alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Aaron L. Grober, Appellant, v George Busigo, Respondent.

—In an action on an account stated, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), entered May 13, 1986, which, *sua sponte,*dismissed the action and directed the plaintiff’s attorney to pay $250 costs to the defendant.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order dismissing the plaintiff’s action with prejudice and assessing costs resulted from the plaintiff’s default in appearing at a pretrial conference pursuant to a direction contained in a prior order, dated April 18, 1986. No appeal lies from an order or judgment entered upon the default of the aggrieved party *(see,*CPLR 5511; *Boylan v Health Ins. Plan,*74 AD2d 835, 836; *Wolfensteller v Frank,*50 AD2d 846), and the plaintiff should have sought to open the default by moving in the Supreme Court to vacate the order in question *(see, Imor v Imor,*114 AD2d 552). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
T.C. Memo. 2006-266 UNITED STATES TAX COURT CURR-SPEC PARTNERS, LP, CURR-SPEC MANAGERS, LLC,

TAX MATTERS PARTNER, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 1350-05. Filed December 14, 2006. 

## This opinion was withdrawn by order dated January 3, 2007.
Exhibit
99.4  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
ACCOUNTANTS  We
hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of
Hydrogenics Corporation of our Auditors Report and our Comments by Auditors on
Canada - United States Reporting Differences dated March 2, 2005 relating
to its consolidated balance sheets as at December 31, 2004 and its
consolidated statements of operation and deficit and cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2004, which appear in this
Annual Report on Form 40-F.   /s/
  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPChartered
  AccountantsToronto,
  OntarioMarch 2,
  2005
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 Annual Report of China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  David She, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:
September 30, 2010





/s/
      David SheDavid
      She, Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21472]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9975]



[[Page 21472]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[T-W-37,387]


Timbergon, Redmond, Oregon; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on February 28, 2000 in response to a worker petition 
which was filed on behalf of workers at Timbergon, Redmond, Oregon.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 6th day of April, 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-9975 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Exhibit
  12.1

HOLMES
  FUNDING LIMITED
  ABBEY NATIONAL HOUSE 
  2 TRITON SQUARE, REGENTS PLACE 
  LONDON NW1 3AN

I, Martin McDermott, certify
  that:

1.   I
  have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on Form 6-K containing
  distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the
  year covered by this annual report, of HOLMES FINANCING (NO. 9) PLC;

2.   Based
  on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not
  contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
  fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
  which such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period
  covered by this annual report;

3.   Based
  on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided
  to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
  agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4.   Based
  on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in the report
  and required to be delivered to Holmes Funding Limited in accordance with the
  terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and except as disclosed
  in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
  agreement; and

5.   The
  reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicers
  compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
  by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
  with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
  procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,
  that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications
  above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following
  unaffiliated parties: Abbey National plc.

Date: June 27, 2006

|/s/
      Martin McDermott             | 
|-------------------------------------- | 
|                                       | 
|Martin
      McDermott                 | 
|Director,
      Holmes Funding Limited | 

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rubin L. Rawls, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]). On appeal, he claims that the jury verdict was contrary to the weight of evidence. We have exercised our independent review powers *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490) and conclude that his claim is without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — assault, first degree, and another charge.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
# Waiver and Certification of Statutory Provisions Regarding the Palestine Liberation Organization

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority and conditions contained in section 538(d) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law 106-429, I hereby determine and certify that it is important to the national security interests of the United States to waive the provisions of section 1003 of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987, Public Law 100-204.

                    This waiver shall be effective for a period of 6 months from the date hereof. You are hereby authorzed and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and to publish in in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 01-10261

Billing code 4710-10-M
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1579

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, LINK SIMULATION & TRAINING DIVISION,

Appellant,

v.

Michael B. Donley, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in no. 54920,

Administrative Judge Monroe E. Freeman, Jr.

ON MOTION

Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

L-3 Communications Corporation, Link Simulation & Training Division moves for

reconsideration of the court's order dismissing its appeal as untimely_

Upon consideration thereof

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is denied.

FOR THE COURT

MAY -1 2009

Date

cc:	Roy A. Klein, Esq.

Matthew H. Solomson, Esq.

s8

/s/ Jan Horbalv 

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

MAY -1 2009

Jegi

CLERK
#### Adan Osbel DE LEON-CALDERON; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-71234.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 26, 2011.

Adan Osbel De Leon-Calderon, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

OIL, Nairi Mary Simonian, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Adan Osbel De Leon-Calderon and his family, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying De Leon-Calderon’s application for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that De Leon-Calderon did not establish eligibility for NACARA relief. *See Lanuza v. Holder,*597 F.3d 970, 972 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (this court lacks jurisdiction to determine petitioner’s statutory eligibility for NACARA § 203 relief); *see also*Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, § 309(c)(5)(C)(ii), Pub.L. No. 104-208 (“A determination by the Attorney General as to whether an alien satisfies the requirement of clause (i) is final and shall not be subject to review by any court”), *as amended by*NACARA, Pub.L. No. 105-100 (1997).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Motion Granted in Part and Denied in Part, Appeal Dismissed, and 

Memorandum Opinion filed August 23, 2016.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-16-00017-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.V.S.J. AND D.E.K.J., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 309th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-44247 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

This is an appeal from an order modifying the parent-child relationship 

signed September 18, 2015. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack 

of jurisdiction and for damages under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45. The 

motion has been on file for more than 10 days, and no response has been filed. 

Appellant Barbara Ulmer timely filed a motion for new trial on October 16, 

2015. The notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days after the judgment is 

signed when appellant has filed a timely post-judgment motion. See Tex. R. App. 
2

P. 26.1(a). Therefore, the notice of appeal was due December 17, 2015. Appellant 

did not file her notice of appeal until January 6, 2016. 

A motion for extension of time a notice of appeal is necessarily implied 

when an appellant, acting in good faith, files the notice of appeal beyond the time 

allowed by Rule 26.1, but within the 15-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 

for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

617–18 (Tex. 1997). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15-day 

period provided by Rule 26.3. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 45, a court of appeals may—on 

motion of any party or on its own initiative, after notice and a reasonable 

opportunity for response—award “just damages” as a sanction if it determines that 

an appeal is frivolous. Tex. R. App. P. 45; Lane-Valente Indus. (Nat’l), Inc. v. J.P. 

Morgan Chase, N.A., 468 S.W.3d 200, 206 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2015, no pet.). We may award just damages under Rule 45 if, after considering 

everything in our file, we make an objective determination that the appeal is 

frivolous. Riggins v. Hill, 461 S.W.3d 577, 583 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2014, pet. denied). Rule 45 does not require that a court award sanctions after 

every frivolous appeal; rather, the imposition of sanctions is a discretionary 

decision exercised with prudence and caution and only after careful deliberation. 

Lane-Valente, 468 S.W.3d at 206. 

We conclude that damages under Rule 45 are not warranted in this case, and 

we deny appellee’s motion. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, the 

motion for damages is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally, and Wise.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd Marsh, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered January 3, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the People, the evidence in this case is sufficient to sustain the conviction, inasmuch as rr *'any*rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime[s] beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621; quoting from *Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319; *see also, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932). The evidence supports the jury’s rejection of the defense of justification *(see, People v Maldonado,*121 AD2d 400).

Further, in view of the nature of the offense, we cannot say that Criminal Term’s denial of youthful offender treatment constituted an abuse of discretion *(see, People v Selg,*110 AD2d 918; *People v Parris,*109 AD2d 853). Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Hooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 amended  Annual  Report of Cyber Defense  Systems,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the period ending December 31, 2004
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Amended  Report"),  I, William C.  Robinson,  CEO, CFO,  Chairman and Principal
Executive,  Financial and  Accounting  Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

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

                                             CYBER DEFENSE SYSTEMS, INC.

                                             By: /s/ William C. Robinson
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 William C. Robinson
                                                 CEO, CFO, Chairman and
                                                 Principal Executive, Financial
                                                 and Accounting Officer

                                                        May 19, 2005
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 Pinnacle Resources, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Glen R. Gamble, Chief Executive 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) 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/Glen R. Gamble
-----------------------------
Glen R. Gamble
Chief Executive Officer

February 19, 2004





        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 Pinnacle Resources, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Robert A. Hildebrand, 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) 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/Robert A. Hildebrand
-----------------------------
Robert A. Hildebrand
Chief Financial Officer

February 19, 2004
Exhibit
      32.1 Section
      906 Certification




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 of Nutra Pharma Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rik J. Deitsch, Chief
      Executive Officer 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:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Rik
              J.
              DeitschRik
              J. DeitschChief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate: April 17, 2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. RP00-495-000 and RP01-97-000]

                    On August 16, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) made a filing in Docket No. RP00-495-000 to comply with Order No. 637. Several parties have protested various aspects of Texas Gas's filing. Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various issues raised by Texas Gas's filing will be held on May 24, 2001, beginning at 9 a.m. in room 3M-2A&B at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Persons protesting aspects of Texas                           ( print page 20797)                        Gas's filing should be prepared to answer questions and discuss alternatives. Issues pertaining to Texas Gas's filing in Docket No. RP01-97-000 may also be discussed.                

All interested persons are permitted to attend. The issues to be discussed will include, but are not limited to:

                    A.                     *Penalties*

                    B.                     *Segmentation*

                    C.                     *Flexible Point Rights*

                    D.                     *Imbalance Services*

                    E.                     *OFOs*

                    F.                     *Discount Policy Regarding Changed Receipt and Delivery Points*

                    G.                     *The Location in Texas Gas's tariff of the provisions pertaining to the above issues*

Texas Gas should provide a system map for use at the conference.

The above schedule may be changed as circumstances warrant.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10195  Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
J-A24009-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

CARLOS J. F. FIGUEROA-FAGOT

Appellant No. 1270 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 4, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009312-2012

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 14, 2015

I dissent. I would affirm the three convictions. The trial court opinion 

ably addresses the issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, I would affirm the 

judgment of sentence based on Judge Dubow’s well-written opinion. See 

Trial Court Opinion, 10/31/14, at 1-9, 12-14. 

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
#### CAMPBELL v. FRIEDLANDER et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

June 18, 1894.)

Demurrer—When not Frivolous.

A demurrer which presents questions which fairly admit debate is not frivolous.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Samuel J. Campbell against Albert Friedlander and Marcus Marks. Prom an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint as frivolous, defendants appeal.

Reversed.

Argued before BROWE, P. J., and DYKMAE and CULLER, JJ.

Spiegelberg & Wise, for appellants.

Charles S. Simpkins, for respondent.

CULLEN, J.

We think that the demurrer of the defendant presented questions which fairly admitted debate, and hence it was not frivolous. The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.