alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Jose Fernandez, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 608]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Superintendent of Sullivan *1288Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While petitioner was being examined by a physician’s assistant at the correctional facility where he was incarcerated, she observed him staring at her breasts. She twice instructed him to stop engaging in such conduct, but he refused. She then directed him to leave the room and he complied. As a result of this incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with harassment and refusing a direct order. He was found guilty of the charges at the conclusion of a tier II hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of White v Fischer,*95 AD3d 1582, 1583 [2012]; *Matter of Johnson v Rock,*64 AD3d 1096, 1096 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 713 [2009]). Petitioner’s denial of any misconduct and claim that he is Spanish speaking and did not understand the assistant’s directives presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Mungo v Director of Special Hous. & Inmate Disciplinary Programs,*93 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2012], *appeal dismissed*19 NY3d 919 [2012]; *Matter of Garcia v Bertone,*91 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2012]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have either not been preserved for our review or are lacking in merit.

Lahtinen, J.P, Spain, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) DRS Tactical Systems, Inc. ) ) Under ContractNo. Wl5P7T-04-D-G204 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ASBCA No. 59769

David Z. Bodenheimer, Esq. Mary Kate Healy, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP Washington, DC APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. Army ChiefTrial Attorney CPT Harry M. Parent III, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 8 July 2015
/ MARK N. STEMPLER Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59769, Appeal ofDRS Tactical Systems, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREYD. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
[906 NE2d 1057, 879 NYS2d 25]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Lowe, Appellant.

Argued February 19, 2009;

decided March 26, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Amy Donner*and *Steven Banks*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *(Marc Krupnick*and *Alan Gadlin*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

*769The lower courts’ determinations of probable cause, a mixed question of law and fact, are supported by the minutes of the in camera hearing conducted pursuant to *People v Darden*(34 NY2d 177 [1974]), and are thus beyond our further review. Accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.
# 6H

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0335 LARRY JAMES LEPPEK,

Plaint iff and Appellant, v. EVELYN MAE SHUEY,

Defendant and Appellee. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT
This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Mathew M.**  **Stevenson,** whose name appears next on th e list of

attorneys desi

ring appo int me nt a s me di ators fo r Mo ney Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to c onduct the mediat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time peri ods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from th e date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to th e parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s July

19, 2022.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk o f th e Supreme Court c: Larry

James Leppek, Michael David Bybee, Mathew M. Stevenson 07/19/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0335
#### In re A.P.

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 425

No. 534A06

1. Petitioner’s (Forsyth DSS) Notice of Appeal (Dissent) (COA05-1105)

2. Petitioners’ (Forsyth DSS) Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. Petitioner's (Forsyth DSS) PDR as to Additional Issues

4. Petitioner’s (Forsyth DSS) Motion for Temporary Stay

5. Respondent’s (Hylton) Motion to Join in Appeal with Forsyth County DSS

1. _

2. Allowed 11/22/06

3. Denied 11/22/06

4. Allowed 10/11/06

5. Allowed 11/22/06
663 A.2d 638

#### IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY P. RUDDY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 13, 1995.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed its decision with the Court on July 11, 1995, recommending that JEFFREY P. RUD*429DY of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1967, be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4 (failure to communicate), and RPC 1.8(h) (entering into an impermissible settlement agreement with a client),

And the Disciplinary Review Board further recommending that respondent practice under the supervision of a proctor for a period of six months, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JEFFREY P. RUDDY is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that JEFFREY P. RUDDY practice under the supervision of an attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of six months, and until further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 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 Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 28, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joan E. Ryan, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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.







/s Joan E. Ryan
exv10w18



 





Exhibit 10.18









March 1,, 2007



To: Kenneth C. Aldrich and William B. Adams





			
	Re:	 	Consulting Agreement between Kenneth C. Aldrich, William B. Adams and Pacgen Cell Co.
[Lifeline Cell Technology]




Dear Mr.’s. Aldrich and Adams,



At the International Stem Cell Corporation Board of Director’s meeting on November 17, 2006, we
discussed the management fees owed to Mr. Adams and Aldrich. Up to June 1, 2006, Lifeline Cell
Technology, LLC was accruing $10,000 per month in fees. From June 1, 2006 to November 1, 2006 the
amount was increased to $20,000 per month. Effective November 1, 2006 both Mr. Aldrich and Adams
entered into employment agreements with International Stem Cell Corporation. At that time the
accrual of additional fees are cancelled. It was further agreed that International Stem Cell
Corporation will continue to pay $20,000 per month until the remainder of the obligation is paid in
full. Interest will continue to accrue at 10% per annum until paid in full.



If you have any questions, please contact me.



With best regards,




/s/ Jeffrey J. Krstich




Jeffrey J. Krstich

CEO

International Stem Cell Corporation





2595
Jason Court, Oceanside, CA 92056 • Tel: (760) 940-6383 •
Fax: (760) 940-6387 • internationalstemcell.com
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Sensorimotor Integration Study Section, February 06, 2015, 08:00 a.m. to February 06, 2015, 06:00 p.m., JW Marriott New Orleans, 614 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA, 70130 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 08, 2015, 80 FR 1031.                

The meeting will be held at the Renaissance New Orleans Pere Marquette Hotel, 817 Common Street New Orleans, LA, 70112. The meeting date and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: January 8, 2015.

Carolyn A. Baum,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00496 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         554,988
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  374,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               929,414
<PP&E>                                      19,299,548
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,459,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,769,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          590,298
<BONDS>                                      9,003,476
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     176,080<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,769,854
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               992,924
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  649,986
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             170,984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                171,954
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            171,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   171,954
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    74.76<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>This entity is a limited partnership. The Other Stockholders Equity line
represents total Partnership equity.
<F2>The EPS-Primary line represents net income per limited partnership unit.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### Tribeca Technology Solutions, Inc., Respondent, v David Goldberg et al., Appellants.

[973 NYS2d 168]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil Singh, J.), entered on or about July 23, 2012, which granted plaintiffs motion to vacate orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about January 13, 2012 and May 4, 2012, on its default, respectively, granting defendants Edward Schapiro, American Medical Data Management, LLC, AMDM LLC, and AMDM Inc.’s motion to dismiss the second, fourth and fifth causes of action as against them, and granting defendants David Goldberg and Scott Simon’s motion for a default judgment on their counterclaims, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiff’s motion as to the May 4, 2012 order, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that plaintiffs excuse for its default in opposing the motion to dismiss was reasonable, in view of the absence of any history of willful neglect or abandonment on the part of plaintiff’s counsel, who until that early stage had prosecuted the action, but candidly admitted to and apologized for his oversight in failing to oppose the motion *(see e.g. To Yiu Yeung v City of New York,*282 AD2d 217 [1st Dept 2001]; *Brady v Paris Maintenance Co.,*281 AD2d 162 [1st Dept 2001]; *Mediavilla v Gurman,*272 AD2d 146 [1st Dept 2000]). *537We note that counsel had previously sought an adjournment of the motion for the purpose of interposing opposition, that within three weeks of receiving entry of the order he made several attempts to challenge the dismissal, and that after being instructed by the court to file a proper vacatur motion, he did so within three months, which was only six months after being served with the notice of entry and, thus, well before the one-year deadline for moving for relief from the order *(see*CPLR *5015*[a] [1]). We also agree that plaintiff established the merits of its action by submitting its principal’s affidavit attesting to the veracity of its claims.

With respect to the May 4, 2012 order, we find that the court erred in considering the sufficiency of plaintiffs excuse for failing to oppose defendants Goldberg and Simon’s motion for a default judgment on their counterclaims, rather than its excuse for failing to answer the counterclaims themselves, which plaintiffs counsel never denied receiving *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Since plaintiff never proffered an excuse for the initial default, consideration of the merits of its defense to the counterclaims is unnecessary *(see Admiral Ins. Co. v Marriott Intl., Inc.,*79 AD3d 572 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*17 NY3d 708 [2011]). Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Jamar Martin, Appellant, v Andrea W. Evans, Chairwoman, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 921]

Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered June 4, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The amended judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Inasmuch as petitioner’s attorney has advised this Court that petitioner has been conditionally released to parole supervision, petitioner’s appeal from the amended judgment denying his CPLR article 78 petition seeking release to parole has been rendered moot *(see Matter of Velez v Evans,*101 *1497AD3d 1642, 1642 [2012]; *see also People ex rel. Baron v New York State Dept. of Corrections,*94 AD3d 1410, 1410 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 807 [2012]). The exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply herein *(see generally Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
**Exhibit 12****RSC Holdings Inc. & Subsidiaries**Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(unaudited)(dollars in thousands)                       Years Ended December 31,  2007 2006 2005 2004 2003                     Ratio of earnings to fixed charges  1.8x   3.5x   4.8x   4.6x   2.2x                      Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred dividends  1.8x   3.2x   3.5x   3.0x   2.0x   Earnings are defined as income from continuing operations before income taxes and fixed charges.    Fixed charges consist of interest, amortization of debt issuance costs and the portion of rental expense attributable to interest
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify to WaMu AssetAcceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2006 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Christiana Bank & Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee, the following with respect to Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates WMABS Series 2007-HE2 Trust for the 2007 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”):

1.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under mysupervision.

2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

Dated as of March 1, 2008.
| /s/ H. John BerensName:  H. John Berens Title:    Senior Vice President |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### State v. Riddick

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 288

No. 284P06

1. Defs NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-652)

2. Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Dismissed *Ex Mero Motu*01/25/07

2. Denied 01/25/07
Exhibit 32.1





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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, I, Kim Fuerst, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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 the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

(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.



Date November 14, 2005

/s/ Kim Fuerst



Kim Fuerst



Chief Executive Officer
##### 



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)
June 2, 2004 Nortel Networks Corporation (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 CANADA
    
    001-07260
    
    not applicable(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 8200 Dixie Road, Suite 100, Brampton, Ontario, Canada
    
    L6T 5P6(Address
of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code (905) 863-0000.




---



##### 



Item 7.
    
    Financial Statements,Pro FormaFinancial Information and Exhibits(c)
    
    Exhibits.  99.1
    
    Press release issued by the Registrant on June 2, 2004.  Item 12.
    
    Results of Operations and Financial Condition On June 2, 2004, the
Registrant issued a press release containing an update on the status
of restatements and related matters. Such press
release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and furnished in accordance with
Item 12 of Form 8-K.




---



##### 



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. NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Nicholas J. DeRomaNicholas J. DeRomaChief Legal Officer By:
    /s/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesDated:  June 2, 2004
    
    Assistant Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX  99.1
    
    Press release issued by the Registrant on June 2, 2004.
From: The District Court of the 18 th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. FRANK MCLAUGHLIN, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-04-208 DECISION

*88On July 25, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: Eighty (80) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Attempted Assault with a Weapon, a felony; and Count II: Six (6) months to the Gallatin County Detention Center, for the offense of Assault, a misdemeanor. Counts I and II shall run concurrently with each other.

On November 12, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Bert Certain. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12th day of November, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.