alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel McLean, Appellant.

Submitted August 24, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 59 AD3d 861.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Danielle Neroni Reilly, Esq. care of Law Offices of Danielle Neroni, EO. Box 8446, Albany, New York 12208 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT****OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-222625, 333-218469, 333-215680, 333-211754, 333-208985, 333-203109, 333-196764, 333-194383, 333-185998, 333-180461, 333-171981, 333-147334, 333-157041, and 333-164469), and Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-211944 and 333-211943)****of NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2019 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the Company's change in method of accounting for revenue from contracts with customers due to adoption of a new accounting standard, and an explanatory paragraph related to substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern), relating to the consolidated financial statements of NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

/s/ OUM & CO. LLP

 

San Francisco, California

March 29, 2019
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kester Blades, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 902]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), rendered September 6, 2012, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacat*824ing the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

The Supreme Court imposed an enhanced sentence on the ground that the defendant appeared several hours late at his original sentencing proceeding. The transcript of the plea proceeding does not indicate that the defendant was given any instructions as to what time he was to appear for sentencing; rather, he was told that he must “com[e] to court on the sentence date.” Under these circumstances, the imposition of an enhanced sentence, without affording the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty, was error *(see People v Muhammad,*47 AD3d 951 [2008]; *People v Brothers,*20 AD3d 486 [2005]; *People v Santiago,*288 AD2d 404 [2001]; *People v Rutigliano,*278 AD2d 258 [2000]). However, in light of the defendant’s request on appeal for a reduction of the sentence to the term initially promised, rather than an opportunity to withdraw his plea, and the prosecution’s acquiescence in such a remedy, the defendant should be resentenced in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement *(see People v Curcio, 276*AD2d 639, 640 [2000]; *People v Milo,*235 AD2d 552, 553 [1997]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Mobile Technologies Extending Reach of Primary Care for Substance-Use-Disorders (2242).                     

*Date:*                         February 3-4, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852,                    

*Contact Person:*                         Lyle Furr, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 4227, MSC 9550, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, (301) 435-1439,                         *lf33c.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 14, 2015.

Michelle Trout, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00816 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: The District Court of the 20th Judicial District. County of Lake.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ANTOINE LACHANCE, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-07-212 DECISION

On November 1, 2008, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison, with fifteen (15) years suspended, for the offense of Vehicular Homicide While Under the Influence, a Felony; and Count II: Twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison, with fifteen (15) years suspended, for the *55offense of Vehicular Homicide While Under the Influence, a Felony. Counts I and II shall run consecutively with each other. The Court recommends the Defendant be placed in the WATCh program, chemical dependency treatment, Boot Camp and pre-release, if deemed appropriate by the Department of Corrections.

On August 6, 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 Steve Eschenbacher. 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 6th day of August, 2009.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
* P ursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________ No. 97-50283 No. 97-50533

____________

MARK B. RASMUSSON, et al.,

Plaintiff-Appellants,

versus

LAWRENCE E. FROST, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(EP-95-CV-475)

November 9, 1998 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The plaintiffs urge various causes of action based on alleged

fac ts arising from a criminal investigation by numerous law
enforcement officials. As the district court described the case, “the Plaintiffs, in essence, are complaining of being the targets

of a criminal investigation that failed to produce evidence of
indictable wrongdoing.” In a detailed, comprehensive, and-2-

convincing ninety-page Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on May
27, 1997, the district co urt determined that plaintiffs are
entitled to no relief because, among oth er reasons, they have
failed to state a claim, or their claims are barred by limitations, or the defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

We agree with the district court that “[t]he complaint in this
action reads more like a script for an Oliver Stone movie than a
suit for civil damages.” Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2433 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to update the calculation 

of the hospital specific rate for such hospitals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2023 

Mr. MEUSER (for himself, Ms. WILD, and Mr. MOOLENAAR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to update 

the calculation of the hospital specific rate for such hospitals, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness for Rural 

5 Teaching Hospitals Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2433 IH

1 SEC. 2. UPDATE TO CALCULATION OF HOSPITAL SPECIFIC 

2 RATE FOR MEDICARE-DEPENDENT HOS3 PITALS. 

4 Section 1886(d)(5)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(G)) is amended by inserting after 

6 clause (ii) the following: 

7 ‘‘For purposes of clause (ii)(II), in calculating the amount 

8 determined under paragraph (1)(A)(iii) with respect to 

9 discharges occurring on or after the first day of the first 

10 fiscal year following the date of enactment of the ‘Fairness 

11 for Rural Teaching Hospitals Act of 2023’, the Secretary 

12 shall exclude an estimate of indirect medical costs in ac13 cordance with the requirements specified in paragraph 

14 (2)(C)(i). Following such calculation, the Secretary shall 

15 provide for an additional payment to a hospital for the 

16 indirect medical costs incurred by such hospital.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL15-22-000]

                    On December 9, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL15-22-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation concerning the justness and reasonableness of the Berkshire MBR Sellers' and their affiliates' market-based rates in the PACE, PACW, Idaho Power, and NorthWestern balancing authority areas.                     *Nevada Power Company, et al.,*                     149 FERC ¶ 61,219 (2014).                

                    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-22-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-00154 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

DELAWARE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC 

COMMITTEE AND DAVID LANDAU AND 

JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE,

Petitioners

v.

DELAWARE COUNTY VOTER 

REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND 

DELAWARE COUNTY BUREAU OF 

ELECTIONS,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 160 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7

th day of November, 2016, Petitioners’ Application for Leave to 

File Original Process is GRANTED; Petitioner’s Emergency Application for Relief under 

and Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 726 and Pursuant to the Court’s King’s Bench Powers 

to Issue a Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
Order entered February 4, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00058-CV

FRISCO MEDICAL CENTER, L.L.P., ET AL., Appellants

V.

PAULA CHESTNUT, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-07283

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ February 2, 2022 motion requesting an 

extension of time to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and 

extend the time to March 14, 2022.

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
#### United States *v.*Guion.

*(District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.*

January 14, 1889.)

Elections and Votehs—-Intimidation oe Yoteb.

Where the evidence tends to show that defendant was at tho polls for the purpose of scrutinizing the vote east, and it does not appear that he acted with evil motive or intent in challenging a vote, a conviction cannot be had, under Kev. St. E. S. § 5511, for “inducing a voter by threat or intimidation to refuse to vote. ”

Indictment for Intimidation of Voter. On demurrer to evidence.

The indictment in this case was framed under section 5511, Rev. St. U. S., and charged that defendant unlawfully, by threats and intimidation, induced one Samuel Buller, a duly-qualified voter, to refuse to vote atan election, held for a representative in congress of the United States, in the city of St. Louis, on November 6, 1888. At the conclusion of the government’s case a demurrer was interposed to the testimony.

*Thomas P.*Bashaw, U. S. Atty.

*Thomas B. Harvey,*for defendant.

Thayer, J.,

*(orally.)*To make out the offense defined by section 5511, Rev. St. U. S., “of inducing a voter by threat or intimidation to refuse to vote,” it must appear, either directly or by fair inference from the proof, that the accused acted with evil motive or intent. That is to say, it should appear that he threatened or intimidated a person whom he knew or had reason to suppose was a duly-qualified voter. If a citizen at the polls challenges the right of another citizen to vote, and does so in good faith, believing that the party challenged is not a qualified voter, no offense is committed under the statute, although the challenge is accompanied with a threat to have the party arrested and prosecuted if he persists in voting. In the present instance, all the evidence on behalf of the government, in my opinion, tends to show that the accused acted in good faith, without evil intent. It tends to show that tho accused was at tho polls for the purpose of scrutinizing tho vote cast, and that he believed that Butler was not a qualified voter, and that ho challenged his vote solely in consequence of such beliel. If any fact has been proven tending to show that the accused acted *mala fide,*that is to *264say, with intent to deprive a citizen of. his vote, whom he supposed or had reason to believe was a legal voter, I have failed to note it. The jury must be instructed to acquit. A construction must not be placed on the statute that will deprive a citizen of his right of challenge, as that right in many cases is 'quite as important as the right to vote. Furthermore, the law was not intended to restrict the right of challenge, when exercised in good faith. The jury will return a verdict of not guilty.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00422-CV 

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL 

GROUP, INC. 

 APPELLANT

V. 

JAIME PEREZ APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY 

TRIAL COURT NO. 2015-006081-2 

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” It is the 

court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). 

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which 

let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). 

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 
2

 PER CURIAM 

PANEL: KERR, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; PITTMAN, J. 

DELIVERED: March 30, 2017
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51434 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANDRES FLORES-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-538-1

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Andres Flores-Martinez (“Flores”) appeals from his 30-month prison sentence, following his guilty-plea conviction of illegally reentering the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Flores raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. Flores also concedes that his unpreserved challenge to hisNo. 04-51434 -2- sentence under United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), is meritless, because he cannot show that his “substantial rights” were affected under the standard set forth in United States v.
Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
================================================================================


                                                                    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 Annual Report of Arkson Nutraceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, David Roff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:


1.       the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.


                              Dated: March 1, 2010


                                /s/ "David Roff"


                                   David Roff
               Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 15, 2009 

# Order

September 15, 2009

136680(103)

EDITH KYSER, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 136680 v COA: 272516 Leelanau CC: 04-006531-CZ KASSON TOWNSHIP, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Jus tice, the motion by the Mich igan Municipal League for extension to August 31, 2009 of the time for filing their brief amicus curiae is
considered and it is GRANTED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-30174

_____________________

WILLIAM DESHAZER and LOUISE DESHAZER

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ARCO OIL & GAS CO.,

A Division of Atlantic Richfield Company

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(93-CV-1460)

_________________________________________________________________

December 21, 1998

Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Appellants appeal the summary judgment against their claims

(malicious prosecution, defamation, intentional infliction of

emotional distress and loss of consortium), all arising out of

disputes and resulting litigation between Appellee and Appellant

William Deshazer, a former senior engineer for Appellee, concerning

his post-employment assistance to a party engaged in litigation

with Appellee over an explosion on one of Appellee’s platforms.

No authority need be cited for the fact that we review a

summary judgment de novo, applying the same test as does the
- 2 -

district court. Such judgment is proper if the summary judgment

record shows that there is no material fact issue and that the

movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV.

P.56. 

Pursuant to our requisite de novo review, and having

considered the briefs and oral argument presented on appeal, we

conclude that summary judgment is proper, essentially for the

reasons stated by the district court in its comprehensive opinion.

Deshazer v. Arco Oil & Gas Co., No. 93-CV-1460 (W.D. La. Jan. 26,

1998).

AFFIRMED