alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Sharon McCarthy, Appellant, v Arthur Braiman, Respondent.

— In a proceeding commenced pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Bernhard, J.), dated February 21, 1985, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We cannot say that the findings of the Family Court were not supported by the credible evidence and that a different determination is warranted *(Strauf v Ettson Enters.,*106 AD2d 737). The greatest deference should be given to the decision of the hearing Judge who is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence proffered *(Arnold v State of New York,*108 AD2d 1021, *appeal dismissed*65 *573NY2d 723). Moreover, the petitioner’s testimony is riddled with inconsistencies and it is clear that the daughter has been influenced by her mother’s hostility towards the respondent since the daughter never informed the respondent of her move to Florida, never gave him her new address and did not even inform him of her upcoming marriage, much less invite him to her wedding.

The evidence indicates that the daughter has actively abandoned her father, the respondent herein, by her renunciation of his chosen religious affiliation, and of his surname *(see, Cohen v Schnepf,*94 AD2d 783). Moreover, her behavior towards him whenever they would meet was so hostile as to justify his belief of her abandonment of him, and his desire to avoid the relationship in the future *(see, Matter of Parker v Stage,*43 NY2d 128). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
IB 

House Calendar No. 38 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2131 

[Report No. 114–137] 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Waties 

Waring Judicial Center’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. CLYBURN (for himself, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, 

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. GOWDY, Mr. MULVANEY, and Mr. 

RICE of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

JUNE 4, 2015 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2131 RH

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South 

Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Waties Waring Judicial Center’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 2131 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. J. WATIES WARING FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

4 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United 

6 States courthouse located at 83 Meeting Street in Charles7 ton, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘J. Waties Waring Judicial Center’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg10 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

11 States to the Federal building and United States court12 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

13 a reference to the ‘‘J. Waties Waring Judicial Center’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

House Calendar No. 38 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2131 

[Report No. 114–137] 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United 

Waring Judicial Center’’. in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Waties States courthouse located at 83 Meeting Street 

JUNE 4, 2015 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          54,573
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,060
<INVENTORY>                                    363,534
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         130,321
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,058,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        478,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           360
<OTHER-SE>                                     230,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,058,410
<SALES>                                        423,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               506,968
<CGS>                                          106,996
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  309,097
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               124,740
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                52,290
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,495
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (27,654)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (10,232)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,422)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,422)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.48)



</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CARM EN E. CAM PB EL L, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J UL E S M. P E R L E Y, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 56558 D. C . No . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 9 1 8 2 - R GK MAN ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R . G a ryK l aus ne r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C arm en E . C am pb el l appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s order di s m i s s i ng he rm e di c a l m a l pr a c t i c e a c t i on f orf a i l ur e t o pr os e c ut e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on, 

# FI LED JU L 13 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 56558 2 A l-T orkiv. Kaem

pen , 7 8 F. 3 d1 3 8 1 , 1 3 8 4 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n in d ism issin g C am p b ell’ s a c tio n b e c au s e it h a db e e n p e n d in g f o rm o r e th a n ay e a ra n dC a m p b e ll f a ile dto f ile a n a de qua t e r e s pons e t o the c ourt ’ s or de rt o s how c aus e w hyi ts houl d notbe d is m is s e df

o rla c ko f

p r o s e c u tio n . See id. a t1384- 85 ( di s c us s i ng f a c t or s t o gui de the court ’ s dec i si on and aff i rm i ng di sm i ss al for f

ai l ure t o p rose cut e) . C am pb el l ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
<PAGE>


                                                                   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 CD&L, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Russell J. Reardon, 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:

       (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
              of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

       (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
              Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated results of
              operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: August 16, 2006


                                                \s\ Russell J. Reardon
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Russell J. Reardon
                                                Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, united States Code) and is not being filed as part of Form 10-Q
or as a separate disclosure statement.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                       31
Filed 12/27/22 P. v. Mourning CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEFFEREY MOURNING,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D079849

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD291199)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Robert J. Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed. 

Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

This is the first of two separate criminal cases which were resolved by 

guilty pleas in the trial court. They have not been consolidated on appeal; 

accordingly, we will resolve each case separately.
2

In San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD291199, Jeffery Mourning 

pleaded guilty to felony vandalism (Pen. Code,1 § 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)). The 

parties stipulated that Mourning would be sentenced to the middle term of 

two years, with the execution of sentence suspended with a grant of 

probation. 

Mourning was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. 

Mourning’s probation was revoked when he pleaded guilty to felony 

vandalism in San Diego Superior Court case No. SCD293812. 

Mourning filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any 

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the 

record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Mourning the 

opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

This conviction is from a guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing. 

Thus, we will omit a statement of facts.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks 

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and 

in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel 

has identified possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential 

merits of this appeal.

1. Whether there was a factual basis for the guilty plea.

2. Whether Mourning was properly advised of his rights before 

pleading guilty.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

3. Whether Mourning’s admission to violating the terms of his 

probation complied with the applicable standards.

4. Whether the sentence imposed was authorized.

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. 

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 

Competent counsel has represented Mourning on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BUCHANAN, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      15,272,751
<SECURITIES>                                 9,531,226
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,345,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (80,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,930,215
<PP&E>                                       1,764,447
<DEPRECIATION>                               (642,347)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,186,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,153,770
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,179
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,005,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,186,377
<SALES>                                      6,406,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,406,255
<CGS>                                        1,306,454
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,808,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,247,349)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,247,349)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,247,349)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
# L_2009291EN.01001801.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 291/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 291/18

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1065/2009

of 5 November 2009

establishing special measures as regards the private storage aid for pigmeat laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1278/2008

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 of 20 August 2008 laying down common rules for the granting of private storage aid for certain agricultural products (2), and in particular Article 23(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An examination of the situation has indicated a risk that there will be an excessively large number of applications for the private storage aid scheme for pigmeat introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1278/2008 of 17 December 2008 adopting emergency support measures for the pigmeat market in form of private storage aid in Ireland (3) |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An examination of the situation has indicated a risk that there will be an excessively large number of applications for the private storage aid scheme for pigmeat introduced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1278/2008 of 17 December 2008 adopting emergency support measures for the pigmeat market in form of private storage aid in Ireland (3)

| (2) | Therefore, it is necessary to suspend application of the scheme established by Regulation (EC) No 1278/2008 and reject the applications in question, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Therefore, it is necessary to suspend application of the scheme established by Regulation (EC) No 1278/2008 and reject the applications in question,

| (3) | In order to avoid speculation the Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In order to avoid speculation the Regulation should enter into force on the day following its publication,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Application of Regulation (EC) No 1278/2008 is hereby suspended for the period 8 November 2009 to 13 November 2009. Applications to conclude contracts submitted during this period shall not be accepted.

2.   Applications submitted from 3 November 2009, whose acceptance would have been decided during the period referred to in the first paragraph, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 November 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 223, 21.8.2008, p. 3.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 339, 18.12.2008, p. 78.

3

---
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2009291EN.01004201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 291/42 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2009 of 26 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 laying down the public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 166 of 27 June 2009](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_166_R_TOC)
)

On page 9, Annex, under CYPRUS:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘64. | elya-girne’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘64. | șarapköyleri’; |

on page 10, Annex, under CYPRUS:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘84. | kutsoventi’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘84. | πόλη-χρυσοχούς’; |

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘100. | milya-baf’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘100. | πόλη-της-χρυσοχούς’; |

on page 15, Annex, under CYPRUS:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | the following text is deleted: ‘828. șarapköyleri’, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | the following text is deleted: ‘829. πόλη-χρυσοχούς’, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | the following text is deleted: ‘830. πόλη-της-χρυσοχούς’; |

on page 35, Annex, under TURKEY:

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘10. | tурция’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘10. | турция’; |

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘11. | pепублика-tурция’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘11. | република-турция’; |

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘12. | pепубликаtурция’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘12. | републикатурция’; |

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘44. | tурция’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘44. | турция’; |

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘45. | pеспублика-tурция’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘45. | республика-турция’; |

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘46. | pеспубликаtурция’, |

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘46. | республикатурция’. |

---
#### In the Matter of George O’Donnell, Appellant, v Michael Bloomberg, as Mayor of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 5, 2007;

decided March 29, 2007

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Division denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
Exhibit
        ___
  CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CHIEF
        FINANCIAL OFFFICER
  I,
        Vincent De Lorenzo, certify that:
  In
        connection with the Annual Report of Digital Creative Development Corporation
        (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 (the
“Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, 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 his knowledge:
 (1)  The
          Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
 Date:
        October 16, 2007
  /s/
        Vincent De Lorenzo
 
 Vincent
        De Lorenzo
 Chief
        Financial Officer
Exhibit
10.8


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 2 TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment No. 2 to Consulting Agreement (this “Amendment”), dated as of May 3, 2020, amends that certain Consulting
Agreement dated August 22, 2018 (as previously amended on March 6, 2020, the “Agreement”) by and between Qualigen,
Inc. (the “Company”) and GreenBlock Capital LLC (“Consultant”).


 


The
Company and Consultant agree that the Agreement is hereby amended to modify and replace Section 2(ii) and Section 2(iii) as follows:


 


(ii)
Timing for Earning, Valuation and Forfeiture. The Company and Consultant agree that the Fee shall be earned as of the Closing
of the Merger. For the purposes of this subsection “(ii),” the Shares shall be valued at the lowest price per share
of (a) Common Stock issued in connection with the conversion of Company convertible notes or (b) the stated conversion price for
convertible preferred stock issued by the Company in connection with an offering, immediately prior to and in connection with
the Closing of the Merger. The Fee is not meant to act in any way as a success fee. A substantial portion of the Consultant’s
duties will be performed after the Effective Time, as indicated by the portion of the Fee paid in Warrants. Consultant is
not being compensated in any way for raising capital or the successful closing of the Merger.


 


(iii)
Issuance Instructions. The Shares and the Warrants shall be issued to Consultant or individually to its principals and advisors,
as directed in writing by Consultant prior to the Merger, subject to receipt of customary investment-intent letters.


 


Except
as expressly provided herein, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, GreenBlock Capital LLC and Qualigen, Inc. have executed and delivered this Amendment No. 2 to Consulting Agreement
as of the 3rd day of May, 2020.


 


	GreenBlock
    Capital LLC	 	Qualigen,
    Inc.
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Christopher Nelson	 	By:	/s/
    Michael S. Poirier
	Christopher
    Nelson	 	Michael
    Poirier
	Principal	 	President
    & CEO