alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Pamela Ise-Smith, Respondent, v Edmund Orok-Edem, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 461]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, the father appeals from (1) an order of filiation of the Family Court, Kings County (Weinstein, J.), dated August 15, 2000, (2) an order of support of the same court (Shamahs, H.E.), dated March 22, 2001, which, after a hearing, directed him to pay $586.50 per month in child support, and (3) an order of the same court (Weinstein, J.), dated May 30, 2001, which denied his objections to the order of support.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 15, 2000, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 22, 2001, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 30, 2001, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the objections to the support order are sustained, the order dated March 22, 2001, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new determination in accordance herewith.

The appeal from the order of filiation dated August 15, 2000, must be dismissed, as that order is not appealable as of right and leave to appeal has not been granted *(see Matter of Department of Social Servs. v Jay W.,*105 AD2d 19, 28). In addition, *415the appeal from the order dated March 22, 2001, must be dismissed as no appeal lies therefrom (see Family Ct Act § 439 [e]). However, the issues raised on appeal from both of those orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the order dated May 30, 2001.

The Family Court improperly failed to deduct the appellant’s self-employment tax contributions from his gross income before calculating his child support obligations (see Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [vii] [H]; *Carlin v Carlin,*217 AD2d 679, 680). Furthermore, the court improperly failed to deduct the appellant’s payments to his accountant as business expenses *(Matter of Barber v Cahill,*240 AD2d 887, 889). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Family Court, Kangs County, for a new determination of the appellant’s child support obligation.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.
| (1)    | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                                                                                                                                            |
| (2)    | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

| /s/ William      Hartman                                                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| William      Hartman                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| Title:      Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting      Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
| Date:      August 13, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01952-PAB

GRENADA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RACHEL S. GRYNBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Accept and Disburse

Funds [Docket No. 22]. The Court having reviewed plaintiff’s motion, it is 

ORDERED that the Motion to Accept and Disburse Funds [Docket No. 22] is

granted. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall accept funds in the amount of

$303,986.69 received from garnishee Chase Bank. It is further

ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office, upon receipt and acceptance of funds, shall

disburse the funds in the amount of $303,986.69 to plaintiff’s counsel, Freidel Dykes,

P.C., 1873 S. Bellaire Street, Suite 610, Denver, CO 80222.

DATED November 2, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01952-PAB Document 27 Filed 11/02/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darold Freeman, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 323]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Denis Boyle, J.), rendered February 21, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life and 10 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s request for a missing witness charge was properly denied both on the ground of untimeliness and on the merits. The request was not made “as soon as practicable” *(People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424, 428), where it was made after both sides had finished presenting evidence and the court was about to proceed with summations and charge *(see, People v Jordan,*277 AD2d 155, *lv denied*96 NY2d 760; *People v Johnson,*262 AD2d 243, *lv denied*94 NY2d 921). Furthermore, the missing witness, the cousin of an initially uncooperative witness who was not a victim of the crime and who was romantically involved with defendant, was not shown to be under the People’s control for purposes of a missing witness instruction *(see, People v Lacy,*166 AD2d 168, *lv denied*76 NY2d 987). Moreover, the prospective witness’s testimony would, at best, have been cumulative *(see, People v Smith,*279 AD2d 259, *lv denied*96 NY2d 835).

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6425

WILLIAM F. JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

P. L. HUFFMAN, Warden, Bland Correctional

Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-220-R)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by, Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (Law. Co-op.

Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that

a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Johnson v. Huffman, CA-95-220-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 5, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 40 Filed 12/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-02268-WJM-KLM Document 40 Filed 12/16/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederick Pereira, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 195]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered February 21, 2001, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he acted recklessly under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, elements necessary to be proven to establish his guilt of assault in the first degree *(see*Penal Law § 120.10 [3]). The defendant placed a loaded gun against a friend’s mouth and the gun discharged, a bullet shattering multiple teeth before lodging itself in the back of the neck next to the spinal cord. A firearms expert, who test-fired the gun, testified at trial that the gun was operable and had a light trigger pull, meaning that it could discharge easily, although the gun did not “cycle reliably.” The defendant claimed that he did not believe the gun worked. Based on this evidence, the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted recklessly under circumstances evincing depraved indifference to human life *(see People v Cole,*85 NY2d 990, 992; *People v Roe,*74 NY2d 20, 24-25; *People v Register,*60 NY2d 270, 276, *cert denied*466 US 953; *People v Paul,*209 AD2d 447). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpre*429served for appellate review or without merit. Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, Krausman and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### Dennis M. Virga et al., Respondents, v Medi-Tech International Corporation, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 704]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the de*547fendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 9, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law and, upon searching the record, granted the plaintiffs summary judgment striking that affirmative defense.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On the record presented, there is no basis for disregarding the evidence demonstrating that the injured plaintiffs employer and the owner of the property where the injury occurred are distinct legal entities *(compare Macchirole v Giamboi,*97 NY2d 147; *Heritage v Van Patten,*59 NY2d 1017; *Cipriano v FYM Assoc.,*117 AD2d 770, *with Mattarelliano v Moish Gas Stas.,*242 AD2d 685; *Rosenburg v Angiuli Buick,*220 AD2d 654; *Casas v 559 Warren St. Realty Corp.,*211 AD2d 742; *Kaplan v Bayley Seton Hosp.,*201 AD2d 461; *Bernardo v Melville Indus. Assoc.,*148 AD2d 486). Thus, the Supreme Court properly searched the record and granted the plaintiffs summary judgment striking the affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law *(see*Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### MANGUS v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MIAMI.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
**Exhibit 99.5**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-12130 on Form F-3, No. 333-12780 and 333-12802 on Form S-8 and No. 333-199993 on Form F-10 and to the use of our reports dated March 3, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements of BCE Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, and appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of BCE Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2015.

/s/ Deloitte LLP[1] 

March 9, 2016 

Montréal, Canada

______________________________

1 CPA auditor, CA, public accountancy permit No. A104630
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23398]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Prospective Granting of a Co-Exclusive License

AGENCY: Technology Transfer Office, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 
CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) that the Technology Transfer Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human 
Services (DHHS), is contemplating the granting of a co-exclusive 
worldwide license to practice the invention embodied in the patent 
application referred below to Mk-IX Technologies, having a place of 
business in Huntsville, Alabama. CDC intends to grant rights to 
practice this invention to no more than one other co-licensee. The 
patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the government 
of the United States of America. The patent application to be licensed 
is:

Non-Provisional Patent Application

    Title: Wipes and Methods for Removal of Metal Contamination from 
Surfaces.
    Serial No. 11/039,178.
    Filing date: 01/18/2005.
    Issue Date: Patent pending.
    The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will 
comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of these patent applications, inquiries, 
comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated license 
should be directed to Andrew Watkins, Director, Technology Transfer 
Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 4770 Buford 
Highway, Mailstop K-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, telephone: (770) 488-8610; 
facsimile: (770) 488-8615. Applications for an exclusive license filed 
in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the grant 
of the contemplated co-exclusive license. Only written comments and/or 
applications for a license which are received by CDC within thirty days 
of this notice will be considered. Comments and objections submitted in 
response to this notice will not be made available for public 
inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released 
under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. A signed 
Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive a copy of 
any pending patent application.

    Dated: September 26, 2008.
James D. Seligman,
Chief Information Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
 [FR Doc. E8-23398 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Case 1:11-cv-01970-BNB Document 9 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01970-BNB Document 9 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01970-BNB Document 9 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-01970-BNB Document 9 Filed 10/13/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 10.61



Exhibit 10.61






	
EnergyNsync, Inc.

 Dallas, Texas













April 30, 2004





Mr. Geoffrey Ramsey, CEO

GlobalNet Energy Investors, Inc.

1840 Hutton Drive, Suite 130

Carrollton, Texas 75006





Re:  License/Distributor Agreement Waiver





Dear Mr. Ramsey:





Reference is made to the License Distributor Agreement dated November 1, 2003 between EnergyNsync, Inc. as the Manufacturer and GlobalNet Energy Investors, Inc. as the Distributor.  You have requested a waiver of the
minimum annual purchase requirement, as measured quarterly, per Section 3. (A) of the Agreement for the period ended March 31, 2004 and June 30, 2004.  ENS by this letter grants GlobalNet a full release for the minimum purchase amount for these two
time periods.  The next measurable period will be September 30, 2004.





The purpose of this letter agreement is to waive the aforementioned default for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, and quarter ending June 30, 2004, and not to modify or amend the License/Distributor Agreement in any
other way.  Nothing herein contained or implied shall be construed as a waiver of any other provision of the License/Distributor Agreement dated November 1, 2003.





This letter shall be binding upon the Distributor and its respecting successors, heirs and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of EnergyNsync, Inc., and its successors and assigns.





If this letter set forth herein is acceptable, please acknowledge below and return the executed original to me as soon as possible.





Thank you.





Sincerely,








/s/ Scott Feldhacker                  

 Scott Feldhacker

President, EnergyNsync, Inc.





Agreed to and Acknowledged:





/s/ Geoffrey Ramsey                       
                        Date:  5/18/04             

 Geoffrey Ramsey

CEO, duly authorized
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-CV-01950-RBJ-CBS

TERESA GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. Grayson Robinson, in his official 

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS

______________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the parties Stipulated Motion to Dismiss on 

behalf of Plaintiff Teresa Garcia and Defendant, J. Grayson Robinson, regarding the

Motion filed on November 30, 2012, Docket No. 101.

The parties move this Court to grant their stipulated motion and enter an order 

dismissing this case with prejudice, each party to bear her/his own costs and fees.

IT IS ORDERED that the Stipulated Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this

case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

DATED this 30th day of November, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01950-RBJ-CBS Document 102 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1099 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 209
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1099

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to make individuals 
  employed by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission 
              eligible to obtain Federal health insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 12, 2007

Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
               Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

                             June 19, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to make individuals 
  employed by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission 
              eligible to obtain Federal health insurance.

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

SECTION 1. HEALTH INSURANCE.

    Section 8901(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (I), by inserting ``and'' after the 
        semicolon; and
            (3) by inserting before the matter following subparagraph 
        (I) the following:
                    ``(J) an individual who is employed by the 
                Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission and 
                is a citizen of the United States,''.
                                                       Calendar No. 209

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1099

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, to make individuals 
  employed by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission 
              eligible to obtain Federal health insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 19, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
1

This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00297-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ERIC SHAWN COPELAND,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER1

A Notice of Disposition was filed on October 20, 2011. A Change of Plea hearing

is set for November 3, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. Counsel for the parties shall deliver or email a courtesy copy of all change of plea documents separately to Judge

Blackburn’s chambers AND to the Probation Department not later than 48 hours

before the change of plea hearing date. See D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1C. If the

documents are not timely submitted, the hearing will be vacated. There will be no

exceptions to this policy. On the date of the hearing, counsel shall then bring with them

an original and one (1) copy of the plea agreement and the statement in advance. See 

D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1F.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

1. That the suppression hearing set for November 3, 2011, is VACATED; and

2. That, to the extent necessary, the United States Marshal for the District of

Colorado shall assist the court in securing the defendant’s appearance for the change of

hearing.

Dated: October 21, 2011

Case 1:11-cr-00297-REB Document 33 Filed 10/21/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01975-DME

HANA VON JAROLIM,

Petitioner,

v.

MIKE GEORGE VON JAROLIM,

Respondent.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Hana von Jarolim’s Motion to 

Permit Her Testimony By Contemporaneous Transmission (Doc. No. 5). The Motion is 

GRANTED. Petition Hana von Jarolim may appear and testify by telephone at the 

Show Cause Hearing on Thursday, August, 18, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. Counsel for Ms. von 

Jarolim is responsible for contacting the Clerk of the Court to facilitate Ms. Von Jarolim’s 

telephonic appearance.

Dated this 11th day of August , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/ David M. Ebel

 

U. S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01975-DME Document 6 Filed 08/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1