alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of William C. Kelsey, Respondent, v Shannon L. Kelsey, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 826]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Allegany County (Terrence M. Parker, J.), entered April 19, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, granted primary physical placement of the subject children to petitioner.

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

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent mother’s contention, Family Court properly modified the parties’ existing custody arrangement by transferring primary physical placement of the children from the mother to petitioner father. It is well settled that a party seeking a change in an existing custody arrangement has the burden of establishing a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant an inquiry into whether the best interests of the children call for a change in custody *(see Matter of Cole v Nofri,*107 AD3d 1510, 1511 [2013]; *Matter of York v Zullich,*89 AD3d 1447, 1448 [2011]). We conclude that the father met that burden here by submitting, inter alia, evidence that the mother’s former live-in boyfriend abused one of the children *(see Matter of Stephen R.H. v Lisa A.H.,*41 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2007]). Contrary to the mother’s contention, the court’s determination with respect to the best interests of the children is based upon the totality of the circumstances *(see id.*at 1311; *see generally Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]). *1339The record establishes that the court carefully weighed the appropriate factors, and we conclude that its determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record (see *Matter of Tarrant v Ostrowski,*96 AD3d 1580, 1582 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 855 [2013]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
## ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 07-13-00268-CR OFFENSE: 1 Rodolfo Gonzales v. The State of 

## STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Lubbock 

# ifcf¥-/y

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 364th District Court 

### DATE: 12/04/14 

### Publish: NO TC CASE#: 2012-435,536



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Rodolfo Gonzales v. The State of STYLE: Texas 

# PROSE Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: QJ}ZVj JUDGE: 

### fiL^. CCA#: 

## CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

### SIGNED: PUBLISH: REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

# 165V-If 

# i*w-/y
PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3695 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 

marketing of authorized generic drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2006 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced 

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

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

prohibit the marketing of authorized generic drugs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF AUTHORIZED GENERICS. 

4 Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

5 Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(o) PROHIBITION OF AUTHORIZED GENERIC

8 DRUGS.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

10 provision of this Act, no holder of a new drug appliVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:32 Jul 22, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3695.IS S3695

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•S 3695 IS

1 cation approved under subsection (c) shall manufac2 ture, market, sell, or distribute an authorized ge3 neric drug, direct or indirectly, or authorize any 

4 other person to manufacture, market, sell, or dis5 tribute an authorized generic drug. 

6 ‘‘(2) AUTHORIZED GENERIC DRUG.—For pur7 poses of this subsection, the term ‘authorized generic 

8 drug’— 

9 ‘‘(A) means any version of a listed drug 

10 (as such term is used in subsection (j)) that the 

11 holder of the new drug application approved 

12 under subsection (c) for that listed drug seeks 

13 to commence marketing, selling, or distributing, 

14 directly or indirectly, after receipt of a notice 

15 sent pursuant to subsection (j)(2)(B) with re16 spect to that listed drug; and 

17 ‘‘(B) does not include any drug to be mar18 keted, sold, or distributed— 

19 ‘‘(i) by an entity eligible for exclu20 sivity with respect to such drug under sub21 section (j)(5)(B)(iv); or 

22 ‘‘(ii) after expiration or forfeiture of 

23 any exclusivity with respect to such drug 

24 under such subsection (j)(5)(B)(iv).’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
Exhibit 15.1














April 28, 2014





Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, DC 20549





Ladies and Gentlemen:




We have read the paragraphs contained within the section titled “Previous Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” within Item 16-F of Gafisa S.A.’s 2013 Form 20-F dated April 28, 2014. We are in agreement with the statements contained therein, except that we have no basis to agree or disagree with the statement that Gafisa's Board of Directors participated in and approved the decision to change its independent registered public accounting firm.







ERNST & YOUNG


Auditores Independentes S.S.


CRC- 2SP015199/O-6





/s/ Daniel G. Maranhão Jr.
/s/ Marcos Alexandre S. PupoDaniel G. Maranhão Jr.
Marcos Alexandre S. PupoAccountant CRC1SP215856/O-5
Accountant CRC1SP221749/O-0
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11126 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. RICHARD GREY KIRBY Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:92-CR-341-2 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Richard Grey Kirby appeals the district court’s denial ofhis petition for a writ ofcoram nobis. Kirby has not shown that the district court erred in denying reliefon the basis that his claim was or could have been raised previously. See United States v. Esogbue , 357 F.3d 532, 535 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
##### 



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)
    
    JANUARY 10, 2005
 NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION    CANADA(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)
    
    001-07260(CommissionFile Number)
    
    NOT APPLICABLE(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    L6T 5P6(Zip Code)
  Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
    Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the
filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 2.02     Results of Operations and Financial Condition On January 10, 2005, the registrant issued a press release regarding the filing of its 2003
financial statements. Such press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and furnished in
accordance with Item 2.02 of Form 8-K. Item 8.01     Other Events On January 10, 2005, the registrant issued the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, and
such press release is incorporated by reference herein (other than information included on or
linked from the registrants website, referenced in such release, which is not incorporated by
reference into this report). Item 9.01     Financial Statements and Exhibits  (c)
    
    Exhibits  99.1
    
    Press Release issued by the registrant on January 10, 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. NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant General Counsel  Securities
and Corporate SecretaryBy:
    /s/ Tracy S.J. Connelly McGilleyTracy S.J. Connelly McGilleyAssistant Secretary Dated: January 10, 2005




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release issued by the registrant on January 10, 2005.
##### 



Form 52-109FT2  Certification of Interim Filings during Transition Period I, Geoffrey B. Genovese, of Envoy Communications Group Inc., President,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer certify that: 1.        I have reviewed the interim filings (as this term is defined in
Multilateral Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Issuers
Annual and Interim Filings) of Envoy Communications Group Inc. for the
interim period ending June 30, 2004; 2.        Based on my knowledge, the interim filings do not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required
to be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in
light of the circumstances under which it was made, with respect to the
period covered by the interim filings; and 3.        Based on my knowledge, the interim financial statements together with
the other financial information included in the interim filings fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the issuer, as of the date and for the
periods presented in the interim filings. Date:  August 20, 2004 /s/  Geoffrey B. Genovese
Geoffrey B. Genovese
President, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



Form 52-109FT2  Certification of Interim Filings during Transition Period I, Linda Gilbert, of Envoy Communications Group Inc., Chief Financial Officer: 1.        I have reviewed the interim filings (as this term is defined in
Multilateral Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Issuers
Annual and Interim Filings) of Envoy Communications Group Inc. for the
interim period ending June 30, 2004; 2.        Based on my knowledge, the interim filings do not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact required
to be stated or that is necessary to make a statement not misleading in
light of the circumstances under which it was made, with respect to the
period covered by the interim filings; and 3.        Based on my knowledge, the interim financial statements together with
the other financial information included in the interim filings fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the issuer, as of the date and for the
periods presented in the interim filings. Date:  August 20, 2004 /s/  Linda Gilbert
Linda Gilbert
Chief Financial Officer
#### Daniel Sullivan et al., Appellants, v Christopher Man-dato et al., Respondents.

[873 NYS2d 96]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated October 4, 2007, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Julio Montalvo and Terry Tom Service Station, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Christopher Mandato was operating a vehicle owned by the defendants Frank Mandato and Louisa Mandato in a southerly direction when he lost control of the vehicle, crossed over a double yellow line, and struck a vehicle owned by the defendant Terry Tom Service Station, Inc. (hereinafter Service Station), and operated by the defendant Julio Montalvo in the northbound lane. The infant plaintiff, a passenger of the Mandato vehicle, allegedly sustained personal injuries as a result of this collision, and the infant plaintiff and his parents, derivatively, commenced this action against the defendants. The defendants Service Station and Montalvo moved for summary judgment, contending that the defendant Christopher Mandate’s alleged negligent conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court granted the motion. We affirm.

A driver is not required to anticipate that an automobile going in the opposite direction will cross over into oncoming traffic *(see Snemyr v Morales-Aparicio,*47 AD3d 702 [2008]; *Lee v Ratz,*19 AD3d 552 [2005]). Indeed, “[grossing a double yellow line into the opposing lane of traffic, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a), constitutes negligence as a matter of law, unless justified by an emergency situation not of the driver’s own making” *(Foster v Sanchez,*17 AD3d 312, 313 [2005]; *see Haughey v Noone,*262 AD2d 284 [1999]). Here, the defendants Service Station and Montalvo established their *715entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating, prima facie, that the defendant Christopher Mandato violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1126 (a) by crossing over a double yellow line into an opposing lane of traffic, thereby causing the collision (see *Scott v Kass,*48 AD3d 785 [2008]; *Snemyr v Morales-Aparicio,*47 AD3d 702 [2008]; *Eichenwald v Chaudhry,*17 AD3d 403 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants Montalvo and Service Station failed to support their motion with evidence in admissible form is without merit (see *Felberbaum v Weinberger,*40 AD3d 808 [2007]). Rivera, J.E, Santucci, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur. [See 17 Misc 3d 1110(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51902(D).]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Luis MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-40253.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael L. Herman, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Luis Martinez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being present in the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530*U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Martinez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523*U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Martinez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority *of*the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See *United States v. Garzar-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Martinez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *AlmendarezTorres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
J

- S77018

- 14

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v.

OTIS DESANUEL MITCHELL,

Appellee No. 73 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered December 12, 2013, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP

- 46

- CR

- 0009576

- 2012

BEFORE: STABILE, JENKINS, and STRASSBURGER *

, JJ.

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 02, 2015

I agree with the Majority that Appellant’s substantive arguments do

not warrant relief. However, I write separately because I am troubled by the

Majority’s draconian application of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). The Majority’s overly

strict interpretation of the Rule in this instance elevates form over

substance. The record reflects that Appellant filed (albeit prematurely) a

one

- page concise statement with the Montgomery County Clerk of Courts.

Neither the fact that his statement was included in an envelope with anot her

petition, nor the inclusion of a single certificate of service, changes the fact

that Appellant substantially complied with the mandates of the Rule. 1

, 2

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 I disagree with the Majority’s attempt to discredit the validity of Appellant’s certificate of service based on the address listed therein considering theJ

- S77018

- 14

- 2

-

Given these circumstances, Appellant should not be forced to re

- comply with

the Rule to avoid waiv er, nor should his previous compliance be negated.

Accordingly, I respectfully concur.

Montgomery County Courts website lists P.O. Box 311, Norristown, PA 19404 as the mailing address for the Clerk of Courts, all of the county’s judges, and the Office of the District Attorney. See Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Official Website, http://www.montcopa.org/index.aspx?NID=1396 and http://www.montcopa.org/Directory.aspx?did=55 (accessed January 7, 2015).

2
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10897]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,360]


Meadwestvaco Corporation Consumer and Office Products Division, 
Enfield, CT; Notice of Termination of Investigation on Reconsideration

    By application dated April 1, 2009, the petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
MeadWestvaco Corporation, Consumer and Office Products Division, 
Enfield, Connecticut (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). 
The Department's Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration was signed on April 7, 2009, and 
published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2009 (74 FR 17691).
    The petitioners have requested that the request for reconsideration 
be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10897 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel PENA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41671.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’S Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Pena-Ramirez appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), that the 70-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges as unconstitutional both facially and as applied in his case § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury.

Pena-Ramirez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although he contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Pena-Ramirez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21833-21834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10891]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,728]


NCI Group, Incorporated D/B/A Robertson Ceco Corp, Lockeford, CA; 
Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 1, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by the Shop Ironworkers, Local 790 on behalf of workers of NCI 
Group, Incorporated doing business as Robertson Ceco Corp, Lockeford, 
California.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.


[[Page 21834]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10891 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P