alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 19, 2015 519191

________________________________ In the Matter of JESSIE SMITH, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 20, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

__________ Jessie Smith, Sonyea, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with committing an unhygienic act and disobeying a direct order. The misbehavior report relates that, during a strip search, petitioner notified the correction officer that he needed to use the restroom. Although the correction officer directed petitioner to continue with the strip search, petitioner urinated on himself and the floor. At the ensuing tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner initially pleaded not guilty to the charges but subsequently changed his plea to guilty. Petitioner was found guilty of the charges and that determination was affirmed-2- 519191

upon administrative appeal. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. We confirm. Given petitioner's plea of guilty to the charges, he is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Campbell v Bedard, 123 AD3d 1278, 1278 [2014]; Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci, 122 AD3d 1203, 1204 [2014]). Furthermore, to the extent that petitioner claims that he did not recant his original plea of not guilty to the charges, the record clearly belies this contention. In any event, substantial evidence in the form of the misbehavior report and hearing testimony supports the determination of guilt. Although petitioner asserts that he is incontinent, there is no medical evidence in the record to support his contention and, under such circumstances, petitioner's explanation presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Redmond v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1304, 1304 [2014]). Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
178 La. 635

#### STATE v. WALKER.

No. 32481.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 27, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 2, 1934.

Redmond & Thompson, of Monroe, for appellant.

G. L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank W. Hawthorne, Dist. Atty., of Bastrop, and George W. Lester, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Monroe (James O’Niell, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

ST. PAUL, Justice.

The defendant, was convicted of breaking and entering in the daytime.

After conviction, but before sentence, he moved to set aside the conviction on the ground that the district court had no jurisdiction over him by reason of his being under the age of 17 years at the time the alleged offense was committed. The trial judge overruled his motion and sentenced him to three years in the penitentiary. Wherefore he appeals.

He complains that on the trial of his exception to the jurisdiction the judge admitted evidence that, on the occasion of some previous minor juvenile delinquency, the defendant admitted that his age was such as to make him more than 17 years of age at the time this present offense was committed, contrary to the provisions of section 7 of Act No. 83 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), reading as follows: “No charges or affidavits made, evidence given or judgment rendered against any child in any Juvenile Court shall be at any time thereafter admissible against such child in any other proceedings in any other Court of the State.”

The objection is not well founded. The evidence admitted was evidence on a purely collateral matter and did not touch upon the alleged prior delinquency; and hence its admission for the sole purpose of proving the age of the accused does not violate the purpose of the law which is “that the proceedings had, or pending against the child, shall not be permitted to be used to brand him as one with a criminal record.” State v. Kelly, 169 La. 753, 756, 126 So. 49, 50.

But an admission by a juvenile as to his age cannot outweigh positive testimony of his mother and her sister giving the exact date of his birth and showing to be under the age of 17 years; and in our opinion the evidence of the mother is not impeached by the fact that, although she testifies that she did not see the juvenile officer on the former occasion, he testifies that she did see him and did give him the age of the juvenile at the time; for it may well be that the juvenile officer mistook the admission of the juvenile himself for the statement of his mother, and moreover the testimony of the mother is corroborated by that of her sister whose testimony is unimpeached.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence herein are- set aside without prejudice of the right of the state to proceed against, the defendant in the juvenile court
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6710 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through 

the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to submit to Congress a report 

on barriers, including regulatory inefficiencies, to domestic manufacturing 

of active pharmaceutical ingredients, finished drug products, and devices, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2022 

Ms. HERRELL (for herself, Mr. BANKS, Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. HERN, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. 

AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. CAWTHORN, Mr. NORMAN, 

Mr. LATURNER, Mr. KELLER, Mr. HUDSON, Mrs. CAMMACK, and Mr. 

GOHMERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 

to submit to Congress a report on barriers, including 

regulatory inefficiencies, to domestic manufacturing of 

active pharmaceutical ingredients, finished drug products, and devices, and for other purposes. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6710 IH

1 SECTION 1. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON BAR2 RIERS TO DOMESTIC MANUFACTURING OF 

3 MEDICAL PRODUCTS. 

4 (a) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days 

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

6 of Health and Human Services (in this section referred 

7 to as the ‘‘Secretary’’), acting through the Commissioner 

8 of Food and Drugs, shall submit to Congress a report on 

9 barriers, including regulatory inefficiencies, to domestic 

10 manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients, fin11 ished drug products, and devices that are— 

12 (1) imported from outside of the United States; 

13 and 

14 (2) critical to the public health during a public 

15 health emergency declared by the Secretary under 

16 section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

17 U.S.C. 247d). 

18 (b) CONTENT.—Such report shall— 

19 (1) identify factors that limit the manufac20 turing of active pharmaceutical ingredients, finished 

21 drug products, and devices described in subsection 

22 (a); and 

23 (2) recommend specific strategies to overcome 

24 the challenges identified under paragraph (1). 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6710 IH

1 (c) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary may, to the 

2 extent appropriate, implement the strategies recommended 

3 under subsection (b)(2). 

4 (d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘active 

5 pharmaceutical ingredient’’ has the meaning given to such 

6 term in section 744A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos7 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 379j–41). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Graham Brathwaite, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alfano, J.), rendered December 19, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Uviller, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Within approximately 90 minutes after committing a robbery of a fast-food restaurant in Brooklyn, the defendant was seen in another nearby fast-food restaurant by a witness who had observed him fleeing from the first restaurant. This witness informed police of his observations and a victim of the robbery was transported to the second restaurant. Looking inside from a police car, the victim identified the defendant as one of the robbers, following which the defendant was placed under arrest.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, this did not constitute an unduly suggestive showup identification *(see, People v Ghee,*139 AD2d 663). Indeed, the defendant was identified without prompting *(see, People v Evans,*123 AD2d 328) by a victim who observed him while he was still at large *(see, People v Mack,*116 AD2d 593). Moreover, the defendant was seen in the restaurant surrounded by several other individuals, so that the identification procedure was more in the nature of an impromptu on-the-scene lineup than a potentially objectionable one-on-one police arranged showup *(see, People v Dolphin,*77 AD2d 571).

Similarly, the identification testimony was not subject to suppression as a result of unduly suggestive lineups. Examining the *Wade*hearing testimony, which is the only testimony to be considered in reviewing the propriety of the suppression court’s ruling *(see, People v Lott,*143 AD2d 686; *People v*
      *403
      *Anderson,*127 AD2d 774), we find that the lineup procedures employed were not improper. Although the defendant was exhibited wearing the clothing described by eyewitnesses, at least two other lineup participants were similarly attired so that he did not stand out from the rest *(see, People v Diaz,*138 AD2d 728; *compare, People v Lloyd,*108 AD2d 873, *affd*66 NY2d 964). Moreover, that one witness recalled that the defendant’s lips appeared swollen did not render the lineups unduly suggestive *(see, People v Phillips,*145 AD2d 656; *People v Williams,*118 AD2d 610). Rather, we are persuaded that the eyewitnesses who identified the defendant in lineups did so under circumstances which did not give rise to a significant likelihood of misidentification.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxco, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Max A. Coon, as
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




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




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




Date: April
              3, 2006
            By:
            /s/
              Max A. CoonMax
              A. CoonChief
              Executive Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





27
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 1, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00824

- CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF GEORGE V. GARCIA,

AN INCAPACITATED PERSON

,

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015PB6000016 L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's motion to consolidate is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 1st day of June, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.446


 


ASSIGNMENT
OF CONTRACT


 


This ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT (the “Assignment”) is made and entered into this         
day of December, 2004 by INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., an Illinois
corporation (“Assignor”) and INLAND WESTERN
AVONDALE MCDOWELL, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”).


 


Assignor does hereby sell, assign, transfer,
set over and convey unto Assignee all of its right, title and interest as
Purchaser under that certain agreement dated as of August     
, 2004, as amended, and entered into by Gateway Pavilions, L.L.C., an Arizona
limited liability company, as Seller, and Assignor, as Purchaser (collectively,
the “Agreement”), with respect to the sale
and purchase of the property described by the Agreement, located in Avondale,
Arizona, and known as Gateway Pavilions Shopping Center.


 


Assignor represents and warrants that it is
the Purchaser under the Agreement, and that it has not sold, assigned,
transferred, or encumbered such interest in any way to any other person or
entity. By acceptance hereof, Assignee accepts the foregoing Assignment and
agrees, from and after the date hereof, to (i) perform all of the obligations
of Purchaser under the Agreement, and (ii) indemnify, defend, protect and hold
Assignor harmless from and against all claims and liabilities arising under the
Agreement.


 


	
   

  	
  ASSIGNOR:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., an 

  Illinois corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Mark Youngman

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Mark Youngman

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Vice President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ASSIGNEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INLAND WESTERN AVONDALE MCDOWELL, 

  L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust,
  Inc., a Maryland corporation, its sole member

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Debra A. Palmer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Debra A. Palmer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Ass't Secretary
EXHIBIT
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Surfect Holdings, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony
      M. Maffia, Jr., 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, 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;
                and




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


Dated: May 1, 2007
              /s/
                  Anthony M. Maffia, Jr.
                Anthony
                  M. Maffia, Jr.
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
TERMINATION AGREEMENT
                              ---------------------

         THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into
effective as of January 28, 2005, by and between KRONOS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. a Nevada Corporation (the "Company"), and CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership (the "Investor").

                                    Recitals:
                                    ---------

         WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor entered into an standby equity
distribution t agreement (the "Standby Equity Distribution Agreement"); a
registration rights agreement (the "Registration Rights Agreement") and an
escrow agreement all of which are date as of October 15, 2004 (the "Escrow
Agreement"). (Collectively, the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement, the
Registration Rights Agreement, and the Escrow Agreement are referred to as the
"Transaction Documents."

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual
promises, conditions and covenants contained herein and in the Transaction
Documents and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. Termination. Each of the parties to this Agreement hereby terminate
the Transaction Documents and the respective rights and obligations contained
therein. As a result of this provision, none of the parties shall have any
rights or obligations under or with respect to the Transaction Documents.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed and delivered this
Termination Agreement on the date first set forth above.

                                      KRONOS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                                      By: /s/Daniel R. Dwight
                                         -----------------------
                                      Name:  Daniel R. Dwight
                                      Title: President

                                      CORNELL CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP

                                      By:  Yorkville Advisors, LLC
                                      Its: General Partner

                                      By: /s/Mark A. Angelo
                                          --------------------
                                      Name:  Mark A. Angelo
                                      Title: Portfolio Manager
Exhibit 99.2


Frontier Communications


3 High Ridge Park


Stamford, CT 06905


203.614.5600


www.frontier.com







Frontier Communications Corporation to Participate in Investor Conference




Stamford, Conn. – April 12, 2010 –Frontier Communications Corporation (NYSE:FTR) is scheduled to participate in the upcoming Goldman Sachs TMT Leveraged Finance Conference.  David Whitehouse, Senior Vice President and Treasurer, is scheduled to present on Wednesday, April 14, 2010, at 4:45 p.m. Eastern time.





A live webcast of the presentation will be available at www.frontier.com on the Investor Relations page under “Webcasts & Presentations.”









About Frontier Communications




Frontier Communications Corporation (NYSE: FTR) is a full-service communications provider and one of the largest local exchange telephone companies in the country serving rural areas and small and medium-sized towns and cities. Frontier is included in the S&P 500 Index. Frontier Communications offers telephone, television and Internet services, including wireless Internet data access, as well as bundled offerings, specialized bundles for small businesses and home offices, and data security solutions. Additional information about Frontier is available at www.frontier.com.










INVESTOR CONTACTS:


MEDIA CONTACT:David Whitehouse
Gregory Lundberg

Brigid SmithSVP & Treasurer
Director, Investor Relations

AVP Corp. Communications(203) 614-5708
(203) 614-5044

(203) 614-5042david.whitehouse@frontiercorp.com
greg.lundberg@frontiercorp.com

brigid.smith@frontiercorp.com










###
Exhibit 32

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

   In connection with the Annual Report of Stem Cell Therapy International, Inc.
(the  'Company') on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2007, 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 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  that  to  such  officer's  knowledge:  Section  13(a)

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

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the
Company  as  of  the  dates  and  for  the  periods  expressed  in  the  Report.

   In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the
following  persons  on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates  indicated.


SIGNATURES           TITLE                       DATE
-------------------  --------------------------  -------------


/s/ Calvin Cao       President                   July 12, 2007
-------------------
Calvin Cao



/s/ Daniel Sullivan  Chief Financial Officer     July 12, 2007
-------------------  & Chief Accounting Officer
Daniel Sullivan
exv10w29



 








EXHIBIT 10.29




Material Contracts




     Set forth below are arrangements between ABM Industries Incorporated (the “Registrant”) and
various of its directors that are not set forth in a formal written document.



     On October 18, 2004, the Governance Committee of the Board of Directors of the Registrant
approved the compensation of non-employee directors for its fiscal year beginning November 1, 2004.
Non-employee directors will receive an annual retainer of $36,000, and meeting fees of $2,000 for
in-person Board and Committee meetings, $2,000 for telephonic meetings of two or more hours, and
$1,000 for telephonic meetings of less than two hours. In addition, the Chair of the Audit
Committee will receive an additional fee of 100% of the applicable meeting fee for each Audit
Committee meeting and each of the Chairs of the other Committees (Governance Committee,
Compensation Committee, and Executive Committee) will receive an additional fee of 50% of the
applicable meeting fee for each meeting of his or her respective Committee. The fees to the
Committee Chairs took effect November 1, 2004, except for the Chair of the Executive Committee,
which took effect January 1, 2005.



     Chairman of the Board Martinn Mandles, whose employment ended on November 1, 2004, will
receive an additional annual retainer for fiscal year 2005 of $36,000. In addition, Registrant
will pay Mr. Mandles $50,000 in fiscal year 2005 for certain transition services.



     As a result of the expected reduced frequency of meetings of the Executive Committee on a
going forward basis, effective January 1, 2005, Registrant made a lump sum retirement payment of
$300,000 to Chairman of the Executive Committee William Steele and terminated the annual consulting
retainer of $100,000 paid to Mr. Steele. The Registrant will continue to pay an annual fee of
$100,000 to director Theordore Rosenberg, who receives no fees for meetings of the Executive
Committee.



     These arrangements were the subject of a Form 8-K filed by the Registrant on October 22, 2004.