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

[974 NYS2d 205]

Appeal from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boiler, A.J.), rendered January 24, 2012. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the first degree (three counts), endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and incest.

It is hereby ordered that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of, inter alia, three counts each of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [3]) and sodomy in the first degree (former § 130.50 [3]). On a prior appeal, we affirmed the judgment of conviction *(People v Campbell,*286 AD2d 979 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 702 [2002]), and defendant now appeals from a resentence pursuant to Correction Law § 601-d and Penal Law § 70.85. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court erred in failing to order an updated presentence report “inasmuch as he never requested such an update, objected to the presentence report at the resentencing, or moved to vacate the resentencing on that ground” *(People v Lard,*71 AD3d 1464, 1465 [2010], *lv denied*14 NY3d 889 [2010]). In any event, defendant’s contention is without merit. “[T]he decision whether to obtain an updated [presentence] report at resentencing is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the sentencing [court] . . . Where, as here, [the] defendant has been continually incarcerated between the time of the initial sentencing and resentencing, to require an update . . . *1254does not advance the purpose of CPL 390.20 (1)” *(id.*[internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Cobado,*104 AD3d 1322, 1322-1323 [2013]; *see generally People v Kuey,*83 NY2d 278, 282-283 [1994]). We reject defendant’s further contention that the imposition of five-year periods of postrelease supervision (PRS) is unduly harsh and severe, but we note, as we did in the original appeal, that the aggregate sentence of 75 years of incarceration is reduced by operation of law to 50 years *(see*Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [e] [vi]).

We do not address any of the contentions raised by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief inasmuch as they concern matters related to the original proceeding. “Where, as here, the resentence is conducted for the purpose of rectifying a *Sparber*error — that is, an error in failing to impose a required period of PRS *(see People v Sparber,*10 NY3d 457, 464-465 [2008])— *‘[t]he*defendant’s right to appeal is limited *to*the correction of errors or the abuse of discretion at the resentencing proceeding’ ” *(People v Howard,*96 AD3d 1701, 1702 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 1103 [2012], quoting *People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621, 635 [2011]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.
#### FG HEMISPHERE ASSOCIATES LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee v. The REPUBLIQUE DU CONGO, Defendant-Appellant CMS Nomeco Congo Inc; Nuevo Congo Co; Nuevo Congo Ltd, Garnishees-Appellants.

No. 06-20027.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Dec. 18, 2006.

Dillon James Ferguson, Andrews & Kurth, Andrew L. Jefferson, Jr., Jefferson *&*Mims, Houston, TX, Bradford A. Berenson, Sidley Austin, Washington, DC, Robert Nathan Hochman, Kristen R. Seeger, Sidley Austin, Chicago, IL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Guy Stanford Lipe, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX, for Garnishees-Appellants.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.1

1

. 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.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion to remand this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion requesting this Court to enter an order reversing the district court’s orders of 9/15/05 is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellee’s unopposed motion directing the district court to dissolve those writs of garnishments is GRANTED.
#### In the Matter of Riverside Equities, LLC, Respondent, v New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent, and William Brown, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 139]

*535Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), entered December 10, 2007, which granted the petition to vacate the determination of respondent New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), dated March 8, 2007, finding a rent overcharge, directing its refund and imposing treble damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition denied and the determination reinstated and confirmed.

DHCR’s determination, based largely on credibility, that either the claimed improvements were not made or the costs were greatly inflated and that petitioner willfully submitted false evidence to support its claims was not arbitrary and capricious. The record establishes, inter alia, that the named certificate holder and insured on the construction contract is not petitioner; that the contract scope of work differs significantly from the actual condition of the apartment; that apparently comparable improvements in other similar units in the building cost substantially less; that the checks submitted to demonstrate payment to the contractor do not indicate who endorsed them; and that the contractor could not be found. These discrepancies in petitioner’s evidence provide support for DHCR’s finding that the evidence was false and a rational basis for its conclusion that the submission of the false evidence was willful *(see Matter of 201 E. 81st St. Assoc. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*288 AD2d 89, 89 [2001]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Nardelli, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 33990(U).]
**EXHIBIT 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.333-114166, 333-102988, 333-85160, 333-61866, 333-25661, 333-32159, 333-23085, 333-17501,333-03507, 333-107755, and 333-134879) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-116624, 333-30558, 333-46990, 333-81243, 333-105694, 333-105693, and 333-134878), pertaining tothe 1992 Stock Option Plan, the 1993 Non-Employee Directors’ Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2004 Non-EmployeeDirectors’ Equity Incentive Plan and the 2006 Equity Incentive Award Plan of QuestcorPharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 23, 2007, with respect to the financial statementsand schedule of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended December 31, 2006./s/ ODENBERG, ULLAKKO, MURANISHI & CO. LLPSan Francisco, California
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 10, 2009, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Interchangeable Virtual 
Instruments Foundation, Inc. has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Konrad GmbH, Radolfzell, GERMANY has been 
added as a party to this venture. Also, Vektrex Electronic Systems, San 
Diego, CA has withdrawn as a party to this venture. In addition, VXI 
Technology has changed its name to VTI Instruments, Irvine, CA.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Interchangeable Virtual Instruments 
Foundation, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 29, 2001, Interchangeable Virtual Instruments Foundation, 
Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the 
Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 30, 2001 (66 FR 
39336).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on January 21, 
2009. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on February 26, 2009 (74 FR 8811).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-11823 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
No. 928.

#### Armand Schmoll, Inc. *v.*Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

March 16, 1942.

*Mr. Hersey Egginton*for petitioner. *Messrs. Allen T. Klots, Walter S. Logan,*and *G. Schuyler Tarbell, Jr.*for respondent. *Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Shea,*and *Mr. Melvin H. Siegel*filed a memorandum on behalf of the United States, as *amicus curiae,*urging denial of the petition.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New York denied.
#### Green *against*Angel.

mere a justice Símpente!! had been com-hours, in order to allow one of the parties to produce further proof, *u*was

*^ameberJn*?¿U8b“ng“omI “fended resumed the Sot Appear”TM ¡s anee, and the justice cannot proceed *nlty*the trial»

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a justice’s court.

In the course of the- trial in the-court below, while the defendant in error, who was also defendant in the court below, was proceeding with his testimony to substantiate his plea of set-off, ... .1.1 . the justice decided, that in order to sustain his plea, it was . necessary tor him to show a mdgment and execution before another justice. The defendant then requested a delay in the trial, until he could go 12 miles to procure the evidence required. To this the plaintiff objected, but the justice said that he would keep the court open, and allow the defendant 20 hours to go and obtain the testimony. At the time appointed for resuming the trial, the plaintiff did not appear, but the justice proceeded *ex parte,*and heard the defendant’s proof of set-off, and rendered judgment, for a balance, in favour of the defendant. J ° ' .....

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment must be reversed, on two grounds :

It was an abuse of discretion in the justice to allow such an *470unreasonable time. for the defendant to go abroad for évidence during the trial* 2. Thé non-appearance of the plaintiff,. 'When the trial was.-resiimed, was a discontinuance of the suit,, and the" justice had no right to. proceed any further.

Judgment reversed.'.,
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24819-24820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12172]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Open Meeting

    The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) 
will meet on June 11, 2009, 8:30 a.m., Room 3884, and on June 12, 2009, 
8:30 a.m., Room 3884, at the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street 
between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The 
Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export 
Administration on emerging technology and research activities, 
including those related to deemed exports.

Thursday, June 11

Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introduction.
    2. Export Controls.
    3. Deemed Exports Data Set.
    4. Deemed Export Control Methodology Model Options.
    5. Review Status.

Friday, June 12

Public Session

    1. Deemed Export Control Methodology Model Options.
    The meeting will be accessible via teleconference to 20 
participants on a

[[Page 24820]]

first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries 
to Ms. Yvette Springer at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#366f4546445f5851534476545f451852595518515940"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2079535052494e474552604249530e444f430e474f56">[email protected]</span></a>--no later than June 4, 
2009.
    A limited number of seats will be available for the meeting. 
Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members 
of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public 
may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. 
However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation 
materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that 
presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the 
meeting to Ms. Springer via e-mail.
    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: May 20, 2009.
Teresa Telesco,
Assistant Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-12172 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SECOND QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,116
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             358
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               137,685
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,728
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         157,806
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           158,623
<LOANS>                                        634,390
<ALLOWANCE>                                     14,216
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 945,302
<DEPOSITS>                                     841,610
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,491
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,448
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,688
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,311
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,754
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 945,302
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 24,957
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,487
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                33,444
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              19,016
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,643
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,801
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      249
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,779
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,875
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,875
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,811
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.05
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,811
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,990
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      112
<RECOVERIES>                                        89
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               14,216
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            14,216
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
  I, James M. Lindstrom, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Centrue FinancialCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b) [intentionally omitted] c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 29, 2004 /s/ James M. Lindstrom   James M. Lindstrom   Chief Financial Officer
-  Home 
        -  Research & Funding 
        -  Current Funding Opportunities 
        -  Priority HIV/AIDS Research within the Mission of NIDDK (R01 Clinical Trial Optional) 

View Current Funding Opportunities

# Priority HIV/AIDS Research within the Mission of NIDDK (R01 Clinical Trial Optional)

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) seeks to stimulate HIV/AIDS research within the mission of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) that align with the HIV/AIDS research priorities outlined by the NIH Office of AIDS Research (OAR). These priorities were most recently described in NOT-OD-20-018 UPDATE: NIH HIV/AIDS Research Priorities and Guidelines for Determining HIV/AIDS Funding.

### Funding Opportunity Details

Full Announcement:PAS-24-163Related Notices or Announcements:                None            

Program Contacts:Peter J. Perrin, Ph.D.; Deepak Nihalani, Ph.D.; Saul Malozowski, M.D., Ph.D., M.B.A.

R01 - Research Project Grant

### Key Dates

Open Date:            4/8/2024        

Letter of Intent Due Date:            Not Applicable
#### Nella Manko, Appellant, v Aetna Health, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[962 NYS2d 906]

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), entered December 21, 2009, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Dana A. Mannor pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her, granted the motion of the defendants Aetna Health, Inc., Aetna Health, Inc., doing business as U.S. Healthcare, Inc., and Jane Doe, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Lenox Hill Hospital which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, granted the motion of the defendant Rawlings Company, LLC, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and denied her motion to adjourn the consideration of the defendants’ separate motions.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Dana A. Mannor, that branch of the motion of the defendant Lenox Hill Hospital, and the motion of the defendants Aetna Health, Inc., Aetna Health, Inc., doing business as U.S. Healthcare, Inc., and Jane Doe which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the *816ground that the causes of action asserted against them were barred by the doctrine of res judicata *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; *Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co.,*93 NY2d 343, 347 [1999]; *O’Brien v City of Syracuse,*54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]; *Coliseum Towers Assoc. v County of Nassau,*217 AD2d 387, 390 [1996]). In addition, the court properly granted the motion of the defendant Rawlings Company, LLC, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the causes of action asserted against it were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [5]; 213 [2], [8]; 214 [2], [5]; *Sabbatini v Galati,*43 AD3d 1136, 1140 [2007]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Balkin, J.P, Leventhal, Roman and Cohen, 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 Columbia Laboratories, 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, Robert S. Mills, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Robert S. Mills


Robert S. Mills


President and


Chief Executive Officer


August 6, 2009