alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Minerva Guzman, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 86]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered March 5, 2012, confirming an arbitration award, dated May 4, 2011, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a public school teacher upon a finding that she engaged in a fraudulent scheme to enroll her granddaughter in public school using a false address, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR article 75, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the finding of guilt as to Specification 1-A-l (that petitioner engaged in the scheme to avoid payment of nonresident tuition) and vacate the penalty of termination, and to remand the matter for the imposition of an appropriate penalty, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Respondent Department of Education conceded at the hearing that petitioner’s granddaughter was entitled to a tuition-free education in New York City public schools, and the hearing officer made no finding that the child was not a City resident. Nor does the record establish that the child was not a City resident. Thus, there is no rational basis upon which to conclude that petitioner engaged in a scheme with the purpose of defraud*461ing respondent out of non-resident tuition *(see Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn. of U.S. v State of New York,*75 NY2d 175, 186 [1990]; *Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y.,*51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]).

However, as petitioner concedes, substantial evidence supports the charge that she acted in concert to file a false instrument (Specification 1-B), to wit, engaged in a scheme to use a school aide’s address to enroll her granddaughter in the school at which she taught, and that she improperly obtained the school’s services (Specification l-A-2), since the child should not have been enrolled there.

In light of the foregoing, we remand for the imposition of an appropriate lesser penalty.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Abdus-Salaam and Gische, JJ.
#### Mondon *v.*The Western Union Telegraph Company.

No reason appears to take this case out of the general rule that this court will not interfere with the discretion of the trial court in granting a first new trial.

March 26, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Action for damages. Before Judge Turnbull. City court of Floyd county. December term, 1892.

McHenry, Nunnally & Neel, for plaintiff Bigby, Heed, Berry & Foote and Wrights & Harper, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### Robert R. McQUADE; Dixie Borchers, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KING COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, a municipal corporation; King County, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-35037.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 13, 2006.

Filed Oct. 25, 2006.

As Amended Nov. 15, 2006.

Robert R. McQuade, Renton, WA, pro se.

Dixie Borchers, Renton, WA, pro se.

John Thomas Kugler, Esq., Burgess Fit-zer, PS, Tacoma, WA, King County Courthouse Civil Division, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and BEA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Robert McQuade and Dixie Borchers appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of King County Housing Authority and King County, Washington. McQuade and Borchers filed this action pro se seeking damages for being refused the single seat that is set aside for a resident of low-income housing on the *824Board of King County Housing Authority. They rely on Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1701u. The Act recites Congress’s finding that “employment and other economic opportunities generated by projects and activities that receive Federal housing and community development assistance offer an effective means of empowering low — and very low-income persons, particularly ... recipients of government assistance for housing.” 12 U.S.C. § 1701u(a)(3). While plaintiffs do not contend that this statute directly required the Housing Authority to appoint one of them to the seat, they do contend that the refusal to do so was discrimination in violation of a HUD regulation promulgated pursuant to Section 3. *See*24 C.F.R. § 135.76(1).

Federal causes of action must be expressly provided for by Congress. *See Alexander v. Sandoval,*532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001). The district court correctly granted judgment for the defendants. However, no private cause of action exists under Section 3 because positions on the board of a public housing authority are not “training and employment opportunities generated by development assistance.” 12 U.S.C. § 1701u(e)(l)(A).

The district court also properly denied the motions for new trial under Rules 59 and 60 as these motions were not based upon any newly discovered evidence in existence at the time of the district court’s original ruling. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, 60(b)(2).

Appellants present no reasoned argument for reversing the district court’s dismissal of the state law claims.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT 3.4 **

** **

 

**STATEOF DELAWARE**

**CERTIFICATEOF MERGER OF**

**FOREIGNCORPORATION INTO**

**ADOMESTIC CORPORATION**

** **

 

Pursuantto Title 8, Section 252 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the undersigned corporation executed the following Certificateof Merger:

 

**FIRST**:The name of the surviving corporation is GelStat Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and the name of the corporation beingmerged into this surviving corporation is GelStat Corporation, a Minnesota corporation.

 

**SECOND**:The Agreement of Merger has been approved, adopted, certified, executed and acknowledged by each of the constituent corporationspursuant to Title 8 Section 252 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

 

**THIRD**:The name of the surviving corporation is GelStat Corporation, a Delaware corporation.

 

**FOURTH**:The Certificate of Incorporation of the surviving corporation shall be its Certificate of Incorporation. (If amendments are affectedplease set forth)

 

**FIFTH:**The authorized stock and par value of the non-Delaware corporation is 50,000,000 shares of common stock, par value$0.01.

 

**SIXTH:**The merger is to become effective on September 19, 2010 

 

**SEVENTH**:The Agreement of Merger is on file at 3557 SW Corporate Parkway, Palm City, FL 34990, an office of the surviving corporation.

 

**EIGHTH**:A copy of the Agreement of Merger will be furnished by the surviving corporation on request, without cost, to any stockholderof the constituent corporations.

 

**INWITNESS WHEREOF**, said surviving corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by an authorized officer, the 19thday of September, A.D., 2010.

 

 

By:/s/ Gerald Kieft

AuthorizedOfficer

 

Name:Gerald Kieft

Printor Type

 

Title:President
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

                                    GUARANTEE

      For value received, the undersigned hereby unconditionally guarantees, as
principal obligor and not only as a surety, to the Holder of this Note the cash
payments in United States dollars of principal of, premium, if any, and interest
on this Note (and including Additional Interest payable thereon) in the amounts
and at the times when due and interest on the overdue principal, premium, if
any, and interest, if any, of this Note, if lawful, and the payment or
performances of all other Obligations of the Company under the Indenture (as
defined below) or the Note, to the Holder of this Note and the Trustee, all in
accordance with and subject to the terms and limitations of this Note, Article
III of the Indenture, the subordination provisions of Article XV of the
Indenture and this Guarantee. This Guarantee will become effective in accordance
with Article XV of the Indenture and its terms shall be evidenced therein. The
validity and enforceability of this Guarantee shall not be affected by the fact
that it is not affixed to any particular Note. Capitalized terms used but not
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Indenture dated
as of October 4, 2004, among Lions Gate Entertainment Inc., a Delaware
corporation, as issuer (the "Company"), Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., a
British Columbia corporation, as guarantor (the "Guarantor") and J.P. Morgan
Trust Company, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee") (as amended or
supplemented, the "Indenture").

      THIS GUARANTEE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK BUT WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES
OF CONFLICTS OF LAW TO THE EXTENT THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF ANOTHER
JURISDICTION WOULD BE REQUIRED THEREBY. The Guarantor hereby agrees to submit to
the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of New York in any action or
proceeding arising out of or relating to this Guarantee.
<PAGE>
      This Guarantee is subject to release upon the terms set forth in the
Indenture.

Date:  October 4, 2004

                                        LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORP.



                                        By:  ___________________________________
                                        Name:   James Keegan
                                        Title:  Chief Administrative Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfred Fraiser, Appellant.

[873 NYS2d 108]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered February 15, 2000, as amended by the same court (Murphy, J.), July 13, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, petit larceny, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and menacing in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, .and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the court erred in failing to elaborate in its jury charge on the meaning of the term “deprive” is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Robinson,*27 AD3d 492 [2006]; *People v Burch,*188 AD2d 479, 480 [1992]; *People v Roach,*188 AD2d 494 [1992]). In any event, inasmuch as there is no reasonable view of the evidence under which the defendant did not intend to permanently deprive the complainant of the property, the defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge as given is without merit (see *People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299, 301 [1982]; *cf.*CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 155.25; *867CJI2d[NY] Penal Law art 160, Introductory Instruction to Each Robbery Charge, n 2). Fisher, J.R, Miller, Garni and Balkin, JJ., concur.
#### State v. Brown

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 115

No. 171P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-396)

Denied 06/27/07
#### Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Respondent, v Congregation Ohel Zissel et al., Defendants, and Hendy Hirsch et al., Appellants.

Submitted September 8, 2009;

decided October 20, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 809.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Diane Word, Appellant.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided September 22, 2009

Reported below, 43 AD3d 773.

*792Motion to vacate this Court’s July 13, 2009 dismissal order denied *[see*12 NY3d 922 (2009)].
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with Quarterly Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Veronica O. Tarrant, Interim Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                |  | 
|------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: May 9, 2007              |  | 
|                                | 
|/s/ VERONICA O. TARRANT         |  | 
|Veronica O. Tarrant             |  | 
|Interim Chief Financial Officer |  | 

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,667
<SECURITIES>                                    14,137
<RECEIVABLES>                                      656
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         310,056
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 318,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        219,518
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   318,284
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,892
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,970
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,970
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**Section 1350 Certification**

 

In connection with this annual report of ML Systematic Momentum FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Justin C. Ferri, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of the Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments, LLC the manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

 
| Date:   March 15, 2011                      |                  |
|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------|
|                                             |                  |
| By                                               | /s/   JUSTIN C. FERRI |   |
| Justin   C. Ferri                                |                  |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer, President and Manager |                  |
| (Principal   Executive Officer)                  |                  |
|                                                  |                       |  |  |

 

----
Exhibit 32



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 Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), we,
John B. Wood and Edward L. Williams, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
our knowledge:



(1) The report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



August 20, 2004/s/ John B. WoodJohn B. WoodChief Executive Officer/s/ Edward L. WilliamsEdward L. WilliamsInterim Chief Financial Officer
`
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 Consolidation Services, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, John C. Francis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due inquiry, I believe 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

 

          CONSOLIDATION SERVICES, INC.

 

 

June 6, 2008

 

By:

/s/ John C. Francis

 

 

 

John C. Francis

Chief Financial Officer

 

`
#### John V. Ribis, Appellant, v East Irondequoit Central School District et al., Respondents.

Decided September 22, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 1386.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
**Exhibit 99.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OR 15d-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Richard B. Clark, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 6-K of Brookfield Properties Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade know to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theAudit Committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Dated: May 15, 2006            Richard B. Clark    President and Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer)  **
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SOPHIA R. DAVIS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 317 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.