 PMCirculated 01/22/2015 04:15 PMCirculated 01/22/2015 04:15 PMCirculated 01/22/2015 04:15 PMCirculated 01/22/2015 04:15 PM
No. 09-1444.

#### In re Daniel G. Anderson, et al., Petitioners.

562 U.S. 826, 131 S. Ct. 131,

178 L. Ed. 2d 259,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7689.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Exhibit 32.2
Form 10-QSB
Viking Systems, Inc.
File No. 000-49636

                            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 Viking  Systems,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended  September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Dennis Blomquist,  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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (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.

Dated:  January 8, 2004



/s/ Dennis Blomquist
Chief Financial Officer
<pre>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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  on  Form  10-QSB/A  of  Vote
Power Corporation  (the  "Company")  for  the  quarter  ended  June 30,  2006
(the "Report"),  the  undersigned  hereby  certify  in  their  capacities  as
Chief Executive Officer  and Chief  Financial Officer  of the  Company,
respectively, 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, as amended; and

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


Dated: January 14, 2008            By:  /S/ Inti Shaikh
                                   -------------------------
                                   Inti Shaikh
                                   CEO and
                                   Secretary/Treasurer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   (principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures
that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
No. 10-7424.

#### Tai Q. Dang, Petitioner v. Mike McDonald, Warden.

562 U.S. 1183, 131 S. Ct. 1004,

178 L. Ed. 2d 835,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 891.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 391 Fed. Appx. 634.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Malcolm McNeil, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 900]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J. at suppression hearing; Robert Stolz, J. at plea and sentencing), rendered July 17, 2013, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant did not preserve his argument that a photo array was unduly suggestive because he was allegedly the only person in the array not looking at the camera and because his image allegedly appeared “15 to 20%” larger than those of the fillers, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that defendant, like the fillers in the photo array, was looking straight ahead and any difference in the photographs was not sufficient to create a substantial likelihood that defendant would be singled out for identification *(see generally People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]). Moreover, although suggestiveness does not turn solely on this factor *(People v Perkins,*28 NY3d 432 [2016]), we note that the alleged deficiencies in the photo array had nothing to do with the description that had been provided by the identifying witness.

Concur— Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO AGENCY AGREEMENT


 


This Addendum No. 1
(the “Addendum”) to that certain Agency Agreement dated April 8, 2013 (the “Agency Agreement”), by and
between QuantumSphere, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, USA (“QSI”), on the
one hand, and Beijing LuckyStar Co. Ltd., an entity organized under the laws of the People’s Republic of China (“BLS”),
on the other hand, is dated as of December 23rd, 2013 (the “Effective Date”). QSI and BLS are collectively referred
to herein as the “Parties”.


 


1.          All
capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Agency Agreement.


 


2.          QSI
hereby appoints BLS as its agent in the Territory, subject to the terms and conditions of the Agency Agreement, for the representation
of all other applicable QSI nano-catalysts that may be utilized for the enhancement of additional chemical production processes,
exclusive of ammonia production, including, but not limited to, QSI Nano-Ni, QSI Nano-Co, and QSI Nano-Cu, among others (collectively,
“Additional QSI Nano-Catalysts”).


 


3.          
BLS shall introduce one or more suitable chemical production operators in the Territory for the purpose of validation of each of
the Additional QSI Nano-Catalysts in a lab environment as well as in an industrial plant environment. 


 


4.          
For the Term of the Agency Agreement, BLS shall be exclusive to QSI and shall not serve as an agent of, or represent in any manner,
any provider of nano-catalysts in the Territory.


 


5.          For
the avoidance of doubt, the compensation provision provided by Section 12 of the Agency Agreement shall apply to each of the Additional
QSI Nano-Catalysts.


 


6.          All
other terms and conditions of the Agency Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall apply in each case to the Additional
QSI Nano-Catalysts.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed
this Addendum as of the Effective Date.


 


	QUANTUMSPHERE, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Kevin D. Maloney	 
	 	Kevin D. Maloney	 
	 	CEO & President	 
	 	 	 
	BEIJING LUCKYSTAR CO. LTD.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Fagen Li	 
	 	Fagen Li	 
	 	Co-Founder & Chairman