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

[873 NYS2d 125]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), rendered August 16, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Konvisor, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his oral statements to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s claim with respect to the alleged unreasonableness of the police conduct during the traffic stop is preserved for appellate review because it was “expressly decided” by the Supreme Court (CPL 470.05 [2]; *see People v Marshall,*51 AD3d 821 [2008]). The Supreme Court properly declined to suppress the physical evidence and the defendant’s first statement. The defendant’s contention that he allegedly was subject to an unreasonable intrusion by the police is without merit *(see People v Smith,*280 AD2d 340 [2001]; *People v Bethea,*239 AD2d 510 [1997]; *People v Reyes,*191 AD2d 522 [1993]).

The defendant’s contentions regarding the disqualification of nine prospective jurors are without merit. The determination that a prospective juror should be disqualified before voir dire is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court *(see People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469 [1991]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion when, before the nine prospective jurors were seated in the jury box for voir dire, it directed that those jurors be disqualified because they had observed the defendant pushing his wheelchair-bound child into the courtroom after the court had instructed the defendant to make other arrangements for the child’s care *(see People v Staropoli,*49 AD3d 568 [2008]; *People v Wilson,*211 AD2d 136, 140 [1995]; *cf. People v Thorpe,*223 AD2d 739, 740-741 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Angiolillo, J.R, Leventhal, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
MOORE
& ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED
 ACCOUNTANTS AND
ADVISORS
 PCAOB
REGISTERED
 
 
 
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 
 We
consent to the use, in the statement on Form 10K of Extreme Home Staging, Inc.,
of our report dated November 17, 2008 on our audit of the financial statements
of Extreme Home Staging, Inc. as of September 30, 2008 and 2007, and the related
statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years
ended September 30, 2008, 2007 and inception on May 5, 2006 through September
30, 2008, and the reference to us under the caption “Experts.”
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Moore & Associates,
Chartered
 Moore
& Associates Chartered
 Las
Vegas, Nevada
 November
21, 2008
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6490 West Desert Inn Rd, Las
Vegas, NV 89146 (702)253-7499 Fax (702)253-7501
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7694

ANTONIO L. FULLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-717) Submitted: January 10, 2001 Decided: January 19, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio L. Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Banci Enga Tewolde, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Antonio L. Fuller seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Fuller v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , No. CA-99-717 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



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)
    
    March 10, 2006
 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED
 
  CANADA

(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    000-30758
(Commission
File Number)
    
    62-12-62580

(IRS Employer
Identification 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
 
   o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition.
   Item 3.01. Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.
  Item 4.02. Non-Reliance on Previously Issued Financial Statements or a Related Audit Report or Completed Interim Review.
   Item 5.04. Temporary Suspension of Trading Under Registrants Employee Benefit Plan.
  2




---



##### 



Item 8.01. Other Events.
 Restatements
    Potential Impacts
 Credit Facility; EDC Support Facility; Debt Securities
    3




---



##### 



Annual Shareholders Meeting
     4




---



##### 



Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 Exhibits
 99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on March 10, 2006.99.2
    
    Notice of Blackout dated March 10, 2006 to the Members of Nortel Networks Corporations Board
of Directors and Executive Officers Regarding Suspension of Trading.
 5




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITEDBy:

/s/ Peter W. CurrieExecutive Vice-Presidentand Chief Financial OfficerBy:

/s/ Gordon A. DaviesGeneral Counsel  CorporateDated: March 10, 2006
    
    and Corporate Secretary 6




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on March 10, 2006.99.2
    
    Notice of Blackout dated March 10, 2006 to the Members of Nortel Networks Corporations Board
of Directors and Executive Officers Regarding Suspension of Trading.
 7
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Nortel
Networks Corporation, a Canadian corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such
officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Form 10-Q) of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: January 31, 2005
    /s/ WILLIAM A. OWENSWilliam A. OwensPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDated: January 31, 2005
    /s/ WILLIAM R. KERRWilliam R. KerrChief Financial Officer
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00150- CV

Nora P edroza, A ppellan t

v. F ederal Hom e Loan Mortgage Corporat ion, App ellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 1 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. C-1 -CV- 12- 0107 44, H ONO RAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Nora Pedroza has failed to prosec ute this appea l. Pedroza’s brief was due
on April 1, 2013. On April 24, 2013, this Court’s cler k sent Pedroza a notice informing her that her brief was overdue and cautioned that the appea l c ould be dismiss ed for want of prosec ution unless she filed a response rea sonably ex p l aini ng her failure to file a brief. The response was due by May 6, 2013. Pedroza has not re sponded to the notice, nor has she filed a brief. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appe al for w ant of prose cution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b), ( c).

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Goodwin and F ield Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: May

22, 2013
#### Beksha-Brown v. Mason

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 863

No. 565P06

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-350)

Denied 10/11/07
#### Savannah, Florida & Western Rwy. Co. *v.*McConnell.

By two witnesses who knew the facts with absolute certainty, the . presumption of negligence was fully overcome; and apart from the presumption, there was no proof whatever of negligence. Consequently, the verdict was without evidence to support it.

August 20, 1894.

Action for damages. Before Judge Sweat. Ware superior court. November term, 1893.

Erwin, duBignon & Chisholm and Hitch & Myers, for plaintiff in error.

L. A. Wilson and J. C. McDonald, *contra.*

Lumpkin, Justice.

There was a verdict against the railway company for damages resulting from the killing of a horse and two mules belonging to the plaintiff. The only error complained of in the bill of exceptions is the overruling of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, based upon the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law, the evidence, and the charge of the court.

The plaintiff’ depended for a recovery solely upon the presumption of negligence which the law raises against a railway company. That the animals were killed by the defendant’s train was admitted; but by the evidence of two witnesses for the company — -the engineer and the fireman — who knew with absolute certainty the facts of the transaction, it was conclusively shown that the company and its servants in charge of the train were free from all negligence in the premises. So the legal presumption against the company was fully overcome. It is true the plaintiff’ did introduce two witnesses who, according to their testimony, exhibited wonderful and extraordinary powers of vision in seeing through a dense fog at or about daylight in the morning. They did not, .however, see the catastrophe, and what they swore *353amounted to no proof of negligence, and should not have been allowed to overcome the positive testimony of the engineer and fireman, the former of whom appears, from the report of his evidence, to have been an unusually straightforward, candid and honest witness.

"We think the verdict was unsupported, by the evidence, and ought to have been set aside.

*Judgment reversed.*
#### Dowdy & Robuck *v.*McArthur.

1. The land in controversy having been granted by the State in 1818 to “ McDonald, Pope & Co.,” a deed made in 1879 by Michael McDonald as administrator of James McDonald, under an order of the ordinary passed in that year granting leave to sell the premises as a part of the real estate of James McDonald deceased, with no evidence to show the identity of James McDonald in name or in person with the McDonald who was a member of the firm of McDonald, Pope & Co., or to show any relationship between them, is not sufficient to pass title out of McDonald, one of the grantees.

*2.*An original grant issued by the State in 1818 to “ McDonald, Pope & Co.” was in the .possession of one W. S. Pope, Jr., in the year *578I860, who then, for himself and as attorney in fact under a power executed in 1852 by other persons, some of them bearing the name of Pope and others the name of Hunter, sold and conveyed the premises covered by the grant, and at the same time delivered the grant itself to his vendee, the privies of whom now hold and produce it. The power of attorney recited that the makers thereof, together with the attorney himself, were the heirs of Wm. L. Pope, and' the deed referred to the power. At the time of making the deed W. S. Pope, Jr., stated to his vendee, to whom he was a stranger, that he was the son of Wm. L. Pope. There was no further evidence tending to identify the last named, either in person or in name, with the Pope mentioned in the grant under the designation of McDonald, Pope & Co., or tending to prove any relationship of the Popes and Hurtters to Wm. L. Pope or his family; and there was no evidence that any of them have died, or that any actual possession of the premises was ever taken or enjoyed under the deed. *Held,*that the evidence was not adequate to establish either the identity of Wm. L. Pope as one of the grantees from the State, or that the Popes and Hunters who conveyed by the deed were his heirs.

3. A deed by one as executrix, purporting to convey land as the property of her testator, passes no title without evidence that she was executrix and had authority, either by the will or by leave of the ordinary, to sell.

4. A woman to whom a devise was made, by the name of Sarah V. McLauchlin, and who afterwards conveyed the devised premises as Sarah Y. Butler, describing herself in the conveyance as formerly Sarah Y. McLauchlin, should be presumed to have acquired her new name by marriage, and no proof of her identity is required merely in consequence of this change of name.

June 25, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

*Judgment reversed.*

Action of trespass. Before Judge Smith. Dodge superior court. March term, 1893.

E. A. Smith, E. Herrman and W. B. Cortee, for plaintiffs in error. J. E. Wooten, *contra.*

The assignments of error in this case were upon the admission of evidence over objection, and to the charge of the court that the plaintiff had shown sufficient title to recover. The head-notes show the other facts material to this report.
<PAGE>
================================================================================


                                    Form 6-K


                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION



                            Report of Foreign Issuer
                      Pursuant of Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
                       The Securities Exchange Act of 1934


For the month of August 2004                     Commission File Number: 1-14242



                        ROYAL GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
                              (Name of registrant)


                             1 Royal Gate Boulevard
                               Woodbridge, Ontario
                                     L4L 8Z7
                                 (905) 264 0701


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files of will file annual reports
under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F:

                         Form 20-F [ ]     Form 40-F [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the SEC
pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

                               Yes [ ]     No [X]

If "YES" is marked, indicate the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): N/A


================================================================================



<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT INDEX


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit     Description of Exhibit
-------     ----------------------
<C>         <S>

   1        Third Quarter Report to Shareholders
</TABLE>




<PAGE>


                                    SIGNATURE


     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.




                                ROYAL GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED




Date:  August 26, 2004         By: /s/  Douglas Dunsmuir
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Name: Douglas Dunsmuir
                                   Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
From: The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. CLEVE E. SPANG, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-02-222 DECISION

On July 9, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of eighteen (18) months for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence for the offense of Count I: Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and/or Drugs, a felony.

On February 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 not present. Eric Olson, counsel for the defendant, was present and informed the Division that the defendant requested that he appear on his behalf. The state was not represented.

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 February, 2009.

*14DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
#### In the Matter of Martin Dekom, Appellant, v Joseph N. Mondello et al., Respondents.

[971 NYS2d 893]

In a proceeding denominated as one pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to invalidate the organizational meeting of the Nassau County Republican Committee held on September 20, 2011, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), entered April 2, 2012, as granted the respondents’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the petition and denied those branches of his motion which were to disqualify John E. Ryan as counsel and for recusal.

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

Pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 (2), “a petition challenging ‘the validity’ of a county committee must be commenced ‘within 10 days after the . . . organizational meeting of the Committee, at the latest’ ” *(Matter of Kosowski v Donovan,*18 NY3d 686, 688 [2012], quoting *Sack v Board of Elections of City of N.Y.,*65 NY2d 958, 959 [1985]). The 10-day period applies equally to party meetings that only select party officers *(see Matter of Kosowski v Donovan,*18 NY3d at 689). The Supreme Court properly concluded that, although the petition states that this proceeding was commenced pursuant to CPLR article 78, this proceeding was nevertheless subject to the 10-day limitations period set forth in Election Law § 16-102 (2). Since the proceeding was commenced after that period expired, it was *800untimely (see *Matter of Kosowski v Donovan,*18 NY3d at 688-689; *Matter of Sayegh v Castaldo,*287 AD2d 639 [2001]; *Delanoy v Faction,*287 AD2d 592 [2001]; *Matter of Stabile v DeFronzo,*231 AD2d 577, 577 [1996]; *Matter of Leirer v Suffolk County Comm. of Conservative Party of N.Y. State,*166 AD2d 449 [1990]). Moreover, the petitioner lacked standing to commence this proceeding as a person designated under Election Law § 16-102 (1).

The parties’ remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of our determination. Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
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 of Cubic Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, CEO,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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.

Date: February 13, 2006                     Signature: /s/ Calvin A. Wallen, III
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Calvin A. Wallen, III, CEO
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                   AURORA ELECTRONICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (In thousands, except per share data)
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                      ----------------------------------
                                                      December 29,          December 31,
                                                          1996                  1995
                                                      ------------          ------------
<S>                                                       <C>                   <C>
Net loss available to common stockholders                 ($3,016)             $  104
                                                          =======              ======

Adjusted Number of Common Shares

Weighted average shares outstanding                         5,743               7,923

Incremental shares for exercise of stock
options and warrants and common stock
issuable                                                      530               2,074
                                                          -------              ------

Adjusted number of common shares                            6,273               9,997
                                                          =======              ======

Net loss per common share                                  ($0.48)              $0.01
                                                          =======              ======
</TABLE>