alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40886 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERMAN ALONSO GRAMAJO-MURALLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-01-CR-126-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender representing German Alonso

Gramajo-Muralles has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Gramajo-Muralles has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
No. 01-40886

-2-

responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2.
#### In the Matter of Jimmy Daze Inn, Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent State Liquor Authority (Authority), dated July 25, 1984, which, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of two counts of violating Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6) and 9 NYCRR 53.1 (q), in that it permitted the licensed premises to become "a source of noise, disturbance, misconduct and/or disorder” and "a focal point of police attention as a result of the acts of noise, disturbance, misconduct or disorder”.

Matter remitted to respondent for preparation of a report to be submitted to this court, with all deliberate speed, explaining the basis for the conclusion that petitioner was guilty of *580the second charge, and proceeding held in abeyance in the interim.

After a hearing, the hearing officer determined that petitioner was guilty of permitting its licensed premises to become "a source of noise, disturbance, misconduct and/or disorder”, but not guilty of permitting the licensed premises, and the area in front of or adjacent to the licensed premises, to. become "a focal point of police attention as a result of the acts of noise, disturbance, misconduct or disorder”.

Thereafter, the Authority issued a decision which stated, in pertinent part:

> "Hearing Officer’s findings adopted and charge 1 is sustained.

> "Reverse conclusions of Hearing Officer and sustain charge 2.”

Since the Authority adopted the "findings” of the hearing officer but reversed his conclusion with respect to charge 2, without any explanation of its rationale, we are unable to determine whether the finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Lorenzo v Board of Educ.,*97 AD2d 415).

Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Authority for the purpose of review of the record and preparation of a report stating its views as to the hearing officer’s findings relative to the second charge and how those findings are converted into conclusions that differ with those of the hearing officer. The report shall be submitted to this court as soon as is practicable. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.9


 


CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

OF

CITY NATIONAL CAPITAL TRUST I


 


THIS Certificate of Trust of City National Capital
Trust I (the “Trust”), dated as of November 30, 2009, is being duly
executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by the undersigned, as trustees, to
form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C.
§ 3801 et seq.) (the “Act”).


 


1.         Name.  The name of the statutory trust formed by
this Certificate of Trust is City National Capital Trust I.


 


2.         Delaware Trustee.  The name and business address of the trustee
of the Trust with its principal place of business in the State of Delaware are
BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware
19711.


 


3.         Effective Date.  This Certificate of Trust shall be effective
upon filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.


 


[Signature pages follow]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed
this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of
the Act.


 


	
  THE BANK OF NEW YORK
  MELLON TRUST COMPANY,

  	
   

  
	
  N.A., not in its
  individual capacity, but solely as Institutional

  	
   

  
	
  Trustee

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Teresa Petta

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Teresa Petta

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Vice President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  BNY MELLON TRUST OF
  DELAWARE, not in its individual

  	
   

  
	
  capacity, but solely as
  Delaware Trustee

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Kristine K. Gullo

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Kristine K. Gullo

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Vice President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Michael B. Cahill

  	
   

  
	
  Michael B. Cahill, as
  Administrative Trustee

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Donald Riechel

  	
   

  
	
  Donald Riechel, as
  Administrative Trustee

  	
   

  



 


-2-
#### Carlton SCRANTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jim MACDONALD, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 07-35252.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*65Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 7, 2009.

Carlton Scranton, Shelby, MT, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

**The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Montana state prisoner Carlton Scranton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the Board of Pardons and Parole’s 2004 and 2006 decisions finding him unsuitable for parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Scranton contends that his due process rights were violated because he was promised parole upon completion of an intensive treatment program. This contention fails as the record indicates that Scranton was only offered the opportunity for parole upon successful completion of an intensive treatment program. Scranton received all the process he was due in connection with the denial of his parole. *See Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex,*442 U.S. 1, 12, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979).

To the extent that Scranton argues that his equal protection rights were violated, this claim also fails. *See Serrano v. Francis,*345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir.2003). The district court properly denied Scranton’s petition on the merits. *See Cassett v. Stewart,*406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Nanogen Incorporated
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2005 (the Report), I, Howard C. Birndorf, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |  |                                                   
|---------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------
|                 |  | 
|November 9, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ HOWARD C. BIRNDORF                            
|                 |  |  |  | Howard C. Birndorf                                
|                 |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board, and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019328EN.01003201.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2019 — X v Kuoni Travel Ltd

(Case C-578/19)

(2019/C 328/35)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Respondent: Kuoni Travel Ltd

Questions referred

| 1) | Where there has been a failure to perform or an improper performance of the obligations arising under the contract of an organizer or retailer with a consumer to provide a package holiday to which Council Directive 90/314/EEC (1) of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours applies, and that failure to perform or improper performance is the result of the actions of an employee of a hotel company which is a provider of services to which that contract relates:






  a) | is there scope for the application of the defence set out in the second part of the third alinea to article 5(2); and, if so, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

Where there has been a failure to perform or an improper performance of the obligations arising under the contract of an organizer or retailer with a consumer to provide a package holiday to which Council Directive 90/314/EEC (1) of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours applies, and that failure to perform or improper performance is the result of the actions of an employee of a hotel company which is a provider of services to which that contract relates:

a)

is there scope for the application of the defence set out in the second part of the third alinea to article 5(2); and, if so,

| b) | by which criteria is the national court to assess whether that defence applies? |
| --- | --- |

b)

by which criteria is the national court to assess whether that defence applies?

| 2) | Where an organizer or retailer enters into a contract with a consumer to provide a package holiday to which Council Directive 90/314/EEC applies, and where a hotel company provides services to which that contract relates, is an employee of that hotel company himself to be considered a ‘supplier of services’ for the purposes of the defence under article 5(2), third alinea of the Directive? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Where an organizer or retailer enters into a contract with a consumer to provide a package holiday to which Council Directive 90/314/EEC applies, and where a hotel company provides services to which that contract relates, is an employee of that hotel company himself to be considered a ‘supplier of services’ for the purposes of the defence under article 5(2), third alinea of the Directive?

---

(1)  OJ 1990, L 158, p. 59.

---
#### Spivey, Appellee, *v.*Keller, Appellant, et al.

[Cite as *Spivey v. Keller,*107 Ohio St.3d 100, 2005-Ohio-5973.]

(No. 2005-0180

Submitted October 12, 2005

Decided November 23, 2005.)

Drake, Phillips, Kuenzli & Clark and William E. Clark, for appellant.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *Harrold v. Collier,*107 Ohio St.3d 44, 2005-Ohio-5334, 836 N.E.2d 1165.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.56

     

    EXTENSION
AGREEMENT

    


    This
EXTENSION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") made as
of the 3rd day of
December, 2009, is entered into by and between Thomas Johnson, an individual
(“Lender”) and
Dot VN, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (“Borrower").

    


    Recitals

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              A.

            	
              Borrower made, executed and
      delivered to the order of Lender one certain Corporate Promissory Note
      (“Note”) dated September 12, 2009, in
      the principal sum of $18,000.00 with interest payable at the rate of 10%
      per annum, which Note is due and payable on December 12, 2009 (the
      “Due Date”).

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              B.

            	
              Borrower and Lender desire to
      further modify the terms of the
Note.

            


    

     

    NOW,
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and
for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

    


    Agreement

     

    1.           The
Due Date of the Note is extended to February 28, 2010, at which time the entire
amount of principal plus interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum
from September 12, 2009, shall be due and payable in full.

     

    2.           Except
as provided herein, the terms and provisions of the Note shall remain unchanged
and shall remain in full force and effect.  The Note as modified and
amended hereby is ratified and confirmed in all respects.

     

    3.           This
Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts.  All such
counterparts shall be construed together and shall constitute one instrument,
but in making proof hereof it shall only be necessary to produce one such
counterpart.

     

    4.           The
terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto, their heirs, representatives, successors and
assigns.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed as of the respective dates of
acknowledgment but is effective as of the date first above written.

    


    
      	
              “BORROWER”

            	 
      	
              “LENDER”

            
	
              DOT
      VN, INC.

            	 
      	
              THOMAS
      JOHNSON

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                 /s/  Lee
      Johnson

            	 
      	
                 /s/  Thomas
      Johnson

            
	
              By:

            	
              Lee
      Johnson

            	 
      	
              By:

            	
              Thomas
      Johnson

            
	
              Its:

            	
              CEO
#### The State ex rel. Dreyer, Appellant, *v.*Anderson Township et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Dreyer v. Anderson Twp.,*107 Ohio St.3d 295, 2005-Ohio-6511.]

(No. 2005-0503

Submitted October 25, 2005

Decided December 28, 2005.)

The Law Office of James A. Whittaker, L.L.C., and James A. Whittaker, for appellant.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Andrew J. Alatis, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Motee, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.
# Официален вестник C 188/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0855 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 188 |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 6510 май 2022 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 188

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 6510 май 2022 г.

---

| Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- |
| | Поправки |
| | Поправка на Резюме на решения на Европейската комисия относно разрешения за пускане на пазара за употреба и/или разрешения за употреба на вещества, изброени в приложение XIV към Регламент (ЕО) No 1907/2006 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно регистрацията, оценката, разрешаването и ограничаването на химикали (REACH) (Публикувано в съответствие с член 64, параграф 9 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1907/2006) (2022/C 131/05) ( OB C 131, 24.3.2022 г. ) | 1 |

Съдържание

Страница

Поправки

Поправка на Резюме на решения на Европейската комисия относно разрешения за пускане на пазара за употреба и/или разрешения за употреба на вещества, изброени в приложение XIV към Регламент (ЕО) No 1907/2006 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно регистрацията, оценката, разрешаването и ограничаването на химикали (REACH) (Публикувано в съответствие с член 64, параграф 9 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1907/2006) (2022/C 131/05) ( OB C 131, 24.3.2022 г. )

( OB C 131, 24.3.2022 г. )

1

---

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

Поправки

| 10.5.2022 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 188/1

---

Поправка на Резюме на решения на Европейската комисия относно разрешения за пускане на пазара за употреба и/или разрешения за употреба на вещества, изброени в приложение XIV към Регламент (ЕО) No 1907/2006 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно регистрацията, оценката, разрешаването и ограничаването на химикали (REACH) (Публикувано в съответствие с член 64, параграф 9 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1907/2006) (2022/C 131/05)

(
  Официален вестник на Европейския съюз C 131 от 24 март 2022 г.
  )

(2022/C 188/01)

На стр. 5 във втората колона на таблицата

вместо:

„27 март 2022 г.“

да се чете:

„17 март 2022 г.“.

---
#### In the Matter of Government Employees Insurance Company, Respondent, v Ana Cristina Tuzzo et al., Respondents, and Hereford Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

[942 NYS2d 599]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Hereford Insurance Company and Manuel Santana separately appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), entered March 25, 2011, which, after a framed-issue hearing, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Where, as here, a case is determined after a hearing held before a Justice of the Supreme Court, this Court’s power to review the evidence is as broad as that of the Supreme Court, taking into account in a close case the fact that the Supreme *997Court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses *(see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; *Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Albino,*91 AD3d 870, 871 [2012]; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Tae Hong Ji,*81 AD3d 940, 940 [2011]). We decline to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination, made after a framed-issue hearing, that there was no physical contact between the insured vehicle and an alleged hit-and-run vehicle *(see Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Albino,*91 AD3d at 871; *Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Tae Hong Ji,*81 AD3d at 940; *Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Steinmetz,*51 AD3d 1022 [2008]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration. Florio, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Thomas Santorelli, Petitioner, v Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent State Commissioner of Social Services, dated May 22,1984, made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed so much of a determination of the local agency as ordered that petitioner’s home relief and medical assistance be discontinued.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Substantial evidence adduced at the statutory fair hearing supports the determination that petitioner violated his duty to accept referral to an appropriate public work project (18 NYCRR 385.3 [a] [5]). The evidence further establishes that the notice of intent to discontinue petitioner’s public assistance grant detailed the reason for the discontinuance, and that the notice was served upon the petitioner only after the respondent local agency had investigated the reasons for petitioner’s failure to accept the referral (18 NYCRR 358.9), and had verified that such failure was willful (18 NYCRR 351.22 [e]; *Allen v Blum,*58 NY2d 954).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and are without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
<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 Loral Orion, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Townsend,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Richard J. Townsend

Richard J. Townsend
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

This certification is notto be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report of UTStarcom, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).

 

In connection with theReport, we, Peter Blackmore and Kenneth Luk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(i)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

Dated: May 10, 2010

 
| By:    | /s/ PETER BLACKMORE                                       |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Peter Blackmore                                     |   |
|   | Title: Chief Executive  Officer and President             |   |
|   |                                                      |   |
| By:    | /s/ KENNETH LUK                                           |   |
|   | Name: Kenneth Luk                                         |   |
|   | Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |   |

 

----