alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SCHAAD, Respondent, v. EDEBOHLS, Appellant.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

July 2, 1894.)

Action by Leocadia Schaad against George M. Edebohls. Purrington & Shannon, for appellant. G. B. Boyd, for respondent.

FREEDMAN, J.

The complaint states but one cause of action, and it is sufficiently definite and certain. If the defendant had complained of the prolixity and redundancy of the complaint, he might have have met with better success. What he really sought to obtain was the particulars of certain allegations, and his remedy for that purpose was by motion for a bill of particulars. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
| (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/  Patrick J.      Byrne                 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|            Patrick J. Byrne |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer                              |   |
| May 1,      2009                                     |   |
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

WILLIAMS

- PYRO, INC.,

Appellant and Cross

- Appellee,

v.

RHONDA BARBOUR,

Appellee and Cross

- Appellant. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00355

- CV

Appeal from

153rd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 153

- 223671

- 07)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that

Appellee/Cross

- Appellant recover from Appellant/Cross

- Appellee and its sureties , if any, see

T EX .R.A PP .P. 43.5, on the judgment and all costs, both in this Court and the court below for

which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.

Antcliff, J., not participating
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7373

DAVID BRIGHTWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW MOULTRIE, Doctor; JOHN MOSS, P. A.; DAMON FAYALL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-01520-DKC)

Submitted: January 16, 2014 Decided: January 22, 2014

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Brightwell, Appellant Pro Se. Michelle Jacquelyn 

Marzullo, Richard P. Seitz, MARKS, O’NEILL, O’BRIEN, DOHERTY & 

KELLY, P.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Brightwell appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing his 

civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Brightwell v. Moultrie, No. 8:12-cv01520-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2013). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 23.1




Richardson & Company                                 550 Howe Avenue, Suite 210
                                                   Sacramento, California 95825

                                                      Telephone: (916) 564-8727
                                                            FAX: (916) 564-8728



                              CONSENT OF RICHARDSON & COMPANY


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) (SEC File Number 333-62294)  pertaining to the Sonoma Valley Bancorp's 1996
Stock Option Plan as amended in April 1999 and the Registration  Statement (Form
S-8) (SEC File Number 333-88610)  pertaining to the Sonoma Valley Bancorp's 2002
Equity  Incentive  Plan of our report dated January 29, 2004 with respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements  of Sonoma  Valley  Bancorp  and  Subsidiary
included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended  December 31, 2003,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                              /s/ Richardson & Company
                                              Richardson & Company
Sacramento, California
March 22, 2004
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Robert T. Faber, certify that:
     1. Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of GoldSpring, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.                                                       /s/ robert t. faber   Robert T. Faber   *President and Chief Executive Officer*   
Date: June 17, 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**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));                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: April                12, 2006 |                                                                   | /s/ ROBERT                T. FABER            |
|                                     | Robert                T. Faber*Chief                Financial Officer* |

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ROLLIN LEE SPENCER, a.k.a. Spence 

Leigh Roland, a.k.a. Steven L. Spencer, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30115 

D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00005-TMB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Rollin Lee Spencer appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the revocation of his supervised release and the 24-month sentence 

imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

Spencer’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-30115 

with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Spencer has filed a pro se 

supplemental brief. No answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

All remaining requests for relief, including those contained in Spencer’s 

January 22, 2018, letter to the court, are DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: February 9, 2017 1 06431B

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MICHAEL L. STEVENS, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 11, 2017 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Aarons, JJ.

__________ G. Scott Walling, Schenectady, for appellant. Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton (Stephen Ferri of counsel), for respondent.

__________ McCarthy, J.P. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Cawley, J.), rendered July 23, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and the plea agreement included the waiver of the right to appeal. County Court thereafter sentenced him to five years in prison, to be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals. 1

1 Although defendant's notice of appeal contains an error in the crime of conviction, we will overlook the error and treat-2- 106431B

We affirm. Initially, the People concede, and we agree, that defendant did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). As to defendant's contention that the sentence is harsh and excessive due to the period of postrelease supervision imposed, we are unpersuaded. The term of postrelease supervision imposed was less than the maximum permitted by statute (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [1] [a]; 70.80 [1] [b]; 70.45 [2-a] [f]). Further, having reviewed the record, and taking into consideration the seriousness of his crime, we discern neither an abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Taft, 115 AD3d 1095, 1095 [2014]; People v McCombs, 83 AD3d 1296, 1296 [2011]). Garry, Lynch, Rose and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court

the notice of appeal as valid (see CPL 460.10; People v Saunders, 127 AD3d 1420, 1420 n [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 935 [2015]).
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT RICHARD DON CUTHBERTSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4414 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Joseph A. Bulone, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See §§ 775.084(1)(d)(1)(a), 776.08, Fla. Stat. (2014); Johnson v. State, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011); Young v. State, 739 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1999); Zink v. State, 951 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Bizzell v. State, 912 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Greenlee v. State, 591 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Curi v. State, 36 So. 3d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Ubilla v. State, 8 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Cala v. State, 854 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003).

MORRIS, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-3007
SALLY N. NOVERAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BON SECOURS HOSPITAL, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-3319-HAR) Submitted: March 19, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sally N. Noveras, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Stewart Wescott, ASTROTH, SEROTTE & ROCKMAN, 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 granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment in Appellant's action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-2, -3, -5 (West 1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Noveras v. Bon Secours Hospital , No. CA-94-3319-HAR (D. Md. Oct. 27, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angelo Martinez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered June 1, 1987, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined his alibi witness with regard to the witness’s silence during the four years between the incident and the trial *(see, People v Dawson,*50 NY2d 311). The defendant complains that the trial court erred by failing to *sua sponte*call for a bench conference to ascertain the basis for the alibi witness’s failure to go to the police and that he was prejudiced by the cross-examination and the prosecutor’s comments on that testimony during summation. We find that no error was committed.

There was no objection to the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant’s alibi witness as to his failure to relate his exculpatory evidence to the police or to the District Attorney’s office, nor was any objection made to the related comment in the prosecutor’s summation. Consequently, these *958asserted errors are unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Williams,*70 NY2d 946; *People v Kittles,*124 AD2d 826). The defendant also did not request curative instructions on the subject and, therefore, cannot complain that the court failed to give one *(see, People v Payne,*50 NY2d 867).

In any event, the record reveals that the prosecutor laid a proper foundation and was, therefore, entitled to cross-examine the witness on his failure to come forward before trial with exculpatory evidence *(see, People v Dawson, supra,*at 321). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nelson Guzman, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered on October 3, 1986, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Asch, Milonas and Wallach, JJ.
CONSENT OF SELIGSON & GIANNATTASIO, LLP

      We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 24,
2006, except to Note 3 as to which the date is April 14, 2007, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of DCI USA, Inc. as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2005 included in its Annual Report (Form
10-KSB)
 for the year ended December 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.



Seligson & Giannattasio, LLP
White Plains, New York
May 2, 2007
- Home
- Visiting Capitol Hill
- Official Business

# Deliveries to Capitol Hill

All delivery vehicles are required to report to the U.S. Capitol Police's Off-Site Delivery Center located at 4700 Shepherd Parkway, SW, Washington, D.C., for inspections before proceeding to the U.S. Capitol Complex. 

Following inspection, delivery vehicles will proceed to the U.S. Capitol Grounds via the designated access point as directed by the Off-Site Delivery Center. No deliveries will be accepted at any location/loading dock unless the vehicles have been processed at the Off-Site Delivery Center.

In order to gain access to the loading docks for the U.S. Capitol, the House and Senate Office Buildings, and the Library of Congress buildings, the delivery company and driver are required to have a letter on file with the U.S. Capitol Police. The letter must be on company letterhead accompanied by signature of the owner, president, or manager. Please print or type the names in alphabetical order of persons requesting access. Requests for access must be renewed every year and should contain the following information:
                  - Name of the company
                  - Name of the drivers/employees requiring access
                  - Social Security Number for each driver/employee
                  - Date of Birth for each driver/employee
                  - Driver's License number
                  - Vehicle information (make, model, year, state, and license plate number)
                  - Building(s) to be accessed
                  - Expected delivery date and time
                  - Recipient's contact information, including their name, phone number, and organization (e.g., Member of Congress, Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms, etc.)    		​​​​​​​ Note: the Receiving POC must send an email to OSDCAdmin@uscp.gov to verify the company's delivery request is valid, before the company's letter will be processed.

The above information should be emailed to OSDCAdmin@USCP.gov.	The operating hours are Monday – Friday, 4:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Any questions can be directed to the Off-Site Delivery Center during business hours at (202) 224-0202.

## Visiting Capitol Hill

              - Visitor Information
              - Official Business
              - Activities Requiring Permits
              - Regulations & Prohibitions
EXHIBIT
      32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications




The
      undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
      the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Shandong Zhouyuan
      Seed and Nursery Co., Ltd.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Shandong Zhouyuan Seed and Nursery Co., Ltd., and will be retained by Shandong
      Zhouyuan Seed and Nursery Co., Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.


October
                      21, 2008
                
                
                /s/
                    Wang ZhigangWang
                      Zhigang (Chief Executive
                      Officer)
 October
                    21, 2008
              
              
              /s/
                    Zhang ChunmanZhang
                      Chunman (Chief Financial
                      Officer)