alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 8.1****LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES**     The table below sets forth our significant subsidiaries, all of which are 100% owned by JamesHardie Industries N.V., either directly or indirectly.   **Name of Company** **Jurisdictionof Establishment**James Hardie Aust Holdings Pty Ltd. AustraliaJames Hardie Austgroup Pty Ltd. AustraliaJames Hardie Australia Management Pty Ltd. AustraliaJames Hardie Australia Pty Ltd. AustraliaJames Hardie Building Products Inc. United StatesJames Hardie Europe B.V. NetherlandsJames Hardie Fibre Cement Pty Ltd. AustraliaJames Hardie International Finance B.V. NetherlandsJames Hardie International Finance Holdings Sub I B.V NetherlandsJames Hardie International Finance Holdings Sub II B.V NetherlandsJames Hardie International Holdings B.V. NetherlandsJames Hardie N.V. NetherlandsJames Hardie New Zealand Limited New ZealandJames Hardie Philippines Inc. PhilippinesJames Hardie Research (Holdings) Pty Ltd. AustraliaJames Hardie U.S. Investments Sierra Inc. United StatesN.V. Technology Holdings A Limited Partnership AustraliaRCI Pty Ltd. Australia
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHARLES JACOBS, KIMBERLY JACOBS, and SOLAR SPORTSYSTEMS, INC.
, Appellant s ,

v.

PALM BEACH POLO AND COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; PALM BEACH POLO HOLDINGS, INC.; FAR NIENTE STABLES II, LLC; POLO FIELD ONE, LLC; STADIUM NORTH,

LLC; STADIUM SOUTH, LLC; PALM BEACH POLO, INC.; and SAL V.

SPANO , Appellee s

.

No. 4D 18

- 2492

[ October 17, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Lisa S. Small , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2012

- CA

- 002417

- XXXX

- MB

.

James M. McCann and Tracy T. Segal of Akerman, LLP, West Palm Beach; and Jeffrey S. B ass and Katherine R. Maxwell of Shubin & Bass, P.A., Miami, for appellants.

Daniel S. Rosenbaum, Misti Z. Barnett and Dina L. Rosenbaum of Rosenbaum PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN
, C IKLIN and G ERBER , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-87352) pertaining to the WinsLoew Furniture, Inc. 
1994 Stock Option Plan of WinsLoew Furniture, Inc. of our report dated January 
29, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of WinsLoew 
Furniture, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for 
the year ended December 31, 1998.


         Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of WinsLoew
Furniture, Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Birmingham, Alabama
March 24, 1999
Order entered January 24 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 20 - 00024 - CV IN RE JOSHUA LAPAUL WALTON, Relator O riginal Proceeding from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 15 - 19709



### O RDER Before Justices Schenck, Partida

- Kipness, and Nowell Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we D ISMISS this original proceeding.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO HARRIS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

T. FELKER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-15884

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-02084-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 16, 2012

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner-appellant Antonio Harris appeals the district court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his California conviction for firstdegree murder with a robbery-murder special circumstance, Cal. Penal Code

§ 190.2(d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 

FILED

FEB 22 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1 We do not decide whether Harris alleges a violation of clearly

established Supreme Court law, as required to obtain habeas relief under § 2254(d),

because the issue has not been raised, and, regardless, Harris’s claim fails on the

merits.

2 Harris also appears to argue that the trial court’s admission of his third

statement was itself improper because, as the State concedes, the sole purpose of

the interview was to preserve Harris’s confession without implicating Lockhart. 

However, the Supreme Court has never held that such interview tactics are

unconstitutional, and Harris has provided nothing to suggest that his third

statement was not knowing and voluntary. 

2

Harris claims that his constitutional right to present a complete defense to

the special circumstance allegation was violated by the trial court’s denial of his

severance motion and exclusion of two of his three pretrial statements to the

police.1

 The exclusion of Harris’s first two statements to the police did not result

in prejudice great enough to render the trial “fundamentally unfair.” See Grisby v.

Blodgett, 130 F.3d 365, 370 (9th Cir. 1997). Contrary to Harris’s assertion,

nothing in the third statement suggests that Harris was the shooter or implies that

Harris knew that co-defendant Eric Lockhart was armed.2

 

Even if there were error, the trial court’s decision to try Harris and Lockhart

jointly and admit only Harris’s third statement did not have a “‘substantial and

injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Pulido v. Chrones,

629 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S.

619, 623 (1993)), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 338 (2011). The excluded statements
3

would not have provided an adequate defense to the special circumstance

allegation. If anything, they actually would have supported the finding of guilt. 

There was sufficient evidence in the record as a whole to justify the jury’s verdict,

and the admission of Harris’s other two statements would not have altered the

result.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 10.3**

 

**DISTRIBUTIONRIGHTS AGREEMENT**

 

**THIS AGREEMENT,**made this 1st day of July 2004 by and between PTPacific Image Internasional (First Party) and Amerikal NutraceuticalCorporation (Second Party)

 

**WITNESSETH**That in consideration of the mutual covenantsand agreement to be kept and performed on the part of said parties hereto,respectively as herein stated, the First Party does hereby covenant and agreethat it shall

 

I               Allow the SecondParty to sell their products in Indonesia using the approved permit from theIndonesian Health Department.

 

II             And said party ofthe second part covenants and agrees that it shall: Make the payment ofUS$300,000 for the usage of the permits for a period of three (3) yearsfrom the signing of this agreement.

 

III            Either party mayterminate this agreement with a notice of thirty (30) days and both partiesagree that in the event of an early termination all funds paid shall be “asearned” and shall not be due any refund.  Upon the effective date of termination of thisagreement the parties further agree that no future payments shall be made andneither party shall have any liability to the other.

 

This agreement shall be binding upon theparties, their successors, assigns and personal representatives. Time is of theessence on all undertakings. This agreement shall be enforced under the laws ofIndonesia. This document constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes anyprior agreements.

 

Signed the day and year first written above.

 

 
| /s/ [ILLEGIBLE] | [SEAL] |   |   |
|-----------------|--------|--------|--------|
| First Party     |   |
|            |   |
|            |   |
| /s/ [ILLEGIBLE] |   |   |
| Second Party    |   |

 

----
#### Brian Rauls, Respondent, v DirecTv, Inc., Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 377]-

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered April 29, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted in its entirety, the judgment entered November 27, 2007 is vacated in its entirety, and defendant is granted 20 days from service of the order of this Court with notice of entry to serve and file an answer.

*1338Memorandum: Defendant contends on appeal that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of its motion pursuant to CPLR *5015*(a) (1) seeking, inter alia, *to*vacate the default judgment entered against it with respect to the Labor Law § 240 claim. We agree. A defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment on the ground of excusable default “is required to establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense” *(Genesee Mgt. v Barrette,*4 AD3d 874, 875 [2004]; *see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). We note at the outset with respect to defendant’s reasonable excuse for the default that the court granted those parts of defendant’s motion concerning vacatur of the default judgment with respect to other claims. We thus conclude that the court thereby implicitly determined that defendant’s same excuse for the default is equally applicable with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and thus is equally reasonable.

We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in determining that defendant failed to establish that it has a meritorious defense to the Labor Law § 240 claim. To be liable under Labor Law § 240 as a general contractor, defendant must have been “responsible for the coordination and execution of all the work at the worksite” *(Feltt v Owens,*247 AD2d 689, 691 [1998]; *see also Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son,*54 NY2d 311, 316 [1981]). Here, defendant submitted evidence in support of its motion establishing that plaintiffs employer was an independent contractor with full control over the installation of defendant’s satellite system equipment. We thus conclude that defendant raised a meritorious defense to the action, i.e., that it was not acting as a general contractor at the site where plaintiff was injured *(see generally Feltt,*247 AD2d at 691). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.
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 Republic Airways Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph P. Allman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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 at the end of, and for the period covered by the Report.








By:/s/ Joseph P. AllmanSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerApril 29, 2016








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 29326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13558]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 22, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Cynthia C. Goodwin, Vice 
President) 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Financial Investors of the South, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama; to 
acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Capital Bank, Montgomery, 
Alabama (in organization).
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. Geneva State Company, Geneva, Nebraska; to acquire 73 percent of 
the voting shares of Grafton State Bank, Grafton, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 24, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-13558 Filed 5-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Maurico Pastor Lopez RODRIGUEZ, also known as Maurico Lopez, also known as Geronimo Romero, also known as Maurico Pastor Lopez, also known as Mauricio Lopez-Rodriguez, also known as Rodolfo Juan Lopez, also known as Rudolfo Juan Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-20610

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 4, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andrew J. Williams, Kingwood, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Maurico Pastor Lopez Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. Calif*
      *352
      *ornia,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Rodriguez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
! "!#$%&$#'!#(&)*(#"  +(#&"!##,"!# &	"-.#!$%/000000000000000000000000000

&+$!1$#!0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  2%!+$($ 3	 2 3	 34%$(!#5!%,$%%6"7 2%!+3$#-''8""8,,/000000000002%!+3(&.#!

4	292:;94 4%$(!#!%,$%%6".&*'((!7

&+$!1$#!*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

NTPDFC>SE@AC>EBUVW=XYZQ>=[DF\>  GHIJ]ILDM

UVW=X^_>?\>FC`YZQ>=[DF\>   GHIJ]IL[M

 *%*'&(00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  

64&"*#4%$(!#!%,.&"*#.&*'((!7

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJaLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JadLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFUeDO=QDccGHIJaLTM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJdLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JadLfM

SEP>QW>?APD@AP>g?ETZC@SE@ABACD@AEF  GHIJ]aLDM

UeDOUZf_AccAEFGdhJR

  $%4&"*#$'i0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

4&"*#&'($!"	!"#!(-.&"*#&%$#"*%($!"*%<'!"'!#(/

=>?@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJKLDM

=>?@ABACD@AEFU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>c   GH]JaHLDM

W>QAc@AF\LSEXO>FVF@>?>c@M   GHIJKLDM

NOO?EPDQ     GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQjDT>NPDAQDfQ>@Ek?DT>W>@>?_AFD@AEF GHIJRLDM

NOO?EPDQU>CZ?A@`bZ@Z?>cGH]JaHLfM

NOO?EPDQN_>FT_>F@c@E>FZ_>?D@>TD\?ACZQ@Z?DQO?ETZC@cGHIJHLDMlGHIJRLDM

mSEFnjD@>?ADQN\?ACZQ@Z?DQYZQ>=[DF\>oGHIJHLfMLRM

SE@ABACD@AEF     GHIJKLTM

  $%$'-(/ 4&"*#-(/< #"i000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*%*'&(0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

pqrstuvwsxyqz{{|

}

~qrv|qrvsx



}

~xqqrsqrsr|
Exhibit 32


Certifications of


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


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 Micrel, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Raymond D. Zinn, 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 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.    That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:April 24, 2015By/s/ Raymond D. ZinnRaymond D. ZinnPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)








In connection with the Annual Report of Micrel, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. DeBarr, 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 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.    That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:April 24, 2015By/s/ Robert E. DeBarrRobert E. DeBarrChief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance and Human Resources(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **2** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **New York Mercantile     Exchange (NYME)** |
|--|----------------------------------------------|

| DATE: |  | 4/12/02 | FR PAGE: |  | N/A | PAGES: |  | 5 | PDF SIZE: | 354 KB | PDF LINK: | /files/foia/ |
|-------|--|---------|----------|--|-----|--------|--|---|-----------|--------|-----------|--------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DOCUMENT: | **CL** | **1** |
|-----------|--------|-------|

|  | **International Petroleum     Exchange (IPE)** |
|--|-------------------------------------------------|

| DATE: |  | 4/12/02 | FR PAGE: |  | N/A | PAGES: |  | 3 | PDF SIZE: | 129 KB | PDF LINK: | /files/foia/ |
|-------|--|---------|----------|--|-----|--------|--|---|-----------|--------|-----------|--------------|

|  | **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

First
Previous
Next
Last
#### Sanjay Kirtibh SHAH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-60129

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 9, 2006.

Imran B. Mirza, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Kenneth Pasquerell, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, San Antonio, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors *435Office, New Orleans, LA, Jerel Lee Ellington, U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resource, Denver, CO, for Respondent.

Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sanjay Kirtibh Shah petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Shah contends that he is entitled to asylum and asserts that the immigration judge erred in determining that there were no changed country conditions so as to excuse the untimeliness of his asylum application. We do not, however, have jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s discretionary determination that Shah’s asylum application was untimely. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). The petition for review is thus DISMISSED as to the claims concerning asylum.

The IJ’s conclusion that Shaw was ineligible for withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence. The evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Shah has not shown that he will be singled out for persecution if he returns or that there is a pattern or practice of discrimination against Muslims. *See*8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1), (2); *see Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir.2005).

Shah does not argue in his brief that he was due relief under the CAT. As such, the claim is waived. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Shah’s petition for review is DENIED IN PART.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Andrade, Appellant.

Submitted May 24, 2010;

decided June 3, 2010

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.