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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Rosenberg, J.), rendered on July 27, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur&emdash;Sandler, J. P., Fein, Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
#### Linda A. Meisner, Appellant, v William Meisner, Respondent.

In an action for divorce, plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated October 30,1984, as granted visitation to defendant husband and directed defendant to make child support payments as of November 2, 1984, rather than retroactive to October 5, 1984, the date of plaintiff’s application for child support.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, plaintiff’s application for forensic evaluations to aid in the determination with respect to visitation granted, it is directed that defendant make child support payments retroactive to October 5, 1984, and pay plaintiff for the additional four weeks the lump sum of $632, and matter remitted to Special Term for a new hearing and determination on the issue of visitation. Defendant’s time to pay the $632 is extended until 30 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

Plaintiff has made allegations of defendant’s physical and mental abuse and violence towards his children as well as towards plaintiff and third persons. Those allegations, if true, would be “ ‘inimical to the welfare of the children’ ” *(Katz v Katz,*97 AD2d 398; *Quinn v Quinn,*87 AD2d 643). However, since no hearing was held, it is impossible to make a determination whether denial of visitation is appropriate *(Shipp v Gaglia,*97 AD2d 945).

Since there are issues of fact raised concerning the children’s welfare, “the parties should have been given the opportunity to *789present evidence on the issue of visitation in open court” *(Turner v King,*79 AD2d 654; *see also, Cameron v Cameron,*2 AD2d 979). Therefore, the matter is remitted to Special Term for a hearing on the issue of visitation by defendant.

Plaintiff’s application for forensic evaluations should have been granted by Special Term. We note that it was unopposed. Accordingly, psychiatric evaluations of the parties and their children should be conducted by a court-appointed doctor to be used as an aid to determine whether visitation is proper and, if so, whether conditions should be imposed.

Finally, Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (7) (a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n any matrimonial action * * * the court * * * may order * * * temporary child support * * * Such order shall be effective as of the date of the application therefor * * * The court shall not consider the misconduct of either party”. Consequently, the statutory language requires Special Term to make its order effective as of the date of plaintiff’s application for temporary child support, which, in this case, is October 5, 1984, regardless of defendant’s allegations of misconduct *(Khalily v Khalily,*99 AD2d 482). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
# C_2019112EN.01004701.xml

| 25.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/47

---

Action brought on 6 February 2019 — Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke v EUIPO (Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline)

(Case T-69/19)

(2019/C 112/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark Bad Reichenhaller Alpensaline — Application for registration No 17 126 517

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2018 in Case R 412/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow EU trade mark application No 17 126 517, thus far rejected, to proceed to registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow EU trade mark application No 17 126 517, thus far rejected, to proceed to registration;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2019383EN.01004501.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/45

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 22 August 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie v ZB

(Case C-627/19)

(2019/C 383/54)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: ZB

Question referred

In the case where an EAW seeks the enforcement of a custodial sentence imposed by an enforceable decision of a judge or court, whereas the EAW has been issued by a Public Prosecutor who participates in the administration of justice in the issuing Member State, and there is a guarantee that he acts independently in the execution of those of his responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, does the condition also apply that there must be a possibility of instituting court proceedings against the decision to issue an EAW — in particular its proportionality — which meet in full the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection?

---
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


     In connection with the Annual Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gregory J. Dawson, 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 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 result of operations of the
Company.



                              ___/s/ Gregory J. Dawson____
                              Chief Financial Officer

                              March 30, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Kentucky
Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



87
#### WEN QIN JIANG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-4876-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 13, 2009.

*673Thomas V. Massucci, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Nancy E. Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew Oliveira, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. ROBERT D. SACK and Hon. B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioner Wen Qin Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 22, 2007 order of the BIA denying her “motion for adjudication of an asylum application filed under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D).” *In re Wen Qin Jiang,*No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 22, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Ali v. Gonzales,*448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). In her motion and before this Court, Jiang emphasized that she was not filing a motion to reopen. Rather, she argued that she was entitled to file a successive asylum application independent of the requirements for motions to reopen set forth at 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). That argument is entirely foreclosed by our decision in *Yuen Jin v. Mukasey*where we held that the BIA had reasonably interpreted the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and its implementing regulations to require that “an alien under a final removal order must file a successive asylum application in conjunction with a motion to reopen and in accordance with th[e] procedural requirements [for filing such motions].” 538 F.3d 143, 156 (2d Cir. 2008); *see also Matter of C-W-L-,*24 I. & N. Dec. 346, 352-53 (BIA 2007). Thus, to the extent Jiang argues that she is *prima facie*eligible for relief, her argument is of no moment where she was required to show changed country conditions. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).
#### James Johnson, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 348]—

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Milano, J.), entered March 18, 2010, which denied claimant’s motion to renew.

Claimant, a prison inmate, was found guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules and was confined in the special housing unit from September 17, 2007 to December 14, 2007. On September 18, 2008, claimant commenced an action seeking monetary damages for his alleged wrongful confinement. Defendant answered, raising timeliness as a defense, and claimant moved for summary judgment or permission to file a late claim pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10 (6). Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved to dismiss the claim as untimely. The Court of Claims denied claimant’s motion and granted defendant’s cross motion. Claimant thereafter moved to renew, and the Court of Claims denied this motion. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Claimant appeals only from the order denying his *1456motion to renew. A motion to renew must be “based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *see Marquis v Washington,*85 AD3d 1338, 1338 [2011]). Inasmuch as his claim was not brought under 42 USC § 1983, we reject claimant’s contention that the United State Supreme Court’s decision in *Haywood v Drown*(556 US 729 [2009]) constitutes a change in the law that would impact the Court of Claims’ prior determination here *(see Upsher v Ramineni,*84 AD3d 653, 654 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 710 [2011]). Further, a claim must be filed and served, or notice of intention to file a claim must be served, within 90 days after the accrual of the action *(see*Court of Claims Act § 10). Contrary to claimant’s contention, the Court of Claims relied on a body of law that has not changed in claimant’s favor in finding that his wrongful confinement claim accrued on the date he was released from the special housing unit *(see Davis v State of New York,*89 AD3d 1287, 1287 [2011]; *Conner v State of New York,*268 AD2d 706, 707 [2000]). Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by the Court of Claims in denying claimant’s motion to renew and, therefore, the decision will not be disturbed *(see 2 N. St. Corp. v Getty Saugerties Corp.,*68 AD3d 1392, 1397 [2009], *Iv denied*14 NY3d 706 [2010]). We have considered claimant’s remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Spain and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 12, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00694

- CV

Linda S. Nowlin, Appellant

v.

Samarra Davis, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES KELLY, SMIT H, AND SHANNON

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SHANNON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on July 25, 2018. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A ppellant shall pay all costs

relating to this appeal, both in thi s Court and in the court below.
No. 01- 14

- 00620

- CR

In the 

### Court of Appeals For the 

### First District of Texas At Houston



No. 1 394253 In the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas




### BRODRICK RENALDA FRENCH

Appellant

v. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee




### STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS:
COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, in accordance with Rules 10.5(b)(1) and 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and files this motion for extension of

time in which to file the State’s brief in th is case, and, in support thereof, presents the following: ACCEPTED 01-14-00620-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/1/2015 3:29:30 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK1. In the 176th District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 1 394253 , the

Appellant was convicted on July 15 , 2014 , in The S tate of Texas v. Brodrick Renalda

French

.
2. For the offense of robbery, his punishment was assessed at twenty

- seven years in
prison

.
3

. A w ritten notice of appeal was timely filed on July 15 , 2014

.
4 . Appellant’s brief was filed with this Court on February 19 , 2015

.
5

. The State’s brief was due to be filed with this Court on March 23 , 2015

.
6 . An extension of time in which to file the S tate’s brief is requested until April 2 ,
2015

.
7

. No p revious extension s have been granted to t he State.

8 . The facts relied upon to explain the need for this extension are: The State’s brief in this case has been prepared by an appellate intern, who has also been attending law school during this s ame time period. Therefore, additional time has been necessary in order to prepare the State’s brief

.WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will g r ant an extension of time until

April 2 , 201 5 , in which to file the State’s brief in this case.

Res pectfully submitted,
/s/ Alan Curry

ALAN CURRY Assistant District Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755

- 5826 TBC No. 05263700 curry_alan@dao.hctx.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a co py of the foregoing instrument has been mai led to the
appellant ’ s attorney at the following address es on April 1, 2015 :
David Garza A ttorney at Law 102 South Lockwood Houston, Texas 77011

/s/ Alan Curry

ALAN CURRY Assistant Di strict Attorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755

- 5826 TBC No. 05263700 curry_alan@dao.hctx.net

Date: April 1, 2015
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF MEDALLION FINANCIAL CORP.



|                                 |  |                                           
|-------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation
|Medallion Funding LLC            |  | New York                                  
|Medallion Capital, Inc.          |  | Minnesota                                 
|Freshstart Venture Capital Corp. |  | New York                                  
|Medallion Bank                   |  | Utah                                      
|Taxi Medallion Loan Trust III    |  | Delaware                                  
|Medallion Servicing Corp.        |  | Delaware                                  
|Medallion Fine Art, Inc.         |  | Delaware
# C_2019148EN.01006002.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/60

---

Action brought on 1 March 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA)

(Case T-142/19)

(2019/C 148/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Passi AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PASSIATA — Application for registration No 14 593 123

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 in Case R 927/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 6, 2011. 

Resolved, That the resolution from the Senate (S.J. Res. 

22) entitled ‘‘Joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to the compact between the States of 

Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the BiState Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 

years.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert: 

1 SECTION 1. CONSENT. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The consent of Congress is given 

3 to the amendment of the powers conferred on the Bi-State 

4 Development Agency by Senate Bill 758, Laws of Missouri 

5 2010 and Public Act 96–1520 (Senate Bill 3342), Laws of 

6 Illinois 2010. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment to the powers 

8 conferred by the Acts consented to in subsection (a) shall 

9 take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. 

10 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1950. 

11 The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 

12 568) shall apply to the amendment approved under this 

13 joint resolution to the same extent as if such amendment 
2 

•SJ 22 EAH 

1 was conferred under the provisions of the compact consented 

2 to in such Act. 

3 SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL. 

4 The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolu5 tion is expressly reserved. 

6 SEC. 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. 

7 The right is reserved to Congress to require the disclo8 sure and furnishings of such information or data by the 

9 Bi-State Development Agency as is deemed appropriate by 

10 Congress. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 22 

AMENDMENT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwayne Bates Jarvis, Also Known as Dwayne Jarvis, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered February 23,1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Since defense counsel extensively cross-examined the sole eyewitness to the murder with respect to his lengthy criminal record and the testimony sought to be elicited bore only upon collateral matters of general credibility, any error which may have been committed by the trial court in refusing to allow further inquiry into the witness’ criminal background was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Allen,*67 AD2d 558, *affd*50 NY2d 898*on opn of Presiding Justice Mollen at App Div).*

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# C_2019328EN.01007501.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/75

---

Action brought on 16 August 2019 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a braided cheese)

(Case T-571/19)

(2019/C 328/83)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi Ve Ticaret AȘ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU mark in black and white (Shape of a braided cheese) — Application for registration No 17 912 280

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 in Case R 107/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
01C3872 Haywood vs. City of Chicago, et al. Page 1 of 1

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Matthew F. Kennelly Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 01 C 3872 DATE 11/2/2005

CASE

TITLE

Haywood vs. City of Chicago, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Settlement conference held; settlement agreement is reached. Status conference is set for 11/16/05 at 9:00

a.m., by telephone conference to be initiated by counsel, for the purpose of entry of a final order disposing of

the case.

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

DS

Case: 1:01-cv-03872 Document #: 112 Filed: 11/02/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:763