alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**444 CAF 14-02150**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF AZARIA A., DANTE A., AND KEON W. --------------------------------------------- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NIAGARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;

DESIRE E., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ELIZABETH CIAMBRONE, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ABRAHAM J. PLATT, LOCKPORT, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

PATRICIA M. MCGRATH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, LOCKPORT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Niagara County (John F. Batt, J.), entered October 27, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, inter alia, directed respondent to engage in certain services.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order for services entered in this neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The appeal from that part of the order incorporating a temporary order of protection is moot, inasmuch as the temporary order has expired ( see Matter of Kristine Z. v Anthony C. , 43 AD3d 1284, 1284, lv denied 10 NY3d 705; Matter of Cadejah AA. , 25 AD3d 1027, 1028-1029, lv denied 7 NY3d 705). The remainder of the appeal from the order for services is also moot, the order having been superseded by a subsequent order directing the removal of the subject children ( see Moody v Sorokina , 40 AD3d 14, 19, appeal dismissed 8 NY3d 978, reconsideration denied 9 NY3d 887; Matter of Chelsea BB. , 34 AD3d 1085, 1088, lv denied 8 NY3d 806). Any decision concerning the propriety of the order for services “ ‘will not, at this juncture, directly affect the rights and interests of the parties’ ” ( Kristine Z. , 43 AD3d at 1284).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------





              [LETTERHEAD OF SMITH, GOOLSBY, ARTIS & REAMS, P.S.C.]




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT
                          -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
Classic Bancshares, Inc
Ashland, Kentucky


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-09385, 333-09409, and 333-43481) of our report dated June
15, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Classic
Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2003 and 2002 and for each of
the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2003, which report appears on
Form 10-KSB of Classic Bancshares, Inc. for the Fiscal year ended March 31,
2003.



/s/ Smith, Goolsby, Artis & Reams, P.S.C.
-----------------------------------------

Ashland, Kentucky
June 27, 2003
#### SANDERS V. CUNNINGHAM & CO., ET AT.

*Equity.*

(Decided Nov. 29th, 1906.

42 South. 611.)

Appeal from Jackson Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. W. H. Simpson.

W. H. Norwood, and John B. Talley, for appellant.

J. F. Proctor, and Virgil Bouldin, for appellee.

Appeal dismissed.

Opinion by

Tyson, C. J.

Dowdell, Anderson, and McClellan, JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

917 

KA 10-01432 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES M. THOMAS, SR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank

P. Geraci, Jr., A.J.), rendered April 21, 2010. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is

reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County,

for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: 

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict

of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05). Contrary to

defendant’s contention, he is not entitled to summary reversal of the

conviction based upon the People’s posttrial loss of the recording of

the robbery victim’s 911 call that was admitted in evidence at trial

(see People v Yavru-Sakuk, 98 NY2d 56, 59). The content of the 911

call, however, is significant to several of the contentions raised on

appeal, and the information contained in the missing recording cannot

otherwise be obtained from the record on appeal (cf. People v

Melendez, 71 AD3d 530, 531, affd 16 NY3d 869; Yavru-Sakuk, 98 NY2d at

61). Inasmuch as the present record on appeal does not permit us to

review those contentions, we hold the case, reserve decision and remit

the matter to Supreme Court to conduct a reconstruction hearing with

respect to the missing recording (see People v Glass, 43 NY2d 283,

286; People v Lopez, 176 AD2d 218, 219; see also People v Fullen, 118

AD3d 1297, 1298).

Entered: October 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Thomas W. Davison, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sontra Medical 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



4. The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuers
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 10, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas W. Davison                
|Thomas W. Davison                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### FOX, Appellant, v. HIGGINS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by Edward Fox, as administrator, against Francis Higgins. L. O. Van Doren, for appellant. J. A. Deering, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         150,232
<SECURITIES>                                     2,364
<RECEIVABLES>                                  640,112
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,633
<INVENTORY>                                     73,514
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,404,745
<PP&E>                                       4,768,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                 647,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,586,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,468,502
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,933
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,900,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,586,146
<SALES>                                        516,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,888,161
<CGS>                                          354,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  354,401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,315,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                33,015
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             114,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,600,958)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,600,958)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,600,958)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.48)



</TABLE>
# IMMC.EESC-2018-00344-AC.ENG.xhtml.EESC-2018-00344-00-01-AC-TRA-EN.docx

EN

European Economic and Social Committee

European Economic and Social Committee

TEN/658

TEN/658

Notification of investment projects in energy

  infrastructure within the European Union

Notification of investment projects in energy

infrastructure within the European Union

OPINION


  European Economic and Social Committee


  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Repealing Regulation (EU) No 256/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union

  [COM(2017) 769 final – 2017/347 (COD)]

OPINION

European Economic and Social Committee

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Repealing Regulation (EU) No 256/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the notification to the Commission of investment projects in energy infrastructure within the European Union

[COM(2017) 769 final – 2017/347 (COD)]

Consultation

| Consultation | European Parliament, 15/01/2018


  Council of the European Union, 11/01/2018 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society |
| Adopted at plenary | 14/02/2018 |
| Plenary session No | 532 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 192/0/2 |

Consultation

European Parliament, 15/01/2018

European Parliament, 15/01/2018

Council of the European Union, 11/01/2018

Council of the European Union, 11/01/2018

Legal basis

Legal basis

Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Article 194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Section responsible

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society

Adopted at plenary

Adopted at plenary

14/02/2018

14/02/2018

Plenary session No

Plenary session No

532

532

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions)

192/0/2

192/0/2

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 532nd plenary session of 14 and 15 February 2018 (meeting of 14 February), by 192 votes with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 532nd plenary session of 14 and 15 February 2018 (meeting of 14 February), by 192 votes with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 14 February 2018

Brussels, 14 February 2018

Georges DASSIS

Georges DASSIS

The president of the European Economic and Social Committee

_____________
(17 Misc. Rep. 620)

#### O’DOWD v. BONNELL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

July 27, 1896.)

Appeal—Weight op Evidence.

A finding of a justice of the district court on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appeal from Eleventh district court.

Action by Patrick O’Dowd against Roger V. Bonnell to recover for work and labor in steam fitting in *No. 251*Fifth avenue in November, 1894. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff for §37.50 and costs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before DALY, P. J., and McADAM and BISCHOFF, JJ.

P. C. Taiman, for appellant.

Thornall & Hull, for respondent.

DALY, P. J.

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to remove two steam radiators from one part of the building to another part, and connect them with the main steam pipe. He used for the purpose about 10 feet of old pipe which he found on the premises. A leak was discovered from the work a week or 10 days afterwards, and some repairs were made by the janitor, who had worked as a steam fitter’s helper, and who testified that there was twine and packing round the valves, and that he took out the valves and put in new ones, and that he subsequently told plaintiff several pipes were split, and the elbows and nipples were not fixed, and there was no valve there. In January, following, the work was examined by an engineer, who testified that the connecting pipe' was split, and that the radiator was not connected with it at the elbows. The plaintiff testified that the work was properly performed,—he having done some part of it personally, and having tested it,—and that there was no twine or packing round the •valves; that he was directed by the defendant to use the old ma-' terial on the premises, but that the pipe he put in appeared to be all right. The defendant denied that plaintiff was restricted to the use of old material. The case presented a conflict of evidence, and, as the justice had the witnesses before him, he-, was better qualified than we to determine the credit to be given to their testimony. While the statement of the engineer who examined the *651work in January was specific as to the defects found, it is not certain that the plaintiff was responsible for them. It was proved that a split might occur in a pipe at any time after it was laid; and in view of the fact that the janitor, Titus, who may not have been well qualified for the purpose, worked at the valves, and investigated the connections, between the time plaintiff finished his work and the engineer examined the radiators, it was not clear that" the latter saw the connections in the condition plaintiff left them. .

The judgment should be affirmed. All concur.
Document

百济神州(北京)生物科技有限公司



Exhibit 10.10.2
RENEWED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
 
续订劳动合同协议书


												
	Party A: (employer)		BeiGene (Beijing) Co., Ltd
	甲方:		百济神州(北京)生物科技有限公司
	Address:
		No. 30 Science Park Road, Zhongguancun Life Science Park, Changping District, Beijing
	地址:		北京市昌平区中关村生命科学院,科学园路30号

	Party B: (Employee)
		WANG LAI
	乙方:		汪来
	ID Number:
		
	身份证号码:		


 
Party A and Party B entered into an employment contract on May 9, 2014, which has a three-year term and expires on May 8, 2017.
甲方与乙方于2014年5月9日签订的为期3年的劳动合同,于2017年5月8日到期。


According to the Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Labor Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, after amicable negotiation, Party A and Party B agree to amend and renew the original employment contract as follows.
根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》,《中华人民共和国劳动合同法》,经甲乙双方平等协商,同意在原劳动合同的基础上延续劳动合同。


1.   The term of the employment contract is renewed to:
1.延续的劳动合同期限为:


(1)固定期限:___年___月___日起至___年___月___日止。
(1)   Fixed Term: from ___ to ___.


(2)无固定期限:自2017年5月9日起至甲乙双方约定的终止条件出现时止。
(2)   Non-fixed Term: from May 9, 2017 to the date when the termination events agreed by both parties occur.


2.   The following content is supplemented into this Renewed Employment Contract:
2.延续的劳动合同补充以下内容:


Pursuant to the needs of Party A, Party B agrees to provide services to Party A in the position of Senior Vice President, Head of China Development, Executive Director of Biomarkers and Pharmacology.
乙方同意根据甲方工作需要,担任高级副总裁,临床开发中国区首席总监,生物标记及药理部门首席总监岗位工作。


3.   Other matters negotiated or agreed by the parties:
3.双方协商变更或约定的其他事项:


			
	N/A无





This Renewed Employment Contract shal be executed in two counterparts and become effective upon signatures or affixing seals of both parties. Each party shall hold one original contract. This Renewed Employment Contract shall have the same legal effect with the original employment contract.





百济神州(北京)生物科技有限公司



本延续劳动合同书一式二份,经甲乙双方签名(盖章)后生效,甲乙双方各执一份,与劳动合同具有同等法律效力。






									
	Party A: (affix corporate seal)
		Party B: (Signature or Affix Seal) /s/ Lai Wang

	甲方:(单位盖章)		乙方:(签名或盖章)
			
	Legal Representative: (Signature or Affix Seal)
		Or Agent: (Signature or Affix Seal)

	 法定代表人:(签名或盖章) 
		或委托代理人:(签名或盖章)
			
			Date: Year/Month/Day
			日期:   年     月    日
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries of Regent Assisted Living, Inc.
--------------------------------------------

As of December 31, 2001, the Company has six subsidiaries. The subsidiaries and
the Company's respective ownership percentages of the issued and outstanding
common stock are as follows:

                                                  Percentage
         Subsidiary                               Ownership
         ----------                               ----------
         RAL, Inc.                                     100 %

         RAL/Bakersfield, Inc.                         100 %

         RAL/Vacaville, Inc.                           100 %

         RAL/Elk Grove, Inc.                           100 %

         RAL/Santa Cruz, Inc.                          100 %

         RAL/Clovis, Inc.                              100 %
Exhibit
10.1


 


RESOLUTIONS
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FOMO CORP.


 


Pursuant
to the provisions of California Corporation law, as amended, and the Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of FOMO CORP., a California
corporation (the “Company”), the undersigned approves the sale of the Company’s 50% ownership interest in KANAB CORP.
to Himalaya Technologies, Inc. (“HMLA”) for one hundred fifty million (150,000,000) common stock equivalents of HMLA in the
form of one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) Series B Preferred shares of HMLA. The Board meeting was convened on July 30, 2021 at 9:00am
CT.


 


WHEREAS,
to realize maximum value from its holdings in its Internet business and allow it to obtain its own growth capital, the Board of Directors
approves the sale of the Company’s 50% ownership interest in KANAB CORP. to Himalaya Technologies, Inc. (“HMLA”) for
one hundred fifty million (150,000,000) common stock equivalents of HMLA in the form of one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) Series B
Preferred shares of HMLA.


 


WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors believes it is in the best interests of the Company to approve the sale of the Company’s 50% ownership interest
in KANAB CORP. to Himalaya Technologies, Inc. (“HMLA”) for one hundred fifty million (150,000,000) common stock equivalents
of HMLA in the form of one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) Series B Preferred shares of HMLA.


 


NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:


 


RESOLVED,
the Board of Directors approves the sale of the Company’s 50% ownership interest in KANAB CORP. to Himalaya Technologies, Inc.
(“HMLA”) for one hundred fifty million (150,000,000) common stock equivalents of HMLA in the form of one hundred fifty thousand
(150,000) Series B Preferred shares of HMLA.


 


RESOLVED,
that any of the Executive Officers of the Company are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the Company to do and perform
all acts and things and execute and deliver all documents and take all such other steps as may be necessary or desirable to give full
effect to the consent resolutions set forth above.


 


		 
	Vikram
    Grover, CEO & Director
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Science Research: St. Paul, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area St. Paul, Minnesota Plant Science Research People & Locations







Amy  McNamara

(Bownds)
                        Plant Science Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (952) 913-4769
                        
                        
                        Fax: (612) 301-2130(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EX 43 - Series B Common Stock Form of Certificate



		

			Exhibit 4.3

		


		

			 

		


		

			 

		




		
			
		

		
			﻿