alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1212

To amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility

Act of 1996 to clarify that records of arrival or departure are not

required to be collected for purposes of the automated entry-exit control

system developed under section 110 of such Act for Canadians who

are not otherwise required to possess a visa, passport, or border crossing

identification card.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 24, 1997

Mr. DORGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 to clarify that records of

arrival or departure are not required to be collected

for purposes of the automated entry-exit control system

developed under section 110 of such Act for Canadians

who are not otherwise required to possess a visa, passport, or border crossing identification card.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1212 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ALIENS FROM

2 ENTRY-EXIT CONTROL SYSTEM.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 110(a) of the Illegal Im4 migration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of

5 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1221 note) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(a) SYSTEM.—

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),

8 not later than 2 years after the date of the enact9 ment of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop

10 an automated entry and exit control system that

11 will—

12 ‘‘(A) collect a record of departure for every

13 alien departing the United States and match

14 the records of departure with the record of the

15 alien’s arrival in the United States; and

16 ‘‘(B) enable the Attorney General to iden17 tify, through on-line searching procedures, law18 fully admitted nonimmigrants who remain in

19 the United States beyond the period authorized

20 by the Attorney General.

21 ‘‘(2) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ALIENS.—The

22 system under paragraph (1) shall not collect a

23 record of arrival or departure for an alien—

24 ‘‘(A) who is—

25 ‘‘(i) a Canadian national; or
3

•S 1212 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) an alien having a common na2 tionality with Canadian nationals and who

3 has his or her residence in Canada; and

4 ‘‘(B) who is not otherwise required by law

5 to be in possession, for purposes of establishing

6 eligibility for admission into the United States,

7 of—

8 ‘‘(i) a visa;

9 ‘‘(ii) a passport; or

10 ‘‘(iii) a border crossing identification

11 card.’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

13 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the enact14 ment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

15 Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–208; 110

16 Stat. 3009–546).

Æ
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

989 KA 10-00828 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL CAMERON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered November 25, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by providing that the order of protection shall expire on August 24, 2017 and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25 [3]). Defendant correctly contends that the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his contention that County Court erred in setting the expiration date of the order of protection from the date of sentencing rather than the date of conviction ( see People v Cambridge , 55 AD3d 1381). Although defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]), we nevertheless exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]), and we modify the judgment by providing that the order of protection shall expire on August 24, 2017 ( see CPL 530.13 [former (4) (i)]; see generally Cambridge , 55 AD3d 1381).

In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq. ). Because the court made only general and conclusory findings of fact and conclusions of law, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of the risk level assessment, particularly with respect to the court’s assessment of 15 points for the failure of defendant to accept responsibility for his actions ( see People v Leopold , 13 NY3d 923; People v Smith , 11 NY3d 797, 798;-2- 989 KA 10-00828

People v Flax , 71 AD3d 1451). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to County Court for compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3) ( see Flax , 71 AD3d 1451).

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20171 c/w No. 96-20172 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JULIAN CORONADO MATA, a/k/a Junior Sanchez, a/k/a Junior, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC Nos. CR-H-94-288-3 and CR-H-95-252-1

- - - - - - - - - - December 23, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Julian Mata, Jr., pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and to an information charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Mata contends that the district court abused its discretion in departing upward from the guideline imprisonment range. Based upon a careful review of the record and the briefs, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Koon v. United States , 116 S. Ct.No. - 2 - 2035, 2045 (1996). The convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
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
 Sugarcane Field Station: Canal Point, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Canal Point, Florida Sugarcane Field Station People & Locations







Duli  Zhao
                        Sugarcane Field Station

                        




                        
                        Research Agronomist
                        Phone: (561) 924-5227
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonides Bonilla, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 218]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hudson, J.), rendered July 24, 2008, convicting him of rape in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his untimely motion for a hearing to suppress evidence pursuant to *Payton v New York*(445 US 573 [1980]) because he did not explain why the motion could not have been made sooner *(see*CPL 255.20; *People v Greaves,*12 AD3d 690, *690-691 [2004]; People v Anderson,*201 AD2d 658, 659 [1994]). Moreover, his trial counsel’s failure to timely move to suppress evidence pursuant to *Payton*did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, since the motion was not warranted by the facts and his counsel otherwise *899provided meaningful representation *(see People v Howard,*37 AD3d 494, 495 [2007]; *People v Jackson,*17 AD3d 148, 149 [2005]; *People v Coats,*195 AD2d 519 [1993]).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Taylor,*94 NY2d 910, 911 [2000]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The Supreme Court legally imposed consecutive sentences upon the defendant’s convictions of rape in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree, as each count involved a separate sexual act constituting a distinct offense *(see People v Colon,*61 AD3d 772, 773 [2009]; *People v Gersten,*280 AD2d 487, 487-488 [2001]; *People v Benn,*213 AD2d 489 [1995]; *People v Rivera,*186 AD2d 594, 596 [1992]). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.
EX-10.1









EXHIBIT 10.1




December 8, 2008




Advanced Viral Research Corp.

6 Executive Plaza, Suite 283

Yonkers, New York 10701





     Re: Employment Agreement


To Whom It May Concern:



     This is to set forth our agreement regarding the payment of my salary by Advanced Viral
Research Corp. (the “Company”) for the period commencing December 1, 2008. This letter agreement
amends that certain Employment Agreement dated as of May 15, 2007 between us, as amended by that
certain letter agreement between us dated November 10, 2008 (collectively, the “Agreement”). By
executing this letter agreement, we agree that the following terms and conditions shall be
incorporated into the Agreement effective as of December 1, 2008 notwithstanding any other
provisions in the Agreement to the contrary.



     For the pay periods commencing on December 1, 2008 and thereafter for so long as I am
employed by the Company, the obligation of the Company to pay any or all of my base salary as well
as any other cash amounts shall be deferred until the Company (i) acquires net proceeds of at
least $3.0 million from the sale of the Company’s assets or securities; or (ii) consummates a
merger transaction with the surviving entity having at least $3.0 million in cash availability (the
“Triggering Event”). Upon the occurrence of the Triggering Event, all amounts deferred hereunder
shall be paid to me in one lump sum. For purposes of clarification, amounts that are referred to
as deferred amounts herein shall be amounts that are accrued as obligations of the Company but
which shall not be paid until and unless there is a Triggering Event.



     Except as otherwise specifically provided in this letter agreement, the terms of the Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect.



     This letter agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, all of which taken
together shall constitute one letter agreement.





Sincerely,






/s/ Stephen Elliston




Agreed and Acknowledged as of December 8, 2008


ADVANCED VIRAL RESEARCH CORP.
 


By: /s/ Martin Bookman, Acting Chief Financial Officer
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

ESTATE OF BIMLA NAYYAR, by RAKESH NAYYAR, Personal Representative,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 14, 2020

V No. 343676 Wayne Circuit Court OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., doing

business as OAKWOOD HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, LC No. 13

- 009819

- NH

Defendant

- Appellant.

Before: M ETER

, P.J., and O’B RIEN and S WARTZLE

, JJ.

M ETER

, P.J. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part )

.

I concur in all aspects of this majority opinion, including reluctantly the disposition, save

one issue. I disagree with the finding in Sec tion C that a mistake was not made in the prior panel ’ s decision. I believe a mistake was made . As the majorit y notes, defendant admitted to breaching the standard of care prior to trial. Thus, trial testimony focused on causation and damages. Accordingly, any and all testimony elicited by plaintiff regarding the relevant standard of care and

associated breach w ere completely irrelevant, as the majority recognizes. Whether plaintiff proceeded through trial under a theory of medical malpractice or ordinary negligence, the issue of

causation was the same

. S ee O’Neal v St. John Hosp & Med Ctr , 487 Mich 485, 496

- 497; 791 NW2d 853 (2010) . Similarly, the only difference regarding damages involved the amount : damages are capped in medical malpractice cases, but uncapped in ordinary negligence cases. However, this difference is not known to the jury when the jur y deliberates on the issue of damages. See MCL 600.6304(5). Thus, in this case, the jury necessarily determined the only two remaining issues, independent of what theory of negligence plaintiff proceeded with. T he prior panel should have remanded the ca se for entry of judgment in favor of defendant , but with damages capped, which is standard operating procedure that trial courts can easily accomplish post

- verdict in any medical malpractice case. See MCL 600.6304(5).- 2

-

I would separately urge the Michigan Supreme Court to reexamine and clarify the law

- of

the

- case doctrine in cases involving, as here, “ lateral review ”

. Most importantly, I would strongly urge the Michigan Supreme Court to grant leave and remand the case for entry of a capped judgment in favo r of defendant , which certainly the Michigan Supreme Court can do in a hierarchical review system. Then

- Chief Justice Markman’s concurrence in this case’s prior appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court ended with a rhetorical question : “Yet the decedent’s hus band’s plaintive inquiry nonetheless resonates loudly: ‘How is [this] possible in a just and fair world

. . . ?’ There is no satisfactory answer, in my judgment, only that further review of this matter might well be pursued in an appropriate action.” Nay yar v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc , 501 Mich 972, 972; 906 NW2d 212 (2018) ( M ARKMAN , C.J., concurring) (alteration in original). This case is that appropriate action.

/s/ Patrick M. Meter
EXHIBIT 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.’s333-141472, 333-128990, 333-114793, 333-109641 and 333-76544) of IDM Pharma, Inc. and in therelated Prospectuses and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.’s 333-136647, 333-128178,333-117116, 333-107416, 333-87266, 333-64238, 333-63950, 333-44852, 333-87759, 333-62437,333-11577) pertaining to the 1989 Stock Plan, As Amended, 1994 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock OptionPlan, As Amended, 1997 Stock Option Plan, 2000 Stock Plan, As Amended, 2001 Employee Stock PurchasePlan, As Amended, Employee Stock Purchase Plan For Employees Of IDM S.A., the IDM Pharma, Inc.Option Liquidity Agreements and the 2001 Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement of IDM Pharma, Inc.,and of our report dated March 28, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofIDM Pharma, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP        Los Angeles, California
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned President of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Ben Corey-MoranPresidentAugust 16, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1**CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Jean-Loup Romet-Lemonne, M.D., the Chief Executive Officer ofIDM Pharma, Inc. (the “Company”), and Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte, the Acting Principal Financial andAccounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:**1.**The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and**2.**The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Annual Report andresults of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Annual Report.Date:  April 2, 2007       /s/ Jean-Loup Romet-Lemonne Jean-Loup Romet-Lemonne, M.D.   /s/ Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte  Chief Executive Officer   Acting Principal Financial andAccounting Officer  This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofIDM Pharma, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Aero Products International, Inc., a Florida 

corporation, and Robert B. Chaffee, an 

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

Intex Recreation Corp., a California 

corporation, Quality Trading, Inc., a California 

corporation, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 02 C 2590

Judge John W. Darrah

Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown

NOTICE OF SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Local Rule 58.1, Plaintiffs Aero Products International, Inc. and Robert B. 

Chaffee (“Plaintiffs”) hereby give notice that Defendant Intex Recreation Corp. (“IRC”) satisfied 

the final judgment herein in the amount of $13,010,469.45 on March 2, 2007. Plaintiffs further 

state that the Letter of Credit lodged by IRC under Local Rule 65.1 is to be returned to IRC. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 6, 2007 By: /s/ Mark H. Remus

William H. Frankel

Michael P. Chu

Mark H. Remus

David H. Bluestone

BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE

NBC Tower, Suite 3600

455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive

Chicago, IL 60611-5599

(312) 321-4200

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 1:02-cv-02590 Document 348 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 6th day of March 2007, the foregoing document was filed 

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's CM/ECF 

and copies will be mailed via U.S. Mail to those parties to whom electronic notice has not been 

sent. Parties may access the filing through the Court’s system.

/s/ Mark H. Remus

Mark H. Remus

Case 1:02-cv-02590 Document 348 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Quarterly Report of Waypoint Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James H. Moss,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to 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 the Company.


/s/ James H. Moss
-----------------
James H. Moss,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2003


                                       29