alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BAUER, Respondent, v. PARSONS et al. Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Louis Bauer against Edwin Par sons and others. J. Byrne, flor appellants. H V. Rutherford, for respondent.

No opinion Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursed ments. Order filed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1925

LLOYD JUNIOR MAXWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; U.S.

IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; INS

DISTRICT DIRECTOR; LESLIE S. TURNER, A. D. C.;

LINDA DOMINQUEZ, A. D. C.; JILL H. DUFRESNE,

Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District

Judge. (CA-02-1675-S)

Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd Junior Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Junior Maxwell appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his action filed under the Federal Tort Claims

Act and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Maxwell v. United States Dep’t

of Justice, No. CA-02-1675-S (D. Md. June 26, 2002). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
DOCUMENT NOT IMAGED DUE TO ONE OR MORE REASONS LISTED BELOW:

9 TOO VOLUMINOUS

9 TRANSCRIPT 

9 QUALITY NOT LEGIBLE

9 FONT TOO SMALL

9 PHOTOGRAPHS

9 OTHER _____________________________________________________

TO VIEW THE DOCUMENT YOU MUST OBTAIN THE CASE FILE AT THE

CLERK’S OFFICE. THE CLERK’S OFFICE IS OPEN FROM 8:30 AM. TO 4:30 PM.

MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY EXCEPT FOR LEGAL HOLIDAYS. TO OBTAIN A

COPY YOU CAN CALL THE CLERK’S OFFICE SERVICE CENTER AT

312-435-5699.

Case: 1:01-cv-06858 Document #: 491 Filed: 02/15/08 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:3153
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas L. Neal, Jr., Also Known as Thomas Neal, Jr., Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Sherman, J.), rendered September 19,1983, affirmed *(People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Santiago,*100 AD2d 857). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal L 242/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 242 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6519 September 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 242

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6519 September 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 of 15 September 2022 determining the existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1614 of 15 September 2022 determining the existing deep-sea fishing areas and establishing a list of areas where vulnerable marine ecosystems are known to occur or are likely to occur

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Raymond R. Brandstrom, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-K/Aof Emeritus Corporation; 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
 4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 
 (a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 
 (b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
 (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 
 5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
 (a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
 (b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. 
 
 /s/    Raymond R. Brandstrom
 Raymond R. Brandstrom
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 January 26, 2005
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40459 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel, JOSHUA HARMAN

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, L.L.C.,

Defendants

- Appellees

v.

THE CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY; THE SAFETY INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED,

Movants

- Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:12

- CV

- 89

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 9, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40459 Document: 00513263835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2015No. 15

- 40459 Appellants The Center for Auto Safety and The Safety Institute, Inc.
appeal the district court’s denial of the ir second motion to intervene. As
explained in our decision affirming the denial of their first motion to
intervene, 1 Appellants seek to intervene for the limited purpose of unsealing

the record

. The district court concluded that Appellants’ motion was moot

bec ause it had already granted Relator Joshua Harman’s motion to unseal the

record . Appellants counter that thei r motion i s not moot because the district
court’s order granting this relief was neither final nor un appealable

— and has
been appealed by Appellees Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, L.L.C. Assuming without deciding that Appellants ar e c orrect, the

district court’s order has since become final and unappealable, as this Court
recently granted Appellees’ motion to voluntary dismiss their interlocutory
appeal of the unsealing order

. 2 As a result, Appellants ’ second motion to

intervene is no w indisputably moot, 3 and we DISMISS this appeal.

1 See United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Indus., Inc. , 599 F. App’x 193, 193 (5th Cir. 2015).

2 No. 15

- 403 37, Dkt. 83.

3 Jackson v. Johnson , 217 F.3d 360, 364

- 65 & n.20 (5th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that a “c ase becomes moot on appeal once appellant has received all of the relief requested ”). Case: 15-40459 Document: 00513263835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2015
(15 Misc. Rep. 133.)

#### HAHNENFELD v. WOLFF.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County,

General Term.

December 23, 1895.)

Principal and Agent—Authority to Receive Payment.

An agent to sell goods, who has not possession of them, has no implied authority to receive payment therefor; and one making payment to such agent, unless authorized by a course of dealing with the seller, does so at his peril.

Appeal from Sixth district court.

Action by Henry Hahnenfeld against Bernard W. Wolff to recover the price of merchandise sold and delivered. From a judgment in favor of defendant, rendered by the justice without a jury, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER and BISCHOFF, JJ.

James R. Angel, for appellant.

Wm. C. Coxe, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

It was conceded by the defendant that the sale was made to him through the instrumentality of one Grimshaw, and it conclusively appeared from the invoice in defendant’s possession, and produced by him, upon which the alleged payments to Grimshaw were receipted for by the latter, that the defendant, before such payments, knew the plaintiff, and not Grimshaw, to be his vendm. Grimshaw' was employed by the plaintiff to solicit orders from customers, and did not appear to have been intrusted with the possession of the whole or any part of the merchandise sold. Under these circumstances the payments to Grimshaw were made by the defendant at his peril of the former’s want of authority. It is well settled that an agent to solicit orders merely, or to sell goods, who has not the possession of the goods, has no implied or apparent authority to receive payment. Higgins v. Moore, 34 N. Y. 417; McKindly v. Dunham (Wis.) 13 *N.*W. *485;*Butler v. Dorman, 30 Am. Rep. 795; Meyer v. Stone, 55 Am. Rep. 577; Kane v. Barstow (Kan. Sup.) 22 Pac. 588; Kohn v. Washer, 53 Am. Rep. 745. Proof of Grimshaw’s authority to collect, either by plaintiff’s express direction, or by inference from a course of dealing, was, therefore, essential to the defendant’s success upon the trial (Higgins v. Moore, supra; Lamb v. Hirschberg, 1 Misc. Rep. 108, 20 N. Y. Supp. 678), and the absence of such proof renders the judgment appealed from erroneous.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
(January 16, 1986)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher H., Appellant.

— Main, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), ren*847dered January 6, 1984, which sentenced defendant upon his adjudication as a youthful offender.

Defendant was indicted and charged with burglary in the third degree. On September 28, 1983, after plea bargaining negotiations, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime charged. In return for such plea, County Court indicated that it would "in all probability” adjudicate defendant a youthful offender and sentence him to probation when he returned to the court for sentencing on October 26, 1983. Defendant did not, however, appear in court on his scheduled sentencing date. When he did finally appear again before County Court on January 6, 1984, defendant’s attorney stated on the record that, since his September 28, 1983 appearance, defendant had been accused of committing another burglary in Ulster County. Defendant’s attorney further stated that, having engaged in further plea bargaining negotiations, he was not going to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea but was, instead, going to make an application to have the sentence cover both the original indictment and the more recent burglary charge. He also acknowledged that, as part of the court’s acceptance of such plea, defendant would be adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment. County Court sentenced defendant accordingly.

On appeal, defendant’s primary argument is that he was not made aware by County Court of his right to withdraw his original guilty plea. A reading of the record belies this contention. While it is true that, where a court determines that it will not or cannot impose a sentence promised during plea bargaining, the defendant must be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea *(see, People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227, 240, *cert denied*419 US 1122; *People v Jones,*99 AD2d 1, 3; *People v Grant,*92 AD2d 985), it is clear in this case that defendant and his attorney were fully aware of defendant’s right to withdraw his guilty plea and voluntarily chose not to withdraw it.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be totally devoid of merit.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet as of June 30, 1999 and the Statement of Operations for the three months
ended June 30, 1999,included on Form 10-QSB for the Quarterly Period ended June
30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              55
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   415
<PP&E>                                               1
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                        (99)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       471
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     3
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     9
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (6)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (6)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.001)


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Manhattan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. hereby certifies that, to the best of their
knowledge:




(a)        the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2009 the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(b)        information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.




Dated:
      March 31, 2010
              S:/
      Michael McGuinnessMichael
      G. McGuinnessPrincipal
      Executive Officer,Chief
      Operating and Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3




                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 Azurel,  Ltd. on Form 10-KSB/A for the
fiscal year ending  December 31, 2002 as filed with the  Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edward Adamcik, Vice President
of  Operations  of Azurel,  Ltd.,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of 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
         Azurel, Ltd.

Date: September 18, 2003,


                  By:  /s/ Edward Adamcik

                  Name: Edward Adamcik
                  Title: Vice President of Operations
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**PERICOM
      SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION**




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED


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




In
      connection with this annual report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended June 28, 2008 (the
“Report”), I, Angela Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
      Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
      knowledge:


(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.




September
      10, 2008




By:
            /s/
                Angela ChenAngela
                ChenChief
                Financial OfficerPericom
                Semiconductor Corporation
Exhibit 32


                            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 American Soil Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we,
Carl P. Ranno,  Chief  Executive  Officer and President of the Company,  and Ken
Lew, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  respectively 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Carl P. Ranno                               /s/ Ken Lew
------------------------------------           ---------------------------------
Carl P. Ranno,                                 Ken Lew,
Chief Executive Officer and President          Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2004                                August 13, 2004
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:75
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:76
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:77
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:78
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:79
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:80
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:81
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:82
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:83
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:84
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:85
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:86
Case: 1:02-cv-07266 Document #: 15 Filed: 01/14/03 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:87
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41485

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ELIEZER HIDALGO-DE LEON, also known

as Eliezer Deleon Hidalgo,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-773-ALL

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

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Eliezer HidalgoDe Leon raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.