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

[772 NYS2d 820]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), rendered May 16, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The credible evidence warrants the conclusion that defendant was a steerer connected to several drug locations, that he initiated the transaction by offering to sell drugs to the undercover officer, that he attempted unsuccessfully to make the sale at one location, and that he consummated it at a second location.

*232The court properly closed the courtroom to the general public during the testimony of an undercover officer, while allowing defendant’s family to remain in the courtroom. He testified that, among other things, he expected to return to undercover operations in the vicinity of defendant’s arrest in less than a month from the date of his testimony, was concerned about unapprehended “lost subjects,” and took various measures to protect his identity (see *People v Ramos,*90 NY2d 490, 498-499 [1997], *cert denied sub nom. Ayala v New York,*522 US 1002 [1997]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Sullivan, JJ.
Exhibit 4.1



THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


240 Greenwich
Street, 22W Floor, New York, NY 10286


 


 


 


December 9, 2022


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


SmartTrust 608 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York Mellon
is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trusts (the “Trusts”) included in the Registration
Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trusts on the date hereof. The prices indicated
therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on December 8, 2022, in accordance with the valuation method
set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreements. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New
York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-268595) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Units of the Trusts and to the filing of this
consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/  Margarita
Kalantarova 


Margarita Kalantarova


Vice President
### Proposed Provision: E3.6. Increase the taxable maximum each year by an additional 2 percent beginning in 2026 until taxable earnings equal 90 percent of covered earnings. Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 80581 

# NLED AUG 3 0 2022 SHALONDA MOLLETTE, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOE N. BROWN, DECEASED, Appellant, vs. GNL, CORP., A NEVADA CORPORATION;AND THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, Res ondents. SHALONDA MOLLETTE, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OFJOE N. BROWN, DECEASED, Appellant, vs. GNL, CORP., A NEVADA CORPORATION;AND THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP.> A FOREIGN CORPORATION, Res•ondents. A. BROWN ME COURT

No. 81151

ORDERDISMISSINGAPPEAL Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal ofthese appeals is granted. These appeals are dismissed. NRAP 42(b).

It is so ORDERED.
CLERKOFTHE SUPREME OURT ELIZAB 44, BY:

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA CLERK'S ORDER
1th 1947 eacc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge Israel Kunin, Settlement Judge Iqbal Law, PLLC Rogers, Mastrangelo, Carvalho & Mitchell, Ltd. Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA CLERK'S ORDER
#### J. T. DAVIS, Administrator, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY et al.

(Filed 18 February, 1931.)

Death B a: Judgments L a — In this case held: action against individual defendant was barred, he not being party to prior action nonsuited.

Where an action for wrongful death is brought against a corporate and an individual defendant more than one year after the date of the death, but within one year from the date of a voluntary nonsuit in an action brought within the year against the corporate defendant alone, the action is properly nonsuited as to the individual defendant, he not being a party to the first suit nor affected by the nonsuit therein rendered. C. S., 160, 415.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hams, J.,*at September Term, 1930, of CURRITUCK.

Civil action for wrongful death alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants.

The facts challenged by demurrer are these: On 26 July, 1925, plaintiff’s intestate was killed by the corporate defendant’s locomotive in charge of H. A. Lewis, engineer. Within a year thereafter, plaintiff instituted a suit against the Norfolk Southern Railroad Company to recover damages for the said alleged wrongful death, which action, after removal to the Federal Court for trial, was terminated by voluntary non-suit on the part of plaintiff. Within a year following said nonsuit in the Federal Court, but after the lapse of more than a year from the death of plaintiff’s intestate, the present suit was instituted against the Norfolk Southern Railroad Company and H. A. Lewis.

*346From a judgment sustaining a demurrer interposed by the individual defendant and dismissing the action as to him, the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*Hhringhaus & Hall for plaintiff.*

*Thompson, & Wilson for defendant, H. A. Lewis.*

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: As suit was not brought against H. A. Lewis within one year after the death of plaintiff’s intestate, the demurrer interposed by him was properly sustained. *Tieffenbrun v. Flannery,*198 N. C., 397, 151 S. E., 857. An action for wrongful death, brought under C. S., 160, is required to be instituted against the person or corporation liable therefor within one year after such death. *Bennett v. R. R.,*159 N. C., 345, 74 S. E., 883.

That an action was brought against the Norfolk Southern Railroad Company within the time prescribed, and judgment of voluntary non-suit entered therein, and the present action commenced against the Norfolk-Southern Railroad Company and H. A. Lewis within one year following said nonsuit, but after the lapse of more than a year from the death of plaintiff’s intestate, while sufficient to save the case as against the corporate defendant *(Trull v. R. R.,*151 N. C., 545, 66 S. E., 586), will not avail the plaintiff as against the demurrer of the individual defendant who was not a party to the first suit. C. S., 415. See *Link v. R. R.,*198 N. C., 78, 150 S. E., 672; *Murray v. R. R.,*196 N. C., 695, 146 S. E., 801; *Capps v. R. R.,*183 N. C., 181, 111 S. E., 533, and *Belch v. R. R.,*176 N. C., 22, 96 S. E., 640; also *Motsinger v. Hauser,*195 N. C., 483, 142 S. E., 589.

Affirmed.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3376 

To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

in Greenville, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Dana Cornell 

Darnell Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2021 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs in Greenville, South Carolina, as the 

‘‘Lance Corporal Dana Cornell Darnell Department of 

Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DANA CORNELL DARNELL 

4 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUT5 PATIENT CLINIC. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The outpatient clinic of the De7 partment of Veterans Affairs in Greenville, South Caro8 lina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance CorVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:07 Dec 16, 2021 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3376.IS S3376

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3376 IS

1 poral Dana Cornell Darnell Department of Veterans Af2 fairs Outpatient Clinic’’ or the ‘‘Lance Corporal Dana 

3 Cornell Darnell VA Clinic’’. 

4 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, regula5 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

7 be deemed to be a reference to the Lance Corporal Dana 

8 Cornell Darnell VA Clinic. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0569 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRYCE COX,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 8, 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 31 2020

07/31/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0569
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A0 33 1 . MERI W ETHER & THARP, LLC et a l . v . J ENNI FER VALADE.

Th e ap p el lan t s , i n a No v em b er 1
, 2 0 2 1 fi li n g , h av e i n d i cat ed t h at t h ey d o n ot

p l an t o fi l e an ap p el l at e b ri ef i n t h i s cas e, b ecau se we al read y d eci d ed t h ei r cl ai m s o n
ap p eal in Cas e No s

. A2 1 A1 01 0
, A2 1 A1 0 1 1
, an d A2 1 A1 0 1 2

. Acco rd in gl y , ap p el l ee J en n ifer Val ad e’ s m o t i o n t o d is m i s s t he a pp eal i n Cas e N o

. A2 2 A0 3 3 1 i s GRANTED,

an d t h e ap p eal i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. November 18, 2021

11/18/2021
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




Summary of Performance Measures under The Medicines Company’s Cash Bonus Plan




     We have an annual cash incentive program, which we refer to as our cash bonus plan, that is
designed to provide cash incentive awards to our employees. In the second quarter of 2009, our
compensation committee recommended and board of directors approved the following company
performance measures under our cash bonus plan for 2009:




	 	•	 	a minimum global sales revenue for Angiomax;
	 
	 	•	 	with regards to Cleviprex, minimum sales revenue and formulary adoption in the United
States and having the EU regulatory filing accepted in the first quarter of 2009;
	 
	 	•	 	CHAMPION program principal results known to the company by October 2009;
	 
	 	•	 	with regards to CU2010, complete Phase Ia study and begin enrollment in Phase Ib study
in the fourth quarter of 2009 and identify and test back up compound by the end of 2009;
	 
	 	•	 	close the acquisition of Targanta in the first quarter of 2009, integrate the business
by the second quarter of 2009 and initiate and achieve certain enrollment numbers for the
oritvancin Phase III by the end of 2009;
	 
	 	•	 	identify new business ventures that will provide certain projected revenue for 2011; and
	 
	 	•	 	a minimum non-GAAP earnings per share for 2009.
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 Quarterly Report of Washington Banking Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard A. Shields, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.





This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of the Company’s filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report or under such Acts.









/s/ Richard A. ShieldsChief Financial OfficerMay 10, 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CLEATUS T. MILTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 93 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of October, 2017, the King’s Bench Petition, Application 

for Relief, and Application for an Evidentiary Hearing are DENIED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MICHAEL GREG PERRY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00401

- CCE

- 1 ; 1:20

- cv - 00568

- CCE

- JEP )

Submitted : April 27, 2021 Decided: May 3, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Michael Greg Perry , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Greg Perry seeks to appeal the distr ict court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Perry’s 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating th at reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Perry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

a dequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<PAGE>


                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

                       GEORGIA BANK FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARY

                                   
                                   
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   YEAR ENDED 
                                                                   DECEMBER 31, 
                                                     ------------------------------------- 
                                                          1996        1995        1994    
                                                     -----------  ----------  ------------ 
<S>                                                  <C>          <C>         <C>         
Net income available to common shareholders           $1,952,165  $1,405,066  $1,118,436  
                                                                                          
Earnings per common share:(1)                                                             
    Weighted average number of common                                                     
       shares outstanding                              1,542,368   1,538,025   1,459,912  
                                                    ------------  ----------  -------------   
                                                                                          
Net income per common share                           $     1.27  $     0.91  $     0.77  
                                                    ============  ==========  =============
</TABLE>

(1)  Adjusted on a comparative basis to reflect reverse stock split (1 for 3)
     effected April 21, 1995 and the 15% stock dividend payable September 25,
     1996.
# EXHIBIT 21

# SUBSIDIARIES

| | 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20. |  | Dendrite Andes (Ecuador)
Dendrite Belgium S.A. (Belgium)
Dendrite Brasil LTDA (Brazil)
Dendrite Canada Company (Nova Scotia,Canada)
Dendrite Colombia LTDA (Colombia)
Dendrite Deutschland GMBH (Germany)
Dendrite France S.A. (France)
Dendrite Hungary Software Services, Inc. (Hungary)
Dendrite International, Inc. (New Jersey) 
Dendrite Italia, S.R.I. (Italy)
Dendrite Japan K.K. (Japan)
Dendrite Mexico (Mexico)
Dendrite Netherlands, B.V. (Netherlands)
Dendrite New Zealand Ltd. (New Zealand)
Dendrite Portugal (Portugal)
Dendrite Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
Dendrite U.K. Ltd.(United Kingdom) 
Fremantle Financial Services, Inc. (Delaware) 
Sydney Software, Inc. (Delaware) 
Tasmania Resource, Inc. (Delaware)
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3376 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3376

   To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 
  Affairs in Greenville, South Carolina, as the ``Lance Corporal Dana 
  Cornell Darnell Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2021

Mr. Graham (for himself and Mr. Scott of South Carolina) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 
  Affairs in Greenville, South Carolina, as the ``Lance Corporal Dana 
  Cornell Darnell Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DANA CORNELL DARNELL DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The outpatient clinic of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs in Greenville, South Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lance Corporal Dana Cornell Darnell Department of 
Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic'' or the ``Lance Corporal Dana 
Cornell Darnell VA Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, regulation, map, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Lance 
Corporal Dana Cornell Darnell VA Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30942

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL WALKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MALISE PRIETO, Clerk of Court; BETTY VENTURELLA, C.S.R., Certified

Reporter, 22nd Judicial District Court; SCOTT GARDNER, Assistant District

Attorney, Parish of St. Tammany, State of Louisiana,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:10-CV-2541

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Walker, Louisiana prisoner # 93207, appeals the dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous.

An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1) if it is frivolous. A claim is frivolous

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 2, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-30942 Document: 00511842092 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2012
No. 11-30942

if it does not have an arguable basis in fact or law. Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d

1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998).

Walker claimed that Defendants intentionally altered the transcript ofthe

1994 guilty plea hearing involving his convictions for possession of cocaine and

aggravated battery. To the extent that his claim would implicate the validity of

his criminal convictions, which have not been invalidated, the district court did

not err by dismissing Walker’s § 1983 complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and therefore frivolous.

In the alternative, the district court did not err by dismissing Walker’s

§ 1983 complaint as time barred and therefore frivolous. “In § 1983 claims, the

applicable statute of limitations is that which the state would apply in an

analogous action in its courts. In accordance with applicable Louisiana law, we

apply a one-year liberative prescriptive period to these claims.” Bourdais v. New

Orleans City, 485 F.3d 294, 298 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted) (citing

LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 3492). Therefore, contrary to Walker’s argument, the

district court correctly applied the one-year prescriptive period in Louisiana

Civil Code article 3492.

A § 1983 claim accrues “when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of

the injury which is the basis of the action.” Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153,

157 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Walker

concedes that his claim accrued in 2004. He has failed to establish that he was

entitled to tolling of the prescriptive period for the time period during which he

was exhausting administrative remedies. Cf. id. at 157-58. Therefore, Walker’s

§ 1983 complaint was time barred as he did not file suit until 2010, well after the

one-year prescriptive period expired.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-30942 Document: 00511842092 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2012