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

[971 NYS2d 700]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered on or about February 29, 2012, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1

RULE 13a-14(d) Certification

 

I, Qiong Sun, certify that:

 

1.       Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to be filed in respect of the period coveredby this report on Form 10–K of SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1 (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 amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;

 

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

 

4.        Basedon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer, U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) assuccessor in interest to Bank of America, National Association (“BANA”), ofSATURNS Trust No. 2007-1, has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement,which is the Trust Agreement relating to SATURNS Trust No. 2007-1; and

 

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

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bankas successor-in-interest to BANA and its officers and agents.

 

 

By:/s/Qiong Sun	

Name:	QiongSun
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








The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jeffrey B. Davis, Chief Executive Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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.





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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





Signed at
the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 16th day of November,
2009.





/s/ Jeffrey B. Davis


Jeffrey
B. Davis


Chief
Executive Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00111-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 30th District Court

Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. 55,523-A

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JOSE RUPERTO ALANIZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jose Ruperto Alaniz attempts to appeal the trial court’s order 

denying his motion requesting the appointment of counsel to assist him in obtaining 

postconviction DNA testing. On September 27, 2021, we notified Alaniz of our 

concern that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal because the trial court has not 

entered any appealable orders. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 323 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2010) (holding that the denial of a request for the appointment of counsel to 

assist in filing a motion for postconviction DNA testing is an interlocutory order that 

is not immediately appealable); see also McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 1996, no pet.) (per curiam) (holding that a court of appeals 

generally only has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant from a 

judgment of conviction). We informed Alaniz that we could dismiss his appeal for 

want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a 

response by October 7, 2021, showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 43.2(f), 44.3. Alaniz has not filed a response. Accordingly, we dismiss his 

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Gutierrez, 307 S.W.3d at 

323; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 28, 2021
**Exhibit 31.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT**

**RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

I, Thomas J. Paulson, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of NovaBay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.

 

Date: March 14, 2014

 

Thomas J. Paulson

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(principal financial and accounting officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.  AMOUNTS IN
THOUSANDS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         291,856
<SECURITIES>                                 1,429,146
<RECEIVABLES>                                  191,743<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    324,473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,442,309
<PP&E>                                       1,203,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                 484,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,369,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          619,235
<BONDS>                                        149,989
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,573
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,126,278
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,369,379
<SALES>                                        503,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               717,594
<CGS>                                           98,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               184,951
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (980,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (71,580)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (908,777)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (908,777)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (7.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.09)
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE PRESENTED NET OF ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS IN
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET.  THE PROVISION FOR LOSSES ON DOUBTFUL
ACCOUNTS IS NOT REPORTED AS A SEPARATE LINE IN THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME OR STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS.
</FN>



</TABLE>
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, John Anderson, 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 HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-1 (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.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements 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:
    Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as Servicer, The Bank of New York
    Trust Company, National Association, as Custodian and Wells Fargo Bank,
    N.A., as Trustee.

    Dated:   March 28, 2008


    /s/ John Anderson
    Signature

    Managing Director
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### APEX TOWING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, Respondent.

82 Civ. 8324 (RWS).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Feb. 22, 1985.

*1583MEMORANDUM OPINION

SWEET, District Judge.

Respondent Trading Corporation of Pakistan (“TCP”) has moved this court for an order pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9, confirming the Fourth Partial Final Award of the arbitrators dated November 29, 1984. The arbitrators expressly issued the Fourth Partial Final Award for the reasons set forth in the Third Partial Final Award issued February 23, 1984. By opinion dated August 30, 1984 this court upheld the arbitrators reasoning as to the Third Partial Final Award and confirmed the Award into a judgment. On February 19, 1985 the Second Circuit affirmed this court’s decision.

In its papers, petitioner Apex Towing Company (“Apex”) objected to the motion to confirm the Fourth Partial Final Award on the same grounds that it previously moved to vacate the Third Partial Final Award. Apex conceded that the disposition of the appeal of the order confirming the Third Partial Final Award, which was pending at the time this motion was argued, would be dispositive of the present motion. The Second Circuit having affirmed this prior order, TCP’s motion to confirm is granted for the reasons discussed in the August 30, 1984 opinion confirming the Third Partial Final Award.

TCP has also moved for prejudgment interest from the date of the award on the amount awarded it by the arbitrators. It is an abuse of discretion to deny prejudgment interest in admiralty cases except under extraordinary circumstances. *Independent Bulk Transport v. Vessel “Moranian Abaco”,*676 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir.1982). The purpose of awarding prejudgment interest is to insure that the injured party is fully and fairly compensated for his loss. In the present case, TCP should be compensated for its inability to use the money which formed the basis of the Fourth Partial Final Award since the date of that award. The appropriate rate of interest is within the discretion of this court. I hold that Apex is required to pay prejudgment interest on the Fourth Partial Final Award of $111,500.90 from November 29, 1984 at the rate of 9% per annum.

TCP’s motion to be awarded attorney’s fees and costs is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
#### Gurdip SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73283.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Harsh Chhabra, Esq., Chino Hills, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner Gurdip Singh’s motion to reopen.

The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). The regulations state that *969a motion to reopen removal proceedings must be filed not later than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The time limitation does not apply to motions to reopen to apply or reapply for asylum or withholding based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s decision denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely. Petitioner does not contend that his motion was based on changed circumstances in India. Nor do the documents illustrate changed circumstances in India. Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 4

- 00 555

- C V



### ____________________

IN THE ESTATE OF TOM RICHARD DOYLE SR.

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the County Court at Law

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 11853

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Tom Richard Doyle Jr. , filed a motion to dismiss this appeal.

The motion is voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of this Court.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice2 Submitted on April 15, 2015

Opinion Delivered April 16, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
##### 



(BROOKFIELD LOGO) Brookfield Properties Corporation
Conference Call and Webcast of 2005 Second Quarter Results
Friday, July 29, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. E.T. You are invited to participate in Brookfield Properties Corporations live conference call
announcing 2005 second quarter results on July 29, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. (E.T.). Second quarter
financial results will be available prior to the market open on July 29th on Brookfields Web site
in the Newssection at www.brookfieldproperties.com. Scheduled speakers are Richard Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer and Craig Laurie, Chief
Financial Officer. Webcast
To access the webcast, go to Brookfields Web site at www.brookfieldproperties.com, and click on
the link for the webcast on the Home Page. The webcast will be archived 24 hours after the end of
the conference call and can be accessed for 30 days. Teleconference
You may also participate by dialing into the live conference toll free at 1-800-337-0418. To ensure
your participation, please call five minutes prior to the scheduled start of the call. The call
will be archived through August 5, 2005 and can be accessed by dialing toll free 1‐800‐336‐1945. Managements presentation will be followed by a question and answer period. To ask a question,
press *1 on a touch-tone phone. The conference call coordinator is immediately notified of all
requests in the order in which they are made, and will introduce each questioner. *     *     * Brookfield Properties Corporation owns, develops and manages premier North American office
properties. The Brookfield portfolio comprises 46 commercial properties and development sites
totaling 46 million square feet, including landmark properties such as the World Financial Center
in New York City and BCE Place in Toronto. Brookfield is inter-listed on the New York and Toronto
Stock Exchanges under the symbol BPO. Contact
Melissa Coley, Vice President, Investor Relations & Communications
Email: mcoley@brookfieldproperties.com
Tel: (212) 417-7215
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3795 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a twoyear moratorium on certain Medicare physician payment reductions for 

imaging services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2006 

Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. 

BURR, Mr. BINGAMAN, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. MENENDEZ) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for a two-year moratorium on certain Medicare physician 

payment reductions for imaging services. 

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 ‘‘Access to Medicare 

5 Imaging Act of 2006’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 3795 IS

1 SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN MEDICARE 

2 PHYSICIAN PAYMENT REDUCTIONS FOR IM3 AGING SERVICES. 

4 (a) MORATORIUM.—Subsections (b)(4)(A) and 

5 (c)(2)(B)(v)(II) of section 1848 of the Social Security Act 

6 (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4), as added by section 5102(b) of the 

7 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, are each amended by strik8 ing ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2009’’. 

9 (b) GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON IMAGING SERVICES

10 FURNISHED UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.— 

11 (1) STUDY.—The Comptroller General of the 

12 United States shall conduct a comprehensive study 

13 on imaging services furnished under the Medicare 

14 program. 

15 (2) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the 

16 date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller Gen17 eral shall submit to Congress and the Secretary of 

18 Health and Human Services a report on the findings 

19 and conclusions of the study conducted under para20 graph (1) together with recommendations for such 

21 legislation and administrative actions as the Comp22 troller General considers appropriate. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2








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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen B. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.





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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





Signed at
the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 12th day of August,
2009.








/s/ Stephen B.
Thompson


Stephen
B. Thompson


Chief
Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

RELATOR.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00106-CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against 

the Honorable Pedro Gomez, Jr., Judge of the 112th District Court, Pecos County, Texas, and 

concludes that Relater’s petition for writ of mandamus should be dismissed as moot. We therefore 

dismiss as moot the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.