alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A92A0982.

#### MARSHALL v. THE STATE.

(422 SE2d 677)

Decided September 8, 1992

Reconsideration denied September 23, 1992.

*Charles R. Sheppard,*for appellant.

*Michael C. Eubanks, District Attorney, Richard E. Thomas, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Carley, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of sale of cocaine, sale of quinine, and giving a false name to an officer. The trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentences on the jury’s verdicts on October 31, 1990. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on November 27, 1990. On November 15, 1991, however, appellant “dismissed” his motion for new trial and filed his notice of appeal on the same date.

“As [appellant] voluntarily abandoned his motion for new trial and there is no order of the court disposing of the motion nor any order granting an extension of time or a delayed appeal, there is no extension beyond the 30 days permitted after entry of the judgment. Therefore the appeal must be dismissed for failure to timely file [a] notice of appeal.” *Taylor v. State,*173 Ga. App. 745 (327 SE2d 860) (1985). Compare *Ailion v. Wade,*190 Ga. App. 151, 153 (2) (378 SE2d 507) (1989).

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Pope and Johnson, JJ., concur.*
Instructions, Form 318

December 1, 2017

DISCHARGE OF THE DEBTOR – CHAPTER 7

General Information

The discharge is a court order that grants a discharge of debts to the person named as the 

debtor. Official Form 318 covers only an individual or joint debtor(s) in a chapter 7 case. There 

are other procedural forms issued by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United 

States Courts for use in cases filed in chapter 12 and chapter 13 cases. 

The effect of a discharge order is to free the debtor of any personal liability for most 

debts that arose before the bankruptcy case was filed. It is not a dismissal of the case, and it does 

not determine how much money, if any, the trustee will pay to creditors. The clerk will prepare 

the order of discharge in the case. 

Applicability of Rule 9009(a)

Rule 9009(a) provides that “[t]the Official Forms prescribed by the Judicial Conference 

of the United States shall be used without alteration, except as otherwise provided ... in the 

national instructions for a particular Official Form.” 

Alterations may be made to this form.
#### In the Matter of Barbara Mueller, Respondent, v Christoph Mueller, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 503]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Cheng, J.), dated June 8, 2011, which *949denied his motion, in effect, to enjoin the wife from filing any further petitions pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act without prior judicial approval, except by motion or application for judicial action made on notice to the husband.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the husband’s motion, in effect, to enjoin the wife from filing any further petitions pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act without prior judicial approval, except by motion or application for judicial action made on notice to the husband, is granted.

Although public policy generally mandates free access to the courts (see *Board of Educ. of Farmingdale Union Free School Dist. v Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Assn., Local 1889, AFT AFL-CIO,*38 NY2d 397, 404 [1975]), a party may forfeit that right if he or she abuses the judicial process by engaging in meritless litigation motivated by spite or ill will *(see Matter of Reiss v Giraldo,*77 AD3d 759 [2010]; *Matter of Molinari v Tuthill,*59 AD3d 722, 723 [2009]).

Here, the Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the husband’s motion, in effect, to enjoin the wife from filing any further petitions pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act without prior judicial approval, except by motion or application for judicial action made on notice to the husband. Between 2007 and 2010, the wife obtained six ex parte temporary orders of protection against the husband, and none of the Family Court Act article 8 petitions that the wife filed against the husband were ever sustained. While Family Court Act § 828 (3) permits the court to issue a temporary order of protection ex parte or on notice, the record supports the husband’s contention that the wife obtained the ex parte temporary orders of protection “based on unsubstantiated allegations of abuse” *(Matter of Taub v Taub,*94 AD3d 901, 902 [2012]). Should the wife actually be the victim of a family offense, she is free to obtain police assistance or an order of protection on notice *(id.).*Accordingly, the husband’s motion should have been granted. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals. 

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number:

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 11/5/2015 10:29:38 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                                  CERTIFICATION


         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),  each
of the undersigned  officers of NOVADEL PHARMA INC., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to the best of such officer's  knowledge and
belief, that:


         (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30,
2003 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 Form 10-QSB fairly  presents,  in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:   June 18, 2003                    /s/ GARY A/ SHANGOLD, M.D.
                                          -----------------------------------
                                              Gary A. Shangold, M.D.
                                          President & Chief Executive Officer


Dated:   June 18, 2003                    /s/ DONALD J. DEITMAN
                                         ------------------------------------
                                              Donald J. Deitman
                                           Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 
897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether an 
instrument of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which 
the instrument shown below is intended to be used, is being 
manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the 
regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import 
Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. 
Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 4211, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 01-009. Applicant: University of Virginia, 
Department of Psychology, 102 Gilmer Hall, P. O. Box 400400, 
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4400. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 
JEM-1010. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan.
    Intended Use: The instrument is intended to be used for 
ultrastructural examination of animal or postmortem human neural 
material prepared for basic neurobiology research and teaching 
purposes. In addition, the instrument will be used in training graduate 
and undergraduate students on ultrastructural approaches in 
neurobiology. Application accepted by Commissioner of Customs: April 2, 
2001.

Gerald A. Zerdy,
Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 01-10155 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### In the Matter of Hutzpa Cab Corporation, Appellant. Lillian Roberts, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 30, 1986, which assessed the employer for additional contributions for the period from April 1, 1980 through December 31, 1982.

The decision should be affirmed *(see, Matter of Enelra Cab Corp. [Roberts],*132 AD2d 864). Moreover, we have reviewed the employer’s contention that it was denied a fair hearing because its president was not provided with a translator and find it to be without merit. The record reveals that the employer’s president had no difficulty understanding or answering the questions put to him. Further, no request for a translator was made by the employer’s president.

Decision affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Weiss and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

Afghan Active Group (AAG) ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W91B4N-10-C-8033 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 60387 

Mr. M. Massoud 

Chairman 

Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 

Army Chief Trial Attorney 

MAJ Christopher M. Coy, JA 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR FAIL URE TO PROSECUTE 

By order dated 18 November 2016, we established a schedule for the resolution of 

this appeal. That schedule was issued without appellant making any filing with respect to 

its preferences, as it was invited to do. The 18 November order required appellant to 

submit an opening brief, pursuant to Board Rule 11, on or before 5 May 2017. Appellant 

filed no brief or any other document with the Board and we are aware of no attempts 

made by appellant to communicate with us. On 23 May 2017 we issued an order to 

appellant requiring it, by 2 June 2017, to submit its brief or request additional time to 

submit its brief. This order explained that the silence from appellant since November 

2016 led us to suspect that it had abandoned its appeal, and provided that, if we had no 

response from appellant by the 2 June 2017 deadline, "we may dismiss this appeal for 

failure to prosecute without providing further notice to [appellant]." 

The 2 June 2017 deadline has come and gone with no response, whatsoever, from 

appellant. Thus, in accordance with Board Rule 17, this appeal is dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. 

Dated: I August 2017 

(Signatures continued) 

J.~Y 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

c2-c----------

OWEN WILSON 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60387, Appeal of Afghan Active 

Group (AAG), rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Edward E. PRICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-30027.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 2011.

Robert Stanley Noel, II, Law Office of W. Lee Perkins & Layne M. Adams, Walter Lee Perkins, Jr., Esq., Monroe, LA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Madeleine Mary Slaughter-Young, Assistant District Attorney, Fred Royce McGaha, District Attorney’s Office, Monroe, LA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this habeas corpus action, Edward Price claims an improper strike of a potential juror under *Batson v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). We have read the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have consulted the applicable law and have heard the arguments of counsel. The sole question is whether the magistrate judge committed clear error in making the credibility determination that the state’s jury strikes were not based on race. We conclude that there was no clear error.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under die limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
CORE PRINCIPLES FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT (CJA) PANEL MANAGEMENT

AND ADMINISTRATION

At its December 2003 meeting, the Committee on Defender Services unanimously

endorsed the following“Core Principles for Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Panel Management and

Administration.” The principles were developed through the Defender Services strategic

planning process, building on a study of CJA panel management and administration conducted by

the Vera Institute of Justice, Good Practices for Federal Panel Attorney Programs - A Preliminary

Study of Plans and Practices (December 2002). The Committee was also provided with a

background paper.

(1) Establish a federal defender organization to serve every district

(2) Provide panel attorneys with necessary resources, including local training

(3) Districts should focus on panel organization/reorganization 

(A) Use selection and review committee, including one or more defense attorneys

(B) Conduct regular review of CJA plan

(C) Establish qualifications for eligibility for panel membership

(D) Evaluate utility of specialty panels and establish standards for eligibility

(i) Training panel

(ii) Other specialty panels

(E) Evaluate appropriate panel size

(i) Set fixed number in CJA plan or

(ii) Devise process for determining number

(F) Conduct periodic post-admission review of panel members

(G) Use appointment process that is fair to attorneys and gives due consideration to

matching attorneys with clients

(H) Consider use of administrator/supervisory attorney

(4) Address timeliness of appointment of counsel to:

(A) Assure earliest possible appointment of attorneys and 

(B) Avoid delay in appointing a panel attorney 

(5) Establish a procedure for reconsideration of compensation denials or reductions by the

judge who made the denial or reduction.

[NOTE: The Vera Report was distributed by the Director and the Chair, Committee on Defender

Services, to Chief Judges, United States Courts of Appeals and District Courts, Federal

Public/Community Defenders, members of the Defender Services Committee, and District CJA

Panel Attorney Representatives via a memorandum dated February 28, 2003.]
Exhibit 31.1
------------

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer

            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
             and Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427

I, Qinan Ji, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of China Natural Gas, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report 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 with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation;

      c) disclosed in this report any change in registrant's internal control
over financial reporting the occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: April 16, 2007                              /s/ Qinan Ji
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Qinan Ji
                                                  Principal Executive Officer
#### North American Co. for Life & Health Ins. of N. Y., Appellant, v James W. Pennington et al., Respondents.

— Motion for clarification or modification granted to extent of amending the first sentence of the memorandum decision dated July 10, 1987 [132 AD2d 972] to read as follows: "Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for commissions paid in excess of those provided by the written agreement between the parties and to dismiss defendant’s third and fourth counterclaims should have been granted.” The ordering paragraph of the remittitur order heretofore entered July 10, 1987 is amended to read as follows: "It is hereby ordered, That the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment for commissions paid in excess of those provided by the written agreement and to dismiss defendant’s *548third and fourth counterclaims, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs. Memorandum which is hereby made a part hereof.” Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose De La Rosa, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (West, J.), rendered February 21, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that it is sufficient as a matter of law to support the defendant’s conviction for aiding and abetting in the sale of over nine ounces of cocaine *(see,*Penal Law § 15.05 [2]; §§ 20.00, 220.00 [1]; *People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 381). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we *123are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818, 819) or without merit *(see, People v Carter,*63 NY2d 530, 539; *People v Davis,*44 NY2d 269, 277; *People v Julian,*41 NY2d 340, 342-343; *People v Piazza,*121 AD2d 573, 574, *lv denied*68 NY2d 916). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.