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

Reargument of an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), rendered December 7, 1979, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the sixth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the sixth degree, criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree and criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By order of this court dated May 31, 1983 the judgment was reversed, a motion to suppress was granted and a new trial was ordered *(People v Figueroa,*94 AD2d 801). The Court of Appeals thereafter granted leave to appeal but later dismissed the appeal on May 8, 1984, holding that this court’s determination was made as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and thus was not appealable to the Court of Appeals (62 NY2d 727). This court granted reargument on September 13, 1984.

Upon reargument, the order and decision of this court, both dated May 31,1983, are recalled and vacated and the judgment rendered December 7, 1979 is affirmed.

The case involves a “buy and bust” operation. At the suppression hearing, the backup officers testified that they saw some hand motions, and it appeared that defendant was conversing with the undercover officer. They could not see the actual drug transaction, however. Upon receiving a radio communication from the undercover officer that a sale had taken place, they proceeded to take a codefendant into custody. The undercover officer had already arrested defendant.

Upon these facts, the hearing court found that there was probable cause to arrest, and evidence seized at the time of the arrest did not have to be suppressed. Although this court initially determined that the undercover officer’s testimony was required at the suppression hearing in light of the decision of the Court of Appeals in *People v Petralia*(62 NY2d 47), we are constrained to conclude that his presence was not necessary. The testimony of the backup team contained sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause; therefore, the items seized need not be suppressed.

*407Although the prosecutor was somewhat overzealous, and his questioning of defendant on occasion was improper, these errors are harmless in view of the overwhelming proof of guilt *(People v Ormond,*73 AD2d 629). Defendant’s own testimony established the necessary elements of the crimes, and did not suffice to support any cognizable defense. Because there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted him had the remarks not been made *(People v Diaz,*73 AD2d 604), reversal is not mandated. Bracken, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2008 (the Report), I, Nicholas Venuto, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ NICHOLAS J. VENUTO 
|                  |  |  |  | Nicholas J. Venuto     
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lyndell SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10425

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 21, 2009.

Paulina M. Jacobo, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Jerry V. Beard, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District *815of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lyndell Simmons has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Simmons has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### Ira H. Futterman, as Administrator of the Estate of Eileen Palopoli, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v Steven Mintzer, Respondent.

In a medical malpractice action to recover damages for personal injuries etc., plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated June 17, 1983, which denied their motion for a new trial; and (2) a judgment of said court, entered July 1, 1983, which was in favor of defendant.

Appellant Eileen Palopoli died during the pendency of this appeal and Ira H. Futterman was appointed administrator of her estate. Ira H. Futterman is substituted as party appellant for said Eileen Palopoli and the caption is amended accordingly.

Appeal from the order dismissed *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248).

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The record establishes that the jury’s determination to credit defendant’s testimony was based upon legally sufficient evidence and, accordingly, this court will not supplant the jury’s verdict in favor of defendant. Plaintiffs’ allegations of error concerning the conduct of the trial are without merit. Moreover, we note that plaintiffs are not entitled to a new trial based on defendant’s alleged fraudulent alteration of his records. Plaintiffs raised this very same argument at trial. However, they failed to present any evidence of the alleged alteration at that time, nor did they request a continuance to enable them to compile such evidence. Only after the trial did plaintiffs compile some evidence in support of their claim. We have reviewed the tendered evidence and find it unpersuasive. Therefore, the denial of their motion for a new trial was not an improvident *220exercise of discretion (see, CPLR 4404 [a]; *cf. Mully v Drayn,*51 AD2d 660). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME, WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FILED HEREWITH, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              41
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      411
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (16)
<INVENTORY>                                        487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   992
<PP&E>                                           2,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,398)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              690
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           862
<OTHER-SE>                                          25
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,145
<SALES>                                          5,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,536
<CGS>                                            3,066
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    119
<INCOME-TAX>                                        15
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       104
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 846 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2011 

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 80 

Lafayette Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, as the 

Christopher S. Bond United States Courthouse. 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

S 846 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND UNITED STATES 

2 COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

4 located at 80 Lafayette Street in Jefferson City, Missouri, 

5 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Christopher S. 

6 Bond United States Courthouse’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub10 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chris11 topher S. Bond United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the Senate July 26, 2011. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Minden Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, A.
David Evans, President and 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) 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/  A. David Evans
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           A. David Evans
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           March 30, 2004

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Minden Bancorp, Inc. and will be
retained by Minden Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# Fourth Court o f Appeals San Antonio, Texas

August 17, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00461

- CV

INT OF S.K.K AND H.A.K. CHILDREN

,
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 2718

- CV Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record for this appeal has filed a notification of late record, stating that the reporter’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record and ha s failed request the record in writing. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten days of the date of this order that: (1) either (a) the rep orter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (b) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee; and (2) the appellant has requested the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record, which req uest must designate the portions of the proceedings and the exhibits to be included. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(b)(1). If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of the clerk’ s record is filed, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a re porter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the sa id court on this 17th day of August, 201 8

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### The State ex rel. Pence, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Pence v. Indus. Comm.,*107 Ohio St.3d 286, 2005-Ohio-6507.]

(No. 2005-0230

Submitted October 25, 2005

Decided December 28, 2005.)

Law Offices of Thomas Tootle Co., L.P.A., and Thomas Tootle, for appellant.

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

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

*287Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Shawn M. Wollam, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.

Lane, Alton & Horst, L.L.C., and Barbara K. Letcher, for appellee Jet Corr, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14863]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 12, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Chris P. Wangen, Assistant 
Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
    1. MidCountry Acquisition Corp., Minneapolis, Minnesota; to acquire 
McGregor Banco, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Grand Timber Bank, 
both of McGregor, Minnesota.
    2. The Heritage Bancshares Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership 
Plan and Trust, Spicer, Minnesota; to become a bank holding company by 
acquiring 32.6 percent of the voting shares of Heritage Bancshares 
Group, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquiring voting shares of Heritage 
Bank, N.A., both of Spicer, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 8, 2021.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-14863 Filed 7-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Kimya F.E. SIMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John L. AUSTIN, III; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-35184.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*101Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2009.

Kimya F.E. Simon, Steilacoom, WA, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-05695RBL.

Before: WALLACE, TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kimya F.E. Simon, a former Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his loss of good-time credits on the ground that it was barred by *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because a judgment in Simon’s favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of the Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board’s (“ISRB”) decision to deny Simon good-time credits. Simon, who is out of custody, cannot seek to overturn the ISRB’s decision in a habeas proceeding and he has failed to show that any exceptions to the Heck-bar apply. *See Heck,*512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364; *Guerrero v. Gates,*442 F.3d 697, 704 (9th Cir.2006) (“The fact that [plaintiffl is no longer in custody and thus cannot overturn his prior convictions by means of habeas corpus does not lift *Heck’s*bar.”); *see also Franklin v. State of Oregon, State Welfare Div.,*662 F.2d 1337, 1343 (9th Cir.1981) (sua sponte dismissal prior to issuance of a summons is proper where claims are “wholly insubstantial”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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









Certification

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/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 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.





|/s/ Yonglin Du                | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Yonglin Du, CEO and President | 
|(principal executive officer) | 



August 30, 2007
ex4_98.htm


    Exhibit 4.98

     

    
 

    


    
      


      First
Floor, Block 3, The Oval, Shelbourne Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4,
Ireland.

      Tel:  +353
(0) 1 669 9020   Fax:  +353 (0) 1 669 9028

      




    Letter
of Termination to Non Executive Directors

    


    


    


    Dr
William Mason

    Non-Executive
Director

    


    October
09, 2009

    


    


    Dear
Bill

    


    The Lead
Investors and Abingworth LLP require that you stand down from the board on
closing of the current financing transaction (the “Closing”). The Closing is
expected to occur on or around October 16th,
2009.

    


    As
previously advised, I am pleased to confirm that each retiring non-executive
director will be offered an option over 5000 Ordinary Shares per year of
service; such stock options to vest on Closing and will expire, unless otherwise
exercised, on June 30th, 2011.

    


    This is,
we believe, a fair and final settlement pursuant to your service on the Board of
Directors.  Can I conclude by thanking you for your service and
commitment to the Amarin Board over the past few years.

    


    


    


    Yours
sincerely

    


    


    /s/
Thomas G. Lynch

    Thomas
G. Lynch

    Chairman
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 March 13, 2006
    /s/  BRUCE W. BUSMIREBruce W. BusmireSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Controller of Noble Corporation
#### Mary Sansiviero, Respondent, v Alan Sanders, Defendant. Richard G. Lawless, Appellant.

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, Richard G. Lawless, attorney for the plaintiff, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Oppido, J.), dated January 29, 1985, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for reargument of Lawless’ motion for permission to withdraw as her counsel, *795and thereupon denied leave to withdraw with leave to renew said motion before the trial court.

Order modified by deleting the provision which, upon reargument, denied the appellant’s motion for leave to withdraw as counsel, and substituting therefor a provision that the original determination granting that motion is adhered to. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The appellant shall serve upon the plaintiff copies of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by ordinary mail with postal proof of mailing, and shall also serve a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry, upon the attorneys for the defendant. Upon the filing of proof of such service with the clerk of the county where the action is pending, the appellant shall be relieved as counsel for the plaintiff. All proceedings in this action are stayed until 60 days after such service is completed; the plaintiff, if she be so advised, shall retain new counsel within said period.

In light of the irreconcilable differences between the appellant attorney and the plaintiff, his client, with respect to the proper course to be pursued by counsel in the litigation, the appellant’s motion to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiff should have been granted. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.