alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, Appellant, v Solow Building Co., L. L. C., Respondent.

[720 NYS2d 69]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered June 2, 2000, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, denied petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, dated November 19, 1999, awarding petitioner $721,580, and granted respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The original arbitrator appointed on behalf of respondent, Robert Von Ancken, failed to reveal his close involvement with petitioner’s counsel on prior arbitrations and the fact that he was scheduled to testify against respondent in an unrelated matter. “[T]he failure of an arbitrator to disclose facts which reasonably may support an inference of bias is grounds to vacate the award under CPLR 7511” *(Matter of J. P. Stevens & Co. [Rytex Corp.],*34 NY2d 123, 125; *see also, Matter of Milliken Woolens [Weber Knit Sportswear],*11 AD2d 166, *affd*9 NY2d 878). That Von Ancken ultimately resigned does not remove the taint to the process since he participated in choosing the “neutral” third arbitrator, who ultimately ruled against respondent and who was involved in a highly contentious relationship with respondent’s chosen arbitrator. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly vacated the arbitration award. “[I]t is imperative that the integrity of the process, as opposed to the correctness of the individual decision, be zealously safeguarded” *(Matter of Coldfinger v Lisker,*68 NY2d 225, 231).

We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

141040

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141040 COA: 296514 Muskegon CC: 09-057585-FH SHARON LOUISE SPROWLS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 30, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
HERNANDEZ-RAMIREZ v. The STATE.

A18A0037

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 23, 2018

*799Mr. David C. Walker, for Appellant.

Mr. David Parks White, Ms. MEGHAN ANN BOWDEN, for Appellee.

McFadden, Presiding Judge.

Marco Hernandez-Ramirez appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He argues that the trial court erred by conducting a hearing on his motion in his absence. But Hernandez-Ramirez's pro se motion was a legal nullity. So we vacate the trial court order denying the motion and remand the case for the trial court to dismiss the motion.

Hernandez-Ramirez pleaded guilty to multiple crimes, including three counts of homicide by vehicle in the first degree, driving under the influence of alcohol, driving on the wrong side of the roadway, and driving without a valid license. The trial court sentenced Hernandez-Ramirez to a total of 43 years with the first 40 years to be served in confinement.

Two months after the entry of the judgment of conviction and sentence and within the same term of court, Hernandez-Ramirez filed a pro se "motion to appeal guilty plea," which the trial court treated as a timely motion to withdraw the plea. See OCGA § 15-6-3 (27) (C) (Hart County terms of court commence on the third Monday in February and August). Once the trial court denied the motion, Hernandez-Ramirez filed this appeal.

An appellant's pro se motion to withdraw a guilty plea is a nullity if the appellant is represented by counsel at the time he or she files the motion. *White v. State* , 302 Ga. 315, 318-320 (2), 806 S.E.2d 489 (2017). As to whether a criminal defendant remains represented by counsel after conviction, our Supreme Court has clarified that

> at a minimum, legal representation continues-unless interrupted by entry of an order allowing counsel to withdraw or compliance with the requirements for substitution of counsel, see [Uniform Superior Court Rule] 4.3 (1)-(3) -through the end of the term at which a trial court enters a

> judgment of conviction and sentence on a guilty plea, during which time the court retains authority to change its prior orders and judgments on motion or sua sponte for the purpose of promoting justice.

Id. at 319 (2), 806 S.E.2d 489 (citation omitted).

The record in this case does not include an order allowing counsel to withdraw or anything indicating compliance with the requirements for substitution of counsel before Hernandez-Ramirez filed his pro se motion. So under *White* , supra, Hernandez-Ramirez remained represented by counsel at the time he filed his pro se motion and the motion is a nullity. Accordingly, "we vacate the trial court's order on [the pro se] motion and remand for entry of the appropriate order." *Brooks v. State* , 301 Ga. 748, 804 S.E.2d 1 (2017).

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction.

Ray and Rickman, JJ., concur.
V 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4506 

For the relief of Antonia Esmeralda Aguilar Belmontes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2014 

Ms. LOFGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Antonia Esmeralda Aguilar Belmontes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ANTONIA 

4 ESMERALDA AGUILAR BELMONTES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Antonia Esmeralda Aguilar Belmontes shall be eligi8 ble for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 

9 of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for perma10 nent residence upon filing an application for issuance of 

11 an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for 

12 adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4506 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Antonia 

2 Esmeralda Aguilar Belmontes enters the United States 

3 before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 

4 shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully 

5 and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment 

6 of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Na7 tionality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Antonia Esmeralda Aguilar Belmontes, the Sec16 retary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce 

17 by 1, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 

18 total number of immigrant visas that are made available 

19 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

20 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli21 cable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

22 available to natives of the country of the alien’s birth 

23 under section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4506 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Antonia Esmeralda 

2 Aguilar Belmontes shall not, by virtue of such relation3 ship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the 

4 Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. The STATE of North Carolina and The North Carolina Rules Review Commission

No. 110PA16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 15, 2017

Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for The North Carolina Rules Review Commission.

Amar Majmundar, Special Deputy Attorney General, Olga, Vysotskaya de Brito, Assistant Attorney General, for The State of North Carolina.

Robert F. Orr, Attorney at Law, Asheville, Andrew H. Erteschik, Attorney at Law, Saad Gul, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, John Michael Durnovich, Attorney at Law, for North Carolina State Board of Education.

*ORDER*

This Court will hear oral arguments in this case during the February 2018 calendar. On its own motion, this Court sets the following briefing schedule: The Appellant's brief will be due on 22 December 2017. The Appellees' brief will be due on 16 January 2018. Should Appellant wish to file a reply brief, the reply brief will be due on 22 January 2018.

By order of the Court in Conference, this *15th* day of *December*, 2017.
#### John Wesley CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-1547.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 3, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 15, 2003.

John Wesley Campbell, Defuniak Springs, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. *See Childs v. State,*649 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

SHARP, W., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 15.1



| | São Paulo Corporate Towers
        
        Av. Presidente Juscelino Kubitschek,
1.909
        Vila Nova Conceição
        
        04543-011 - São Paulo – SP - Brasil
        
        Tel.: +55 11 2573-3000
        ey.com.br
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





February 22, 2017





Securities and Exchange Commission



100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C., USA



20549-7561





Dear Sirs/Madams,



We have read Telefônica Brasil S.A.’s
disclosure pursuant to Item 16.F (a) of Form 20-F regarding “Change in Independent Certified Accountant” of Telefônica
Brasil S.A.’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016. We agree with the statements made in relation
to Ernst & Young Auditores Independentes S.S. We have no basis on which to agree or disagree with other statements of Telefônica
Brasil S.A. contained therein.





Yours truly,



/s/ ERNST & YOUNG Auditores Independentes
S.S.



São Paulo, Brazil



February 22, 2017
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the annual report of FTD Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2005,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

The foregoing certification is beingfurnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not beingfiled as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

 
| Date: February 10, 2006 |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
|                         | /S/ MICHAEL J. SOENEN |
|                         | Name: | Michael J. Soenen |
|                         | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                         |   |   |
|                         |   |   |
|                         | /S/ CARRIE A. WOLFE |
|                         | Name: | Carrie A. Wolfe |
|                         | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
# Official Journal L 3/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 3 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 656 January 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 3

English edition

Legislation

Volume 656 January 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1 of 20 October 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of dual-use items | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1 of 20 October 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of dual-use items

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE, LLC v. ETRANSMEDIA TECHNOLOGY, INC.

330A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 13, 2017

W. Swain Wood, Attorney at Law, Shannon R. Joseph, Attorney at Law, John T. Kivus, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Christopher Jackson, Attorney at Law, for Allscripts Healthcare, LLC.

Tracie H. Brisson, Attorney at Law, for Etransmedia Technology, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 13th of March 2017 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of March 2017."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 30th day of March 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
# Official Journal L 264/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.264.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 264 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 565 October 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.264.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 264

English edition

Legislation

Volume 565 October 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | | 2013/479/EU |
| | * | Decision No 1/2013 of the Joint Veterinary Committee set up by the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products of 22 February 2013 regarding the amendment of Appendices 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 of Annex 11 to the Agreement | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

2013/479/EU

*

Decision No 1/2013 of the Joint Veterinary Committee set up by the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products of 22 February 2013 regarding the amendment of Appendices 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10 of Annex 11 to the Agreement

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Carla KELLEY, Plaintiff, v. Michael D. ANDREWS, in his Official capacity as Sheriff of Durham County and John Doe Surety, Defendants.

No. COA17-20

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4375 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, as the ‘‘Jim Kolbe Post 

Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2014 

Mr. BARBER (for himself, Mr. SALMON, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, 

and Mr. PASTOR of Arizona) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, 

as the ‘‘Jim Kolbe Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. JIM KOLBE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 100 North Taylor Lane in Pata6 gonia, Arizona, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Jim 

7 Kolbe Post Office.’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4375 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jim Kolbe Post Of5 fice.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
H. R. 4323 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To reauthorize programs authorized under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004, and 

for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Debbie Smith Reauthorization 

Act of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. GENERAL REAUTHORIZATION. 

Section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 

2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (c)(3)— 

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘2010 through 

2018’’ and inserting ‘‘2014 through 2019’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘2018’’ and 

inserting ‘‘2019’’; and 

(2) in subsection (j), by striking ‘‘2009 through 2014’’ and 

inserting ‘‘2015 through 2019’’. 

SEC. 3. TRAINING AND EDUCATION. 

Section 303(b) of the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2004 

(42 U.S.C. 14136(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘2009 through 2014’’ 

and inserting ‘‘2015 through 2019’’. 

SEC. 4. SEXUAL ASSAULT FORENSIC EXAM GRANTS. 

Section 304(c) of the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2004 

(42 U.S.C. 14136a(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘2009 through 2014’’ 

and inserting ‘‘2015 through 2019’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Stephen R. Kerrigan, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Coinmach Service Corp.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances 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 included inthis 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 thisreport; 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; 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(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over 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 theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date:February 14, 2005 /s/ Stephen R. Kerrigan   Stephen R. Kerrigan
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10973

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

 

$7,298.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Defendant,

LEONEL GAMEZ RODRIGUEZ,

 Claimant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-0697

- - - - - - - - - -

June 27, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Leonel Gamez Rodriguez appeals the grant of a default

judgment in favor of the Government following a civil in rem

forfeiture proceeding and the district court's denial of his

motion to amend his answer to the Government's complaint against

the property. We presume without deciding that Rodriguez, who
No. 95-10973

- 2 -

did not file a verified claim and was not permitted to file an

answer, had standing to challenge the default and has standing to

appeal.

We have reviewed Rodriguez's brief and the record, and we

find no reversible error. See United States v. $38,570 U.S.

Currency, 950 F.2d 1108 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. One

1988 Dodge Pickup, 959 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v.

One 1978 Piper Navajo PA-31 Aircraft, 748 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.

1984). Accordingly, the decision of the district court is

AFFIRMED.