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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), rendered February 14, 1985, convicting him of criminal *676possession of stolen property in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed and case remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Defendant was found guilty after his trial in 1979 but was not sentenced until February 1985 because he had made himself unavailable. He now claims that he has been deprived of his right to appeal due to the destruction of the stenographic notes of the trial proceedings two years after his conviction. We disagree.

There is a presumption of validity and regularity which attends all judgments of conviction *(see, People v Bell,*36 AD2d 406, *affd*29 NY2d 882) and that presumption may only be rebutted by substantial evidence to the contrary *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). When a transcript is missing, it is defendant’s burden to demonstrate that genuine appealable issues exist, and that alternative methods of providing an adequate record are not available before he is entitled to reversal of his conviction *(see, People v Glass,*43 NY2d 283). Defendant has not met this burden.

In any event, the stenographic notes of defendant’s trial were destroyed in accordance with the applicable law during defendant’s willful and intentional five-year absence from the jurisdiction of the trial court *(see,*Judiciary Law § 297) and the People were under no obligation to preserve the notes during his unexcused absence. Thus, defendant cannot be heard to complain of the destruction of the minutes *(see, People v Mirenda,*57 NY2d 261, 267). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED BOARD *&*CARTON CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM J. BRITTING, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

September 19, 1960.

*Messrs.*Milton, *McNulty & Augelli*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Isadore Glauberman*for the respondent.

Denied.
# C_2021182EN.01005201.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/52

---

Order of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — Productos Jamaica v EUIPO — Alada 1850 (flordeJamaica)

(Case T-739/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 182/70)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Productos Jamaica, SL (Algezares, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. F. Crespo Carrillo and S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Alada 1850, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 (Joined Cases R 1431/2018-1 and R 1440/2018-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Alada 1850 and Productos Jamaica.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Productos Jamaica, SL and Alada 1850, SL shall bear their own costs, and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Productos Jamaica, SL and Alada 1850, SL shall bear their own costs, and each pay half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.

---
# Official Journal C 403A/6 Oc

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 403A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 646 October 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 403A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 646 October 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2021/C 403 A/01 | Notice of vacancies CONS/AD/174/21 | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2021/C 403 A/01

Notice of vacancies CONS/AD/174/21

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# C_2019295EN.01007801.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/78

---

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — BNP Paribas and Others v SRB

(Case T-467/19)

(2019/C 295/103)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BNP Paribas (Paris, France), BNP Paribas Arbitrage (Paris) and BNP Paribas Securities Services (Paris) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






  — | Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:

—

Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-466/19, Société générale and Others v SRB.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

September 5, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00543

- CV

Nori Elsa Alvarez

- BAKER

, Appellant

v.

ORANGEPANDA, LLC

, Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 08249 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time to pay the trial court clerk and the court reporter for preparation of the record on appeal is GRANTED . We ORDER appellant Nori Elsa Alvarez

- Baker to provide proof to this court, by September 10, 2018, that she has paid the clerk’s fee and the reporter’s fee. We further ORDER the trial court clerk, Donna Kay McKinney, and the court reporter, Luis Du ran, to file their respective parts of the record on appeal by October 1, 2018. Appellant is notified that her failure to comply with this order and to pay the clerk’s fee may result in a dismissal of her appeal without further notice. Appellant is further notified that her failure to comply with this order and pay the reporter’s fee may result in this court considering only those issues in the appellant’s brief that do not require the reporter’s record for consideration.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of September, 2 018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Motoi Shimadera, Tokyo, Japan, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1752 [2019]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's affidavit with exhibits sworn to August 13, 2019, and upon reading the responsive correspondence by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department dated October 18, 2019, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Stonner], 175 AD3d 799 [2019]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Dorsett], 174 AD3d 1219 [2019]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effectively immediately.

Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
Consent of Independent Accountants


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 No. 333-5769 and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-61239, 333-12159 and
333-12157) of Regent Assisted Living, Inc. of our report dated May 10, 2002,
except for Note 5 as to which the date is October 1, 2002; Notes 7, 10 and 12 as
to which the date is November 7, 2002; Note 8 as to which the date is September
10, 2002; and Note 15, as to which the date is September 18, 2002, relating to
the financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders,
which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Portland, Oregon
November 7, 2002
exhibit_4.htm


    Exhibit
4

    


    NAVISTAR
FINANCIAL CORPORATION

    AND
SUBSIDIARIES

    _______

    


    INSTRUMENTS
DEFINING RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS,

    INCLUDING
INDENTURES

    


    


    None.

    



    
      
        
          E-2
#### Gilbert Israel SERRANO, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.B. ROMO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-15923.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 25, 2011.

Gilbert Israel Serrano, Sr., Folsom, CA, pro se.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gilbert Israel Serrano, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims for denial of due process and inadequate medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order, *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Serrano’s action after he obtained extensions and clarifications but failed to comply with two orders requiring him to file an amended complaint or face dismissal. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (allowing dismissal of action for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders); *see also Ferdik,*963 F.2d at 1260-61 (fist-ing factors to guide decision about whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)). Dismissal followed the court’s exploration of less drastic alternatives, and, under the circumstances, served both the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving litigation and the court’s interest in managing its docket. *See Ferdik,*963 F.2d at 1262-63 (dismissal appropriate where three out of five factors strongly support it).

Serrano’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Hibbler, Also Known as James Watts, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Hornblass, J.), rendered December 8, 1982, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 4% to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

We find ample evidence to support the conviction and no merit to defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to a fair trial by the prosecutor’s cross-examination of him. The court, however, as defendant contends, erred when it summarily denied his timely motion to suppress any evidence taken from him at the time of his arrest. Specifically at issue were two tinfoil packages of cocaine recovered from defendant in a search of his person. The “main gravamen” of the court’s ruling was its finding that defendant lacked standing to contest the search. Where the evidence sought to be suppressed was seized from his person a defendant’s expectation of privacy is beyond question. *(See, People v Taylor,*97 AD2d 381; *People v Sutton,*91 AD2d 522.) We find, however, after a review of the trial transcript, that all the facts pertinent to the suppression issue were fully developed at trial, and no rational trier of the facts could conclude other than that the police officers had probable cause to arrest defendant. The undercover officer testified in detail about defendant’s appearance. He recalled defendant’s age, height, weight, and the clothes he was wearing, including a white cap, a beige sweater with a printed front, and black sandals. The undercover officer also testified that he described defendant and his location to the officers in his backup unit. Although the arresting officer was not permitted to testify about the details of the description he received, he did testify that defendant matched the description and that he was wearing a white cap, a beige sweater with a multicolored front, and black sandals. The recitation of any additional evidence at a suppression hearing would clearly serve no purpose.

*68We also note that defendant filed his motion to suppress three months before trial. Apparently, although the People timely responded, he never received a decision until, on the eve of trial, he requested a ruling. At that time his motion was denied without a hearing, the court observing that the case was marked “ready for trial”. A defendant is entitled to a ruling on his pretrial motions before his case is sent to a trial part, unless, of course, disposition of such motion is expressly deferred for resolution in the trial part. Here no disposition was indicated before the case was sent out for trial. We note our disapproval of such practice. *(See, People v Smalls,*111 AD2d 38, 39-40 [Rosenberger, J., concurring].) Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Fein, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Lorraine Wynter, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered October 24, 2014, after a jury trial, convicting her of willful violation of health laws, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (John H. Wilson, J.), rendered October 24, 2014, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and fine and surcharge, if paid, remitted.</p><p>Reversal of the judgment convicting defendant of willful violation of health laws is mandated since, as the People concede, the allegations in the accusatory instrument were jurisdictionally insufficient to meet the elements of the charged crime (<a href="../2016/2016_50629.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Howlett</i>, 51 Misc 3d 141</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50629[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: May 12, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

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


(18 U.S.C. §§1350)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §§1350),
the undersigned, Mathew McNeally, Chief Executive Officer and
President of Financial Ventures, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
Company), does hereby certify, to his knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended December 30, 2002 of the Company (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

|                       |  |                                                                              
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 5, 2003 |  | By: /s/ Mathew McNeallyMathew McNeally
    President, Chief Executive Officer
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 341 

Designating the first full week of December in 2011 as ‘‘National Christmas 

Tree Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. BURR, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. CASEY, Ms. CANTWELL, and Ms. COLLINS) 

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the first full week of December in 2011 as 

‘‘National Christmas Tree Week’’. 

Whereas Christmas trees are grown in all 50 States; 

Whereas Christmas trees have been sold commercially in the 

United States since about 1850; 

Whereas Edward Johnson, assistant to Thomas Edison, came 

up with the idea of electric lights for Christmas trees in 

1882; 

Whereas President Calvin Coolidge started the National 

Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony on the White House 

lawn in 1923; 

Whereas there are close to 15,000 farms growing Christmas 

trees in the United States; 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 341 ATS 

Whereas there are approximately 100,000 people employed 

full or part-time in the Christmas tree industry; 

Whereas Christmas tree farms in the United States planted 

approximately 35,000,000 Christmas trees in 2011 to replace those harvested in 2010; and 

Whereas growing Christmas trees preserves green space and 

small family-owned farms, provides habitats for wildlife, 

and sequesters carbon dioxide: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the first full week of December 

3 in 2011 as ‘‘National Christmas Tree Week’’; 

4 (2) encourages the celebration of Christmas 

5 trees during that week; 

6 (3) recognizes the role Christmas trees have 

7 played in the history of the United States; 

8 (4) reaffirms the environmental benefits of 

9 Christmas tree farms and recycled Christmas trees; 

10 (5) encourages the recycling of Christmas trees 

11 after the holiday season; and 

12 (6) celebrates the joy Christmas trees bring to 

13 families across the United States. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(121 App. Div. 677.)

#### MITCHELL v. GREENE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Discovery—Examination Before Trial—Application.

Where the affidavits on which an order for the examination of plaintiff before trial was obtained did not state that no previous application for such an order had been made, as required by the express provisions of rule 25 of the general rules of practice, the order was properly vacated. [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 16, Discovery, § 75.]

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by George Mitchell against William C. Greene. From an order vacating an order for examination of plaintiff before trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ.

M. E. Harby, for appellant.

Charles W. Pierson, for respondent.

INGRAHAM, J.

While we do not wholly agree with the court below as to the grounds for the vacation of the order for plaintiff’s *450examination, we think the order must be affirmed upon the ground that the original papers upon which the order for the examination was obtained did not state that no previous application for the order had been made, as required by rule 25 of the general rules of practice. That rule is most salutary, and its enforcement is necessary for the protection of the court, *to*prevent applications made to one judge after the same application has been made to and refused by another judge. The objection was seasonably taken by the plaintiff, and, as this rule was intended to be enforced, a violation of it without excuse justified the court below in vacating the order.

For this reason, the order appealed from must be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
# C_2021009EN.01003302.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/33

---

Order of the General Court of 8 October 2020 — Coppo Gavazzi and Others v Parliament

(Joined Cases T-389/19 to T-394/19, T-397/19, T-398/19, T-403/19, T-404/19, T-406/19, T-407/19, T-409/19 to T-418/19, T-420/19 to T-422/19, T-425/19 to T-427/19, T-429/29 to T-432/19, T-435/19, T-436/19, T-438/19 to T-442/19, T-444/19 to T-446/19, T-448/19 to T-454/19, T-463/19 and T-465/19) (1)

(2021/C 9/48)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---
# C_2019383EN.01003802.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/38

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2019 — YX v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-542/19)

(2019/C 383/45)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: YX

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Question referred

Is the total flight distance to be used as a basis for calculating the entitlement to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also in the case where the arrival of a passenger at the final destination is delayed by three hours or more solely as a result of a delay/cancellation of the connecting flight, but the feeder flight was on time, the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the flights were booked together?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

---