alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(June 27, 2012)

#### Aurora Bank, FSB, Formerly Known as Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, Appellant, v AFAFB, Inc., et al., Defendants, and 89 Pine Hollow Road Realty Corp. et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 878]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated April 29, 2010, which granted that branch of the motion of the defendants 89 Pine Hollow Road Realty Corp. and Gasper Chiarenza, as co-administrator of the estate of Frank Pettineo, which was pursuant to CPLR 1003 to dismiss the complaint and denied its cross motion, inter alia, for leave to amend the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated September 28, 2010, which, upon the order, inter alia, dismissed the complaint and vacated the notice of pendency.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

*982Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The Supreme Court dismissed this foreclosure action on the ground that the plaintiffs mortgage was vacated and extinguished in a related case *(see 89 Pine Hollow Road Realty Corp. v American Tax Fund, Foothill,*96 AD3d 995 [2012] [decided herewith]). In the related appeals, we affirm stated portions of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated September 28, 2010, which, inter alia, extinguished the plaintiffs mortgage interest *(id.).*Thus, we affirm the judgment herein dismissing the complaint and vacating the notice of pendency. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

I, Tim Paterson-Brown, Chief Executive Officer ofMedicsight, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the bestof my knowledge:

(1)    theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of  Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));and

(2)    theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | By:    | /s/ TIM PATERSON-BROWN  |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Tim Paterson-Brown      |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

May 12, 2006

 

E-3

----
#### In the Matter of Nastri Real Estate, LLC, Doing Business as Keller Williams Realty Syracuse, Respondent-Appellant, v Dolores Beblo, Appellant-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[946 NYS2d 515]

Appeal and cross appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (James P. Murphy, J.), entered October 13, 2011. The order and judgment granted respondent’s motion to reargue, and upon reargument, adhered to the prior order granting the petition in part.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner, which provided real estate brokerage services to respondent, commenced this proceeding pursuant to Real Property Law § 294-b seeking, inter alia, an order for the payment of monies deposited with the Onondaga County Clerk and thereafter transferred to the Onondaga County Chief Fiscal Officer *(see*§ 294-b [5]). In appeal No. 1, respondent contends that Supreme Court, upon reargument, erred in adhering to its decision granting the petition in part by awarding petitioner the remainder of its 6% commission. We reject that contention. Petitioner established its entitlement to the sum awarded as “the unpaid portion of the compensation agreed to in” the parties’ exclusive right to sell contract (§ 294-b [5] [a]; *see §*294-b [5] [d]). The court properly concluded that petitioner’s affidavit of entitlement to commission for completed brokerage services was in substantial compliance with the filing requirements of the statute *(see*§ 294-b [2]), that petitioner timely served respondent with such affidavit *(see*§ 294-b [4] [a]), and that any technical defect in the affidavit did not cause a forfeiture of petitioner’s rights to the funds at issue. With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, we reject petitioner’s contention that the court erred in denying that part of the petition seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, inasmuch as the statute does not authorize such an award in this proceeding. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *967Danny L. Johnson, Appellant.

Although such knowledge may be shown circumstantially by conduct and events *(People v Johnson,*65 NY2d 556, 561), it may not be imputed solely from possession or presentation of the instrument *(People v Green, supra).*In this case, defendant stated that he knew there was "something wrong” with the check given to him by his friend. However, when he first gained possession, the check had been indorsed in blank, defendant did not know the payee or her signature or how his friend acquired the check and when he presented the check at the bank where he had an account and placed his own indorsement thereon, he made no representation regarding any prior indorsement. While the jury could infer that the check was stolen, any finding that defendant knew it was forged was premised on no more than speculation *(People v Green,*53 NY2d 651, 652, *supra).*The judgment must be modified to vacate that conviction and the sentence imposed thereon.

Although the court failed to provide the jury with specific instructions pertaining to a common scheme to defraud, no request or exception was made by defendant and this issue was not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to exercise our discretion in the interests of justice (CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We find defendant’s remaining contention lacks merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Cornelius, J. — criminal possession of forged instrument, second degree, and another offense.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Shaquille M., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 586]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about May 12, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of menacing in the second degree, and placed him on enhanced supervision probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The delinquency petition was legally sufficient. The elements of menacing could be readily inferred from the detailed allegations. Although the petition did not state that appellant was the person who waved a knife, the allegations supported the inference that appellant was at least criminally liable as an accessory *(see*Penal Law § 20.00).

The court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress identification testimony. The showup was in the constitutionally permissible range of temporal and spatial proximity to the incident *(see People v Brisco,*99 NY2d 596, 597 [2003]). “The showup was not rendered unduly suggestive by factors inherent in any showup, including the victim’s apparent awareness that *446he was viewing a possible suspect and the presence of police officers guarding [appellant]” *(People v Grant,*77 AD3d 558, 558 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 831 [2011] [citations and internal quotation marks omitted]).

The fact-finding determination was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

The evidence established that appellant made threatening gestures with a knife in a crowd of people standing at a bus stop. This occurred during a heated argument between two groups of teenagers. During the altercation, appellant’s group pushed a girl in the other group off a bus and knocked her to the ground. The evidence supported the conclusion that when appellant waved the knife he intended to place the teenagers on the bus, as well as the complaining witness, who was standing in close proximity to appellant, in fear of physical harm. The overall course of conduct negates the possibility that appellant was waving the knife as some type of innocent horseplay. We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments concerning the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.

The court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant on probation under the enhanced supervision program. This was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the need for protection of the community *(see Matter of Katherine W.,*62 NY2d 947 [1984]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Catterson, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
#### John Tucciarone et al., Plaintiffs, v Syracuse University, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. M.V. Woods Construction Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant and Fourth-Party Defendant-Respondent; Raulli & Sons, Inc., Fourth-Party Defendant-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Although we affirm, we note that the court erred in concluding that the contract work was limited to the elevator shaft. This error does not affect the result, however, because it is clear that no contract work was to be performed in the machinery room, which was the situs of the accident. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Lynch, J. — summary judg*930ment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

 

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,Paul Gothard, Chief Financial Officer of Medicsight, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)    the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|         | By:    | /s/ Paul Gothard        |   |
|--------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|         |   | Paul Gothard            |
|         |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|         |   |
| May 11, 2005 |   |

 

E-4

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 30, 2018

a1022

Order 

Clerk

October 30, 2018

157066

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157066

COA: 339223

Oakland CC: 2012-241693-FC

TREANDIS MARQUA JAMISON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2017 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “ Company ”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”), I, Calvin E. Jenness, Senior Vice President and 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:


(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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.


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


Date: November 22, 2013





/s/ Calvin E. JennessCalvin E. JennessSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
<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 Asta Funding, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Mitchell Herman, 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
                  result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: May 12, 2004


                                             /s/ Mitchell Herman
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Mitchell Herman
                                             Chief Financial Officer

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Asta Funding, Inc. and will be retained by Asta Funding, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DOXTATER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by the people against Milton W. Doxtater.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the court of appeals granted on the ground that a question of law is involved which ought to be reviewed by that court. See 27 N. Y. Supp. 481.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2118 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2118

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to extend 
   to 2027 the production certificate program that allows refunds of 
     duties on certain articles produced in United States insular 
                              possessions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2015

 Ms. Plaskett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to extend 
   to 2027 the production certificate program that allows refunds of 
     duties on certain articles produced in United States insular 
                              possessions.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 
              PRODUCTS OF UNITED STATES INSULAR POSSESSIONS.

    Additional U.S. Note 5(h)(i) to chapter 91 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``2015'' and 
inserting ``2027''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021330EN.01000401.xml

| 17.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10410 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Target Asset in Hamburg)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 330/04)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | SEGRO plc (‘SEGRO’, United Kingdom), |
| --- | --- |

—

SEGRO plc (‘SEGRO’, United Kingdom),

| — | Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSPIB’, Canada), |
| --- | --- |

—

Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSPIB’, Canada),

| — | Target Asset (Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

Target Asset (Germany).

SEGRO and PSPIB acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the Target Asset.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.

2.

| — | For SEGRO: ownership, asset management and development of modern warehousing and light industrial properties located around major conurbations and at key transportation hubs across a number of EU countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

For SEGRO: ownership, asset management and development of modern warehousing and light industrial properties located around major conurbations and at key transportation hubs across a number of EU countries.

| — | For PSPIB: management of a diversified global investment portfolio including stocks, bonds and other fixed-income securities, and investments in private equity, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources and private debt. |
| --- | --- |

—

For PSPIB: management of a diversified global investment portfolio including stocks, bonds and other fixed-income securities, and investments in private equity, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources and private debt.

| — | For the Target Asset: a logistics building with a rental area of 26 408 sq. metres in Hamburg, Germany. |
| --- | --- |

—

For the Target Asset: a logistics building with a rental area of 26 408 sq. metres in Hamburg, Germany.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10410 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Target Asset in Hamburg

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6341

WILLIAM M. BAILEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA94-3620-WMN)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 10, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William M. Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bossee, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Bailey v. Corcoran, No. CA-94-3620-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 29, 1996). 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. The motion for

appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

ALIEN TECHNOLOGY, LL C, Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

INTERMEC, INC., INTERMEC IP CO RP.,
INTERMEC TECHNOLOGIE S CORP., Defendants

- Appellants

______________________

2018

- 1727

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of North Dakota in No. 3:06

- cv

- 00051

- DLH

- ARS, Chief Judge Da niel L. Hovland.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

T ED G. D ANE , Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff

- appellee. Also represented by

E LIZABETH L AUGHTON

.

D OUGLAS L. S AWYER , Perkins Coie, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendants

- appellants. Also represented by

M ARK T. S MITH ; D AN L. B AGATELL , Hanover, NH.

______________________T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (C HEN

, H UGHES

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 17, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court