alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Marquis Curtis, Relator, *v.*Edgar S. Jennings, Agent and Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Cayuga County,

March 17, 1925.

Habeas corpus — proceeding to inquire into detention of relator convicted upon indictment and confined in State’s prison — mere statement in petition that court had no jurisdiction to convict relator insufficient — writ dismissed — review of duration of sentence barred.

-A writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the detention of the relator, convicted upon an indictment and confined in a State’s prison, should be dismissed in the absence of a proper statement of facts in the petition that the conviction was illegal and void and the court was without jurisdiction. A mere statement in relator’s petition that the court had no jurisdiction is insufficient.

Relator’s last conviction bars a review at the present time of the duration of his first sentence.

Habeas corpus proceeding to inquire into detention of relator now confined in a State’s prison.

*Marquis Curtis,*in person, for the relator.

*Albert Ottinger, Attorney-General,*for the respondent.

Rodenbeck, J.:

There is nothing in the papers to raise an issue as to the jurisdiction and power of the court before which relator was convicted and the questions raised by statements of facts in his petition go to the regularity of the proceedings and are reviewable only by appeal. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be resorted to to try out the legality and justice of a conviction if the court had jurisdiction and power to render the judgment. *“*No inquiry into the ‘ legality or justice ’ of any mandate is permitted, except as those terms include questions of jurisdiction or power.” *(People ex rel. Farrington*v. *Mensching,*187 N. Y. 8, 27.) In this case no such questions are presented by the facts stated and no inquiry will be made unless such an issue is raised upon a proper statement of facts. A mere statement that the court had no jurisdiction and power is not sufficient unless accompanied by specifications of facts from which such a conclusion can be fairly drawn. *(People ex rel. Danziger*v. *P. E. House of Mercy,*128 N. Y. 180; *People ex rel. Lazarus*v. *P. E. House of Mercy,*23 App. Div. 383.) It must be apparent that a person convicted cannot secure a release upon a bare statement that the conviction was illegal and void and that the court was without jurisdiction and power. There must be a substantial *904basis shown in the papers for such statements and evidence to substantiate them.

The last conviction bars a review at the present time of the length of the first sentence. *(People ex rel. Curtis*v. *Kidney,*183 App. Div. 451.)

The writ is dismissed and the relator is remanded.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MOSES JACK POPP,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00298

- CR

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20180D02517)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible

error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 USC § 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the annual report of Jiangbo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Elsa Sung, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:
  (a)
                  The
      annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2009 of the
      Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and
 
 (b)
                  Information
      contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 Dated:
May 14, 2010
  /s/
      Elsa SungElsa
      SungChief
      Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2327 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the Commission 

on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 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 Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND CO5 OPERATION IN EUROPE, SALARIES AND EX6 PENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for the Commission on Security and Cooperation in 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2327 IH

1 Europe, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may 

2 not exceed $0. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2014

t0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

148657

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Pl aintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148657

COA: 318517

Wayne CC: 13

- 002698

- FC

ANDRE DWAYNE BENDER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2014 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 76446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29863]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2015-1)]


Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.

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

SUMMARY: The Board has approved the first quarter 2015 Rail Cost 
Adjustment Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of 
American Railroads. The first quarter 2015 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 0.946. 
The first quarter 2015 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.405. The first quarter 2015 
RCAF-5 is 0.383.

DATES: Effective Date: January 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: (800) 877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Board's decision, which is available on our Web site, http://www.stb.dot.gov. Copies of the decision may be purchased by contacting 
the Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance 
at (202) 245-0238. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available 
through FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
    This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the 
human environment or energy conservation.

    Decided: December 16, 2014.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and 
Commissioner Begeman.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2014-29863 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
<PAGE>


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


I,  ROBERT FOO, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB  of  Paragon  Polaris Strategies.com Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2002  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual
Report  on  Form  10-KSB  fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Paragon Polaris Strategies.com Inc.


                                  By:     /s/ ROBERT FOO
                                          ----------------

                                  Name:   ROBERT FOO

                                  Title:  Chief Executive Officer

                                  Date:   Mar 28/03
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-98
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-98
<CASH>                                          12,341
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,111
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,259
<PP&E>                                          13,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,089,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,518,242
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,865
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,089,889
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,140
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (181,425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.008)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.008)
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2148 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, 

Small Business Administration, Business Loans Program Account, Administrative 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 Small Business 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, Small Business Administration, Business Loans Program Account, Administrative Expenses 

for fiscal year 2024. 

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


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2148 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, SMALL BUSINESS 

3 ADMINISTRATION, BUSINESS LOANS PRO4 GRAM ACCOUNT, ADMINISTRATIVE EX5 PENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Independent Agencies, Small Business Adminis9 tration, Business Loans Program Account, Administrative 

10 Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

11 $155,150,000. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2114 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2114

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
 Agencies, Federal Trade Commission, 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 Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
 Agencies, Federal Trade Commission, 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 INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, SALARIES AND EXPENSES 
              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
Federal Trade Commission, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 
may not exceed $309,700,000.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.27




[English Summary]
 
 Cooperative Agreement
 
 Party A: Yida (Fujian) Tourism Group Co., Ltd.
 Party B : Anhui Xingguang Investment Group Co., Ltd.
 
 Reference is made to the Anhui Province Bengbu City Emperor Ming Taizu Cultural and Ecological Resort and Tourism Project Investment Agreement (the “Agreement”).
 
 Cooperation:
 Both parties agree to set up a joint venture. Party A shall own 60% of the equity interest while Party B shall own 40% of the equity interest of the joint venture.  The primary business focuses on developing the Ming Dynasty Entertainment World.
 
 Termination:
 This agreement may be modified or adjusted with mutual consent of both parties.
 
 Force Majeure:
 In the event of force majeure, such party shall notify the other party within 15 days and both parties shall negotiate to either terminate or delay the execution of this Agreement.
 
 Dispute:
 If there is any dispute between the parties, both parties shall resolve the dispute through compromise settlement. If the parties cannot reach the settlement, then either party can resolve the dispute by the courts.
 
 Date of the Agreement:
 April 15, 2010
Exhibit
10.64


 


THIRD
ALLONGE TO


8%
SUBORDINATED NOTE


 


This
Allonge (the “Allonge”), dated as of May 27, 2015, is attached to and forms a part of an 8% Subordinated Note, dated
November 7, 2011(collectively, the “Note”), made by Digital Ally, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),
payable to the order of ____________________ (the “Holder”) in the original principal amount of $1,000,000.
The Note was amended by an Allonge, dated July 24, 2012, a Second Allonge, dated December 4, 2013, and this Third Allonge amends
the Note and previous Allonges.


 


1.
Paragraph 3 of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


Maturity
Date and Pre-Payments. This Note shall be due and payable in full, including all accrued Interest thereon, on July 15, 2015
(the “Maturity Date”). At any time prior to the Maturity Date, the Company shall have the right to prepay this Note,
in whole or in part, without penalty. The Company will give to Holder ten (10) days’ written notice of its intent to prepay
this Note. On such prepayment date, the Company will pay in respect of this Note in cash the principal amount being prepaid plus
accrued Interest.


 


In
all other respects, the Note is confirmed, ratified, and approved and, as amended by this Allonge, shall continue in full force
and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Holder have caused this Third Allonge to be executed and delivered as of the date and year
first above written.


 


	 	DIGITAL ALLY, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Stanton
    E. Ross
	 	 	Stanton E. Ross
	 	Its: 	Chairman, President
    and CEO
	 	 	 
	 	THE
    HOLDER:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

418 CA 11-00780 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JACQUELINE FLEMING, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KIDSPEACE NATIONAL CENTERS, BETY FARKAS, LSMW, PROGRAM MANAGER AND JAIME A. KOSICH, MSEDC, FAMILY RESOURCE SPECIALIST, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

FRANK S. FALZONE, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, BUFFALO (DALE WORRALL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered May 26, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination to “terminat[e]” her certification as a foster parent. Petitioner contends that she was denied procedural due process because she was not given notice and opportunity to be heard with respect to the termination. We reject that contention. KidsPeace National Centers (respondent) notified petitioner by letter that it would “close” her certification effective July 10, 2009. Petitioner’s current certification to board children expired July 2, 2009 in any event, and thus respondent essentially notified petitioner that it would not renew her certification. “A hearing is required only where a license is to be suspended or revoked and . . . due process does not mandate such a hearing before the denial of a renewal license” ( Matter of M.S.B.A. Corp. v Markowitz , 23 AD3d 390, 391; see Matter of Daxor Corp. v State of N.Y. Dept. of Health , 90 NY2d 89, 98, rearg denied 90 NY2d 937, cert denied 523 US 1074; Testwell, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Bldgs. , 80 AD3d 266, 273-274). Thus, the only rights petitioner had to notice and an opportunity to be heard were pursuant to respondent’s own policies and the applicable state regulation, and “[t]he record amply demonstrates that these requirements were satisfied” ( Testwell, Inc. , 80 AD3d at 274). With respect to the state regulation, petitioner was given timely notice of respondent’s decision and the reasons therefor, as-2- 418 CA 11-00780
required by 18 NYCRR 443.11 (a), and was afforded the requisite opportunity “to meet with an official of the agency to review the decision and the reasons for the agency decision” (18 NYCRR 443.11 [b]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Allegra D. HEMPHILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2006-1300.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 1, 2006.

Allegra D. Hemphill, pro se.

Before BRYSON, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

The Procter & Gamble Company (P & G) move to summarily affirm the February 13, 2006 order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in district court case no.2002-3736 or, in the alternative, to dismiss Allegra D. Hemp-hill’s appeal as frivolous. Kimberly-Clark Corporation joins the motion. Hemphill opposes.

In 2002, Hemphill sued P & G and Kimberly-Clark for infringement of the patent. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. Hemphill appealed and this court affirmed the district court’s judgment in 2004. The Supreme Court denied Hemphill’s petition for a writ of mandamus in 2004. In 2005, Hemphill filed a motion for “final judgment” and to amend the judgment in the district court. The district court denied the motions. In this appeal, Hemphill seeks review of the denial of her motion for final judgment.

In its order denying Hemphill’s motion for final judgment, the district court stated:

> Plaintiff now requests a “Final Judgment.” It appears that Plaintiff believes that this court has not yet ruled on her claims alleging patent infringement. Plaintiff seems to assert that the court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendants is in some way separate and apart from any ruling on her claims, which she contends are still pending. Plaintiff is mistaken. This court’s April 15, 2003, Order fully resolved Plaintiffs claims in favor of Defendants. Judgment was entered on behalf of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and the case was closed. Plaintiffs later motion to amend the judgment was denied. Plaintiffs claims have been fully adjudicated in this court. Moreover, Plaintiffs appeal has been heard and decided by the Federal Circuit, which affirmed this court’s earlier ruling. Accordingly, there is nothing further for this court to determine with regard to Plaintiffs case. Plaintiffs motion will now be denied.

P & G argue that we should summarily affirm the district court’s order. We agree. Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, *inter alia,*when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists.” *Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994). In the present case, it is clear that summary affirmance is warranted. Hemphill argues that the district court did not decide if her patent was *939infringed. However, we note that the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement and that we affirmed that determination.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion for summary affirmance is granted.

(2) The alternative motion to dismiss is denied.

(3) All sides shall bear their own costs.