alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1



ContiMortgage
One ContiPark

338 S. Warminster Road
Hatboro, PA. 19040-3430
(215) 347-3000



As of and for the year ended December 31, 1999,  ContiMortgage  Corporation  has
complied with the minimum servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
Association  of  America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program  for  Mortgage
Bankers.  As of  December  31,  1999  ContiMortgage  Corporation  had in  effect
fidelity bond and errors and omissions  policy in the amounts of $14,000,000 and
$10,000,000, respectively.

/s/ Dennis Hedrick                               /s/ William P. Higgins
------------------                               ----------------------
Dennis Hedrick                                   William P. Higgins
Vice President - Servicing                       Vice President and Controller


March 21, 2000                                   March 21, 2000
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Sczepankowski, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 358]

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Hoye, J.), rendered September 7, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal, with the understanding that he would be sentenced to *V-fe*to 4 years in prison. County Court thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we find that he made a valid waiver of the right to appeal, as the plea allocution and the counseled written waiver executed in open court demonstrate that he voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence *(see People v Jerome,*98 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d *1116987 [2012]; *People v Martinez-Velazquez,*89 AD3d 1318, 1319 [2011] ). To the extent that defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel survives his appeal waiver, the claim is not preserved for our review as the record before us does not demonstrate that he moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Lazore,*102 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2013]; *People v Benson,*100 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2012] ).

Peters, P.J., Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 STATMON
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 19
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey P. Talbot, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:
  (1)
                The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  (2)
                The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
  /s/ Geoffrey P.
Talbot
 Geoffrey
P. Talbot
 Chief
Financial Officer
 April
8, 2009
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sharrowl Davis, Also Known as Sharrod Davis, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 141]

— Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Fahey, Garni and Whalen, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

NO. DA 21-0564

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KASEY N HUGS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good 

cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to 

and including June 16, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s 

opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 10 2023

05/10/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0564
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10521

Summary Calendar

__________________

DAVID CHASE BOYD,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:92-CV-00121

- - - - - - - - - -

January 29, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Chase Boyd contests the denial of his applications for

Social Security disability benefits and supplemental security

income. We AFFIRM. Boyd's motion to file his reply brief in its

present form is DENIED.

Boyd presents two issues: (1) that the ALJ's hypothetical

questions to the vocational expert failed to incorporate all of

his limitations and Boyd's counsel did not have an adequate

opportunity to remedy the defective hypothetical, and (2) that 
No. 95-10521

-2-

the ALJ's decision was contrary to law because the ALJ committed

legal errors by a) failing to apply Singletary v. Bowen, 798 F.2d

818 (5th Cir. 1986), and consider whether Boyd's alcohol abuse

would prevent him from keeping employment; b) failing to follow

the Appeals Council's instructions on remand; c) failing to

consider Boyd's alcohol abuse under the guidance of Social

Security Ruling 82-60; and d) failing to complete "B" criteria of

new psychiatric review technique.

We do not consider the first issue because Boyd did not

raise it in the district court. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d

320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); James v. Bowen, 793 F.2d 702, 704 (5th

Cir. 1986). Nor do we consider the second issue because Boyd

failed to raise it before the Appeals Council or in the district

court. Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2145 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2145

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
 Agencies, Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General 
                         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, Office of Inspector General 
                         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, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF 
              INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
Small Business Administration, Office of Inspector General for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $21,900,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### Anne M. BREDICE, Admin., etc., Plaintiff, v. DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 3118-67.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. 13, 1970.

David J. Humphreys, and Irving R. M. Panzer, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

James A. Welch, Washington, D. C., for defendants Zehner, Garnett, Andrina, Tsoi & Stubbs.

David N. Webster, Washington, D. C., for defendant Bailey.

Francis L. Casey, Jr., Washington, D. C., for defendant Romansky.

John L. Laskey, Jackson, Gray & Laskey, Washington, D. C., for defendant Doctors Hospital,' Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.

Subsequent to July 1, 1970 (the effective date of the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), plaintiff filed a request for production of documents by the defendant, Doctors Hospital, Inc., designating the following documents:

> 1. Minutes and reports of any. Board or Committee of Doctors Hospital or its staff concerning the death of Frank J. Bredice on December 11, 1966.

> 2. Reports, statements or memoranda, including reports to the malpractice carrier, reduced to writing, no matter when or by whom sent, concerning the death of Frank J. Bredice on December 11, 1966.

In each instance, the material requested is the same material which was the subject of plaintiff’s earlier Motion for Production and Inspection. The defendant Hospital resisted this Motion, and the Motion was denied by Judge Corcoran of this Court pursuant to his Opinion filed herein on March 11, 1970, 50 F.R.D. 249.

The defendant Hospital has filed its Objections to the present request for *188production of the documents specified, and both parties have filed memoranda in support of and in opposition to said Objections. The Court has carefully considered the memoranda and oral argument of counsel, as well as the Opinion of Judge Corcoran above referred to. In this Opinion, Judge Corcoran analyzed the considerations of public policy supporting the extension of qualified privilege of confidentiality concerning the subject matter of the meetings of the hospital staff review committees, and this Court now adheres to his ruling that the proceedings at such meetings are entitled to a qualified privilege on the basis of the overwhelming public interest found to exist by Judge Corcoran on the evidence before him.

The Court also adheres to Judge Corcoran’s ruling regarding item 2 of the request, all of the material covered by said request having been generated subsequent to the institution of this suit.

Therefore, it is by the Court, this 12th day of October, 1970,

Adjudged, ordered and decreed that the objections of defendant, Doctors Hospital, Inc., to the request for production of documents be and the same hereby are sustained.
EXHIBIT
32.1





STATMON
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


19
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Geoffrey P. TalbotGeoffrey
      P. TalbotChief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      23, 2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                    FORM 6-K

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                        REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15D-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                          For the month of August 2004

                        Commission File Number 333-101591

                          GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION

                              5100 W. Lemon Street
                                   Suite 3100
                                 Tampa, Florida
                                      33609

    Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
                  reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                           Form 20-F [ ]  Form 40-F [X]

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
           paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

     Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in
           paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

 Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
     Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                 Yes [ ]  No [X]

       If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the
           registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit        Description
-------        -----------
<S>            <C>
  99.1         Quarterly Report for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004

  99.2         Certifications pursuant to Canadian law
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: August 5, 2004

                                      GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION

                                      By:    /s/ Tom J. Landa
                                          --------------------------------------
                                      Name:   Tom J. Landa
                                      Title:  Vice-President, Chief Financial
                                              Officer and Secretary
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-45502, 333-90839, 333-51486, 333-52562 and 333-104353) of Sycamore Networks, Inc. of our report dated October 11, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

October 11, 2005
#### Brenda K. Hale, Appellant, v Wilmorite, Inc., et al., Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs. One Source Facility Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[825 NYS2d 415]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Wayne County (Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), entered May 22, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order denied plaintiffs motion for leave to reargue.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Hale v Wilmorite, Inc.*(35 AD3d 1251 [2006]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF GUMBINER SAVETT INC.,**

**INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Axesstel, Inc. 

San Diego, California 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-115168) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-127079) of our report dated March 24, 2010, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Axesstel, Inc. and subsidiary, as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 which appear in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2009. 

 

Santa Monica, California 

March 25, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Remeher Pulley, Appellant.

[966 NYS2d 709]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered December 15, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

*1561Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him based upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable and that his agreed-upon sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We perceive no infirmity in defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal. County Court adequately advised defendant during the plea colloquy of his right to appeal, and defendant then signed a written waiver of the right to appeal. The record thus establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence *(see id.*at 255; *see generally People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra and Lindley, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2357 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Global Environment 

Facility 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 Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Global 

Environment Facility 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 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY FOR FIS5 CAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Global Environment Facility for fiscal year 2024 

9 may not exceed $0. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4975

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODNEY T. HOFFMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, 

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00216-1)

Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, 

Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public 

Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth 

Goodwin, II, United States Attorney, Perry D. McDaniel, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney T. Hoffman pled guilty pursuant to a plea 

agreement to one count of storage of hazardous waste without a 

permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A) (2006). On 

appeal, he challenges the district court’s denial of his request 

for a downward departure under Application Notes 7 and 8 to the 

Commentary for U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Q1.2 (2009). 

We dismiss the appeal. 

This court does not have jurisdiction to review the 

denial of a downward departure so long as the district court 

recognized the authority to depart. See United States v. 

Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). “Because the 

district court’s refusal to depart downward followed its 

conclusion that the evidence did not support a departure, its 

ruling on this issue is not reviewable on appeal.” United 

States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666, 682 (4th Cir. 2004). 

Because we conclude that the district court recognized 

the authority to depart and found that the evidence did not 

support a departure, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF SYCAMORE NETWORKS, INC.**

Sycamore Networks Asia Inc. 

Delaware 

Sycamore Networks Europe Inc.

Delaware 

Sycamore NetworksReal Estate, LLC 

Delaware 

Sycamore Networks Americas Inc. 

Delaware 

Sycamore Securities Corporation 

Massachusetts 

Sirocco Systems, Inc. 

Delaware 

Sycamore Bach LLC 

Pennsylvania

Sycamore Networks International BV 

Amsterdam, The Netherlands 

Sycamore Networks (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. 

People’s Republic of China 

SycamoreNetworks Japan K.K. 

Japan
#### In the Matter of Aiden J.W., an Infant. Niagara County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Michael E.M., Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 883]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Niagara County (John F. Batt, J.), entered June 13, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the parental rights of respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

*1335Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order finding that he permanently neglected his child and terminating his parental rights. We reject the father’s contention that Family Court failed to consider the appropriate factors, including the “special circumstances of an incarcerated parent,” in determining that the child was permanently neglected (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Indeed, we agree with the court that the father “has failed to demonstrate any commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood and demonstrates a fundamental defect in his understanding of proper parenting responsibilities.” The petitioning agency is not required to “ ‘guarantee that the parent succeed in overcoming his or her predicaments’ . . . but, rather, the parent must ‘assume a measure of initiative and responsibility’ ” *(Matter of Whytnei B. [Jeffrey B.],*77 AD3d 1340, 1341 [2010]).

Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.