alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O
. W R

- 1 0 , 2 7 1

- 2 0

E X P A R T E R O B E R T G O R D O N , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S

C A U S E N U M B E R 1 3 , 4 7 2 I N T H E 1 2 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T W A L K E R C O U N T Y

T H

P e r c u r i a m .

O R D E R

P u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f A r t i c l e 1 1

. 0 7 o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e ,

t h e c l e r k o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t r a n s m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t o f h a b e a s c o r p u s

.
E x p a r t e Y o u n g , 4 1 8 S

. W

. 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 6 ( T e x
. C r i m

. A p p

. 1 9 6 7 )

. A p p l i c a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f

a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t a n d s e n t e n c e d t o n i n e t y - n i n e y e a r s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t

. T h e F o u r t e e n t h C o u r t

o f A p p e a l s a f

f i r m e d h i s c o n v i c t i o n

. G o r g o n v

. S t a t e , N o

. 1 4

- 8 6

- 0 0 4 6 0

- C R ( T e x
.
A p p

. – H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h ] , J u n e 4 , 1 9 8 7 )

.A f t e r a r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , w e f i n d t h a t A p p l i c a n t ’ s c l a i m r e g a r d i n g h i s p a r o l e

r e v i e w i s w i t h o u t m e r i t

. T h e r e f o r e , w e d e n y r e l i e f

.
A l l o f A p p l i c a n t ’ s o t h e r c l a i m s a r e d i s m i s s e d a s s u b s e q u e n t

. T E X

. C O D E C R IM

. P R O

.
A r t

. 1 1

. 0 7 § 4

.

Filed: Nove mber 26, 2014 Do not publish
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1424 CA 15-00517** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ.

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, FORMERLY KNOWN AS COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KENNETH MAESTRI, ALSO KNOWN AS KENNETH V. MAESTRI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

FRENKEL LAMBERT WEISS WEISMAN & GORDON, LLP, BAY SHORE (MICHELLE MACCAGNANO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered January 3, 2014. The order denied the motion of plaintiff to vacate an order dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the order dated December 13, 2012 is vacated and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: In this mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiff appeals from an order that denied its motion seeking to vacate an order dated December 13, 2012, in which Supreme Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint as abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3215 (c). We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in denying the motion. The court erred in dismissing the complaint sua sponte inasmuch as “[u]se of the [sua sponte] power of dismissal must be restricted to the most extraordinary circumstances, and no such extraordinary circumstances are present in this case” ( Midfirst Bank v Bellinger , 117 AD3d 1520, 1522 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Alexander , 124 AD3d 838, 839). Indeed, a plaintiff has not abandoned a foreclosure action where, as here, the plaintiff has taken the preliminary step toward obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale by moving for an order of reference within one year of the defendant’s default ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. , 124 AD3d at 839; Klein v St. Cyprian Props., Inc. , 100 AD3d 711, 712).

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EX-3.1

                         ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                                 Articles of
                                Incorporation
                             (PURSUANT TO NRS 78)

1. Name of Corporation      WSN Group, Inc.

                            NAME
2. Resident Agent Name      The Corporation Trust Company of Nevada
and Street Address:         PHYSICAL STREET ADDRESS        CITY          ZIP
                            6100 Neil Road, Suite 500      Reno  NEVADA 89511
                            ADDITIONAL MAILING
                            ADDRESS                        CITY  STATE   ZIP

3. Shares:                  Number of shares             Number of shares
                            with par value:  Par value   without par value:
                            500,000,000      $0.001

4. Names, Addresses         The First Board of Directors/Trustees shall
                            consist of members whose names and
Number of Board of          addresses are as follows:
Directors/Trustees:         1. NAME   John J. Anton
                            STREET ADDRESS                  CITY  STATE   ZIP
                            1530 Brookhollow Drive Suite C Santa Ana CA 92705

                            2. NAME

                               STREET ADDRESS               CITY  STATE   ZIP

                            The purpose of this corporation shall be:

5. Purpose                  Internet related activities

6. Other Matters:           Number of addition pages:

                            Denise Genova           /s/ Denise Genova
                                                    Signature
7. Names. Addresses         NAME
and Signatures of           STREET ADDRESS                 CITY  STATE   ZIP
Incorporators:              818 W. Seventh Street      Los Angeles CA  90017

8. Certificate of           I, The Corporation Trust Company of Nevada
Acceptance of               hereby accept appointment as Resident Agent for
Appointment of              the above named corporation,
Resident Agent:
                            /s/  Scott Ferraro
                            Authorized Signature of Resident Agent or
                            Resident Agent Company       Date: 1/26/01
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                        (71,789)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  438,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,933,172
<PP&E>                                         672,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,478
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,000,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,138,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,458,000
<COMMON>                                    11,375,859
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,315,697)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,000,892
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               492,074
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,422,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,902,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 27,797
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,902,459)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.153)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.153)
        

</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements of  Bio-Imaging  Technologies,  Inc. (i) on Form S-8 (relating to the
Company's  1991 Stock  Option  Plan) filed on March 17, 1995  (Registration  No.
33-90412),  (ii) on Form S-8 (relating to the Company's  1991 Stock Option Plan)
filed  on  January  17,  1994  (Registration  No.  33-74152),  (iii) on Form S-8
(relating  to the  Company's  1991  Stock  Option  Plan)  filed on March 3, 1997
(Registration No. 33-22661),  (iv) on Form S-3 declared  effective March 8, 1994
(Registration  No. 33-75370),  and (v) on Form S-3 declared  effective April 18,
1997  (Registration  No.  33-25477) of our report  dated  October 9, 1997 on the
consolidated  financial  statements  of  Bio-Imaging   Technologies,   Inc.  and
Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1997 and for the year then ended,  which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.




GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

December 18, 1998
Exhibit 32.1
 
 **Certification of Periodic Financial Report**
 **Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
 
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of RC2 Corporation (the "Company") certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Dated: November 9, 2004  /s/ Curtis W. Stoelting
 Curtis W. Stoelting
 Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 
 Dated: November 9, 2004   /s/ Jody L. Taylor
 Jody L. Taylor
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Section 302 Certification

 

I, Robert E. Olson, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of DISH Network Corporation; and

 

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.

 
| Date:  April 29, 2014                             |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |   |
| *  /s/ Robert E. Olson*                           |   |
| Executive   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Exhibit 21.01

                       LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                           LIFSCHULTZ INDUSTRIES, INC.


     1.     Lifschultz Fast Freight, Inc. a Delaware corporation
(a wholly owned subsidiary of registrant)

     2.     Hart Scientific,  Inc., a Utah corporation (a wholly owned
subsidiary of registrant)

     3.     Calorimetry  Sciences  Corporation,  a Utah corporation (a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hart Scientific, Inc.)

     4.     Energetic  Genomics  Corporation,  a Delaware  corporation (a 50%
owned subsidiary of registrant)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000758

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
CJPJ HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. PACIFIC CAPITAL CO., LTD.; DIAMOND HAT HONEY LLC, Defendants-Appellees, and SHICHININ LLC, Defendant/Cross-Claimant-Appellant, and SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendant/Cross-Claim Defendant-Appellee, and JOHN & JANE DOES 1-10; DOE CORPORATIONS AND ENTITIES 1-10,

Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CC141002485)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Chan, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that Defendant/Cross-Claimant-Appellant Shichinin LLC ( Shichinin ) appeals from the following orders entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit ( Circuit Court)in Civil No. 1CC141002485: (1) the April 1, 2022 "Order Denying [Shichinin's] Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Ex Parte Motions for Issuance of Commission to Take Out-of-state Depositions Without Prejudice"; (2)the June 30, 2022 "Order Denying Shichinin, LLC's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, Filed April 4, 2022 Without Prejudice"; and (3) the December 15, 2022 "Order Explaining Why it is Not Possible or Appropriate for this Court to Enter a Final Appealable Order or Judgment." We conclude that the court lacks appellate jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the Circuit Court has not entered a final, appealable judgment or order under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 658A-28(a) (2016)

. Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000758 10-FEB-2023 08:35 AM Dkt. 16 ODSLJNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, February 10, 2023. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

2
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 30459

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Rahsaan Johnson,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:03

- CR -135-3

**ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES** 

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Rahsaan Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 , Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 . W e previously affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion

. United States v. Johnson , No. 21

- 30459,

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir. R. 47.5**

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 24, 20 23 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-30459 Document: 00516687814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2023No. 21

- 30459

2 2022 WL 1617863 (5 th Cir. May 23, 2022) . However, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light o f its decision in Concepcion v. United States , 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022). On remand, the parties jointly ask us to vacate the district court order denying Johnson’s motion for a sentence reduction and remand the case to the district court in light of Concepcion . We grant the parties’ request. The district court’s order denying Johnson’s motion for a sentence reduction is **VACATED** , and the case is **REMANDED** to the district court for

re consideration in light of Concepcion

. 1

1 We do not mean to suggest what rulings the district court should issue on remand. Case: 21-30459 Document: 00516687814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

MELVIN KELLUM, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Plaintiff Below, 

Appellee. 

§ 

§ 

§ No. 346, 2018 

§ 

§ Court Below–Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 0603009059 (N) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 

 Submitted: March 28, 2019

 Decided: May 8, 2019 

ORDER 

It appears to the Court that, on February 11, 2019, the Chief Deputy Clerk 

issued a notice to the appellant, Melvin Kellum, to show cause why his appeal should 

not be dismissed for his failure to file his opening brief and appendix. Kellum 

responded by requesting an extension of time. The Clerk informed Kellum that his 

opening brief must be filed by March 28, 2019, and the notice to show cause would 

be held in abeyance pending receipt of his brief. Kellum failed to file his opening 

brief by the extended due date; therefore, dismissal of this action is deemed to be 

unopposed. 
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice
exv10wxby







EXHIBIT 10(b)




Amendment to the Severance Protection Agreement between Campbell Soup Company and




Douglas R. Conant





          This is an amendment to the Severance Protection Agreement made as of January 8, 2001 by and
between Campbell Soup Company (the “Company”) and Douglas R. Conant (the “Executive”) (the
“Agreement”).



          WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire that any potential severance payments made
pursuant to the Agreement are not subject to the provisions of section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code; and



          WHEREAS, the changes to the Agreement made by this amendment are intended to result in the
severance payments not being subject to section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.



          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective agreements of the parties, it is agreed as
follows:




	 	1.	 	Section 2.4(a)(2) of the Agreement shall be amended by deleting this section in its
entirety and replacing it with the following:
	 
	 	 	 	“(2) a reduction in the Executive’s base salary by a material amount or any failure
to pay the Executive any compensation or benefits to which he is entitled within
thirty (30) days of the date due;”
	 
	 	2.	 	Section 2.4(b) of the Agreement shall be renumbered as Section 2.4(b)(2) and a new
Section 2.4(b)(1) shall be added to the Agreement to read as follows:
	 
	 	 	 	“(1) A Good Reason termination shall not occur unless the Executive gives notice
to the Company that an event or condition described in Sections 2.4(a)(1) through
(7) has occurred within a time period not to exceed ninety (90) days from the date
of first occurrence of one of these events or conditions, and the Company shall
have at least thirty (30) days from the time of that notice in which to remedy the
event or condition described in Sections 2.4(1) through (7).”




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized
officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment as of February 26, 2008.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 	Campbell Soup Company
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Douglas R. Conant
	 	 	 	/s/ John J. Furey	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Executive
	 	 	 	Vice President and Corporate Secretary
#### GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCE OF OKEECHOBEE HIGH SCHOOL, an unincorporated association, and Yasmin Gonzalez, through her parents and next friend, Frankie Michelle Gonzalez, Plaintiffs, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF OKEECHOBEE COUNTY and Toni Wiersma, individually and in her official capacity as principal of Okeechobee High School, Defendants.

No. 06-14320 CIV.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

April 25, 2007.

See also 483 F.Supp.2d 1224

David Charles Gibbs, III, Gibbs & Craze, Seminole, FL, for Defendants.

Randall C. Marshall, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Robert Franklin Rosenwald, Jr., Hennessey Law Firm, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs.

*ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (DE 29)*

LYNCH, United States Magistrate Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon an Order of Reference and the above Motion. Having reviewed the Motion, Response, and Reply, this Court finds as follows:

1. The issue presented by the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is whether the Defendants’ denial of their club violates the Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. § 4071. Attached to their Complaint is the club’s proposed constitution and by-laws setting forth the purpose and operation of the club. The Defendants have articulated an intent to inquire about the sexual orientation of any club participant, the names of anonymous participants, and participants’ personal lives outside the school. The Plaintiffs therefore move for a protective order under Rule 26(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., on the *645grounds that such discovery will lead to annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.

2. The Plaintiffs articulate a reasonable need for such a protective order. In their Response the Defendants present various arguments for obtaining this information, but none outweigh the reasons advanced by the Plaintiffs. Indeed some of the Defendants’ arguments reinforce why discretion is warranted in this case, especially for the sake of third party students. Moreover this Court does not see why this sensitive information is necessary or even relevant to deciding the Plaintiffs’ rights under the Equal Access Act in light of alternative sources of information regarding the club.

3. The Plaintiffs also ask in passing for a protective order preventing the deposition of the lead Plaintiffs mother and grandmother on health-related grounds. This Court denies this part of the Motion -without prejudice to pursing the matter by way of separate motion and after a more concrete dispute arises.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1460 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1460

  For the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, 
                          Vladimir Malofienko.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 8, 1997

Mr. Lautenberg introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  For the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, 
                          Vladimir Malofienko.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Alexandre 
Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko, shall be 
held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States 
for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act 
upon payment of the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Alexandre Malofienko, 
Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko, as provided in this 
Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce 
by the appropriate number during the current fiscal year the total 
number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the 
aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Optical Molecular Imaging, Inc (the Company) hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

(i) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 1, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ C. Kirk Peacock    
|                     |  |     |  | C. Kirk Peacock        
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer