alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Colvin M., Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 664]

In a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10 for the civil management of Colvin M., a sex offender allegedly requiring civil management, Colvin M. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garnett, J.), dated April 3, 2012, which, upon a finding, made after a jury trial, that he suffers from a mental abnormality as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i), and upon a determination, made after a dispositional hearing, that he is a dangerous sex offender requiring civil confinement, in effect, granted the petition and directed that he be committed to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment, and control until such time as he no longer requires confinement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

The appellant’s challenges to certain remarks made by the Assistant Attorney General during summation are unpreserved for appellate review, as the appellant did not object to the remarks at issue *(see Burke v Carrion,*101 AD3d 920 [2012]; *People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d 1106 [2011]). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, a fair response to appellant counsel’s remarks, or not so pervasive as to have deprived him of a fair trial *(see People v Simmons,*106 AD3d 1115 [2013]; *People v Ward,*106 AD3d 842 [2013]; *People v Daniels,*103 AD3d 807 [2013]; *People v Persaud,*98 AD3d 527 [2012]; *People v Jenkins,*93 AD3d 861 [2012]).

Furthermore, clear and convincing evidence supports the Supreme Court’s determination that the appellant is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement in a secure facility *(see Matter of State of New York v Robert B.,*106 AD3d 828 [2013]; *Matter of State of New York v Alfredo M.,*96 AD3d 1068 [2012]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
#### John P. HUNSAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-5010.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 13, 2006.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and LINN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

John P. Hunsaker seeks review of the order of the United States Court of Federal Claims rejecting his motion for reconsideration as untimely. *Hunsaker v. United States,*No. 04-1588T (Fed.Cl. Aug.25, 2005). We *affirm.*

Mr. Hunsaker filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the Internal Revenue Service’s attempt to collect unpaid federal income taxes. The court dismissed his claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on June 23, 2005.1 Two months later, on August 22, 2005, Mr. Hunsaker filed a motion for reconsideration with the trial court. On August 25, 2005, the trial court entered an order rejecting his motion as untimely.

Mr. Hunsaker filed a notice of appeal on October 17, 2005. A notice of appeal must be filed within sixty days after a decision by the Court of Federal Claims. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2107, 2522. Accordingly, we cannot review the trial court’s judgment dismissing the complaint because the notice of appeal was filed more than sixty days after judgment was entered. We may, however, review the trial court’s order rejecting Mr. Hunsaker’s motion for reconsideration because the notice of appeal was filed within sixty days of that order, which was entered on August 29, 2005.

Under Rule 59(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, a motion for reconsideration must be filed within ten days after entry of a judgment. Mr. Hun-saker filed his motion for reconsideration on August 22, 2005, about two months after the trial court entered judgment. We review the trial court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of *913discretion, *Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. v. United States,*254 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir.2001), and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Mr. Hunsaker’s motion as untimely.

On appeal, Mr. Hunsaker argues that the trial court should have treated his motion as a Rule 60(b)(2) motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence, which would have been timely because Rule 60(b)(2) motions may be filed within one year after a judgment. Mr. Hunsaker’s motion, styled “Motion of Reconsideration,” did not include new evidence and merely repeated meritless arguments he had submitted to the trial court in other documents. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not treating the motion as a Rule 60(b)(2) motion.

We have considered Mr. Hunsaker’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we *affirm*the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims.

1

. *Hunsaker v. United States, 66*Fed.Cl. 129 (2005).
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 September 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. TalbotGeoffrey
      P. TalbotChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      27, 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.
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Ron Kalfus, Chief Financial Officer of MabCure, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:

| | (a) | The Second Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
      of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 (the
      Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m);
    and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | (b) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                  

|By:    | /s/ Ron Kalfus                                     | 
|------ | -------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Ron Kalfus                                         | 
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer                            | 
|       | (Principal Financial and
      Accounting Officer) | 
|Date:  | April 15, 2011                                     | 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of this Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K Current Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report(Date of earliest event reported)
April 30, 2004 Vitran Corporation Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 CANADA
    
    000-26256
    
    Not applicable(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 185 The West Mall, Suite 701, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    
    M9C 5L5(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip code)
 416-596-7664 (Registrants telephone number,
including area code)




---



##### 



Item 5. Other Events On April 28, 2004, the Registrant issued the press release attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.1, and such press release is incorporated in its entirety by
reference herein. On April 29, 2004, the Registrant issued the press release attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.2, and such press release is incorporated in its entirety by
reference herein. On April 22, 2004, the Registrant filed articles of amendment attached hereto
as Exhibit 3.1, and such articles of amendment is incorporated in its entirety
by reference herein. On April 29, 2004, the Registrant signed an employment agreement with Rick E.
Gaetz. On April 29, 2004, the Registrant signed an employment agreement with Kevin A.
Glass. 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. VITRAN CORPORATION INC.By:
    
    /s/ Kevin A. GlassName: Kevin A. GlassTitle: Vice President Financeand Chief Financial OfficerDate: April 30, 2004
 EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    Press Release  dated April 28, 2004Vitran Shareholder Approve Two New Board Directors at
Companys Annual Meeting99.2
    
    Press Release  dated April 29, 2004Vitran to Trade under New Stock Symbol on Toronto Stock Exchange3.1
    
    Articles of Amendment dated April 22, 200410.1
    
    Employment Agreement dated April 29, 2004between Vitran Corporation Inc. and Rick E. Gaetz10.2
    
    Employment Agreement dated April 29, 2004between Vitran Corporation Inc. and Kevin A. Glass
#### Mahender R. Goriganti, Appellant, v Syracuse Orthopedic Specialists, P.C., Respondent.

Submitted April 27, 2009;

decided June 11, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Jodiann Russo, Appellant, v Thomas D. Cooke et al., Respondents.

[828 NYS2d 421]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 10, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff claims that she injured her lower back in the subject accident and a magnetic resonance imaging scan *708indicated a disc herniation at L4-5. However, the affirmed medical report of the defendants’ examining neurologist did not reflect that he ever tested the range of motion of that region of the plaintiffs body, although he did test the range of motion of the plaintiffs cervical spine *(see DeJesus v Tanenbaum,*29 AD3d 852 [2006]; *Beyel v Console,*25 AD3d 636 [2006]; *Edwards v New York City Tr. Auth.,*17 AD3d 628 [2005]). Under the circumstances, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to consider whether the plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the defendants’ motion were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see DeJesus v Tanenbaum, supra; Beyel v Console, supra; Edwards v New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Coscia v 938 Trading Corp.,*283 AD2d 538 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### In re W.R.

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 642

No. 560P06

1. AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA05-1602)

2. AG’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. AG’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 10/26/06

2. Allowed 10/11/07

3. Allowed 10/11/07
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

          1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
               10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by
               this report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2007-OA3 (the
               "Exchange Act periodic reports");

          2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken
               as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material
               fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
               statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
               statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
               covered by this report;

          3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
               other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
               period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act
               periodic reports;

          4.   I am responsible  for reviewing the  activities  performed by the
               servicer(s)   and  based  on  my  knowledge  and  the  compliance
               review(s)   conducted  in  preparing   the  servicer   compliance
               statement(s)   required  in  this  report   under  Item  1123  of
               Regulation  AB,  and  except as  disclosed  in the  Exchange  Act
               periodic   reports,   the   servicer(s)   have  fulfilled   their
               obligations  under the  servicing  agreement(s)  in all  material
               respects; and

          5.   All of the reports on  assessment of  compliance  with  servicing
               criteria   for   asset-backed   securities   and  their   related
               attestation  reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing
               criteria for asset-backed  securities  required to be included in
               this report in  accordance  with Item 1122 of  Regulation  AB and
               Exchange  Act Rules  13a-18 and 15d-18  have been  included as an
               exhibit to this  report,  except as  otherwise  disclosed in this
               report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
               reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
            information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
            The Bank of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2008

             /s/ Steve Bailey
             -------------------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan
             Administration
             (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
             Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
##### 



FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington, 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 May 2005 Commission File Number 333-101591 Gerdau Ameristeel
Corporation 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd.
Suite 600
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   o
    
    Form 40-F   þ 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):   o 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):   o 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   o
    
    No   þ If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b):   82 -




---



##### 



EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release, dated
May 19, 2005




---



##### 



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, hereunto duly authorized. Date: May 19, 2005  GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATIONBy:

/s/ Robert E. LewisName:
    
    Robert E. LewisTitle:
    
    Vice-President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary
#### State v. Coleman

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 568

No. 126P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06-441)

Denied 08/23/07
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Jerel Anderson,

AIS #235137,

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-648-WS-M

:

Monica Mcoy,

Defendant.

:

:

:

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of 

this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there 

having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is 

adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED

with prejudice, prior to service of process, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

DONE this 13th day of May, 2016. 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00648-WS-M Document 9 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 1
EX-35.2
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
Centerline Servicing Inc.

The undersigned, Keith Crandall, Servicing Officer of Centerline Servicing
Inc., (f/k/a ARCap Servicing, Inc.), the Special Servicer under that certain
Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated
as of March 7, 2007, relating to the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage
Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2007-CIBC18, hereby certifies as follows:

1. a review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the preceding
   calendar year or portion thereof and of the performance of the Special
   Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under the
   undersigned officer's supervision; and

2. the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the Special
   Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing
   Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, or portion thereof
   commencing from the Transaction Closing Date.

Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given
them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the 7th day of March, 2008, I have hereunto signed my
name.



/s/ Keith Crandall
Keith Crandall
Servicing Officer of
Centerline Servicing Inc.,
a Delaware corporation
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

E X PARTE: JUAN CARLOS REYES. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 2

- 00 261

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20050C17647

- CC7

- 1 )

O R D E R

The Court has received and filed the supplemental clerk = s record requested in this Court = s

order issued February 14 , 201 3 . The appeal is therefore reinstated and the Appell ee = s brief is

due May 15 , 2013

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of May , 201 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**DEGOLYERAND MACNAUGHTON**

**5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD**

**SUITE 800 EAST**

**DALLAS, TEXAS 75244**

March 3, 2009 

Dune Energy, Inc. 

Two Shell Plaza 

777 Walker Street, Suite 2300 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We hereby consent to the use of the name DeGolyer and MacNaughton and to the inclusion of the text of our “Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2008 on Certain Properties owned by Dune Energy Inc.” (our Report) as Exhibit 99.1to the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. We further consent to the inclusion of information from our Report and our “Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2007 on Certain Properties owned by Dune EnergyInc.” in the sections “Natural Gas and Oil Reserves”, “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Estimated proved oil and gas reserves”, and“Note 13 – Supplemental Oil and Gas Information (Unaudited) – Proved Reserves.” 

Very truly yours,

/s/ DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7702

MICHAEL LEON HILL-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-415-AM) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Michael Leon Hill-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew P. Dullaghan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael Leon Hill-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Hill-Bey v. Director, Virginia Dep’t of Corrections , No. CA-99-415-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 1, 1999). We also deny Hill-Bey’s motion for appointment of counsel.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