alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Johnson, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 13]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered February 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7x/2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the use of force, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. One of defendant’s accomplices used extensive force against the victim, to a degree that was more than enough to satisfy the statute *(see*Penal Law § 160.00).

Defendant’s objection to the receipt in evidence of a nontestifying codefendant’s plea allocution was insufficiently specific to preserve defendant’s present Confrontation Clause claim, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that although the allocution was inadmissible under *Crawford v Washington*(541 US 36 [2004]), the error was harmless under the standard for constitutional error *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241 [1975]). In this case where defendant was arrested at the scene of a robbery that had been witnessed by a police officer, there was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt and the inadmissible allocution added little to the People’s case.

The record does not establish that defendant’s sentence was based on any improper criteria, and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur — Gonzalez, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
Third Department,

March, 2009

(March 5, 2009)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen L. Kennard, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 507]—

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.), rendered December 13, 2004, 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 with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not greater than 15 years along with five years of postrelease supervision. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant consistent with the plea *1097bargain to 15 years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, arguing only that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive. We disagree, finding neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Frary,*29 AD3d 1223, 1226 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 788 [2006]).

Cardona, P.J., Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
# C_2017402EN.01005202.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/52

---

Action brought on 2 Octobre 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien)

(Case T-682/17)

(2017/C 402/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose, V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘khadi Naturprodukte aus Indien’ — EU trade mark No 8 216 343

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2085/2016-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;

| — | make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 17, 2023
No. 04

- 22

- 00716

- CR
EX PARTE George TROTTI
From the 379th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR7385

- W2 Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R
On December 8, 2022 , Appellant George Trotti ’s record on appeal was complete. On December 9 , 2022 , we ordered Appellant to file his opening brief within thirty days

. As of January 17, 2023 , no brief has been filed , and we have received no motion for extension of time

. Contra T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 31.1(a) , 38.6(a)(1). Therefore, we order Appellant to respond to this notification by fil ing his brief , a motion to extend time , or a motion to dismiss within ten days of the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b) (requiring this court, when no brief is filed, to notif y the parties and the trial court of the omission and provid e Appellant an opportunity to respond) ; In re Cr ews , No. 09

- 99

- 383CR, 2000 WL 300517, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont Mar. 22, 2000, no pet.) (per curiam) ( not designated for publication)

. If Appellant fails to comply with this order , we will abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for it to conduct an abandonment hearing

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8( 2), (3). A hearing could result in this court consider ing the appeal without briefs

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8 (4) ; In re Crews , 2000 WL 300517, at *1

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of January, 20 23

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ , Clerk of Court
# C_2019255EN.01001401.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Case C-235/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(b) - Supply of goods - Exemptions for other activities - Granting and negotiation of credit - Fuel cards)

(2019/C 255/17)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Vega International Car Transport and Logistic — Trading GmbH

Other party to the proceedings: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, the provision of fuel cards by a parent company to its subsidiaries, enabling those subsidiaries to refuel the vehicles they transport, may be classified as a service granting credit which is exempt from value added tax as referred to in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Abraxis BioScience, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bruce J. Wendel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 7, 2010



/s/ BRUCE J. WENDELBruce J. Wendel Chief
Executive Officer


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Exhibit
10.1


    


    Loan
Agreement

    


    On
September 1 2010 AR Development Corporation made a loan of Canadian dollar 5.3
million to Platinum Energy Resources of Houston, Texas.

    This
agreement signed by AR Development Corporation and members of the compensation
and governance committee of the Board lays out the terms of the
loan.

    The loan
period initially will be for a fixed term of six months from September 1 2010
and carries an interest rate of 5.5% per annum for the first two months ending
November 1 2010, thereafter for the next two months the interest will be 6% per
annum till January 1 2011, followed by an interest rate of 6.5% per annum till
March 1 2011. There will be a $40 thousand fee.

    It is
understood that Platinum Energy Resources may pay off part, or the whole loan
during the period and the interest rate will be applied to the outstanding
amount of the loan. It is agreed that the interest and loan payment will be in
Canadian funds and will be paid on the first day of the month.

    


    This
agreement is signed on September 4, 2010

    


    For
Platinum Energy Resources, the independent Directors of the Compensation and
Governance Committee

    
      


      
        	
                “Bernard
      Lang”

              	 
      	
                AR Developments Corporation

              
	
                /s/
      Bernard Lang

              	 
      	
                /s/
      Al Rahmani

              


      

      


      “Marc
Berzins”

       

      /s/ Marc
Berzins
Exhibit 10.3


 


AMENDMENT
TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”)
amends the December 30, 2009 Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) made
between THOMPSON CREEK METALS COMPANY USA,
a corporation existing under the laws of Colorado (“Thompson Creek”), and S. SCOTT SHELLHAAS (“Executive”)
(together, the “Parties”).


 


WHEREAS Section 35 of the Agreement
permits the Parties to amend the Agreement in writing and the Parties each
desire to amend the Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION OF the covenants
and agreements contained in this Amendment, and other good and valuable
consideration, including the Executive’s employment with Thompson Creek, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.             Effective as of August 5, 2010, Section 17(a) of the
Agreement is amended by deleting the second sentence thereto.


 


The Parties hereto have duly executed this
Amendment.


 


 


	
  THOMPSON CREEK METALS
  COMPANY USA

  	
   

  	
  S. SCOTT SHELLHAAS

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Kevin Loughrey

  	
   

  	
  /s/ S. Scott Shellhaas

  
	
  Kevin Loughrey

  	
   

  	
  Signature

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  September 27, 2010

  	
   

  	
  September 27, 2010

  
	
  Date

  	
   

  	
  Date

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Janette Bush

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Janette Bush

  
	
  Witness

  	
   

  	
  Witness
#### Alma Marie TRICHE-WINSTON; Charel Winston, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-15713.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 9, 2008.

Alma Marie Triche-Winston, Charel Winston, El Dorado Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Christopher Edward Krueger Fax, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Sherri Sokeland Kaiser, Esq., for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*613MEMORANDUM **

Alma Marie Triche-Winston and Charel Winston appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging violations of their constitutional rights and of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in connection with the voiding of their same-sex marriage under *Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco,*33 Cal.4th 1055, 17 Cal. Rptr.3d 225, 95 P.3d 459 (2004). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Lockhart v. United States,*376 F.3d 1027, 1028 (9th Cir.2004), and we consider sua sponte whether a claim is moot, *Bernhardt v. County of L.A.,*279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ due process claim because *Lock-yer*did not grant them a right to a hearing regarding their disabilities. *See Cassidy v. Hawaii,*915 F.2d 528, 530 (9th Cir.1990) (concluding that the plaintiff did not have a property interest under state regulations and thus failed to prove a due process violation).

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ ADA claim because they did not show that they were denied the right to marry on the basis of their disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; *Weinreich v. L.A. County Metro. Trausp. Auth.,*114 F.3d 976, 978-79 (9th Cir.1997) (concluding that the plaintiff failed to show that he was excluded from the public program on the basis of his disability).

Appellants’ equal protection challenge fails because they did not allege facts to support their assertion that defendants treated them differently than similarly situated non-disabled persons. *See Lee v. City of L.A.,*250 F.3d 668, 686-87 (9th Cir.2001) (setting forth requirements for an equal protection claim based on disability).

In light of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in *In re Marriage Cases,*43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008), we dismiss as moot the appeal from the denial of injunctive and declaratory relief. *See Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont,*506 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were mooted by repeal of the challenged ordinance).

AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32




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 Beauty Brands Group, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Dan
Kelly, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, and James Altucher, President and Principal Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge, 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/ Dan
      KellyDan
      KellyPrincipal
      Financial Officer andPrincipal
      Accounting OfficerMay 13,
      2008






/s/ James
      AltucherJames
      AltucherPresident
      and Principal Executive OfficerMay 13,
      2008


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

480 

CA 13-01415 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

 

IN RE: EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS 

LITIGATION.

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

LARRY P. LANG AND BARBARA LANG, 

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, 

 

V ORDER

CRANE CO., ROPER PUMP COMPANY, 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

 

K&L GATES LLP, NEW YORK CITY (ANGELA DIGIGLIO OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CRANE CO. 

MALABY & BRADLEY, LLC, NEW YORK CITY (DAVID P. SCHAFFER OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ROPER PUMP COMPANY.

WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC, NEW YORK CITY (PIERRE RATZKI OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John P.

Lane, J.H.O.), entered September 28, 2012. The order, among other

things, denied the motions of defendants Roper Pump Company and Crane

Co. to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint against them. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Supreme Court.

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# C_2019172EN.01000501.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/5

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Farmland Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter

(Case C-489/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Direct support schemes - Single payment scheme - Single area payment application - Criteria - Lawful user of agricultural land)

(2019/C 172/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Farmland Kft.

Defendant: Földművelésügyi Miniszter

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Administrative and Labour Court, Budapest, Hungary), by decision of 17 July 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---
---

Exhibit 99.7


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. § 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Burcon NutraScience Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jade Cheng, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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; and2.

   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date:

   June 25, 2013/s/ Jade ChengJade ChengChief Financial Officer


---
# C_2010104EN.01001401.xml

| 23.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/14

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2010/C 104/07

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain finished polyester filament fabrics | People's Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 (OJ L 240, 16.9.2005, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1087/2007 (OJ L 246, 21.9.2007, p. 1) | 17.9.2010 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Certain finished polyester filament fabrics

People's Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005 (OJ L 240, 16.9.2005, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1087/2007 (OJ L 246, 21.9.2007, p. 1)

17.9.2010

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

---