alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Annie Jagmohan, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[788 NYS2d 165]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated September 18, 2003, as granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, and (2) an order of the same court dated May 5, 2004, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated September 18, 2003, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 5, 2004, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 5, 2004, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, upon reargument, the motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim is denied, and the order *492dated September 18, 2003, is modified accordingly; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.

The plaintiff failed to timely serve the defendants with her motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, since she mailed the motion papers to the office of the Corporation Counsel at the wrong address (see CPLR 2103 [b] [2]; [f] [1]; see *generally City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v Cohen,*300 NY 361 [1950]; *Lawrence v Ellis Agency,*138 AD2d 980 [1988]). Moreover, the Corporation Counsel did not acquire actual notice of the motion until more than one year and 90 days after the cause of action accrued. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff leave to serve a late notice of claim, as it lacked the authority to do so (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; *Pierson v City of New York,*56 NY2d 950 [1982]; *Hochberg v City of New York,*99 AD2d 1028 [1984], *affd*63 NY2d 665 [1984]; *McSherry v Hawthorne School,*246 AD2d 517 [1998]; *Bell v Town of Oyster Bay,*233 AD2d 282 [1996]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
The Mission

Space shuttle Endeavour’s 

STS-130 mission will deliver the last 

major NASA module, the Tranquility 

node, and cupola to the International 

Space Station. The six-member crew will perform 

three spacewalks during the 13-day mission to 

attach Tranquility to the Unity node on the station. The 

cupola’s seven windows will provide an almost 360-degree 

view of space and will be used as a control room for 

robotics and living section for crew members.

This is the 130th space shuttle flight, Endeavour’s 24th

flight and the 32nd shuttle flight to the space station.

The Crew

Commander George Zamka, a veteran of two previous 

spaceflights, will lead the six-member crew. Terry Virts 

will serve as pilot on his first space shuttle flight. 

Mission specialists are Robert Behnken, 

Kathryn Hire, Nicholas Patrick and

Stephen Robinson.

1H\\\Z7H[W
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ayinde Fair, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 898]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated September 29, 2003 *(People v Fair,*308 AD2d 597 [2003]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 14, 2001.

Ordered that the application is denied.

*622The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 19

- 00967

- CR

Trial Court Cause

Number: 17

- CR

- 3568

Style: Brandon Rashard Ledford

v The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : June 14, 2022

Type of motion: Rehearing

Party filing motion: appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Cour t will no t grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

_____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s / Sherry Radack

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Countiss

Date: June 28, 2022
**Exhibit 21****Subsidiaries of Harris Interactive Inc.****•** GSBC Ohio Corporation, an Ohio Corporation **•** Louis Harris & Associates, Inc., a New York Corporation **•** Harris Interactive International Inc., a Delaware Corporation **•** Harris Interactive UK Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation **•** HI UK Holdings Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation **•** Romtec UK Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation **•** Teligen UK Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation **•** Novatris, S.A., a French Corporation **•** Wirthlin Worldwide, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company **•** The Wirthlin Group International, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company **•** Wirthlin UK Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation **•** Wirthlin Europe Limited, a United Kingdom Corporation **•** Harris Interactive Asia, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
,40. lo-m-oo9a<i-££

nd. id-m-ooaao- CR . ©^f^ I»SD§1 IN THE CDURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS fWm&f^'^Q^tpggg

AUSTIN, TEXAS MAY 132015

l>rnck Edward #d63 FRDM APPEAL No

§

Us ! § tibial court No. £U>?fh3 Qrvi^lobl^

THE STATE DF TEXAS § jjQfllWr COUNTY

FIRST MOTION FDR EXTENTIDN DF TIME TD FILE

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

To the Honorable Judge of,said court of criminal appeals:

Comes now, LjAJTf tC-JL Co^af? , petitioner, and files this

rr, o •(- ^ o o -Fo V OV + OO+^OO O "F O ^ O O + >/ f Ofll rl O W<= TO U h 1 rh +Q file 3 "fit ItlOn

for discretionary review. In support of this motion, petitioner

14 2015

i

Abel Acosta, Cierk on<? . . '—T~ *

The petition uas convicted in the p£ IQ th District court of

1/Qdl\ldfcr county, Texas of the offence of Afl^f&Uq fc£-(3

ftobbe^ in case No. lb-H~00£2D~ CR styled state of Texas

Us C^drndg. &VoA<<l (2o4£> - The petitioner appeal to the court of appeals

\er|4H district. The case was f\-Qv\rm^d onPpOl ^ day of 20 lQ

II

--T^8 BEesent deadline for filing the petition for Discretionary

review is Mfto\ U day of 20 \&) The petitioner has not requested

any extention prior to this request.
Ill

Petitioner request for an extention is based upon the following

fact: Petitioner was not notified of the decision of the court of

appeals in his case until \\pj\[ \^> daY of 2DJ^_. Petitioner attorney

on appeal.has informed petitioner that He/She will not represent

him on the petition for Siicrgtionary review. Petitioner has been

trying to odtain legal counsel for this matter.

Wherefore, petitioner prays this court grant this motion and

extend the deadline for filing the petition for Discretionary relD-iq-ooai4-c£

view in case No^. 10-IM- QO&Q- CR , to~SuU jQ day of 20_[S__.

IgAJUuck; iKmjJ

signature

"Dcunck Qo*^

print name

petitioner pro se

T.D.C.D. # I4ffi)(c&(g

Texas Department of crimial justice

Bill Clements Unit

9601 spur 591

Amarillo Texas 79107-9606

Certificate': of service

I certify that a true, and^correct copy of the aboyeand foregoing

first motion for extention of time to file petition for Discretionary

review has been forearded by U.S mail, postage prepaid, first class

to the state prosecutor, P.o Box ±2 ff/i 6- Austin Texas, 78711.

On this day Mqi\ l^> day of 20 \^)
Inmate Declaration

I bWflC^ KO"3t> , T.D.C.J. # !43*&lg5U> being presently

incarcerated in the Bill Clements Unit of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice in poter, county, Texas, verify and declare

under penalty of perjury that the above and foregoing statements

are true and correct.

Executed this day MflU (^ day of 20 VD

signature

Oafridel fc^>

printed name

petitioner pro se

T.D.C.J. # H frfoSio
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 and S-3 (Nos. 333-112690,333-83794, 333-107982, 333-58532, 333-93295, 333-118697 and 333-83800) of Somera Communications Inc. of our report dated March 25, 2005 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, and management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California 

March 31, 2005
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

December 14, 2023

Reply to Attn of: Space Operations Mission Directorate

TO: Goddard Space Flight Center

Associate Director for Flight Projects

FROM: Space Communications and Navigation

Deputy Program Manager for Operations

SUBJECT: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System Reimbursable for Fiscal Year 2024

Effective October 1, 2023, the rates for the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) system 

Reimbursable support for Fiscal Year 2024 are as follows:

Single Access (SA): $122.00 per minute

Multiple Access Return (MAR): $10.00 per minute*

Multiple Access Forward (MAF): $19.00 per minute*

Commercial Space Launch Act Customer Only (SA): $34.00 per minute

Commercial Space Launch Act Customer Only (MAR): $3.00 per minute

Commercial Space Launch Act Customer Only (MAF): $6.00 per minute

*Rates will be based on actual delivered return/forward service usage.

The rates are equivalent to the Fiscal Year 2023 rates and will remain in effect until further 

notice. NASA is currently evaluating the predicted life expectancy of the TDRS constellation 

and any impacts it may have to overall services. This evaluation will result in a reevaluation 

of the TDRS rates.

For additional information please contact Philip Baldwin by email at

philip.j.baldwin@nasa.gov or by phone at (202) 358-1985.

X

Philip Baldwin
#### ANNIE LEE BARBER v. JOHNS MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification is granted and the judgment is summarily reversed. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Division for a full hearing of the appeal on the merits.
#### BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF’S INVESTIGATORS P.B.A. LOCAL NO. 270 v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

September 5, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2174 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2174

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include podiatrists as 
   physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the 
                           medicaid program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2004

  Mr. Bunning (for himself and Ms. Mikulski) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include podiatrists as 
   physicians for purposes of covering physicians services under the 
                           medicaid program.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUDING PODIATRISTS AS PHYSICIANS UNDER THE MEDICAID 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Section 1905(a)(5)(A) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(5)(A)) is amended by striking ``section 
1861(r)(1)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 
1861(r)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to services furnished on or after January 1, 2004.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARK JOHNSON, A/K/A HAKEEM SHAKOOR.

May 8, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Ahmielleah A.D.P. YEUNG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; Wayne Griffith, Principal, Potomac Falls High School, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-1199.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 27, 2003.

Decided Sept. 10, 2003.

Michael A. Wasylik, The Law Office of Michael Alex Wasylik, McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. John D. McGavin, Michael J. Carita, Trichilo, Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Ahmielleah A.D.P. Yeung appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Yeung v. Loudoun County Pub. Sch.,*No. CA-02-775-A (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 17, 2003 *&**269entered Jan. 21, 2003). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 15.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors





Sify Technologies Limited





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-165248) on Form S-8 of Sify Technologies Limited and subsidiaries (the ‘Company’) of our report dated July 30, 2013 with respect to the consolidated statement of financial position of Sify Technologies Limited as of March 31, 2013 and March 31, 2012 and related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for the years ended March 31, 2013, March 31, 2012 and March 31, 2011 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2013, which report appear in the March 31, 2013 annual report on Form 20-F of Sify Technologies Limited.





/s/ ASA & Associates


ASA & Associates


Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Chennai, India


July 30, 2013
Saunders' Motion to Extend Time to File PDR 1 of 3

Appellate No. 09-14-00062-CR

MARC RICHARD SAUNDERS §

§

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF 

CRIMINAL APPEALS

§

VS. §

§

STATE OF TEXAS §

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

 Now comes MARC RICHARD SAUNDERS, Appellant in the above styled and 

numbered cause, and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file 

appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review and for good cause shows the 

following: 

1. This case is on appeal from the Ninth District Court of Appeals in 

 Beaumont, styled MARC RICHARD SAUNDERS vs. STATE OF TEXAS

 and was given Appellate No. 09-14-00062-CR. 

2. The Court of Appeals' judgment was signed November 18, 2015. 

 3. The deadline to file Petition for Discretionary Review is December 

 18, 2015. 

 

PD-1640-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 12/17/2015 3:05:36 PM

Accepted 12/19/2015 9:41:55 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
Saunders' Motion to Extend Time to File PDR 2 of 3

4. Appellant requests an extension of time until January 18, 2016 or 

a time period of at least 30 days.

5. Appellant has not requested any prior extensions regarding 

petition for discretionary review.

6. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the 

requested extension:

Counsel is a solo practitioner and has been involved in or prepared for the 

following criminal trials, appeals or motions:

(i) Montgomery County, State of Texas v. Mike Angel Ulloa, 

221st District Court, 14-02-02317-CR, Tampering; Writ of 

Habeas Corpus Appeal, Beaumont Court of Appeals, 9th

District, 09-15-00398-CR

(ii) United States District Court Southern District of Texas, 

United States v. Darnell Menard, 15cr296-01 , Judge Atlas 

Houston, Conspiracy, and multiple counts of fraud related 

activity under 18 USC 1029(a)(2);(a)(3); and (b)(2).

 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Court 

grant this Motion To Extend Time to File Petition for Discretionary Review, and 

for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
Saunders' Motion to Extend Time to File PDR 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted

/S/ Richard Martin P. Canlas

RICHARD MARTIN P. CANLAS

Lawyer for Appellant

300 West Davis, Suite 560

Conroe, Texas 77301

Texas State Bar Number: 90001843

Tel: 936.788.6999

Fax Number: 936.788.5999

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true and correct copy of this motion was:

(a) faxed to Bill Delmore, Montgomery County District Attorney’s 

Office, 936.760.6940, on December 17, 2015

/S/ Richard Martin P. Canlas

Richard Martin P. Canlas
#### MICHAEL W. O’CONNOR v. KENNETH RALSTON.

September 5, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Derin Ford, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-KSB of English
Language Learning and Instruction System, 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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers 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 function):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


                              /s/ Derin Ford
Date: October 26, 2004        ____________________________________
                              Derin Ford
                              Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), Christopher Gleeson, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|July 28, 2006                                   
|                                                
|/s/    CHRISTOPHER
GLEESON                      
|Christopher Gleeson                             
|President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

www.nasa.gov

Biography

Image Credit: NASA 

Peter Coen serves as the mission integration manager for NASA’s Quesst mission. His 

primary responsibility in this role is to ensure that the X-59 aircraft development, inflight acoustic validation, and community test elements stay on track toward delivering 

on NASA’s critical commitment to provide quiet supersonic overflight response data to 

the FAA and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

In his previous position, Coen was the manager for the Commercial Supersonic 

Technology project in NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate, where he 

led a team from the four Aeronautics research centers in the development of tools 

and technologies for a new generation of quiet and efficient supersonic civil transport 

aircraft.

Coen’s NASA career spans four decades. He has studied technology integration in 

practical designs for many different types of aircraft and has made technical and 

management contributions to all of NASA’s supersonics-related programs during the 

past 30 years. As project manager, he led these efforts for 12 years.

Coen has received numerous honors and awards including two NASA Outstanding 

Leadership Medals. He is an associate fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics 

and Astronautics.

Coen earned a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering from The Polytechnic 

Institute of New York and a Master of Science in Aeronautical Engineering from 

George Washington University.

Peter Coen

Mission Integration Manager, for the Quesst Mission

NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD)