alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -0XLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Triad Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005,as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Kelleher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the Company.

March 26, 2006                                       /s/ Michael Kelleher
                                                      ------------------------
                                                         Michael Kelleher
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
## BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06

- 13

- 00134

- CV

T ammy Crocker

v.

Thomas Babcock, IV, M.D., Longview Emergency Medicine Associates, Inc. and Good Shepherd Medical Center

(No. 2011

- 2463

- B IN 124TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

FILING

REPORTER'S RECORD

SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

SUPREME COURT CHAPTE R 51 FEE

FILING

INDIGENT

STATEWIDE EFILING FE E

FILING $15.00 $10.00 $10.00 ($195.00) $247.95 $42 .00 $645.00 $50.00 $195.00 $25.00 $20.00 $100.00 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

REFUND

UNKNOWN

PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID DARCY STARCHER

DARCY STARCHER

STACEY SPLAWN

N/A

THE LIEBBE FIRM

RUSSEL G THORNTON

THE LIEBBE FIRM

STACEY SPLAWN

N/A (DUPLICATE PAYMENT O F FILING FEE)

STACEY SPLAWN

STACEY SPLAWN

STACEY SPLAWN



### Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEAL S OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause,

as the sa me appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of

the COURT OF APPEALS for the Sixth District of Texas, this August 21, 2015

.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___

________________________ Deputy
Exhibit101forForm8-K-AmendmenttoEmploymentAgreement-080315




Exhibit 10.1
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




WHEREAS, Rexnord Corporation (the “Company”) and Todd A. Adams (“Executive”) entered into an Employment Agreement dated November 9, 2012 (the “Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, pursuant to its terms, the Agreement will be automatically extended for a one-year term unless, at least 90 days prior to November 9, 2015, the Company or the Executive provides notice to terminate the Agreement; and


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional three years and may amend the Agreement to do so under Section 18 thereof; 


NOW THEREFORE, the Company and Executive agree as follows:


		
	1.
	The first sentence of Section 2, Term of Agreement, shall be replaced with the following:




“The Agreement is effective on the Effective Date and the initial term shall end on November 9, 2018 (“Initial Term”).”  


		
	2.
	All other terms of the Agreement are unchanged and shall remain in effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on August 6, 2015. 


	
			
	 
	 

	Rexnord Corporation
	 

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ George J. Powers 

	Name: 
	George J. Powers 
	 

	Title:
	Chief Human Resources Officer
	 










	
			
	 
	 

	Executive
	 

	 
	 

	/s/ Todd A. Adams 

	Todd A. Adams
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11126

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICHARD GREY KIRBY

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:92-CR-341-2

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Grey Kirby appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a

writ of coram nobis. Kirby has not shown that the district court erred in denying

relief on the basis that his claim was or could have been raised previously. See

United States v. Esogbue, 357 F.3d 532, 535 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2283 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2283

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Water and Waste Disposal 
                 Program Account 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 Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Water and Waste Disposal 
                 Program Account 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 US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE, RURAL WATER AND 
              WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Water and Waste Disposal 
Program Account for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $1,400,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
usro!! 29, 1930 

County Attonoy 

&?Q :7ounty 

FQertllo, ';e!xaa 

. 

Opldlor, iii. 07473 

80: Ccaotable nay-b+'ellooed to.re- - 

: aelve 63x-0rrm0 5nlary as fnter- 

: .pmtcg ror uqccty. 

. I 

.'I_ nxs wil1-~ttob.boa);t;b~~e.reo~lgt ai lOlli letter;: 

&.iferdb 9,,1939, In u;biob~s&~ auk ac opix11&.0t t&a 

: 

. 

In the In&act ofma, bowamr, :?!a dr:ttes .propoe&to.bti ran&we& by the oonateblu unS5r the oontraot 

S$th t?lQ COZfliSZ~~ZlQ~l-I3 * Oowt am dutl.ee olwrlj beyond 

t+e-scope 1°C 311s offlqlaf a.titm ae oc~n~tebla.md em 

sot comobteQ vltb or Jaoident.tc tho ~dutiae imposed upon 

h¶z by virtue of his kalaotlon ta.tI:a offLoc ~P.oow&able.. T?k lltitatlone abeveii3entlOacjd Ocmnot, therfGora, 

/ 
t&y in a 33 instant ocde for rcascrn i%t 'Iuch ll~ltatlon @stnblishco a maximum snlary ralntln,: only to the 

dutI09 of ?ls cffice and hn,O fro relrrtlcn to the eara . 

servloee ocntenpltita2 lh such~ccntreot. 

is CilrCfUl OXWlhStiGn Gf the Stfif’UtUi refleCt3 

no prohibit!c;? wci net thu ccnstnblc ren9or!q svoh servfoea no acnt~qlnbod ln tfrv oontrect ZLI~C thio bnsls ot 

this oplnlon. ~ccoelving compensation .rcr suoh aql-vieea 

00 oontemplated mu.& be tested by the aa*e rulos by n?iioh 

any other wzntrnpt of enplqywnt by the CozSsnJoness* 

Cocrt wculd be tested. . . .. . 

. : 

. . 

.Tbore ia cothing ln the propose& co&root thht 

'would briug t?le employment 05 Interpreter v;l:thln the.:. 

oonatitutional prohlbltion e&net Q person holding more * 

then one cl*iLl otfloe ot .aaolument sinae tho eraroicre : ._ 

of..'t.he dutias of lnterprtttr does oot'oonstitute en' '.. 

*o,ft,ihen.wlthia t*c pervltv of the Scostltutl.~n.~ 

..,. 

:,~. 

1t ‘is, 

. 

therotorg, tha o&ion .of thla’iJepeu%t . I_. 

i .ment ecd you ore so advised that the oonsteblixof .Eee.,?... : 

County:oan be allowed cxtPi oompeneati~n b.t the Cam-.‘ '.' 

.&,Srpi8Sloners* Court to aot 88 in+-preter tor the,.'jastl&'i:;.i -.r* ::.-. 

'y!y$ggy!y oo~,e.'~i:,;: ..: $"y j ,. .". .; . . . i .._. 

:' ::?Y 

_;_ . .' '.. .i,> 

'.Tr&ng' that.:. this &.&f&t,,+ .,&,, your : --'I 

in&ry#.we ramaln , 

.~ . . ., .Pery truly.yinxra . 

: 

Lloyd hrmstroti~' 

:.soLstsnt 

.. 

. ._.I 

.Lh:Ar; 

_- 

I
**CERTIFICATE      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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                respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                            |

|   | /s/                *John Farley*              |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | John                Farley                    |
| Title: | Chief Financial                  Officer |

| Date: | November                  1, 2007 |
|-------|-----------------------------------|
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2523 

To prohibit the use of funds provided for the official travel expenses of 

Members of Congress and other officers and employees of the legislative 

branch for airline accommodations which are not coach-class accommodations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2023 

Mr. RUIZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds provided for the official travel 

expenses of Members of Congress and other officers and 

employees of the legislative branch for airline accommodations which are not coach-class accommodations, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Coach-Only Airfare 

5 for Capitol Hill Act of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2523 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING USE OF FUNDS FOR OFFICIAL TRAV2 EL EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

3 AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEES FOR 

4 AIRLINE ACCOMMODATIONS OTHER THAN 

5 COACH CLASS. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in subsection 

7 (b), no funds appropriated or otherwise made available for 

8 the official travel expenses of a Member of Congress or 

9 other officer or employee of any office in the legislative 

10 branch may be used for airline accommodations which are 

11 not coach-class accommodations. 

12 (b) EXCEPTIONS.—Funds described in subsection (a) 

13 may be used for airline accommodations which are not 

14 coach-class accommodations for an individual described in 

15 subsection (a) if the use of the funds for such accommoda16 tions would be permitted under sections 301–10.121 

17 through 301–10.125 of title 41 of the Code of Federal 

18 Regulations if the individual were an employee of an agen19 cy which is subject to chapter 301 of such title. 

20 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

21 may be construed to affect any officer or employee of an 

22 office of the legislative branch which, as of the date of 

23 the enactment of this Act, is subject to chapter 301 of 

24 title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

25 (d) DEFINITIONS.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 2523 IH

1 (1) COACH-CLASS ACCOMMODATIONS.—In this 

2 Act, the term ‘‘coach-class accommodations’’ means 

3 the basic class of accommodation by airlines that is 

4 normally the lowest fare offered regardless of airline 

5 terminology used, and (as referred to by airlines) 

6 may include tourist class or economy class, as well 

7 as single class when the airline offers only one class 

8 of accommodations to all travelers. 

9 (2) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.—In this Act, the 

10 term ‘‘Member of Congress’’ means a Senator or a 

11 Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commis12 sioner to, the Congress. 

13 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

14 This Act shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2024 

15 and each succeeding fiscal year. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 23


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
 Cyber Mark International Corp.

We have issued our report dated April 11, 2001, accompanying the financial
statements included on the Annual Report of Cyber Mark International Corp. on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2000. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of Cyber
Mark International Corp. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-53808, effective January 16,
2001).

/s/ Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP

May 1, 2001
IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT	FOR	THE

SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

In	Re: )

)

RICHARD	D.	HORNE and	 )

PATRICIA	NELSON	HORNE, )

)

Debtors, )

)

MARY	BETH	MANTIPLY, )

) CIVIL	ACTION	NO.	13-00258-CB-B

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

)

v. )

)

RICHARD	D.	HORNE	and )

PATRICIA	NELSON	HORNE, )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

ORDER

This	matter	is	before	the	Court	on	appellant’s	motion	to	set	aside	the	order	

dated	May	29,	2013 in	which	the	Court	granted appellees’	motion	to	strike	the	

appellant’s	brief.		(Doc.	12.)		Appellant	asserts	that	the	brief	should	not	be	stricken	

because	it	was	timely	filed.		As	the	order	makes	clear,	the	brief	has	been	stricken	for	

failure	to	comply	with	the	format	set	forth	in	Rule	8010(a)(1),	not	for	untimely	

filing.		Moreover,	appellant	may	cure	this	defect	be	filing	a	brief	in	the	proper	format	

by	the	deadline	set	forth	in	the	order.		The	motion	to	set	aside	is,	therefore, DENIED.

In	her	motion (Doc.	12),	appellant	also	seeks	Rule	11 sanctions	against	

appellees’	counsel.		 Rule	11	contains	a	safe	harbor	provision	that	provides	the	

opposing	party	with	21	days	to	correct	the	alleged	violation.		The	provision	states,	in	

relevant	part:

Case 1:13-cv-00258-CB-B Document 13 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 2
A	motion	for	sanctions	must	be	made	separately	from	any	

other	motion	and	must	describe	the	specific	conduct	that	allegedly	

violates	Rule	11(b).		The	motion	must	be	served	under	Rule	5,	but	it	

must	not	be	filed	or	presented	to	the	court	if	the	challenged	paper,	

claim,	defense,	contention	or	denial	is	withdrawn	or	appropriately	

corrected	within	21	days	after	service	or	within	another	time	the	

court	sets.

Fed.	R.	Civ.	P.	11(c)(2).			As	appellant	has	failed	to	comply	with	these	requirements,	

the	request	for	sanction	is	DENIED.

1

DONE	and	ORDERED this	the	30th day	of	May,	2013.

s/Charles	R.	Butler,	Jr.

Senior	United	States	District	Judge

																																																							 1 The	Court	also	notes	that	appellant’s	request	for	sanctions	is	based	on	an	

erroneous	assertion.	Appellant	avers	that	appellees’	counsel	would	have	known	that	

the	brief	had	been	filed	if	he	had	made	a	reasonable	review	of	the	Clerk’s	record.		

The	brief	had not	been	docketed	and	did	not	appear	on	the	docket	sheet	at	the	time	

the	motion	to	strike	was	filed.		As	stated	in	the	Court’s	previous	order,	“[o]n	May	29,	

the	Hornes	filed	a	motion	to	strike	the	appellant’s	brief	(Doc.	9),	which	at	that	time	

did	not	appear	to	have	been	filed.		Shortly	thereafter,	the	appellant’s	brief	was	located	

by	the	Clerk	of	Court	and	docketed	(Doc.	10).”		(Emphasis	added.)	Hence,	the	

appellant’s	brief	was	not	part	of	the	public	record	at	the	time	the	motion	to	strike	

was	filed.

Case 1:13-cv-00258-CB-B Document 13 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30457]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of U.S. Government-Owned 
Patent

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), 
announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-
bearing, revocable license to U.S. Patents 7,899,687; 8,510,129; and 
8,682,692; issued respectively on March 1, 2011, August 13, 2013 and 
March 25, 2014, entitled respectively ``System and method for handling 
medical information,'' ``Medical information handling system and 
method,'' and ``Medical information handling method, and foreign 
patents derived from PCT Application PCT/US03/15071 filed on May 15, 
2003, entitled ``System and method for handling medical information'' 
to Vista Partners, LLC, with its principal place of business at Hanger 
9B2, 7375 South Peoria, Englewood, CO 80112-4157.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For licensing issues, Mr. Barry 
Datlof, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-0033. For 
patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, 
both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to grant of this 
license can file written objections along with supporting evidence, if 
any, within 15 days from the date of this publication. Written 
objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see 
ADDRESSES).

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-30457 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
#### In the Matter of Dennis Morgan, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 652]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Norman I. Siegel, A.J.], entered June 29, 2006) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a tier III hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,831,306
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,605,785
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46,273
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,614,860
<PP&E>                                       3,311,426
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,625,904
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,154,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,524,388
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           94,201
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     508,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,154,620
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,150,091
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,806,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             141,045
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                134,730
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,220
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            128,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   128,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:13-mc-00009-WS-M Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:13-mc-00009-WS-M Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:13-mc-00009-WS-M Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:13-mc-00009-WS-M Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 4
#### In the Matter of Adam Adams, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 611]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), entered May 23, 2012 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Following his conviction of the crimes of murder in the second degree and kidnapping in the second degree, petitioner was sentenced to 22 years to life in prison. In May 2011, he appeared before the Board of Parole for a de novo hearing to consider his request for parole release. The Board denied his request and this determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging it. In December 2011, during the pendency of this proceeding, petitioner reappeared before the Board and his request for parole release was again denied. Respondent, in turn, moved to dismiss the proceeding as moot. Supreme Court granted the motion and petitioner now appeals.

We agree with Supreme Court that this proceeding is moot and that petitioner has not demonstrated that the exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable.

Peters, EJ., Rose, Lahtinen and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.