alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Walid Hassan, Appellant, v New York City Department of Correction et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 249]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about June 27, 2011, denying the petition seeking to annul a determination of respondent New York City Department of Correction (DOC), dated on or about March 24, 2010, which found petitioner guilty of disrespect to staff and refusal to obey a direct order, and imposed penalties, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

On appeal, petitioner does not contest that the determination is supported by substantial evidence. Rather, he argues that the record before the Supreme Court was incomplete because it lacked a record of the disciplinary hearing, respondent’s answer, and a written statement by Correction Officer Stevens, which the Hearing Officer was required to show petitioner pursuant to DOC Directive 6500R-B (III) (C) (25) and (26). We agree. Further, it cannot be determined on this record whether the Hearing Officer’s failure to show petitioner the written statement by Correction Officer Stevens prejudiced petitioner’s defense *(see Matter of Caldwell v Rock,*93 AD3d 1048 [3d Dept 2012]; *cf. Matter of Brown v New York City Dept, of Correction,*288 AD2d 162, 163 [1st Dept 2001]). Accordingly, we remand for respondent to submit an answer pursuant to CPLR 7804 (d) and any appropriate submissions pursuant to CPLR 7804 (e), including a record of the hearing and a written witness statement by Correction Officer Stevens *(see Matter of Ghiazza v Putnam County Dept. of Consumer Affairs,*75 AD3d 641 [2d Dept 2010]; *Matter of Jacob v Winch,*121 AD2d 446 [2d Dept 1986]). Upon such submissions, Supreme Court shall determine whether the failure to provide petitioner with the written statement was harmless error.

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
TYPE:  EX-23.2

EXHIBIT 23.2 Consent of Experts and Counsel

James E. Slayton, CPA
---------------------
2858 WEST MARKET STREET
SUITE C
FAIRLAWN, OHIO 44333

                                                    January 12, 2001

To Whom It May Concern:

    The firm of James E. Slayton, Certified Public Accountant consents to
the inclusion of my report of December 31, 20111, on the Financial Statements
of ALD, Inc., in any filings that are necessary now or in the near future to
be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


/s/ James E. Slayton
-------------------------
James E. Slayton, CPA

Ohio License  ID #04-1-15582

<PAGE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DOUGLAS LEE SKAGGS, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0318-C

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this date, it 

is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff benefits be reversed and remanded 

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 

S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), for further proceedings not inconsistent with this 

decision. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a 

prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, 

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and terminates 

this Court’s jurisdiction over this matter.

DONE this the 9th day of May, 2016.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00318-C Document 29 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 1
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

December 30, 2014

Hon. William D. Mount Jr.

Dale & Klein, L.L.P.

1100 E. Jasmine Ave., Ste. 202

McAllen, TX 78501

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Ricardo Pumarejo Jr.

Kittleman Thomas, PLLC

4900

- B N. 10th Street

McAllen, TX 78504

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00205

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. C

- 2480

- 11

- I

- B

Style: Cornelio Morales v. Hidalgo County Irrigation District #6

Dear Sir/Madam:

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file reply brief was this day GRANTED

by this Court. The time has been extended to Monday, January 12, 2015.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch
#### Maria E. Valencia, Respondent, v Scott R. Angarano et al., Appellants.

[963 NYS2d 708]

*1036In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), dated July 2, 2012, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

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

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants’ motion papers failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claims, clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained serious injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine, and to her right shoulder, that were caused by the accident *(cf. Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]; *Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

Since the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see generally Stukas v Streiter,*83 AD3d 18, 24 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Skelos, J.E, Chambers, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, 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 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), each of
the undersigned officers of TeraForce Technology Corporation (the Company),
does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004
(the Form 10-Q) 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-Q 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-Q. November 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Herman M. FrietschHerman M. FrietschChief Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Robert P. CappsRobert P. CappsChief Financial Officer
 The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K 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-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Tatiana Degtiarev, Respondent, v Linda Delecia-Kenny, Defendant. Robert P. Tusa, Nonparty Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 144]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Robert P Tusa appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated April 12, 2012, which denied his motion to vacate so much of an order of the same court dated October 20, 2011, as awarded the plaintiff an attorney’s fee in the sum of $3,500, payable by him as a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the notice of appeal by the defendant is deemed *692to be a notice of appeal by Robert E Tusa (see CFLR 2001; *Matter of Tagliaferri v Weiler,*1 NY3d 605 [2004]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 12, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The arguments advanced by the nonparty appellant, Robert E Tusa, in opposition to a motion by the plaintiff to restore the action to active pre-note-of-issue status were completely without merit in law, failed to address the applicable statutory and case law, and appear to have been advanced, once their lack of merit was apparent, for the purpose of delaying restoration of the action *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]; *Yan v Klein,*35 AD3d 729, 729-730 [2006]; *Curdo v Hogan Coring & Sawing Corp.,*303 AD2d 357, 358-359 [2003]; *Matter of Parkside Ltd. Liab. Co.,*294 AD2d 582, 584 [2002]). Contrary to the nonparty appellant’s contention, he was given advance notice, prior to oral argument on the plaintiffs motion, that the Supreme Court was considering awarding the plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee as a sanction for the appellant’s frivolous conduct in opposing the motion to restore the action to the calendar, and the appellant was given an opportunity to be heard on this issue *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a], [d]; *cf. Telemark Constr. v Fleetwood & Assoc.,*236 AD2d 462, 463 [1997]; *Deeb v Tougher Indus.,*216 AD2d 667, 668 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff an attorney’s fee as a sanction pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Rivera,

J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
##### 



Company SunCom Original Employment Agreement 2003 Letter Agreement 2005
Letter Agreement Existing Employment
Agreement
  Agreement
 Separation Separation Date
 Severance Pay




---



##### 



Schedule A
 Schedule
B




---



##### 



Section 2(b)
 provided
 Benefits upon Termination under Existing Employment Agreement Section 2 provided
 Cooperation Section 4 Section 4 Section
4
 Release Executive Parties




---



##### 



SunCom
Parties
      Section 6




---



##### 



Indemnification and Insurance
 provided
 provided
 No Complaints
 Companys Remedies




---



##### 



Non-Disparagement
 Reliance
 Securities Filings; Stock Sale Restrictions
 Restrictive Covenants




---



##### 



Entire Agreement
 Miscellaneous




---



##### 



Notices Section 15
 
 Attention
  
  Attention
 [ Signatures Contained on Next Page ]




---



##### 



SunCom Wireless Holdings, Inc.By:
    /s/ Michael E. KalogrisMichael E. KalogrisChairman of the Board of Directors &
Chief Executive OfficerSunCom Wireless Management Company, Inc.By:
    /s/ Michael E. KalogrisMichael E. Kalogris, Chief Executive Officer/s/ David D. ClarkDAVID D. CLARK




---



##### 



Schedule A
 Accelerated Vesting
  Vesting Date
    
    Vested SharesMay 1, 2006
    
    92,500TOTAL
    
    92,500




---



##### 



Schedule B
 Company Property Retained by Executive




---



##### 



Schedule C
Additional Executive Release
 Release Agreement
  Company SunCom
   Executive
Parties SunCom
Parties




---



##### 








---



##### 



David D. Clark
    
    
    
    Date
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2030 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2030

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Education, Institute for Education Sciences for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Education, Institute for Education Sciences for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              EDUCATION, INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Education, 
Institute for Education Sciences for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$0.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2217 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2217

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
  Agencies, Smithsonian Institution, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
  Agencies, Smithsonian Institution, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELATED AGENCIES, 
              SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Agencies, 
Smithsonian Institution, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may 
not exceed $739,994,000.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Provident Financial Group, Inc.'s 10-Q for March 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         217,462
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                74,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                29,473
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,723,954
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      5,937,622
<ALLOWANCE>                                     80,142
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,633,224
<DEPOSITS>                                   5,621,325
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,122,892
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            371,095
<LONG-TERM>                                    805,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,000
<COMMON>                                        12,817
<OTHER-SE>                                     692,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               8,633,224
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                131,582
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               24,588
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,305
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               157,475
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              55,168
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,711
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           72,764
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   12,900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (7)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 72,297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,134
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      33,755
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,755
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.78
<LOANS-NON>                                     45,607
<LOANS-PAST>                                    12,364
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,577
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 66,996
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                75,907
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   10,995
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,330
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               80,142
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            80,142
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-132-2014]

On November 6, 2014, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of Stockton, California, grantee of FTZ 231, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 231, on behalf of 5.11, Inc., in Modesto and Lathrop, California.

                    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (79 FR 67413, 11/13/2014). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 231B is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 231's 2,000-acre activation limit.                

Dated: December 23, 2014.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-30719 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In condition with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sharon L. Wardlaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(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.

 

 
| By                      | /s/  Sharon L. Wardlaw |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|
| Sharon L. Wardlaw,      |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| December 15, 2003       |

 

1

----
#### In the Matter of Walter C., Respondent, v Jovanka F., Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 787]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sue Levy, Ref.), entered on or about April 27, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied the mother’s application for a modification of an order of custody of the parties’ daughter, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the mother presented evidence of her own personal progress since the father was granted custody, she failed to demonstrate that the totality of the circumstances warranted a change in custody in the best interests of the child (see *Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 96 [1982]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.