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

[678 NYS2d 332]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered April 22, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial (Rienzi, J.), without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Assuming for purposes of the suppression motion that the defendant’s allegations were true and that the contraband was located beneath a crate on which the defendant was seated, the suppression court properly denied the motion without a hearing. The defendant failed to allege in his motion papers that he exercised any expectation of privacy in the crate that was searched *(see, People v Mendoza,*82 NY2d 415). Even if the defendant had alleged that he had entertained an expectation of privacy, it is not reasonable to accord a privacy expectation to a crate in a public area *(see, People v Banker,*187 AD2d 602).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his objection to the background testimony concerning street-level drug transactions *(see, People v Tevaha,*84 NY2d 879). In any event, the testimony was proper “to explain how so-called ‘buy and bust’ operations are conducted * * * how the officers conduct the actual purchase * * * and why prerecorded money is not always recovered” *(People v Brown,*223 AD2d 597). Bracken, J. R, Ritter, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case Number 09-20403-BC

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

v.

D-1 CORY DEMOND HAYNES,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY AS TO COUNT ONE OF THE SECOND

SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA AGREEMENT

UNDER ADVISEMENT

A plea hearing was conducted on June 22, 2010, by United States Magistrate Judge Charles

E. Binder pursuant to the defendant’s consent. Judge Binder issued his report on June 23, 2010,

recommending that this Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty as to count one of the second

superseding indictment. As of today’s date, no party has filed any objections to Judge Binder’s

report and recommendation. The election to not file objections to the report releases the Court from

its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the report and recommendation [Dkt. # 71] is

ADOPTED.

Case 1:09-cr-20403-TLL-CEB ECF No. 84, PageID.240 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 2
-2-

It is further ORDERED that the defendant’s plea of guilty as to count one of the second

superseding indictment is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 Plea Agreement [Dkt. # 68] is taken

UNDER ADVISEMENT.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 27, 2010

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 27, 2010.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

Case 1:09-cr-20403-TLL-CEB ECF No. 84, PageID.241 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.1




 


 





	
Shire plc


Corporate Headquarters:


5 Riverwalk


Citywest Business Campus


Dublin 24


Ireland

	 
	 	 
	
www.shire.com

	 

























 




	
To:

	
Barclays Bank Pic (as Agent)


	
From:

	
Shire pic (as Parent Company)


	
Dated:

	
8th April 2014







Shire PLC - US$2,600,000,000 Term Facilities Agreement


dated 11 November 2013 (the “Agreement”)


 



	
  

	
1.

	
We refer to the Agreement. Terms defined in the Agreement have the same meaning in this letter unless given a different meaning in this letter.







 



	
  

	
2.

	
We refer to Clause 7.2 (Voluntary cancellation).







 



	
  

	
(a)

	
The Parent company requests the voluntary cancellation of US$200,000,000.00 (Two hundred million US dollars) of Available Facility under Facility A.







 



	
  

	
(b)

	
The effective date of such cancellation is 11th April 2014.







 



	
  

	
3.

	
This letter may be executed in any number of counterparts and this has the same effect as if the signatures on the counterparts were on a single copy of this letter.







 



	
  

	
4.

	
This letter and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it are governed by English law.







 



	
  

	
5.

	
This letter has been entered into on the date stated at the beginning of this letter.







 



	
  

	
6.

	
This letter is irrevocable.







 







 


Shire plc


 


By: Tom Greene


 


/s/ Thomas Greene


 







 


Barclays Bank Plc


 


By: /s/ Barclays Bank Plc


 


 











Incorporated and registered in Jersey No. 99854


Registered Office:  Shire plc, 22 Granville Street, St Heller, Jersey JE4 8PX
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 11-1743

_____________

CHARLES MCNAIR; THEODORE AUSTIN; DANIELLE 

DEMETRIOU; 

USHMA DESAI; JULIE DYNKO,

 Appellants,

v.

SYNAPSE GROUP INC.

Appellee.

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 06-cv-5072)

District Judge: Hon. Jose L. Linares

_______________

Argued

January 10, 2012

Before: FUENTES, JORDAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit 

Judges.
2

(Filed March 6, 2012)

_______________

Paul Diamond

1605 John Street - #102

Fort Lee, NJ 07024

Gary S. Graifman [ARGUED]

Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman

747 Chestnut Ridge Road - #200

Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977

Michael S. Green

Green & Associates

522 Route 18 - #5

P.O. Box 428

East Brunswick, NJ 08816

 Counsel for Appellants

Geoffrey W. Castello, III

Lauri A. Mazzuchetti

Vincent P. Rao, II

Kelley, Drye & Warren

200 Kimball Drive

Parsippany, NJ 07054

Thomas E. Gilbertsen [ARGUED]

Venable

575 7th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

 Counsel for Appellee

_______________
3

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_______________

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the above-captioned 

opinion be amended as follows: 

At the bottom of page 2, “Veneble” shall be deleted and 

replaced with “Venable”. 

 /s/ Kent A. Jordan 

Circuit Judge

Dated: March 9, 2012

SLC/cc: Geoffrey W. Castello, III

Thomas E. Gilbersten

Gary S. Graifman

Lauri A. Mazzuchetti
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

GERRY SHARROB HAMPTON,

Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:09-12842
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NICK LUDWICK,
Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On November 10, 2010, this Court denied petitioner’s habeas application brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with prejudice. The Court also denied petitioner a certificate of
appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Petitioner has now filed a motion for
reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

USS. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 7.1 (h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration.
In order for a court to grant a motion for reconsideration, the movant must show (1) a palpable
defect; (2) that misled the court and the parties; and (3) that correcting the defect will result in a
different disposition of the case. Sigma Financial Corp. v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins.
Co., 200 F. Supp. 2d 710, 715 (E.D. Mich. 2002). A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is
considered “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Jd. As a general rule, a court will
not grant a motion for rehearing or reconsideration that merely presents the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. /d.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied, because he is merely presenting


issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication, when the Court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied petitioner a
certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F.
Supp. 2d 549, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration [Court Docket Entry # 6]
is DENIED. ie
SO ORDERED. | w_D Bs UN
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dated: DEC 9 4” 2010

PURSUANT TO RULE 77 (d), FED. R. CIV. P.
COPIES MAILED TO ATTORNEYS FOR ALL
PARTIES ONG Tee 9D, 20_1A

WO Caren

DEPUTY COURT CLERK

ie)
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. RT01-99-000, etc.]
 Docket No.Regional Transmission Organizations
RT01-99-000, RT01-99-001, RT01-99-002 and RT01-99-003.Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, 
                            *et al.*
RT01-86-000, RT01-86-001 and RT01-86-002.New York Independent System Operator, Inc., 
                            *et al.*
RT01-95-000, RT01-95-001 and RT01-95-002.PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 
                            *et al.*
RT01-2-000, RT01-2-001, RT01-2-002 and RT01-2-003.PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
RT01-98-000.ISO New England, Inc. New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
RT02-3-000.
 Notice Take notice that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and ISO New England, Inc. have posted on their internet Web sites information updating their progress on the resolution of RTO seams. Any person desiring to file comments on this information should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure Docket No. RT01-99-000, 
                    *et al.* (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such comments should be filed on or before the comment date. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. *Comment Date:*
                     August 21, 2008. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


[FR Doc. E8-18005 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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 Report of Acquired Sales Corp. a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I, Gerard M. Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:  a. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  b. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Gerard M. Jacobs Gerard M. Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)  Dated May 14, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6093

DAVID M. WASANYI, Pharm.D.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE TRENT, Superintendent, PCC,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

BERKELEY COUNTY,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00225-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: May 28, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David M. Wasanyi, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David M. Wasanyi seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petitions and denying a certificate of appealability. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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 that reasonable jurists could 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 petition 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 Wasanyi has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Wasanyi’s motions to appoint counsel, deny Wasanyi’s motions to transfer his case to 

another district court judge, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
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 Q Lotus Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marckensie Theresias, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





The foregoing statement is furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) and for no other reason.








/s/ Marckensie Theresias


Marckensie Theresias


Chief Financial Officer


November 15, 2010
#### PARDUE v. SITMAN et al.

No. 1151.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 30, 1933.

For former opinion, see 148 So. 288.

ELLIOTT, Judge.

The defendant W. O. Humphries alleges in his petition for rehearing that the statement made in the opinion of the court, in which the court quotes a typewritten statement written at .the bottom of an unsigned promise to sell in the words following to wit; “I accept the above offer and agree to pay you One hundred and fifty dollars commission,” and as to which we say in the opinion: “This last stipulation was intended for the signature of Humphries,” was in error. That same was intended for the signature of Sitman.

We have looked into this matter and re-examined the evidence, and, conceding the correctness of the contention that the statement was intended to be signed by Sitman, it makes no difference at all in our conclusion as to the liability of Humphries.

Our opinion correctly states our conclusion that Humphries justly owes the plaintiff $150, as held in the opinion. Our opinion on that subject remains unchanged.

For these reasons the application for rehearing is refused.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 30, 2019

No. 04-19-00136-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.L.T., A CHILD,

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA00621

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal from a trial court’s order terminating appellant Mother’s 

parental rights. Mother’s brief was due on April 23, 2019, and on that day, counsel for Mother 

filed a motion requesting an extension of time of twenty days. In the motion, Mother’s counsel 

states he needs more time to prepare the brief due to workload obligations.

After consideration, we GRANT counsel’s motion for extension of time to file a brief 

and ORDER that counsel file the brief on or before May 13, 2019. Counsel is reminded that 

this court is mandated to dispose of appeals involving termination of parental rights within 180 

days from the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Accordingly, any 

delay in the filing of the brief encroaches upon our time for disposition, and further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Adelheid Welcke and Others, Appellants, v. William C. Trageser and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed. No opinion.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




I, Carl
Oberg, Chief Financial Officer of Classic Costume Company, Inc.,  (the
“Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based
on my knowledge:




(1)    the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is
attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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
Registrant.




November
      12, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Carl
      ObergCarl
      ObergChief
      Financial Officer (Principal
      Financial Officer)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40201 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ABRAHAM CONTRERAS

- ARMENDARIS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15

- CR

- 978

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Abraham Contreras

- Armendaris has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief
in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Contreras

- Armen daris h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 2, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40201 Document: 00513664055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2016No. 16

- 40201

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-40201 Document: 00513664055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2016
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3865

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to withhold

public housing funding from public housing agencies in States that prevent or impede the eviction of a public housing tenant upon the initial

violation of the terms of the tenant’s lease.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 22, 1996

Mr. TORRICELLI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

to withhold public housing funding from public housing

agencies in States that prevent or impede the eviction

of a public housing tenant upon the initial violation

of the terms of the tenant’s lease.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘One Strike Enforce5 ment Act’’.
2

•HR 3865 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD PHA FUNDING.

2 Section 6 of the United States Housing Act of 1937

3 (42 U.S.C. 1437d) is amended by adding at the end the

4 following new subsection:

5 ‘‘(s) AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD AMOUNTS.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

7 provision of law, upon determining that a State has

8 in effect any law, regulation, policy, or directive

9 which prohibits, prevents, or impairs any public

10 housing agency from terminating the tenancy of a

11 public housing tenant because the tenant has, on one

12 occasion, engaged in any conduct or violation of the

13 terms of the lease that is sufficient grounds for such

14 termination, the Secretary shall withhold public

15 housing assistance amounts (in an amount deter16 mined by the Secretary) from each public housing

17 agency that owns or operates public housing located

18 within such State.

19 ‘‘(2) PUBLIC HOUSING ASSISTANCE.—For pur20 poses of this subsection, the term ‘public housing as21 sistance’ includes, with respect to a public housing

22 agency, any amounts made available under this title

23 for assistance for development, operation, or mod24 ernization of public housing (including amounts for

25 capital improvements) for such agency.
3

•HR 3865 IH

1 ‘‘(3) RELEASE OF WITHHELD AMOUNTS.—After

2 withholding amounts pursuant to paragraph (1)

3 from the public housing agencies of a State, upon

4 determining that the law, regulation, policy, or direc5 tive referred to in paragraph (1) is no longer in ef6 fect, the Secretary shall release, to each such public

7 housing agency, any amounts withheld from the pub8 lic housing agency.

9 ‘‘(4) ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.—The de10 terminations under paragraphs (1) and (3) regard11 ing a State law, regulation, policy, or directive shall

12 be made on the record after opportunity for a hear13 ing.’’.

Æ