alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Alvarez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), ren*726dered January 24, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The evidence was sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of the crime of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of the crime justified the inference that he had burglarized the premises in question *(see, People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374; *Knickerbocker v People,*43 NY 177). The testimony elicited from defendant, through which he attempted to explain his possession of the fruits of the crime, contained inconsistencies. We find that there was a reasonable basis upon which the jury could find that the provided explanation was false *(see, People v Thornton,*104 AD2d 426).

The other contentions raised by defendant have been examined and found to be meritless. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### Danny Rivera, Appellant, v Dennis Ayala et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[944 NYS2d 123] —

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered March 2, 2011, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew a prior order which denied his motion to vacate dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404 and restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges he suffered serious injury in 1998 when he was a passenger in a motor vehicle involved in a three-car accident. The matter was stayed for about two years following the death of one of the defendants, but was thereafter restored to the trial calendar in October 2006. In December 2006, the matter was marked off to permit defendants to obtain further discovery concerning a purported additional surgery to plaintiffs left knee after his deposition was taken in 2002. The matter was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 on February 26, 2008, after plaintiffs counsel, having failed to have the matter restored for more than a year, failed to appear at a status conference scheduled by the court. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal was denied by order dated July 2, 2008, due to his failure to proffer competent medical evidence of serious injury. Plaintiff did not perfect his appeal from that order, which was dismissed *623as abandoned in October 2010, but moved to renew by order to show cause brought September 25, 2010.

Plaintiff’s arguments that the matter was improperly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, since the note of issue had been stricken, and that he was not required to present competent medical evidence in support of his motion to vacate the dismissal, could have been raised on the prior appeal. The dismissal of the prior appeal precludes consideration of those arguments on this appeal *(see Pier 59 Studios, L.P. v Chelsea Piers, L.P.,*40 AD3d 363 [2007]; *Nieman v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*4 AD3d 255, 256 [2004]). To the extent plaintiffs motion to renew raises distinct issues, it was properly denied since plaintiffs counsel failed to provide a reasonable justification for not providing the “new” medical evidence in support of the motion to vacate the dismissal order, or for the more than two-year delay in moving to renew that motion *(see Levy v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*40 AD3d 359 [2007], *lv dismissed*9 NY3d 1001 [2007]; *see also Vargas v Ahmed,*41 AD3d 328, 328-329 [2007]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Exhibit 10.8

English Translation of Settlement Agreement

-  **Party A: Sentaida Tire Company Limited** 
-  **Party B: Sentaida Rubber Co. Ltd.** 
-  **Party C: Dongsen Tire Co., Ltd.** 

Sentaida Tire Company Limited directly and indirectly owns the following companies: Qingdao Free-Trade-Zone Sentaida International Trade Co. Ltd., Zhongsen International Company Group Limited, Zhongsen Holdings Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Sentaida Tires Co., Ltd. As of December 31, 2008, Party A had receivables from Party B in an amount of $32,963,259 and Party A’s payable to Party C was $19,696,210. Through friendly consultation, Party A, Party B and        Party C have reached the following agreement: 

Party B assumes Party A’s liabilities to Party C, which offsets equivalent amount of Party B’s payables to Party A.  

This Agreement is made in three (3) originals and each Party should hold one original. This Agreement becomes effective once it is signed by the Parties.

 

| Party A:          |   |   | Party B:          |   |   | Party C           |   |   |
|-------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Long Qin      |   |   | Seal              |   |   | Seal              |   |   |
| December 31, 2008 |   |   | December 31, 2008 |   |   | December 31, 2008 |   |   |
|                   |        |        |
ex10_25.htm


    

    Exhibit
10.25

    


    AMENDED EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

    


    Agreement
entered into as of this 26th day of October 2009, between Moshe Citronowicz
(“Employee”) and Bovie Medical Corporation, (“Employer”)

    


    WHEREAS, the parties have
heretofore entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated February
1, 2000, as the same has been amended pursuant to the Board Resolutions dated
January 23, 2002, January 6, 2004, November 15, 2006, and October 26, 2009;
and

    


    WHEREAS, the parties are
desirous of memorializing the effect of the aforementioned resolutions and
further amending said Agreement on the terms hereinafter set forth.

    


    NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and covenants herein contained,

    


    IT
IS HEREBY AGREED:

    


    
      	
              1.

            	
              Paragraph
      3 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
      follows:

            


    

    


    TERM:
The initial term of employment under this Agreement shall be effective as of the
1st day
of February, 2000, and shall continue until January 31, 2014 or until terminated
as hereinafter provided. After January 31, 2014, the term of this Agreement
shall be automatically extended for continuous terms of one year each unless the
Employer provides the Employee with written notice of termination at least nine
months prior to the date the Employer plans to terminate.

    


    
      	
              2.

            	
              Except
      as amended hereby, the Agreement is hereby ratified and
      approved.

            


    

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties
have set forth their signatures this 30th day of November, 2009.

     

    
      	 
      	
              BOVIE
      MEDICAL CORPORATION

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              By:

            	
              /s/
      Andrew Makrides

            	
               

            
	 
      	 
      	
              Andrew
      Makrides, President

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              /s/
      J. Robert Saron

            	
               

            
	 
      	 
      	
              J.
      Robert Saron
# C_2019337EN.01000701.xml

| 7.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Passenger Rights spółka akcyjna, with its seat in Warsaw v Ryanair DAC, with its seat in Dublin (Ireland)

(Case C-519/19)

(2019/C 337/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Passenger Rights SA

Defendant: Ryanair DAC, with its seat in Dublin (Ireland)

Questions referred

Should Articles 2(b), 3(1) and (2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — as regards examination of the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction — be interpreted as meaning that the final purchaser of a claim acquired by way of assignment from a consumer, which final purchaser is not a consumer himself, may rely on the absence of individual negotiation of contractual terms and on unfair contractual terms arising from a jurisdiction clause?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent Of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-186533, 333-169926, 333-150097, 333-136316, and333-100900) of our reports dated March 7, 2016 on (i) the consolidated financial statements of Medallion Financial Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 and for each of the three years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2015 and on the selected financial ratios and other data for each of the five years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2015, and the consolidated schedules of investments in and advances to affiliates as of and for theyears ended December 31, 2015 and 2014; (ii) the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015; (iii) the 

financial statements of Medallion Bank as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 and for each of the three years in the three-year period 

ended December 31, 2015; and (iv) the consolidated schedules of investments as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, all of which appear in the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2015. 

/s/ WeiserMazars LLP 

New York, New York 

March 7, 2016
# C_2019432EN.01005401.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2019 — A9.com v EUIPO (Representation of a bell)

(Case T-240/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a bell - Absolute ground for refusal - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2019/C 432/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: A9.com, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States) (represented by: A. Klett, C. Mikyska and R. Walther, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 (Case R 1309/2018-2), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a bell as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders A9.com, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders A9.com, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
# C_2019406EN.01001601.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/16

---

Appeal brought on 20 September 2019 by Quanta Storage, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-772/15: Quanta Storage, Inc. v European Commission

(Case C-699/19 P)

(2019/C 406/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Quanta Storage, Inc. (represented by: B. Hartnett, Barrister, O. Geiss, Rechtsanwalt, W. Sparks, advocaat, T. Siakka, Δικηγόρος)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| a) | set aside the contested judgment insofar as it dismisses the action and orders Quanta Storage to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

a)

set aside the contested judgment insofar as it dismisses the action and orders Quanta Storage to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission;

| b) | annul the Commission Decision of 21 October 2015 (Case AT39639 – Optical disc drives) insofar as it relates to the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

b)

annul the Commission Decision of 21 October 2015 (Case AT39639 – Optical disc drives) insofar as it relates to the appellant;

| c) | in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant; |
| --- | --- |

c)

in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant;

| d) | in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; and |
| --- | --- |

d)

in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court; and

| e) | order the Commission to bear all costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

e)

order the Commission to bear all costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellant relies on the following five pleas.

First Plea: alleging that the General Court failed to apply the relevant legal test and distorted the clear sense of evidence in relation to the breach of the rights of defence by the Commission’s finding of several infringements.

Second Plea: alleging that the General Court distorted the clear sense of evidence concerning the right of defence and the right to good administration.

Third Plea: alleging that General Court failed to deal with a relevant point or to understand it properly and/or failed to apply the correct legal test in relation to contradictions concerning the scope of the infringement.

Fourth Plea: alleging a distortion of the clear sense of evidence, failure to apply the correct legal test and/or failure to deal with a relevant point or to understand it properly as regards the Appellant’s liability under Article 101 TFEU.

Fifth Plea: alleging a breach of unlimited jurisdiction, distortion of the clear sense of evidence and defective reasoning in relation to the setting of the fine.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


                   Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


I, Yonglin Du, President and Chief Executive Officer of Dahua Inc. (the
"Company") do hereby 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, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2005 of the Company, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

     (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
Registrant.



By: /s/ Yonglin Du
 ---------------------------
Yonglin Du, President & CEO

April 12, 2006



 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Dahua Inc. and will be retained by Dahua Inc. and furnished to the
Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Kevin A. Dayton, an Attorney. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[942 NYS2d 378]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1999 and maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of Cortland, Cortland County.

Respondent has not answered or otherwise replied to a petition of charges or to petitioner’s subsequent motion for a default judgment, both of which were personally served upon him. In support of its motion, petitioner has filed proof by affidavit of the facts constituting the alleged misconduct. Under the circumstances, respondent is deemed to have admitted the charges, and we grant petitioner’s motion *(see e.g. Matter of Tang,*55 AD3d 941 [2008]). Further, based on such admission and the proof submitted by petitioner, we find respondent guilty of the charged misconduct.

In violation of the attorney disciplinary rules as charged and specified in the petition, respondent neglected a client matter, failed to communicate with the client and failed to cooperate with petitioner’s investigation of the inquiry *(see*Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.3 [b]; 1.4 [a] [4]; 8.4). He thereafter failed to appear as directed by petitioner to be orally admonished *(see*22 NYCRR 806.4 [c] [1] [ii]).

Respondent’s misconduct is aggravated by his disciplinary record, which includes a 2010 letter of admonition for similar misconduct. Furthermore, respondent’s failure to respond to the petition of charges and the instant default judgment motion demonstrates a disregard for his fate as an attorney.

*1330Under the circumstances, we conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years.

Peters, EJ., Mercure, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion for a default judgment is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is found guilty of the professional misconduct set forth in the petition; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see 22*NYCRR 806.9).
v176251_ex10-25 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


    Exhibit
10.25
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 888 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 888

   To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of 
   Illabot Creek in Skagit County, Washington, as a component of the 
                National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2011

  Mrs. Murray (for herself and Ms. Cantwell) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of 
   Illabot Creek in Skagit County, Washington, as a component of the 
                National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SEGMENTS.

    Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1274(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(208) Illabot creek, washington.--
                    ``(A) The 14.3-mile segment from the headwaters of 
                Illabot Creek to the northern terminus as generally 
                depicted on the map titled `Illabot Creek Proposed WSR-
                Northern Terminus', dated September 15, 2009, to be 
                administered by the Secretary of Agriculture as 
                follows:
                            ``(i) The 4.3-mile segment from the 
                        headwaters of Illabot Creek to the boundary of 
                        Glacier Peak Wilderness Area as a wild river.
                            ``(ii) The 10-mile segment from the 
                        boundary of Glacier Peak Wilderness to the 
                        northern terminus as generally depicted on the 
                        map titled `Illabot Creek Proposed WSR-Northern 
                        Terminus', dated September 15, 2009, as a 
                        recreational river.
                    ``(B) Action required to be taken under subsection 
                (d)(1) for the river segments designated under this 
                paragraph shall be completed through revision of the 
                Skagit Wild and Scenic River comprehensive management 
                plan.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
              -----------------------------------------------------

                   CHASE CREDIT CARD OWNER TRUST SERIES 2002-1

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



      The undersigned, an Authorized Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, as Administrator pursuant to the Indenture for the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2002-1 does hereby certify that:

                  1. The undersigned is an Authorized Officer pursuant to the
            Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture
            Trustee.

                  2. This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.9 of
            the Indenture.

                  3. A review of the activities of the Issuer during the period
            from the closing date until December 31, 2002, and of performance
            under this Indenture has been made under the supervision of the
            undersigned.

                  4. To the best of the undersigned knowledge, based on such
            review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants in
            all material respects under this Indenture throughout the period
            from the closing date until December 31, 2002. No default in the
            compliance of any such condition or covenant has occurred or is
            continuing except as set forth in paragraph 5 below.

                  5. The following is a description of each default in the
            performance of the Issuer's obligations under the provisions of the
            Indenture known to the undersigned to have been made during such
            period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such
            default, (ii) the action taken by the Issuer, if any, to remedy each
            such default and (iii) the current status of each such default:
            NONE.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 28th day of March, 2003.

                                               By CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
                                               USA, National Association,
                                               as Administrator




                                               By:  /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
                                                    ----------------------------
                                               Name: Patricia M. Garvey
                                               Title: Vice President