alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Milton Jones, Petitioner, v Thomas Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

— Levine, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondents finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate at Clinton County Correctional Facility, was served with a misbehavior report charging him with a violation of institutional rule 113.12 based upon his alleged possession of marihuana. He was determined to be guilty after a Superintendent’s proceeding and a penalty of 60 days’ keeplock and two months’ loss of good time and other privileges was imposed. Following adverse administrative review, petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding by notice of motion returnable at Supreme Court on January 31, 1986. Supreme Court subsequently transferred the proceeding to this court.

Petitioner now contends that respondents failed to timely interpose an answer to his petition five days prior to the January 31 return date and therefore may not oppose his petition here. This claim is unavailing. The record establishes that on January 31 Supreme Court granted an adjournment of this matter to February 21. Thus, respondents were required to serve answering papers by February 16, 1986 *(see, CPLR 7804 [c]; Matter of Narcotic Parole Officers Assn. v Bahou,*88 Misc 2d 909, 910). Since February 16 was a Sunday, and the following day was a national holiday, respondents’ service of answering papers on February 18 was timely *(see,*General Construction Law § 25-a [1]).

Petitioner’s assertion that the disposition at the Superintendent’s proceeding was not supported by substantial evidence is without merit. The sole basis for this claim is the Hearing Officer’s failure to honor petitioner’s request that either the contraband or a picture of it be introduced into evidence. The officers testified, however, to observing another inmate hand petitioner two cigarettes, to frisking petitioner and finding the two cigarettes in his pants pocket, and to testing the cigarettes positively for marihuana. This testimony was more than sufficient to sustain the determination of guilt *(see, Matter of Smith v Coughlin,*111 AD2d 503, 505).

*884Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.1


 


Description of Securities


 


The ENG Token is the only class
of securities registered by Enigma MPC, Inc. under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The following is a summary
of some of the terms of the ENG Tokens called for under this exhibit to our Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation
S-K, as promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.


 


ENG Tokens are not capital stock,
and do not currently provide holders with any type of (i) dividend rights; (ii) equity or debt conversion; (iii) sinking fund provisions;
(iv) redemption provisions; (v) voting rights; (vi) liquidation rights; or (vii) preemption rights. Additionally, there is nothing
in the existing ENG Smart Contract governing the ENG Tokens nor is there any other agreement that currently conveys or proposes to convey
any right to receive any dividends, distributions or rights to any property or product held or to be developed by Enigma MPC, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
         FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1999
         AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL
         STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001016739
<NAME>                        INTERNATIONAL DISPENSING CORPORATION


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,416,322
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               431,061
<PP&E>                                         461,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 914,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          227,622
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,120,000
<COMMON>                                       9,567
<OTHER-SE>                                     (442,782)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   914,407
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,747,754
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,702,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,702,108)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,702,108)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.18)



</TABLE>
NRCS 1077 - SWAN LAKE MTNLatitude: 42.413Longitude: -121.68Elevation: None

NRCS 1077 - Swan Lake Mtn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Swan Lake Mtn Site Page...



Swan Lake Mtn
Exhibit 10.42

Univision Communications Inc.
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3050
Los Angeles, California 90067January 11, 2002

CONFIDENTIALGrupo Televisa S.A.
Av. Vasco de Quiroga No. 2000
Colonia Santa Fe
01210 Mexico, D.F.
Mexico

Re:

Acquisition of Fonovisa Music Group


Gentlemen:

We
refer to the letter agreement (the "Letter Agreement") dated December 19, 2001, pursuant to which we have agreed to purchase and you have agreed to sell the Fonovisa group of
companies. In connection therewith, the parties hereby agree to extend the date of completion of the HSR Act filing set forth in Section 7 of the Letter Agreement from January 11, 2002
to January 21, 2002 and to extend the date for execution and delivery of the Long-form Agreement set forth in Section 5 of the Letter Agreement from January 15, 2002 to
January 28, 2002. Except as amended hereby, the Letter Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

You
acknowledge that our representatives have assisted your representatives in preparing the disclosure schedules related to the Letter Agreement. You further agree and acknowledge that
the preparation of such disclosure schedules and the information included thereon or omitted thereform are your sole responsibility.

If
the foregoing sets forth over mutual agreement and understanding, please execute below.

| |  | Very truly yours,            
| |  | -----------------------------
| |  | UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC.
| |  |                              
| |  | By:                          
| |  | Name:                        
| |  | Title:                       

---

ACCEPTED, AGREED TO AND ACKNOWLEDGED
This _____ day of January, 2002

|GRUPO TELEVISA S.A.                                                   
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/JORGE LUTTEROTH ECHEGOYENJorge Lutteroth Echegoyen
Attorney in Fact
|/s/RAFAEL CARABIAS PRINCIPERafael Carabias Principe
Attorney in Fact  
|/s/JUAN MIJARES ORTEGAJuan Mijares Ortega
Attorney in Fact            

---

QuickLinks
Scofield Project and 

Reservoir Plan
• Scofield Dam is only feature of the pro

• Authorized by Congress in 1942 under • Constructed 1943 – 1946• Storage 73,600 acre-feetScofield Project
Scofield Project Purposes

• Congressionally authorized – irrigation• Incidental Purposes

– Municipal and industrial water supply– Flood control– Recreation
Scofield Project Priorities

• Water delivery• Water quality• Public safety• Recreation
Scofield Reservoir Lands

Methods of United States acquisition of lScofield Project – Dam and Reservoir

Land purchased before project authorization Water Conservation DistrictLand purchased by Reclamation after project Land purchased by Price River Water ConserDeeded to Reclamation after project authorizLand purchased by Carbon Water ConservatTo Reclamation after project authorization
Scofield Reservoir Lands

Quite Title – Litigation

Involved Land in Sections 10 and 11

2007 District Court ruled that United States the property purchased in 1946 – defined rMarch 2009, 10th Circuit Court ruled that n

existed on those lands and remanded the c

District CourtJuly 2009 District Court amended judgmenproperty in Section 10 and 11 with no right other parties on those lands.
Scofield Reservoir Lands

To understand the survey you are on a staircase and step from the top. From whclimb to step 3 above your 
Scofield Reservoir Lands

If you start one step lowerclimb to step 4 to get to thone down from the top. Thone as before, and only thchanged.
Scofield Reservoir Lands

Survey elevations work that the point you want from a starting point at The deed languagof concern is “Sasurveyed by McG
Scofield Reservoir Lands

In 1929 because of improvand equipment, USGS detestarting point was actually contour line now had a difsame “step”
Scofield Reservoir Lands

In 1988 USGS determined point was actually even locontour line now had anofor the same “step”. This elevation that would be su
Reclamation Scofield Rese

1. Educate and inform the public

– Federal court decisions– Land title history– Survey datum history
Reclamation Scofield Rese

2. Evaluate possible alternatives that pro

safety( This means ensuring debris is not allowed i

the case of a hydrologic event that would creservoir to reach the maximum water surfa
Reclamation Scofield Rese

3. Work with smaller group of represent

consider acceptable alternatives that:• Comply with Reclamation authority• Complies with federal law and court ruling• Allows for public safety• Conforms with project purposes• Meets available funding
Reclamation Scofield Rese

4. Implement selected alternative (s)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
                       Financial Data Schedule

     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's unaudited financial statements at March 31, 1996 and 1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 

       
<S>                            <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1996             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                            4,471,065               1,678,100
<SECURITIES>                              0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                        15,612                  30,347
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                       0
<INVENTORY>                         250,490                 158,842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  5,202,367               2,283,868
<PP&E>                              117,899                 119,443
<DEPRECIATION>                      (22,712)                (44,880)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    5,847,815               2,793,101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               315,419                 289,164
<BONDS>                                   0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<COMMON>                              2,828                   2,891
<OTHER-SE>                        6,353,309               6,243,571
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      5,847,815               2,793,101
<SALES>                             996,028                 658,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,019,803                 682,068
<CGS>                               130,164                  84,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     1,136,433               1,307,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    233,818                 206,546
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    4,259                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (120,889)               (625,290)
<INCOME-TAX>                          3,605                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (124,494)                (625,290)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                       (124,494)              (625,290)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.06)                  (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.06)                  (0.22)
        

</TABLE>
#### HUDA, Appellant, v. AMERICAN GLUCOSE CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 16, 1896.)

Action by Mary Anna Huda, as administratrix, etc., against the American Glucose Company.

No opinion. Plaintiff’s exceptions overruled. Motion for a new trial denied, and judgment ordered for the defendant, with costs, on the opinion reported in 13 Mise. Rep. 657, 34 N. Y. Supp. 931.
EXHIBIT
13.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of RADCOM Ltd. (the “Company”)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Ripstein, Chief
Executive Officer 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:




1.        The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:
March 25, 2010




/s/ David RipsteinDavid
      RipsteinChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
#### McCREADY, Respondent, v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June, 1896.)

Action by Nathaniel L. McCready against the Manhattan Railway Company and others.

No opinion. Judgment modified by reducing fee damage to $2,000, rental damage to $700, and extra allowance to $135; and, as modified, affirmed, without costs.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1669 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for transparency of 

payments made from the Judgment Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Mr. STEWART (for himself and Mr. BURGESS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for 

transparency of payments made from the Judgment Fund. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Judgment Fund 

5 Transparency Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. JUDGMENT FUND TRANSPARENCY. 

7 (a) TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT.—Section 1304 

8 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1669 IH

1 ‘‘(d) Unless the disclosure of such information is oth2 erwise prohibited by law or court order, the Secretary of 

3 the Treasury shall make available to the public on a 

4 website, as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days 

5 after the date on which a payment under this section is 

6 tendered, the following information with regard to that 

7 payment: 

8 ‘‘(1) The name of the specific agency or entity 

9 whose actions gave rise to the claim or judgment. 

10 ‘‘(2) The name of the plaintiff or claimant. 

11 ‘‘(3) The name of counsel for the plaintiff or 

12 claimant. 

13 ‘‘(4) The amount paid representing principal li14 ability, and any amounts paid representing any an15 cillary liability, including attorney fees, costs, and 

16 interest. 

17 ‘‘(5) A brief description of the facts that gave 

18 rise to the claim. 

19 ‘‘(6) The name of the agency that submitted 

20 the claim.’’. 

21 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary of the Treas22 ury shall implement the amendment made by this section 

23 beginning not later than 60 days after the date of enact24 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**STATEMENT
      OF**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


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








I,
      Kanwar
      J.S. Chadha, Ph,. D., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2005 of Entrada
      Networks, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2005
      of
      Entrada Networks, Inc fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Entrada Networks, Inc.








/s/
                Kanwar ChadhaName:Kanwar
                J.S. Chadha, Ph. D.Date:June
                20, 2005
ANIMAS RIVER AT FARMINGTON, NMLatitude: 36.722Longitude: -108.202Elevation: 5293

ANIMAS RIVER AT FARMINGTON, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cascade Site Page...



Cascade

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cascade #2 Site Page...



Cascade #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Idarado Site Page...



Idarado

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mineral Creek Site Page...



Mineral Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Molas Lake Site Page...



Molas Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red Mountain Pass Site Page...



Red Mountain Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Scotch Creek Site Page...



Scotch Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Spud Mountain Site Page...



Spud Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Stump Lakes Site Page...



Stump Lakes

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbus Basin Site Page...



Columbus Basin
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Smith, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered December 2, 1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*509Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient in quantity and quality to support the verdict *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932).

The defendant’s remaining contentions have not been preserved for our review *(see,*GPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467) and in view of the overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt we decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to review them. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 CECILE FOY GSANGER

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

August 5, 2015

Hon. Roberto D. Puente

Attorney at Law

1315 W. Polk, Ste. 24

Pharr, TX 78577

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Ricardo P. Rodriguez

Hidalgo County District Attorney

100 N. Closner

Edinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-15-00166-CR

Tr.Ct.No. CR-3747-14-H

Style: Jorge Luis Gonzalez v. The State of Texas

Appellant’s motion for leave to file brief in the above cause was this day 

GRANTED by this Court. The brief has been ordered filed as of July 31, 2015, the date 

of receipt.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OLADAYO OLADOKUN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-285, CA-99-1886-AW) Submitted: August 29, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcia Gail Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C., Decatur, Georgia, for Appellant. Jan Paul Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on February 14, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it was entered on the docket sheet on February 16, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we take the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Oladayo Oladokun seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Oladokun , Nos. CR-96-285; CA-99-1886-AW (D. Md. Feb. 16, 2000). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael X. Hurley, Appellant.

Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
#### Nathaniel S. Snipes et al., Appellants, v Citibank, Respondent.

— Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered on or about February 11, 1987, unanimously dismissed as nonappealable, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
#### Roslyn Berman et al., Respondents, v Michael J. Errico, Appellant. (And Another Action.)

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated December 20, 1985, which denied his motion to permit him to conduct an additional physical examination of the plaintiff Roslyn Berman.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to permit him to conduct an additional physical examination of the plaintiff Roslyn Berman *(see, Korolyk v Blagman,*89 AD2d 578). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.