alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#     Clinical Trials in the Spotlight  

NINDS Clinical Trials features descriptions of a selected group of actively-recruiting NINDS-sponsored trials organized by neurological disorder.

4-AP Peripheral Nerve Crossover Trial

View more about this trial

Adjunctive Sertraline for the Treatment of HIV-Associated Cryptococcal Meningitis

View more about this trial

Anticoagulation in ICH Survivors for Stroke Prevention and Recovery

View more about this trial

Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study (ENCHANTED)

View more about this trial

Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial

View more about this trial

Evaluation and Treatment of Neurosurgical Disorders

View more about this trial

Fibrinogen Replacement to Prevent Intracranial Haemorrhage in Ischemic Stroke Patients After Thrombolysis (FibER)

View more about this trial

Intravesical Lactobacillus for Urinary Symptoms Among People With NLUTD Who Use Indwelling Catheters

View more about this trial

Intravesical Lactobacillus to Reduce Urinary Symptoms After Spinal Cord Injury

View more about this trial

Intravesical LGG VS Saline Bladder Wash RCT

View more about this trial

Multi-arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis

View more about this trial

Occipital Blocks for Acute Migraine

View more about this trial

Recombinant Factor VIIa (rFVIIa) for Hemorrhagic Stroke Trial

View more about this trial

Statins In Intracerbral Hemorrhage

View more about this trial

THE IMPACT- 24M TRIAL (IMPlant Augmenting Cerebral Blood Flow in Mild Strokes Trial 24 Hours From Stroke Onset)

View more about this trial

## Dystonia

Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery for Movement Disorders

View more about this trial

## Epilepsy and Seizures

Surgery as a Treatment for Medically Intractable Epilepsy

View more about this trial

Tumor Related Epilepsy

View more about this trial

## Essential Tremor

Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery for Movement Disorders

View more about this trial

## Myasthenia Gravis

Thymectomy Trial in Non-Thymomatous Myasthenia Gravis Patients Receiving Prednisone Therapy

View more about this trial

#### Pagination

-  1 
-  2 
-  Next ›Next page 
-  Last »Last page
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Damian Brunswick, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency (Paul Senzer, J.H.O.), entered June 19, 2015. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss eight simplified traffic informations.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed.</p><p>Defendant was charged in eight separate simplified traffic informations with two charges of failing to stop at a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]), three charges of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [a]), failing to stop at a flashing red signal (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1113 [a]), excessive tint on the side window of his vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [12-a] [b] [2]), and modifying his vehicle's muffler (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [31]), respectively. Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss the simplified traffic informations based upon the People's failure to provide requested supporting depositions. The People opposed the motion. By order entered June 19, 2015, the District Court granted defendant's motion. </p><p>When a defendant is charged by a simplified information, he or she has a statutory right to timely request a supporting deposition (<i>see</i> CPL 100.25 [2]). The failure to timely supply one thereafter (<i>see</i> CPL 100.25 [2]) renders the simplified information insufficient on its face (<i>see</i> CPL 100.40 [2]; <i>People v Aucello</i>, 146 Misc 2d 417 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 1990]) and subjects it to dismissal upon a timely motion (<i>see</i> CPL 170.30 [1] [a]; 170.35 [1] [a]; <i>People v Nuccio</i>, 78 NY2d 102, 104 [1991]; <i>People v Fattizzi</i>, 98 Misc 2d 288 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 1978]). A letter request to the clerk of the court is sufficient to trigger the requirements of CPL 100.25 (2) (<i>see People v Thumser</i>, 148 Misc 2d 472 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 1990]). The record on appeal demonstrates that defendant timely requested supporting depositions and that they were not provided to him. The record further demonstrates that defendant was never arraigned and that he timely moved to dismiss the simplified traffic informations. Consequently, the District Court properly granted defendant's motion (<i>see</i> CPL 170.30 [1] [a]; 170.35 [1] [a]; 170.45, 210.45 [1]; 255.20 [1]; <i>People v Key</i>, 45 NY2d 111, 116 [1978]; <a href="../2014/2014_51733.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Alese</i>, 45 Misc 3d 135</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51733[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2014]). </p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>Marano, P.J., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: January 24, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6642

WALTER D ELANEY BOOKER , JR.,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. M. E. ENGELKE, Director of Food Services; N. GREGG, State Dietitian; H. PONTON, Regional Administrator, Western; L. FLEMING, Warden; M. BROYLES, FOMB; Q. REYNOLDS, Unit Manager; J. COMBS, Assistant Warden; BRYANT, Sergeant; CHOW HALL OFFICERS, C and D side; WITT, Correctional Officer; MARCUS ELAM, Regional Administrator, Western; SGT. KIMBERL IN; E. PEARSON, Warden

- Greensville; A. ANDERSON, GCC Food Operations Director; CREQUE, GCC Food Services Manager; S. TAPP, GCC Ombudsman; K. PHILLIPS, GCC Ombudsman , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Wester n District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Jackson L. Kiser , Senior District Judge. ( 7:16

- cv
- 00084

- JLK

- RSB )

Submitted : September 29, 2020 Decided: December 3, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Walter D elaney Booker, Jr. Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Walter D elaney B ooker, J r. , appeals the district court’s order s granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment in Booker’s action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act , 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc to 2000cc

5

. After review ing the record , we are satisified that , even assuming the Defendants’ policies substantially burdened Booker’s free exercise rights under the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act and the F irst Amendment , the polic ies were reasonably related to the prison’s legitimate penological interest s in balan cing inmates’ religious dietary restrictions with the agency’s operational, budgetary, and administrative concerns , and so affirm on that basis. On all other claims , we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Booker v. Engelke , No. 7:16

- cv
- 00084

- JLK

- RSB (W.D. Va., Mar. 22, 2018 & Mar. 26, 2019)

. We further deny Booker’s motion for injunctive relief pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this co urt and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10305

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAULITO GOVEA-SAN ROMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CR-48-1

Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paulito Govea-San Roman pleaded guilty of illegal reentry after 

deportation, and he was sentenced to a 57-month term of imprisonment and to 

a three-year period of supervised release. Govea-San Roman contends that use 

of the 2016 Guidelines Manual in determining his sentence violated his rights 

under the Ex Post Facto Clause and that he should have been sentenced under 

the 2015 Guidelines Manual. He posits that, under the 2015 Guidelines 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 26, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10305 Document: 00514851134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2019
No. 18-10305

2

Manual, the 46- to 57-month guidelines range would only apply to him if the 

court imposed the 16-level crime-of-violence enhancement because of his 

robbery conviction. The 16-level enhancement would apply if the court 

determined that the offense was an enumerated offense of robbery or had as 

an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against 

the person of another. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) & U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2, comment. (n.(1)(B)(iii)) (2015). 

This court has previously held that the Texas robbery statute lacks force 

as an element but that it is equivalent to the generic definition of robbery. See 

United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 379-82 (5th Cir. 2006), 

overruled on other grounds, United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 547-63 

(5th Cir. 2013) (en banc)). Although he concedes that the issue he has raised 

is foreclosed under current law, Govea-San Roman contends that SantiestebanHernandez was wrongly decided, and he wishes to preserve the issue for 

possible further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance 

or, in the alternative, an extension of time within which to file a brief on the 

merits. 

Summary affirmance is appropriate if “the position of one of the parties 

is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question 

as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 

1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Because the only argument raised on appeal is foreclosed 

by precedent from this court, the Government’s motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as 

unnecessary.

 Case: 18-10305 Document: 00514851134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2019
Exhibit 10b






Exhibit 10b.


        
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
345 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10154




Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent
388 Greenwich Street
New York, New York 10013
Attention:  Pamela Kowalski
June 3, 2013


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Re: Extension of Maturity Date


Reference is made to the Five Year Competitive Advance and Revolving Credit Facility Agreement, dated as of September 29, 2011, as amended (the “Credit Agreement”) among Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), the Borrowing Subsidiaries, the lenders parties thereto (the “Lenders”), certain Agents, Citibank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such terms in the Credit Agreement.


Pursuant to Section 2.5 of the Credit Agreement, the Company hereby requests that the Lenders extend the Maturity Date in effect on the date hereof (i.e., September 29, 2016) to the first anniversary of such Maturity Date, such that the extended Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement will be September 29, 2017.  This letter shall constitute an “Extension Letter” as referred to in Section 2.5 of the Credit Agreement.






                                	
	
	Very truly yours,
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

	 

	By:   /s/ Jeffrey Galik
Name:  Jeffrey Galik
Title:    Senior Vice President and Treasurer
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 Apogent Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank H. Jellinek, Jr., Chief Executive Officer 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 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    FRANK H. JELLINEK,
JR.Frank H. Jellinek, Jr. Chief Executive Officer August 9, 2004




This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 31, 2016

No. 04-16-00207-CV

Antonio JIMENEZ and Mary Louise Jimenez,

Appellants

v.

Carlos GONGORA,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-02692

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

We order Judy Stewart to file the reporter’s record by June 30, 2016.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of May, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Order entered January 8, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 0 1162
- CR
JOHANAN JOHN FOLSOM , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 2 0 3rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. F 11
- 58786
- P 

### O RDER On December 21, 2012, the Court adopted the trial court’s finding that court reporter Yolanda Atkins would file her portion of the reporter’s record within ten days of the December 14, 2012 hearing. The Court now has bef ore it a letter from Ms. Atkins stating her portion of the record cannot be filed because it was lost due to the theft of her equipment from her vehicle. This information was not presented to the trial court and before the appeal can proceed, the Court

mu st have findings pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f). Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing at which Yolanda Atkins is present and to make findings regarding the following : (1) whether the notes of the hearings Yolan da Atkins recorded are available; (2) if the notes are not available, whether appellant is atfault for the loss or destruction of the notes; and (3) whether appellant and the State can agree to a substituted record.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record containing its written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to transmit copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the
H onorable Teresa Hawthorne, Presiding Judge, 203rd Judicial District Court; court reporter Yolanda Atkins; and to counsel for all parties.
We ABATE the appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal shall be reinstated when we receiv e the supplemental record containing its findings of fact.

/s/ DAVID W. EVANS JUSTICE
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350)**







In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Royal Equine Alliance Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Demitro
      Marianovich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and




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




Registrant
              Date:
                May 30, 2008
            
            *Royal
                Equine Alliance Corporation*
              *By:
                /s/ Demitro Marianovich*Demitro
                MarianovichChief Executive Officer (Principle Executive
                Officer,Principle Financial
                Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   I, Patrick M. Flynn, Chief Executive Officer and President of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company and Big Boulder Corporation (together, the Registrants), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:  (1) The Registrants Annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 Registrants.  Date:  January 28, 2011 /s/ Patrick M. Flynn Patrick M. Flynn Chief Executive Officer and President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arnold Stapleton, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 32]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Philip M. Grella, J.), rendered September 21, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of aggravated criminal contempt and three counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 3x/2 to 7 years, unanimously modi*465tied, on the law, to the extent of reducing the conviction under the count of the indictment charging criminal contempt in the first degree under Penal Law § 215.51 (c) to criminal contempt in the second degree under Penal Law § 215.50 (3), and reducing the sentence for that conviction to one year, and otherwise affirmed.

Except as indicated, the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The evidence supported the conclusion that the victim sustained physical injury *(see People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]; *People v Harvey,*309 AD2d 713 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 573 [2003]; *People v Bravo,*295 AD2d 213, 214 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 556 [2002]), a necessary element of aggravated criminal contempt (Penal Law § 215.52). Defendant punched the victim twice, causing her to double over and shriek. She suffered a swollen temple, which was treated with ice. She continued to suffer pain for a day and a half, despite taking a pain reliever, and continued to apply ice that night and the next morning.

However, as the People concede, one of the three convictions of first-degree criminal contempt was improper. Since defendant was not charged with violating any of the types of orders of protection listed in Penal Law § 215.51 (c), we reduce his conviction under that section to second-degree criminal contempt pursuant to Penal Law § 215.50 (3).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s mistrial motion, made when the victim volunteered that defendant had asked her why she had sent him to jail. This brief statement did not deprive defendant of a fair trial, especially since the court immediately delivered a suitable curative instruction *(see People v Randolph,*23 AD3d 244, 245 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 817 [2006]; *People v Rubi,*19 AD3d 139, 140 [2005], *Iv denied*5 NY3d 809 [2005]).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal. Concur—Buckley, PJ., Tom, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Brekford International Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ryan E. Kirch, Principal Financial Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | /s/ Ryan E. Kirch          
| | Ryan E. Kirch              
| | Principal Financial Officer
| |                            
| | Date: May 15, 2008         
| |                            



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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 Annual Report of Vibrosaun International, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual Report), we, David C. Merrell, President, and Michael C. Brown, Secretary, Treasurer and CFO of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:April 14, 2009By:/s/David C. MerrellDavid C. Merrell, President and Director  Date:April 14, 2009By:/s/Michael C. BrownMichael C. Brown, Secretary, Treasurer and Director    1