alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICKIE LEE CLOY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00718-KD-N

)

TRACY BOUCKUEY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion (doc. 17) to stay this action to 

allow plaintiff time to “adequately prepare a proper 1983 [Complaint using the Court’s 

form].” A stay of this action would be inappropriate and, consequently, plaintiff’s 

motion to stay is hereby DENIED. The Court will, however, grant plaintiff additional 

time to comply with the Order entered on February 13, 2013 (doc. 16). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that plaintiff now file no later than May 20, 2013, a second amended 

complaint on this Court’s § 1983 complaint form that corrects the pleading deficiencies 

noted in the Court’s Order dated February 21, 2013 (doc. 16) and states a claim for a 

violation of his constitutional rights.

As stated previously, plaintiff’s second amended complaint will supercede 

plaintiff’s prior complaints (docs. 1,4). Plaintiff, therefore, shall not rely on them. The 

Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a form for a complaint under § 1983.

Case 1:12-cv-00718-KD-N Document 18 Filed 03/21/13 Page 1 of 2
2

Failure to comply with this order within the prescribed time or to notify the Court 

of a change of address will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice. And a 

failure to plead a second amended complaint that complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), after 

being required to replead a complaint, may result in the dismissal of the action under 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to comply with the Court’s order. Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921 

F.2d 1465, 1522 n. 103 (11th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 855 (1991).

On January 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a “Petition to Summon a Special Master” (doc. 

12) pursuant to § 16.8 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Upon consideration of this 

petition and all pertinent portions of the record, the Court finds that it has previously 

advised the plaintiff that he is not entitled to appointed counsel because he has not 

“demonstrated that his case present[s] exceptional circumstances warranting the

appointment of counsel.” Doc. 10 at 1-2, citing Tipps v. Leonard, 2009 WL 1362831, *1 

(5th Cir. May 15, 2009); Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). 

The circumstances warranting the appointment of a Special Master must be even more 

exceptional than that required for appointment of counsel in a case such as this one. It is, 

therefore, ORDERED that plaintiff’s petition (doc. 12) is hereby DENIED. 

DONE this 21st day of March, 2013.

/s/Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:12-cv-00718-KD-N Document 18 Filed 03/21/13 Page 2 of 2
(April 18, 2013)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kersey Jannestil, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 230]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J), rendered July 2, 2008, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of forgery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly imposed a felony sentence based on defendant’s violation of his plea agreement. After being rejected by a drug program, defendant absconded, adopted an alias, remained at large for 10 years, and was returned on a bench warrant. Defendant thus forfeited the opportunity to have his felony conviction replaced by a misdemeanor conviction *(see People v Jenkins,*11 NY3d 282 [2008]). Although the court could *561have imposed a more severe sentence under the agreement, it imposed the minimum lawful sentence for a second felony offender.

Given the circumstances, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s new attorney’s request for an adjournment to permit further preparation for sentencing, and that ruling did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel (see *People v*Chappotin, 56 AD3d 327 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 923 [2009]). Both the attorney and defendant addressed the court at sentencing, and “there is no reason to believe that counsel could have persuaded the court to impose a more lenient sentence if he had received more time to prepare” *(People v Krasnovsky,*45 AD3d 446, 447 [1st Dept 2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 767 [2008]). There was no need for either counsel or the court to inquire into defendant’s 2008 arrest in Queens County, or his immigration status, because neither of these factors played any role in defendant’s sentence.

To the extent defendant may seek to vacate his plea, he must do so by motion in the trial court upon a proper evidentiary record.

Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
EXHIBIT
          32.2
 
 CHEMBIO
          DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
 SARBANES-OXLEY
          ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
 
 In
          connection with this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Chembio Diagnostics,
          Inc.
          for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, I, Richard J. Larkin, Chief
          Financial Officer and Secretary of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., hereby certify
          pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
          of the
          Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
                This
                    Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 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 this Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
                    ended
                    December 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects,
                    the financial
                    condition and results of operations of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc.
                    for the
                    periods presented therein.
 
 Date:
          March 30, 2006
 
 /s./
          Richard J. Larkin
 Richard
          J. Larkin
 Chief
          Financial Officer
 (Principle
          Financial Officer)
#### Fred Sieling et al., Appellants, v New York Convention Center Development Corporation et al., Respondents.

[828 NYS2d 303]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered January 9, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Fred Sieling, an employee of nonparty New York Convention Center Operating Corporation, was electrocuted while working as an electrician at the Jacob Javits Convention Center. Defendants, as owners and designers of the Javits Center, demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and plaintiffs were unable to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form to establish the existence of material issues of fact requiring a trial *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The deposition testimony of Fred Sieling and his coworkers failed to identify the cause of the accident, and no reasonable inference as to causation can be drawn from any of plaintiffs’ evidence *(see Reed v Piran Realty Corp.,*30 AD3d 319, 320 [2006]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 99.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the report on Form 10-Q
of Hub International Limited (the Company) dated
November 6, 2003 containing the financial statements of the
Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003
(the Report) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Martin P.
Hughes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted, certify pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|   |                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements
    of Section 13(a) 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.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



| |     |                     
| | --- | --------------------
| | By: | /s/ MARTIN P. HUGHES

| |                                                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------------
| | ______________________________________ 
     Martin P. Hughes
| | Chief Executive Officer                                      

November 6, 2003
#### Brian McLaughlin et al., Respondents, v Ann-Gur Realty Corporation, Respondent, and Eduardo Almanzar, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[968 NYS2d 12]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered July 16, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Eduardo Almanzar’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the General Municipal Law § 205-a and loss of consortium claims and all cross claims against him, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to plaintiffs’ claims and as to defendant Ann-Gur Realty Corporation’s cross claims for contribution and contractual and common-law indemnification, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff police officer was injured when he slipped off a sidewalk “step-off’ extending four feet into the sidewalk area from the building line of landlord Ann-Gur’s corner-lot building and the entrance to commercial tenant Almanzar’s bodega. Plaintiffs’ General Municipal Law § 205-a claim, predicated upon Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 27-127 and 27-128 (since repealed and recodified at Administrative Code § 28-301.1), and, belatedly, 34 RCNY 2-09 (f), should be dismissed as against Almanzar because these statutory provisions are not applicable to lessees *(Zvinys v Richfield Inv. Co.,*25 AD3d 358, 360 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 706 [2006]). Contrary to AnnGur’s contention, Almanzar raised this ground for dismissal in the motion court.

Ann-Gur’s cross claims against Almanzar for contribution and indemnification also should be dismissed. The lease provided that Ann-Gur was responsible for all structural repairs *470to the premises, and obligated Almanzar to indemnify Ann-Gur only for losses arising out of his or his agents’ negligent acts or omissions or in connection with his occupation of the sidewalk. There is no evidence that plaintiff’s injuries arose in connection with negligence on the part of Almanzar or his agents or any occupation by him of the sidewalk. Nor, contrary to Ann-Gur’s contention, does Almanzar’s undertaking to sweep, remove snowfall from and paint the sidewalk entitle it to common-law indemnification in connection with the instant plaintiff’s injuries.

While Ann-Gur is not entitled to contribution or indemnification by Almanzar, its cross claim for breach of contract based on Almanzar’s failure to name it as an additional insured on his general liability policy is viable to the extent of out-of-pocket damages caused by the breach, i.e., the purchase cost of the insurance Ann-Gur procured for itself, the premiums and any additional costs such as deductibles, co-payments, and increased future premiums *(see Inchaustegui v 666 5th Ave. Ltd. Partnership,*96 NY2d 111 [2001]; *Cucinotta v City of New York,*68 AD3d 682 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00440

- CR

Humberto Martinez

- Benitez

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 158th District Court

o f Denton County (F

- 2013

- 0158

- B )

December 17, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0102

BRIAN D. SMITH,

Petitioner and Appelldnt,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

RLED

MAR 2 6 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk df Supreme Court

State of Montana

ORDER

Brian D. Smith moves this Court to appoint counsel and to expand the record by

including the Missoula County District Court record for his underlying criminal case, Cause

No. DC-11-161. The State of Montana has not filed a response.

As grounds, he provides that he is indigent and incarcerated. Smith states that he

"needs access to files in possession of the public defender's office in Missoula, 0" in order

to argue his case on appeal. He states that he believes he is entitled to those files and that he

has not been provided these documents since 2012. In lieu of granting his motion for

counsel, Smith offers, in the altemative, that this Court order the District Court to release the

entire record for DC-11-161 from the public defender's office to him.

Smith is appealing the District Court's denial of his second petition for postconviction

relief in Cause No. DV-16-698. This Court is familiar with Smith's criminal history. Smith

pleaded guilty to felony aggravated assault, and in May 2012, the District Court sentenced

him to a twenty-year prison term without parole. Smith did not timely appeal his conviction

and sentence. This Court denied his petition for an out-of-time appeal in July 2013. State v.

Smith, No. DA 13-0399, Order (Mont. July 10, 2013). In 2016, Smith sought postconviction

relief in the District Court, and the court denied his petition in Cause No. DV-16-698. Smith

appealed, and we affirmed. Smith v. State, No. DA 17-0146, 2018 MT 115N,1 2, 11, 2018

Mont. LEXIS 150.

03/26/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0102
Smith is not entitled to representation from appellate counsel nor expansion of the

record. There is no right to the appointment of counsel in a proceeding on a motion for

postconviction relief, although a court may order the assignment of counsel under the

circumstances outlined in § 46-8-104, MCA. Smith represented himself in his

postconviction proceeding before the District Court. Smith has not demonstrated that

extraordinary circumstances exist to justify appointment of counsel, pursuant to § 46-8-

104(3), MCA. Smith is not entitled to his public defender's files now, some seven years

later, when he did not have them in seeking postconviction relief. Smith presents no grounds

to support his motion that this record on appeal needs to be supplemented with either these

files from the public defender's office or from the underlying District Court record for his

criminal conviction and sentence, given that his instant appeal concerns another denial ofhis

petition for postconviction relief. Section 46-21-105(2), MCA. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Smith's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Smith's Motion to Expand the Record is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Brian

D. Smith personally.

DATED this Mayof March, 2020.

For the Court,

2

Chief Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2263 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2263

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
   of Agriculture, Farm Production and Conservation Business Center, 
              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 Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
   of Agriculture, Farm Production and Conservation Business Center, 
              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 US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, FARM PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION BUSINESS 
              CENTER, SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Farm Production and Conservation Business Center, Salaries 
and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $216,350,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Martinez, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lorenzo Martinez, Appellant.

[869 NYS2d 779]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), entered on or about October 3, 2006, which denied defendants’ motions to be resentenced under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (L 2004, ch 738), unanimously affirmed.

The court properly determined that substantial justice dictated denial of each defendant’s resentencing application, since the extreme seriousness of the underlying criminal conduct outweighed the mitigating factors cited by defendants. This Court has affirmed the denial of a resentencing application made by another participant in the underlying conduct *(see People v Martinez,*51 AD3d 569 [2008], *lv dismissed*11 NY3d 791 [2008]), and the involvement of these defendants was even more serious than that of the prior defendant. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   EXHIBIT 11


                                CLX ENERGY, INC.
                   Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share
                                   (Unaudited)


                                         Three months
                                      ended December 31,
                                   ------------------------
                                       2001         2000
                                   ------------  ----------
<S>                                <C>           <C>

Net income                         $   (78,594)      87,458
                                   ============  ==========

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding                 2,631,936    2,636,283

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options                                    -       41,667
                                   ------------  ----------

                                     2,631,936    2,677,950
                                   ============  ==========

Net income (loss) per share:
    Basic                          $     (0.03)        0.03
                                   ============  ==========

    Diluted                        $     (0.03)        0.03
                                   ============  ==========
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1991 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED ALONG WITH THE NOTES THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         953,850
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,840,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                    49,388
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,551,472
<PP&E>                                       8,963,798
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,599,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,839,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,789,729
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  5,460,653
<COMMON>                                     4,798,924
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,895,779)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,363,798
<SALES>                                        211,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,392,362
<CGS>                                          184,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,671,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               358,698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                32,201
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             405,549
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,601,071)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,601,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,601,071)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)


</TABLE>
#### State v. Key

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 286

No. 643P06

Def-Appellant’s PDR (COA06-124)

Denied 06/27/07