alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Creditanstalt Investment Bank AG et al., Respondents, v Chadbourne & Parke LLP, Appellant.

[788 NYS2d 104]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered June 14, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, and order, same court and Justice, entered July 23, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion to-dismiss the amended complaint only to the extent of staying the matter for 90 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Austrian investment bank and various affiliates allege that defendant law firm committed malpractice in rendering advice concerning the investment of client funds inside the *415Russian Federation, under a program purportedly .devised by some of the firm’s attorneys. Defendant’s substantial delay of nearly 20 months in asserting forum non conveniens is itself a reason for denial of the motion to dismiss *(see National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Worley,*257 AD2d 228, 232 [1999]). In any event, the motion court considered and balanced the various competing factors set forth in *Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi*(62 NY2d 474 [1984], *cert denied*469 US 1108 [1985]), properly concluding that defendant did not satisfy its heavy burden of demonstrating New York is not a convenient forum for this action *(see Shin-Etsu Chem. Co., Ltd. v ICICI Bank Ltd.,*9 AD3d 171, 175-176 [2004]).

The court appropriately declined to dismiss or indefinitely stay this matter pending completion of the Russian legal proceedings, since plaintiffs allege damages that have already been incurred and do not premise their lawsuit on damages dependent on the outcome of some yet-to-be-completed proceeding *(see Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn v Munao,*270 AD2d 150 [2000]). Moreover, it is well settled that a legal malpractice claim accrues when all the facts necessary to the cause have occurred and the injured party can obtain relief in court *(see McCoy v Feinman,*99 NY2d 295, 301 [2002]). The Court of Appeals has rejected the suggestion that the accrual of a malpractice claim is dependent on the conclusion of an underlying proceeding outside the jurisdiction *(Ackerman v Price Waterhouse,*84 NY2d 535, 541-542 [1994]).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ. *[See*4 Misc 3d 481.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          32,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  106,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    157,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               386,983
<PP&E>                                         701,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                 305,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,034,488
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          231,936
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           284
<OTHER-SE>                                     457,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,034,488
<SALES>                                        242,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               242,555
<CGS>                                          194,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  194,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,318
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,718
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

         I, James M. Matthew, Chief Financial Officer of Empire Financial
Holding Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Empire Financial Holding
Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and
have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls
   and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
   information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
   subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
   particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
   controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
   the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
   the period covered by this report and based on such evaluation;

   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
   internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
   business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is
   reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
   control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

   a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
   process, summarize and report financial information; and

   b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
   control over financial reporting.

Date: March 30, 2007

/s/ James M. Matthew
--------------------
James M. Matthew,
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7354

CARSON W. MUNGO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN SIMPSON, Director of United States Parole

Commission; KATHY HAWK, Director of Bureau of

Prisons; F. COLLINSWORTH; GRETCHEN ROBINSON;

STEVE CONRAD; BEN HUGER; WALTER E. BLACK, JR.,

Probation Officer; BILL COX,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-93-593-1)

Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 20, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carson W. Mungo, Appellant Pro Se. John Warren Stone, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on March 28, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on July 31, 1996. Appellant's

failure to note a timely appeal or obtain either an extension or a

reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We deny Appellant's objections to the application of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act, and dismiss the appeal. 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

GEREMY FORD,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 356 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
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





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



This 17th day of March, 2009.







| |  |                                             
| |  | --------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ MICHAEL G. SANCHEZ                      
| |  | Michael G. Sanchez                          
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer       
| |  | (Principal Executive Officer)               
| |  |                                             
| |  |                                             
| |  |                                             
| |  |                                             
| |  | /s/ PAUL R. GARRIGUES                       
| |  | Paul R. Garrigues                           
| |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
| |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FREDDIE SUAREZ.

September 24, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that, to such officers knowledge:

1. The accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    FUJIO CHOName:

Fujio ChoTitle:

Chairman of the BoardDate: June 25, 2007By:

/s/    MITSUO KINOSHITAName:

Mitsuo KinoshitaTitle:

Executive Vice President, Member of the BoardDate: June 25, 2007


(A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Toyota Motor
Corporation and will be retained by Toyota Motor Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John B., Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 661]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J), both rendered August 17, 2000, (1) convicting him of sodomy in the first degree under indictment No. 924/99, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree, under indictment No. 1600/00, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant effectively waived appellate review of the issues he raises as a part of his negotiated plea agreements *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733 [1998]; *People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273 [1992]; *People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1 [1989]; *People v Boykin,*1 AD3d 524 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### Shearer *v.*The State.

*Tuesday, May*28.

On an indictment for selling spirituous liquors without license, the prosecutor need not prove that the defendant had no license.

ERROR to the *Noble*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— This was an indictment against *Shearer*for selling spirituous liquors without license contrary to the statute. Plea, not guilty. Verdict and judgment for the state.

It was not proved on the trial that the defendant had no license to sell spirituous liquors ; and the Court instructed the jury that such evidence, on the part of the state, was unnecessary.

There is no error in this charge. Whether the negative averment in the indictment, that the defendant had no license, was true or not, was a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, and the *onus probandi*on the subject, therefore, lay upon him. This is one of the cases where a material averment in an indictment need not be proved by the prosecutor, on account of the great difficulty of proving it, when, if not true, it may be so easily disproved by the defendant. And this doctrine accords with the general rule, that the affirmative of any fact stated is to be proved. The opinion of the Circuit Court is sustained by many authorities. *Turner’s*case, *5*Maule & Selw. *206.*—Apothecaries’ *Company*v. Bentley, 1 Carr. & Payne, 538.—Roscoe’s Crim. Ev. 56.—Arch. Crim. Plead. 98. In an information for selling ale without a license, the only evidence given was that the party sold ale, and no proof was offered of his selling it without a license; the party being convicted, it was held that the conviction was right, for that the informer was not bound to sustain in evidence the negative averment. It was said by Abbott, C. J., that the party thus called on to answer for an offence against the excise laws, sustains not the slight*100est inconvenience from the general rule, for he can immediately produce his license ; whereas if the case is taken the other way, the informer is put to considerable inconvenience. *Harrison’s*case, Paley on Convictions, *45*n., cited in Roscoe on Crim. Ev. 56. That case is in point; and so is *Gening*v. *The*State, 1 M‘Cord, 573.

*D.*Wallace, for the plaintiff.

*A. A.*Hammond, for the state.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed with costs.
#### JOHNNY BANKSTON v. ELIJAH TARD ET AL.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001094053
<NAME> DONJOY, L.L.C.

<S>                                        <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,927                     809
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,395                  20,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (989)                   (356)
<INVENTORY>                                     13,664                  14,368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,914                  35,832
<PP&E>                                          20,691                  20,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,394)                (12,710)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,416                  77,056
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,501                  20,207
<BONDS>                                        112,805                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           32,539                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        66,521                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (136,950)                  12,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,416                  77,056
<SALES>                                        114,252                 100,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,252                 100,785
<CGS>                                           51,056                  45,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,313                  46,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,368                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,515                   8,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,387                   3,394
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,128                   4,951
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,128                   4,951
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,451
<SECURITIES>                                    46,450
<RECEIVABLES>                                      429
<ALLOWANCES>                                       213
<INVENTORY>                                      2,765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,845
<PP&E>                                           3,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                     719
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,462
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,192
<SALES>                                          7,023
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,023
<CGS>                                            6,374
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  87
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (29,613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (29,613)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (5.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Michael Cutler, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MIVA, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material aspects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report.

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date: March 31, 2009/s/ MICHAEL CUTLER Chief Financial Officer, MIVA, Inc.


1

---



QuickLinks