alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1200 CA 14-00773**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

PREMIER CAPITAL, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KENT R. DEHAAN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., ROCHESTER (MICHAEL J. CROSNICKER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

LANCE J. MARK, PLLC, MEDINA (LANCE J. MARK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered July 24, 2013. The judgment and order, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment, granted the cross motion of defendant for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment and order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the cross motion is denied, the complaint is reinstated and that part of the motion seeking summary judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for entry of a renewal judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Memorandum: On a prior appeal, this Court concluded that plaintiff, as assignee of a default judgment entered against defendant, “was entitled to commence an action for a renewal judgment without permission pursuant to CPLR 5014 (1)” ( Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A. v DeHaan , 89 AD3d 1476, 1477). While that appeal was pending, plaintiff commenced such an action, and thereafter moved, inter alia, for summary judgment. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion insofar as it sought summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and we therefore remit the matter to Supreme Court for entry of a renewal judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Plaintiff established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law “by demonstrating the existence of the prior judgment, that the defendant was the judgment debtor, that the judgment was docketed at least nine years prior to the commencement of th[e] action, and that the judgment remains . . . unsatisfied” ( Rose v Gulizia , 104 AD3d 757, 758; see CPLR 5014; Premier Capital, LLC v Best Traders, Inc. , 88 AD3d 677, 678). In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue**-2- 1200 CA 14-00773** 

of fact ( see Pangburn v Klug , 244 AD2d 394, 395; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562). We reject defendant’s contention that the action is barred by laches inasmuch as “laches is an equitable defense which is unavailable [here, i.e.,] in an action at law commenced within the period of limitation” ( Premier Capital, LLC , 88 AD3d at 678). Finally, contrary to defendant’s further contention, plaintiff’s commencement of another action seeking identical relief did not implicate the doctrine of election of remedies ( see generally Matter of City of Syracuse v Fitch St. Props., LLC , 71 AD3d 1388, 1389).

Entered: November 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EX-32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc. (previously Stellar International Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Peter Riehl, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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; as amended; 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:  July 13, 2006By:   /S/Peter RiehlPeter Riehl 
Chief Executive Officer     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appears in typed for within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ARK C H IN, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. RIC K HILL, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-18011

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-03258-GEB
DAD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia G a rland E. B urre ll, Jr., Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 4, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TR OTT, THOM AS, and M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. M ark C h i n a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of his pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus, whic h the distric t c ourt de te rm ine d wa s tim e -barre d unde r 

# FIL ED
D EC 10 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).the A ntite rrorism and Effe c t ive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (“ AEDPA” ). 28 U.S.C
. § 2244(d). W e a ffirm
. For the first tim e on a

ppe a l, C hin a sse rts tha

t the sta t e c orre c tions de pa rtm e nt’ s de nia l of his a d

m inistra tive a ppe a l, whic h

form e d the ba sis of his ha be a s pe tition, wa s a

“ judgm e nt” subje c t

to dire c t re vie w by

the U.S. Supre m e C ourt, § 2244(d)(1)(A), ra the r tha n “ the fa c tua l pre dic ate of [his] c la im ,” § 2244(d)(1)(D). He argue s tha t, be c a use his pe tition is gove

rne d by § 2244(d)(1)(A), he wa s e ntitle d to ta ke a dva nta ge of tha

t sub-se c tion’ s provision that AEDPA’ s one -y e ar lim ita tion pe riod doe s not be gin to run until “ the
e xpira tion of the tim e for se e k ing [dire c t] re vie w.” C onse que ntly , C h in a sse rts, the lim ita tion pe riod only

be ga n to run 90 da

y s a fte r his a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l wa s de nie d – onc e the de a dline to pe tition for a writ of c e rtiora

ri ha d pa sse d. C hin ha d c onc e de d

be fore the distric t c ourt tha t the lim i tations pe riod be ga n to run whe n

the de nia l of his a dm inistra tive a ppe a l wa s issue d, a

nd he wa s right.

“ [W ] he n a ha be a s pe t itione r c ha lle nge s a n a dm inistra

tive de c ision a ffe c ting the

‘ fa c t or dura

tion of his c onfine m e nt,’ AEDPA’ s one -y e ar stat ute of lim ita

tions runs from whe n the ‘ fa c tua l pre dic ate ’ of the ha b e a s c la im s ‘ c ould ha

ve be e n disc ove re d through thee xe rc ise of due dilige nc e .’ As a ge ne ra l rule , the sta

te a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of an a dm inistra

t ive a ppe a l is the‘ fa c tua l pre d ic at e ’ for suc h ha be a s c l a im s.” 2Marde

sic h v . C ate , 668 F.3d 1164, 1172 (9th C ir. 2012) (interna l c ita tions omitte d) (quoting § 2244(d)(1)(D)). AFFIRM E D.

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 China Armco Metals, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kexuan Yao, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Fengtao Wen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and








2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.








August
      14, 2009
            /s/
      Kexuan YaoKexuan
      Yao
              CEO
      and Chairman
              (Principal
      executive officer)







August
      14, 2009
            /s/
      Fengtao WenFengtao
      Wen
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (Principal
      financial and accounting officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.









33
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          29,003
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (469)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,535
<PP&E>                                           7,882
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,478)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,957
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,755
<SALES>                                         22,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,903
<CGS>                                            3,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,466
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,768
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,018
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,750
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14111]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3341, Amdt. #1]


State of Minnesota

    In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, dated May 29, 2001, the above-numbered Declaration 
is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as 
beginning on March 23, 2001 and continuing through May 29, 2001. The 
above-numbered Declaration is also amended to include Aitkin, Big 
Stone, Carlton, Clay, Dakota, Kanabec, Lac qui Parle, Mille Lacs, 
Morrison, Mower, Norman, Olmstead, Otter Trail, Pine, Polk, Ramsey, 
Redwood, Renville, Rice, Sibley, Stearns, Swift, Todd, Traverse, Wilkin 
and Wright Counties in the State of Minnesota as disaster areas caused 
by flooding and severe winter storms, flooding and tornadoes occurring 
between March 23, 2001 and May 29, 2001.
    In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small 
businesses located in Becker, Brown, Carver, Cass, Clearwater, 
Cottonwood, Crow Wing, Hennepin, Isanti, LeSueur, Mahnomen, Marshall, 
McLeod, Meeker, Murray, Nicollet, Pennington, Red Lake, Scott and 
Wadena Counties in the State of Minnesota; Mitchell and Howard Counties 
in the State of Iowa; Cass, Grand Forks, Richland and Traill Counties 
in the State of North Dakota; and Grant and Roberts Counties in the 
State of South Dakota may be filed until the specified date at the 
previously designated location. Any counties contiguous to the above 
named primary counties and not listed here have been previously 
declared.
    The number assigned for economic injury in the State of North 
Dakota is 9L7700.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for physical damage is July 15, 2001 and for 
economic injury the deadline is February 15, 2002.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)


    Dated: May 30, 2001.
James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-14111 Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Federal Register: July 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 42678]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jy00-35]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, July 28, 2000.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-17586 Filed 7-7-00; 11:29 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN TO INDEX    ========**

----
EXHIBIT
32.2


Certification
of Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted


Pursuant
to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Danvers Bancorp, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I hereby
certify, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations
      of the Company as of, and for, the period covered by the
      Report.








This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2202, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not
intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signal
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





Date:                      May
8, 2009





/s/
                      James
      J. McCarthyJames
      J. McCarthyExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ira RIGGS, aka Ira Lyndell Riggs, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10116.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2006.*

Decided June 15, 2006.

Kurt M. Altman, Esq., USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michele R. Moretti, Esq., Lake Butler, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, O’SCANNLAIN, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ira Riggs, Appellant, was convicted after a three-day jury trial on one count of second degree murder in Indian country, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153,1111. Prior to the trial, the district court gave a sequestration order prohibiting the witnesses from discussing the case with third parties. On the first day of trial, Detective Bighorse, a Navajo investigator, inadvertently discussed Riggs’ case with other investigators when the government’s star witness was present. Riggs moved for a mistrial. The district court held a hearing and found that Riggs had suffered no prejudice because the star witness’s testimony was not affected by Detective Bighorse’s comment. The district court denied Riggs’ motion for a mistrial, but allowed Riggs to cross-examine Detective Bighorse in front of the jury regarding the comment he made in front of the star witness. According to Riggs, the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion for mistrial.

A district court’s denial of a mistrial motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. English,*92 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir.1996). Similarly, the proper sanction for a sequestration order violation “is a matter which lies within the *652sound discretion of the trial court.” *United States v. Avila-Macias,*577 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1978). In this case, the district court allowed Riggs to cross-examine Detective Bighorse in front of the jury for violating the sequestration order, which is a recognized method — if not the preferred method — of remedying a violation of a sequestration order. *See United States v. Erickson,*75 F.3d 470, 480 (9th Cir.1996). The record contains nothing to indicate that the trial court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# CE2013165EN.01010402.xml

| 11.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 165/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 165/104

---

Thursday 1 December 2011Amendment of Decision 2002/546/EC as regards its period of application *

P7_TA(2011)0528

European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2011 on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2002/546/EC as regards its period of application (COM(2011)0443 – C7-0233/2011 – 2011/0192(CNS))

2013/C 165 E/19

(Special legislative procedure – consultation)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2011)0443), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2011)0443),

| — | having regard to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0233/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0233/2011),

| — | having regard to Rules 55 and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 55 and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0381/2011), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0381/2011),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

---
EXHIBIT 32.3


Certification of Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted


Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Danvers Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I hereby certify, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the period covered by the Report.





This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





Date:           May 10, 2011











/s/
L. Mark PanellaL. Mark PanellaExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer