alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Albert Simmons, Respondent, v Rafael M. Pantoja, Appellant.

[807 NYS2d 577]

an action, inter alia, to recover on a promissory note, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered December 21, 2004, as denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment since the defendant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851 [1985]). Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Spolzino and Dillon, *JJ.,*concur.
#### In the Matter of Gregory P. Mango, Appellant, v Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 832]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), entered August 20, 2004, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s determination selecting the winning design in the competition for the World Trade Center memorial, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proceeding, which was commenced more than four months after respondent’s November 19, 2003 public announcement of the Stage II finalists, was properly dismissed as untimely *(Johns v Rampe,*23 AD3d 283 [2005]). State Administrative Procedure Act § 307, which requires that a “final deci*325sion, determination or order adverse to a party in an adjudicatory proceeding” be in writing and delivered or mailed to each party or his/her attorney of record, does not avail petitioner. The subject competition was not an adjudicatory proceeding as defined in State Administrative Procedure Act § 102 [3]). We have considered and rejected petitioner’s other arguments. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
#### C. A. GODING v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 7782.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1938.

Eugene Meacham, of Washington, D. G, for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Sewall Key, Morrison Shafroth, and Arthur H. Fast, all of Washington, D. G, for respondent.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit’Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the appeal herein be, and the same is, dismissed, pursuant to motion of petitioner.
Filed 9/29/22 P. v. Gomez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CIPRIANO GOMEZ

,

Defendant and Appellant. D079761

(Super. Ct. No. JCF004169 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County,

Christopher J. Plourd, Judge. Affirmed.

Alex Kreit

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Cipriano Gomez entered into a plea agreement, under which he pleaded

no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, 1 § 496 , subd. (a)) with a

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

Harvey 2 waiver. He was sentenced to a three

- year term in county jail. The

sen tence was suspended, and Gomez was granted probation. The probation

officer recommended that Gomez be ordered to pay restitution to the City of

Brawley in the amount of $27, 6 56.38. Gomez requested a restitution

hearing. His request was granted.

At the restitution hearing

, the court considered the probation report,

police reports, documents supplied by the parties, and heard testimony from

witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing

, the court ordered Gomez to pay

restitution in the amount of $27,55 6.38.

Gomez appealed, challenging only the restitution order.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v

. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. C ounsel asks the court to review the

record for error as mandated by Wende . We offered Gomez the opportunity to

file his own brief o n appeal, but he has not responded.

DISCUSSION 3

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks

the c ourt to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review

, and

in compliance with Anders v

. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders )

, counsel

has identified the following possible issue that was considered in evaluating

the potential merits of this appeal : Whether the trial court erred in issuing

the restitution order in this case

.

2 People v

. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

3 Given the limited scope of this appeal

, we find it unnecessary to discuss

the facts of the offenses in this case.3

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.

We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has repr esented Gomez on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O ’ ROURKE, J.

DO, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kristyn Graham

v. Civil No. 07-cv-295-PB

Warden, New Hampshire State

Prison for Women, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction seeking an

order requiring that she be provided copying services for court

filings. She also seeks an appointed attorney. Her underlying

claim essentially deals with alleged inadequate medical care.

Background

Plaintiff alleges that the legal data base (Lexis Nexis)

does not have a printer so she can copy cases for the court. She

also claims that the prison has not promptly disbursed money for

legal copying, stamps, envelopes and paper which has created a

hardship.

I recommend that the motion be denied. A denial of access

claim requires plaintiff to show two things: (1) the denial of an

adequate library or legal assistance; and (2) an actual injurious

hindrance to her claims. See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828

(1977); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). As defense

counsel has ably shown, plaintiff has not alleged any injury and

Case 1:07-cv-00295-PB Document 40 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 2
2

the motion is therefore, fatally flawed. She is not entitled to

appointed counsel. Accordingly, I recommend that the motion be

denied.

Any objections to this report and recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 4, 2008

cc: Kristyn Graham, pro se

James William Kennedy, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00295-PB Document 40 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1550

To change the deadline for income tax returns for calendar year taxpayers

from the 15th of April to the first Monday in November.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 2001

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To change the deadline for income tax returns for calendar

year taxpayers from the 15th of April to the first Monday in November.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEADLINE FOR FILING INCOME TAX RETURNS

4 FOR CALENDAR YEAR TAXPAYERS CHANGED

5 FROM APRIL 15TH TO FIRST MONDAY OF NO6 VEMBER.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6072 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 (relating to time for filing income tax

9 returns) is amended in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘15th

10 day of April’’ and inserting ‘‘first Monday in November’’.
2

•HR 1550 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

3 December 31, 2001.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-226-PB

Beth Handy, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant Robert McFadden has moved to continue the February

6, 2007 trial in the above multi-defendant case, citing newly

appointed counsel and the need for additional time to complete

discovery and prepare a defense. The government and the codefendants do not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from February 6, 2007 to June 5, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 34 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The January 23, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to May 22, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

January 24, 2007

cc: David Bownes, Esq.

Richard Johnston, Esq.

Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Dana Cole, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00226-PB Document 34 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2
#### HUDSPETH, Warden, v. MOSHEIK.

No. 1590.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 18, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1938.

Summerfield S. Alexander, U. S. Atty., and Homer Davis, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Topeka, Kan., for appellant.

Aaron Mosheik, pro se.

Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment discharging Mosheik upon habeas corpus.

Mosheik was convicted in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas of violations of title 18 U.S.C.A. § 73, and on December 19, 1931, was sentenced to imprisonment in the United States Penitentiary át Leavenworth, Kan., for a term of seven years. On the last-mentioned date an application for appeal was allowed and the court entered an order directing that the appellant be not enlarged on bail pending the appeal. He was confined in the county jail of Tarrant county, Tex., pending the appeal. On February 25, 1933, the judgment of conviction was affirmed. See Mosheik v. United States, 5 Cir., 63 F.2d 533. The mandate was filed in the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas on May 24, 1933. On May 26, 1933, after the term at which the judgment and sentence had been entered had expired, the trial court undertook to make an order giving Mo-sheik a credit on his sentence of one year, five months and six days, the time he was confined in the county jail pending the appeal.

The record clerk at the penitentiary, in accordance with instructions received from the director of prisons, refused to recognize the order of May 26, 1933, and recorded the beginning of the sentence as of the date of the arrival of Mosheik at the penitentiary. Thereafter Mosheik brought a mandamus proceeding in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia against Sanford Bates, director of prisons, to compel him to direct the changing of the record to comport with the order of the District Court of May 26, 1933. The writ was denied. Mosheik prosecuted an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The latter court affirmed the judgment holding that, since the term at which the judgment and sentence were entered had expired prior to the entry of the order of May 26, 1933, the court was without power to modify the . sentence and that Mosheik was not entitled to credit for the time he was incarcerated in the county jail pending his appeal. See Mosheik v. Bates, 66 App.D.C. 318, 87 F.2d 221.

Mosheik’s right to relief in the instant case depends entirely upon the validity of the order of May 26, 1933. We agree with the conclusions reached in M&>_ sheik v. Bates, supra,1 and are further of the opinion that the adjudication in that case is binding upon the petitioner in the instant proceeding.

*383The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to the trial court to direct the return of the petitioner to the custody of the Warden.

Reversed and remanded.

1

 See, also, Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U.S. 540, 547, 24 S.Ct. 780, 48 L.Ed. 1110.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1376

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that transfers

of family-owned business interests shall be exempt from estate taxation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. MATSUI,

Mr. FARR of California, Mr. OSE, Mr. RADANOVICH, and Mr. DOOLEY

of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that transfers of family-owned business interests shall

be exempt from estate taxation.

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 ‘‘Family Business Pres5 ervation Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1376 IH

1 SEC. 2. UNLIMITED DEDUCTION FROM ESTATE FOR FAM2 ILY-OWNED BUSINESS INTERESTS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 2057 of

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to family5 owned business interests) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—For purposes of

7 the tax imposed by section 2001, in the case of an estate

8 of a decedent to which this section applies, the value of

9 the taxable estate shall be determined by deducting from

10 the value of the gross estate the adjusted value of the

11 qualified family-owned business interests of the decedent

12 which are described in subsection (b)(2).’’

13 (b) FULL RECAPTURE (WITHOUT INTEREST) IF

14 QUALIFIED HEIR DISPOSES OF PROPERTY, ETC.—

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section

16 2057(f) of such Code is amended by striking sub17 paragraphs (A) and (B), by redesignating subpara18 graph (C) as subparagraph (B), and by inserting

19 after the paragraph heading the following new sub20 paragraph:

21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The amount of the

22 additional estate tax imposed by paragraph (1)

23 shall be equal to the adjusted tax difference at24 tributable to the qualified family-owned busi25 ness interest.’’
3

•HR 1376 IH

1 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (1)

2 of section 2057(f) of such Code is amended by strik3 ing ‘‘within 10 years after the date of the decedent’s

4 death and’’.

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

6 this section shall apply to estates of decedents dying after

7 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-80-02-SM

Jeffrey Mealey

O R D E R

Defendant Mealey's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 52)

is granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the October 2008 trial period. Defendant

shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than August 4, 2008. On the filing of

such waivers, the continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account

the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: October 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Case 1:07-cr-00080-SM Document 54 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Jury Selection: October 7, 2008 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

July 31, 2008 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Robert Kinsella, Esq.

 William Christie, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00080-SM Document 54 Filed 07/31/08 Page 2 of 2
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




March 2009


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: July 7, 2009
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of DataJungle Software Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2004 (the Form 10-QSB) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



|Dated: November 12, 2004 |  | /s/Larry Bruce
Larry Bruce
Vice President Finance, Secretary and Treasurer
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-QSB pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### General Services Administration

# AGENCY:

Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

# ACTION:

Notice of a bulletin.

# SUMMARY:

This Bulletin informs agencies that certain provisions of the FTR governing the authorization of actual subsistence expenses for official travel (both TDY and relocation) are temporarily waived as a result of Hurricane Gustav, because it is expected that finding lodging facilities and/or adequate meals may be difficult, and distances involved may be great resulting in increased costs for per diem expenses.

                        GSA Bulletin FTR 08-10 may be found at                         *www.gsa.gov/​bulletin*.                    

# DATES:

The bulletin announced in this notice became effective on August 31, 2008.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For clarification of content, contact General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, Office of Travel, Transportation and Asset Management, at (202) 501-1777. Please cite FTR Bulletin 08-10.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## A. Background

As a result of the flooding and damage caused by Hurricane Gustav, agencies should consider delaying all non-essential TDY and relocation to the affected area for a period of 30 days. This is especially important with relocation travel because the 120-day maximum for TQSE cannot be extended due to statutory restrictions. Given the flooding and damage caused by the storm, we cannot effectively determine the extent to which the ability to secure lodgings will be compromised. In this case, each agency may determine whether this Bulletin applies to travel to areas which are impacted by Hurricane Gustav.

## B. Procedures

                    Bulletins regarding the Federal Travel Regulation are located on the Internet at                     *www.gsa.gov/​bulletin*                     as Federal Travel Regulation bulletins.                

Dated: September 3, 2008.

Becky Rhodes,

Deputy Associate Administrator.

[FR Doc. E8-21071 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-14-S