alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arlie C. BUSH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16070.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

June 24, 1965.

*232Arlie C. Bush, in pro. per.

Joseph P. Kinneary, U. S. Atty., Dayton, Ohio, Charles G. Heyd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.

Before CECIL, PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the Court on appeal by Arlie C. Bush, petitioner-appellant, from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, denying a motion to vacate sentence under Section 2255, Title 28 U.S.C. The petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the indictment upon which he was convicted.

This Court has held:

> “When there is an offense defined by a federal statute, of which the sentencing court has jurisdiction, and the indictment or information apparently attempts to charge an offense under such statute and such court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, the sufficiency of the indictment is not subject to attack in a habeas corpus proceeding, nor by motion under § 2255, supra.” Stegall v. United States, 259 F.2d 83, cert. den. 358 U.S. 886, 79 S.Ct. 128, 3 L.Ed.2d 114.

The indictment in this case meets these requirements and is not open to attack in this proceeding.

Petitioner cites Lauer v. United States, 320 F.2d 187, C.A. 7, in support of his motion. This case required the name of the purchaser to be stated in the indictment in a charge of sale of narcotics in violation of Section 4705(a), Title 26 U.S.C. In Collins v. Markley, 346 F.2d 230, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held that it was in error in its decision in Lauer and that the failure to state the name of a purchaser in an indictment under Section 4705(a), Title 26 U.S.C. is not a fatal defect. This Court never followed the ruling of the Lauer case. See Smith v. United States, 338 F.2d 996; United States v. Lamar, 337 F.2d 349; Cochran v. United States, 336 F.2d 799; and United States v. Dickerson, 337 F.2d 343.

The petitioner has presented for the first time on this appeal a claim that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered. Questions cannot be presented on appeal that have not first been determined by the District Court, from which the appeal is taken. Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 79 S.Ct. 209, 3 L.Ed.2d 199; Turberville et al. v. United States, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 400, 303 F.2d 411, cert. den., Williams v. United States, 370 U.S. 946, 82 S.Ct. 1596, 8 L. Ed.2d 813; United States v. Luster, 342 F.2d 763, C.A. 6; United States v. Doelker, 327 F.2d 343, C.A. 6; Reeves v. Commissioner, 314 F.2d 438, C.A. 6.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4287    Filed: 10/18/19    Entered: 10/18/19 12:25:40    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4287    Filed: 10/18/19    Entered: 10/18/19 12:25:40    Page 2 of2
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

**List of Subsidiaries of 3SBio Inc. (the “Registrant”)**

 

Subsidiaries:

 
| 1. | Collected Mind Limited, incorporated in British   Virgin Islands;                                              |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | China Sansheng Medical Limited, incorporated in Hong   Kong, People’s Republic of China;                  |
| 3. | Shenyang Sunshine Pharmaceutical Company Limited,   incorporated in People’s Republic of China;           |
| 4. | Jiangsu Sunshine Pharmaceutical Technology Company   Limited, incorporated in People’s Republic of China; |
| 5. | Taizhou Huan Sheng Investment Management Company   Limited, incorporated in People’s Republic of China;   |
| 6. | 3SBio, LLC, incorporated in the State of Delaware,   United States of America.                                 |

 

Affiliated Entity Consolidated in the Registrant’s Financial Statements

 
| 7. | Liaoning Sunshine Bio-Pharmaceutical Company   Limited, incorporated in People’s Republic of China;     |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 8. | Liaoning Sunshine Scientific Development Company   Limited, incorporated in People’s Republic of China. |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT B

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR

SERVICES RENDERED BY CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2019

TASK

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT

ADMN Case Administration (Incl. Docket Updates and Case Calendar) 157.30 $52,122.00

ASST Use and Sale of Assets, Including 363 Sales 7.20 6,943.00

AUTO Automatic Stay 1.50 1,226.00

BARN Bar Date and Claims Noticing Matter 74.70 68,023.00

CASE General Case Strategy 296.90 249,869.50

CASH Financing / Cash Collateral 7.00 7,214.00

COMM Committee Matters 182.20 166,619.50

CRAV Cravath Retention and Fee Application 153.30 108,653.00

CRED Creditor Inquiries 2.80 3,975.00

DSSV Disclosure Statement / Solicitation / Voting Matters 8.00 8,160.00

ECUL Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases 0.30 282.00

FEEO Retention and Fee Application of Non-Cravath Professionals 182.50 171,959.50

GOVR Corporate Governance and Securities Matters 806.70 766,342.50

HEAR Hearings and Court Matters 19.20 15,608.00

INVS Investigations 922.70 748,115.50

NONB Non-Bankruptcy Litigation 3,054.40 1,801,327.00

OCMS Other Contested Matters 4.90 4,188.00

OPRS Business Operations Matters 164.50 122,117.00

PLAN Plan of Reorganization / Plan Confirmation 7.00 9,450.00

PUBL Public Relations Strategy 2.70 2,383.00

REGS Regulatory & Legislative Matters 2,433.30 1,311,372.00

TRVL Non-Working Travel Time 467.80 170,178.25*

USTM U.S. Trustee Matters / Meetings / Communications / Reports 13.40 10,506.00

WILD Wildfire Claims Matters 2,574.40 1,793,241.00

TOTAL 11,544.70 $7,599,874.75

* - Non-Working Travel Time billed at 50% discount.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3484-2 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 18:35:54 Page 1

of 1
EX-33.6
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, NA
Document Custody
1015 - 10th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55014


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the
"Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Company has determined that the servicing criteria are
applicable in regards to the servicing platform as of and for the period as
follows:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any
publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored entity (the
"Platform").

Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities
performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing
Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.

Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2007 (the "Period").

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

1. The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

2. The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation
AB.

3. Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has complied,
in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the Period.


WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By: /s/ Shari Gillund
Its: Senior Vice President

Dated: February 29, 2008
!"! "


#
!#
 





$%&'()

*)))(



+,-./012&3)	4(&$"! 



'%&)

,())(())	2)&$5)	&)

)6&$( 78)

(	))	)()))5%&)))))	)()355)6

&$7

	

	

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12999 Filed: 09/23/22 Entered: 09/26/22 10:32:15 Page 1

of 2
	





	


 !"! "


##
 





$%&'()

*)))(



+,-./012&3)	4(&$"! 



'%&)

(		2)&$

567(438	)567)))	&))

$	&(67(&)3(())7()7$)95:)))9)

967(()7)$94:77)$	&)567&2)9

	9)()(($);5

:9))977(3	9()(()7)9(9)(5

))&	)&)9())&))(3	)56<&())339)

)	)&)$2&3)		&)5

	)99($9	7))9	)))6333(

5,2&9)2&)2)(5



	

	



Case: 19-30088 Doc# 12999 Filed: 09/23/22 Entered: 09/26/22 10:32:15 Page 2

of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Applied DNA Sciences,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James Hayward, Principal 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:

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/  JAMES A. HAYWARD
                                    James A. Hayward
                                    Principal Financial Officer
                                    May 23, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32469-32470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13650]



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



FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM




Consumer Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting



    The Consumer Advisory Council will meet on Thursday, June 17, 2010. 

The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will take place 

at the Federal Reserve Board's offices in Washington, DC, in Dining 

Room E on the Terrace Level of the Martin Building. For security 

purposes, anyone planning to attend the meeting should register no 

later than Tuesday, June 15, by completing the form found online at: 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/secure/forms/cacregistration.cfm.

    Attendees must present photo identification to enter the building 

and should allow sufficient time for security processing.



[[Page 32470]]



    The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and is expected to conclude at 

12:30 p.m. The Martin Building is located on C Street, NW., between 

20th and 21st Streets.

    The Council's function is to advise the Board on the exercise of 

the Board's responsibilities under various consumer financial services 

laws and on other matters on which the Board seeks its advice. Time 

permitting, the Council will discuss the following topics:

    <bullet> Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)

    In the context of the Board's review of Regulation C, which 

implements HMDA, members will discuss whether the 2002 revisions to 

Regulation C, which required lenders to report mortgage pricing data, 

helped provide useful and accurate information about the mortgage 

market; the need for additional data and other improvements; and what 

emerging issues in the mortgage market may warrant additional research.

    <bullet> Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

    Members will discuss the future of the Community Reinvestment Act, 

including possible changes in light of developments in the financial 

services industry and issues associated with the foreclosure crisis.

    <bullet> Foreclosure Issues

    Members will discuss loss-mitigation efforts, including the 

Administration's Making Home Affordable program, neighborhood 

stabilization initiatives and challenges, and other issues related to 

foreclosures.

    Reports by committees and other matters initiated by Council 

members also may be discussed.

    Persons wishing to submit views to the Council on any of the above 

topics may do so by sending written statements to Jennifer Kerslake, 

Secretary of the Consumer Advisory Council, Division of Consumer and 

Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 

Washington, DC 20551. Information about this meeting may be obtained 

from Ms. Kerslake at 202-452-6470.



    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 3, 2010.

Jennifer J. Johnson,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-13650 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
___________

No. 95-4088 

___________

Robbin Somers, individually and *

as next friend of Lauren Somers, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Northern District of Iowa.

Northwest Iowa Mental Health * 

Center; Jim Simpson, Dr., * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 26, 1996

 Filed: August 2, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robbin Somers brought this diversity tort action against Northwest

Iowa Mental Health Center and its former executive director, based on their

involvement in child-visitation issues arising out of a divorce proceeding

Somers had initiated, and an ensuing child-abuse investigation. The

district court granted defendants' summary judgment motion, concluding that

they were entitled to immunity under Muzingo v. St. Luke's Hosp., 518

N.W.2d 776, 776 (Iowa 1994) (per curiam) (extending quasi-judicial immunity

to court-appointed psychiatrists and hospitals asked by court to render

opinion about patient's mental health). Somers appeals.

Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude that the
district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants.

We also reject as meritless Somers's contention on appeal that she is

entitled to relief because defendants allegedly withheld discoverable

information.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Emeary MORELAND, Jr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 8003.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

June 22, 1965.

Emeary Moreland, Jr., pro se.

Richard T. Spriggs, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo. (Lawrence M. Henry, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., with him on the brief), for appellee.

Before PICKETT, LEWIS and SETH, Circuit Judges.

*377PER CURIAM.

The appellant Moreland was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado of the crime of armed robbery, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 2114. His conviction was affirmed. Moreland v. United States, 10 Cir., 270 F.2d 887. This proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacks the judgment and sentence on the ground that Moreland’s arrest by state officers without a warrant was in violation of his constitutional rights. We find no error in the trial court’s dismissal of the petition without a hearing.

An illegal arrest without more does not void a conviction and is not grounds for collateral attack under Section 2255. Tanner v. United States, 10 Cir., 296 F.2d 218; Roddy v. United States, 10 Cir. 296 F.2d 9; Klink v. Looney, 10 Cir., 262 F.2d 119; Whitney V. Zerbst, 10 Cir., 62 F.2d 970.

Affirmed.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4222 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 11:16:38 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4222 Filed: 10/16/19 Entered: 10/16/19 11:16:38 Page 2 of

2
Exhibit
        32
  CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of 2002, the undersigned officer of CX2 Technologies, Inc., a Florida
        corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:
  To
        my
        knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
        March 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
        contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:
        July 31, 2008
 /s/
                        Michael Rand
                    
                    Michael
                      Rand
                    Chief
                        Executive Officer, and Principal Financial
                        Officer
EVIDENCE OF TRANSFER OF CLAIM 

TO: United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (the “Bankruptcy Court”)

Attn: Clerk 

AND TO: Seller 

Date: October 24, 2019 

Main case name: PG&E Corporation 

Main case no.: 19-30088

Pacific Gas & Electric Company (“Debtor”)

Case No. 19-30089 (the “Case”)

Proof of Claim Number: 8931 

Amount of Claim Transferred: $1,866,992.00 

Jan X-Ray Services Inc. and its successors and assigns (“Seller”), for good and valuable consideration, the 

receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby certify that it has unconditionally 

and irrevocably sold, transferred and assigned unto

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

Mail Code: DE-4127 

500 Stanton Christiana Rd., NCC5, Floor 01 

Newark, DE 19713 

Attention: Brian M. Ercolani 

Telephone: 302-634-1486 

e-mail address: CLS_Notices@jpmchase.com 

and its successors and assigns (“Buyer”), all right, title and interest in and to Proof of Claim Number 8931 

in the amount of $1,866,992.00 (the “Claim”) against Debtor in the Case in the Bankruptcy Court, or any 

other court with jurisdiction over the bankruptcy proceedings of the Debtor. 

Seller hereby waives any objection to the transfer of the Claim to Buyer on the books and records of the 

Debtor and the Bankruptcy Court, and hereby waives to the fullest extent permitted by law any notice or 

right to a hearing as may be imposed by Rule 3001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the 

Bankruptcy Code, applicable local bankruptcy rules or applicable law. Seller acknowledges and 

understands, and hereby stipulates that an order of the Bankruptcy Court may be entered without further 

notice to Seller transferring to Buyer the Claim and recognizing the Buyer as the sole owner and holder of 

the Claim. 

You are hereby directed to make all future payments and distributions, and to give all notices and other 

communications, in respect of the Claim to Buyer. 

[Signature page follows] 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4518 Filed: 10/30/19 Entered: 10/30/19 10:21:14 Page 1 of

2
Brian M. Ercolani 

Operations Manager

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4518 Filed: 10/30/19 Entered: 10/30/19 10:21:14 Page 2 of

2
*Exhibit 32(a)***Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**     I, Jeffrey L. Rutherford, President and Chief Executive Officer of LESCO, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,2006 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Jeffrey L. Rutherford   Jeffrey L. Rutherford  President and Chief Executive Officer  Date: May 10, 2006
31
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

709 

CAF 12-00202 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER W., 

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

ERIE COUNTY ATTORNEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL A. SIRAGUSA, COUNTY ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. LISZEWSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF

BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret

O. Szczur, J.), entered April 5, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 3. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied

and the petition is reinstated. 

Memorandum: In this juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 3, petitioner appeals from an order granting

respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. We agree with petitioner

that Family Court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the

petition as facially insufficient based on the court’s finding that

the alleged victim, an infant, was unable to give sworn testimony (see

§ 343.1 [2]). A delinquency petition is facially sufficient provided

that the nonhearsay allegations “of the factual part of the petition

or of any supporting depositions establish, if true, every element of

each crime charged and the respondent’s commission thereof” (§ 311.2

[3]; see Matter of Nelson R., 90 NY2d 359, 362). 

Here, the nonhearsay allegations in the victim’s supporting

deposition, if true, establish that respondent subjected her to sexual

contact by touching her vagina when she was three years old. The

petition is therefore facially sufficient to allege that respondent

committed acts that, if committed by an adult, constitute the crime of

sexual abuse in the first degree (see Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). The

fact that the alleged victim is unable to give sworn testimony is a

latent defect that does not affect the facial sufficiency of the

petition (see Nelson R., 90 NY2d at 361; Matter of Edward B., 80 NY2d

458, 464; Matter of Jermaine G., 38 AD3d 105, 109-110). Contrary to

the further contention of respondent, the court’s determination that

the alleged victim “cannot understand the nature of the oath and

therefore cannot provide the Court with sworn testimony” does not
-2- 709 

CAF 12-00202 

amount to an implicit determination that she does not have “sufficient

intelligence and capacity” to provide unsworn testimony (Family Ct Act

§ 343.1 [2]). 

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court