alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

79 

CA 15-01093 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF DENNIS T. BROWN, HOLDER OF 

25% OF ALL OUTSTANDING SHARES OF LOGISTIC 

DYNAMICS, INC., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

BRIAN MAOUAD, JAD MAOUAD AND NADY MAOUAD, 

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

DUKE, HOLZMAN, PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP, BUFFALO (PATRICIA GILLEN OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN G. SCHMIDT, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy

J. Walker, A.J.), entered December 26, 2014. The order, among other

things, dismissed the petition. 

Now, upon the stipulation of dismissal and discontinuance signed

by the attorneys for the parties on January 15 and 25, 2016, and filed

in the Erie County Clerk’s Office on February 8, 2016,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: March 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-17-000037320-JUN-201808:08 AM
----

**AMENDMENT        TO ACCOUNT PURCHASE AGREEMENT**

| 3.0 | **Purchase                  Limits:**The                  maximum outstanding face amount of Accounts purchased by WFBCI                  hereunder                  is $1,500,000. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**6.06**
**Minimum        and Origination Fee: **
*and        at the anniversary date upon each *
*renewal,        *

| WELLS                  FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION |                            | Natural                  Soda, Inc. |
|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| By:                                                     | /s/                  Kei Lehigh |                                | By: | /s/                  Bill H. Gunn |
| By                                                      | Kei                  Lehigh     |                                | By | Bill                  H. Gunn |
| Title:                                                  | Vice                  President |                                | Title: | President |
| Date:                                                   | 12/19/05                        |                                | Date: | 12/19/05 |

| /s/                  Bill H. Gunn                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| (Individually                  as Guarantor Bill Gunn) |   |

| Date: | 12/19/05 |   |
|-------|----------|--------|
# H OGAN 

# & H OGAN A PPELLATE A

DVOCACY AND T RIAL S TRATEGY P ENNZOIL P LACE 711 L OUISIANA • S UITE 500 H OUSTON , T EXAS 77002 - 2721 J ENNIFER B RUCH H OGAN Telephone: (713) 222 - 8800 Board Certified • Civil Appellate Law Facsimile: (713) 222 - 8810 Texas Board of Legal Specialization www.hoganfirm.com

46262_1 

### April 23, 2015 Via TexFile Christopher A. Prine, Clerk First Court of Appeals 301 Fannin Street, Room 208 Houston, Texas 77002 Re: No. 01- 14 -00133-CV; United Services Automobile Association v. Joseph Hayes, Jr. and Joanne Hayes ; in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. Dear Mr. Prine: Please note that Jennifer Bruch Hogan will present the oral ar gument on behalf of Appellants/Appellees, Joseph Hayes, Jr. and Joanne Hayes. The oral argument is set for Wednesday, April 29, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. All counsel are being notified by electronic service. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, /s / Jennifer Bruch Hogan Jennifer Bruch Hogan Attorney for Appellants/Appellees Joseph Hayes, Jr. and Joanne Hayes JBH/jlc ACCEPTED 01-14-00133-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/23/2015 8:27:24 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

### April 23 , 2015

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk First Court of Appeals Page 2

46262_1 

### c: Robert Tresch Owen Levon G. Hovnatanian Kevin G. Cain Christopher W. Martin M ARTIN 

### , D ISIERE 

### , J EFFERSON 

### & W ISDOM 

### , L.L.P. 808 Travis, 20th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Via TexFile
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Randall H. Breitenbach, Co-Chief Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the
general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to 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
Partnership.





/s/ RANDALL H.
  BREITENBACHRandall
      H. BreitenbachCo-Chief
      Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLCDated:  November
      19, 2009
Exhibit
32.3





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
James G. Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
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
Partnership.





/s/ JAMES G. JACKSONJames
      G. JacksonChief
      Financial Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLCDated:  June
      10, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Cruz, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), rendered on or about May 5, 2005, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 1 6 -1543V (not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TINA L. ESKELIN, * November 21 , 2017

*

* Joint Stipulation of Dismissal;
Petitioner, * Rule 21(a); No Judgment; Order

* Concluding Proceedings

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *
HUMAN SERVICES, *

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS

On November 20, 2017, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(1)(B), the parties filed a joint stipulation stating that above-captioned case should be dismissed.

Accordingly, pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a)(3), the above-captioned case is hereby dismissed without prejudice . The Clerk of the Court is hereby instructed that a judgment shall

not enter in the instant case pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Special Master
Exhibit
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




Neoprobe
Corporation


Dublin,
Ohio




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 33-81410, 333-05143, 333-119219, 333-130636, 333-130640, 333-153110,
and 333-158323) of Neoprobe Corporation of our report dated March 29, 2010,
relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form
10-K.





/s/ BDO
Seidman, LLP





Chicago,
Illinois


March 29,
2010
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director, 441 G St., NW., Mail Stop 6K17V, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350. 

Authority:Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. No. 92-463. 

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Charles Jackson, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

 [FR Doc. E9-1413 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 61 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 61

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 23, 2019.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 648) making appropriations for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes. All points of order 
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. Clause 2(e) 
of rule XXI shall not apply during consideration of the bill. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto 
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
    Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider 
in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 31) making further continuing 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, and 
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the joint 
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of 
February 1, 2019, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend 
the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the designation of any 
matter for consideration pursuant to this section.
    Sec. 4.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote 
to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented 
to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
legislative day of January 30, 2019, relating to a measure making or continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
1 

 Michael Mowla 

 Attorney 

(Mail) 

445 E. FM 1382 No. 3-718 

Cedar Hill, TX 75104 

Dallas County 

Phone: 972-795-2401 

Fax: 972-692-6636 

michael@mowlalaw.com 

www.mowlalaw.com

July 16, 2015 

Twelfth Court of Appeals 

1517 W. Front Street Suite 354 

Tyler, TX 75702 

Re: Baker v. State, 12-14-00185-CR, 12th Court of Appeals, 

F13-00422, 283rd District Court Dallas County 

Via efile 

Dear Clerk of Court: 

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4, this letter certifies that on July 3, 2015, I 

sent to Jonathan Baker the opinion of this court in the above-entitled matter, along with 

notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 68. This was sent to the last known address, which is: 

Jonathan Baker – 1936362 

Michael Unit 

2664 FM 2054 

Tennessee Colony, TX 75886 

This was sent via USPS CM RRR 7010-1870-0001-0972-8342. A copy of the front and back of 

the return receipt is attached. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Mowla 

Attachments 

CC: Dallas District Attorney Appellate Division 

ACCEPTED

12-14-00185-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/16/2015 6:15:26 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/16/2015 6:15:26 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00350-CV

THURMAN H. WEST, Appellant

V.

GWENDOLYN MESHALLE WEST, Appellee

Appeal from the 300th District Court of Brazoria County. (Tr. Ct. No. 55385).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on 

February 12, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments 

properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the 

portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding appellee, Gwendolyn Meshalle West,

attorney’s fees and dividing the marital property. Accordingly, the Court reverses this 

portion of the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the trial court for further 

proceedings.

The Court further holds that there was no reversible error in the remaining 

portions of the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the remaining 

portions of the trial court’s judgment.
The Court orders that the appellant, Thurman H. West, pay one half of the

appellate costs. The Court orders that the appellee, Gwendolyn Meshalle West, pay one 

half of the appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered July 14, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice 

Jennings.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-11366

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RYAN MAZEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:00-CR-15-ALL-L

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

December 11, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ryan Mazey appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit

theft and to transport, and the transportation of, stolen

property in interstate commerce. He argues that the district

court erred when it refused to grant him a new trial based on

newly discovered evidence and when it did not voir dire the jury

to assess the severity of any tainting that may have occurred

when juror Brown stated that he believed Mazey was guilty.

To obtain a new trial based upon the discovery of new

evidence, Mazey must establish that (1) the evidence was newly
No. 00-11366

-2-

discovered and unknown to him at the time of the trial;

(2) failure to detect the evidence was not a result of his lack

of due diligence; (3) the evidence is material, not merely

cumulative or impeaching; and (4) the evidence will likely

produce an acquittal. United States v. Ardoin, 19 F.3d 177, 181

(5th Cir. 1994). We review a district court's denial of a motion

for a new trial based upon new evidence for a clear abuse of

discretion. United States v. Freeman, 77 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.

1996). 

Mazey has failed to establish that the evidence was newly

discovered and unknown to him at the time of trial, and he has

not shown that the alleged failure to detect the evidence was not

due to a lack of due diligence. The record establishes that

Mazey was notified that the date of November 28, 1998, was at

issue from both the superseding indictment and the Government’s

motion for reciprocal discovery. Mazey’s contention that the

November 28 date first became an issue during trial is therefore

meritless. Furthermore, the fact that Mazey did not have in his

possession at the time of trial the time-stamped copy of the

credit card receipt does not render that evidence “unknown.” 

Mazey was clearly placed on notice regarding the possibility of

interposing an alibi defense for the night of November 28, 1998,

and, therefore, the fact that he did not have the relevant

evidence in his possession at the time of trial reflects a lack

of diligence. The district court therefore did not abuse its

discretion in denying his motion.
No. 00-11366

-3-

After the court questioned a juror about his pretrial

opinion of Mazey’s guilt, Mazey did not request the district

court to voir dire the remaining jurors. A defendant implicitly

waives objections to juror misconduct when counsel fails to act,

before verdict, upon information known to defendant or counsel. 

United States v. O’Keefe, 722 F.2d 1175, 1178 n.1 (5th Cir.

1983). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Sandie Young, Plaintiff, v Lennox Hearth Products, Inc., et al., Appellants, and Dry Creek Products, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[976 NYS2d 910]

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered September 19, 2012. The order, inter alia, converted the cross claims of defendant Dry Creek Products, Inc., against defendants Lennox Hearth Products, Inc. and Aeropostale, Inc., into third-party claims.

*1327It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
# Multimedia About Global Mental Health

The Center for Global Mental Health Research Webinar Series 2023: Human Subjects Protection, Data and Safety Monitoring, and Operational Considerations in NIMH-Funded Clinical Research

The Center for Global Mental Health Research Webinar Series 2023: Finding the Right Treatment for the Right People at the Right Time – Promoting Stratification in Global Mental Health Research

Health Economics at NIMH and NIDA – Domestic and International

Director’s Innovation Speaker Series: Ecological Grief and Anxiety: A Healthy Response to Climate Change

Center for Global Mental Health Research Webinar Series: Grants Management: Post Award

Center for Global Mental Health Research Webinar Series:  Writing a Successful Individual Training Grant Application Focused on Global Mental Health

Center for Global Mental Health Research Webinar Series: Establishing an Independent Career in Global Mental Health Research

PRIDE Hub Project Summary

Youth FORWARD Hub Project Summary

SPIRIT Hub Project Summary

S-MHINT Hub Project Summary

SMART Africa Hub Project Summary

SHINE Hub Project Summary

SHARP Hub Project Summary

PRISM Hub Project Summary

ESSENCE Hub Project Summary

DIADA Hub Project Summary

Center for Global Mental Health Research Webinar Series: Training Mechanisms for Early Career Scientists in Global Mental Health Research at NIH

Center for Global Mental Health Research Webinar Series: Training Mechanisms for Graduate Students and Post-docs in Global Mental Health Research at NIH

Center for Global Mental Health Research Webinar Series: Submission and Peer Review of NIH Grant Applications

Mental Health Economics and Financing 

Mental Health Research Awards for Investigators Early in their Career in Low and Middle-Income Countries

Strength in the Face of Challenge: Youth Suicide Prevention Research Among the White Mountain Apache and the Navajo Nation in the Time of COVID-19

Preventing Suicide: A Population Health Approach

Identifying New Directions in Mental Health Disparities Research: Innovations with a Multidimensional Lens - Day Two, Part Two

Identifying New Directions in Mental Health Disparities Research: Innovations with a Multidimensional Lens - Day One, Part One

Mobile Technology for Global Mental Health Research

Using Simulation to Evaluate Social Determinants of Health in People with Mental Illness: Potential Use of Findings in Discussions with Policymakers, Community Groups, Consumers and Advocates

Multilevel Interventions: State of the Science in Global Mental Health

Implementation Science in Healthcare: An Introduction

Mental Health and Rural America: Challenges and Opportunities

NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) Initiative

Research Capacity Building: Nurturing and Strengthening Emerging Scientists

Treatment Targets, Target Engagement, And Target Populations in Mental Health Services Research to Improve Public Health: Examples from The Field

Mental Health Economics: Analyzing Value
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 21-1768

MORDECIA VISHEGHO PHUNGEH, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

Submitted: August 19, 2022 Decided: August 31, 2022 

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, Petitioner Pro Se. Andrew Oliveira, Gregory A. Pennington, 

Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1768 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Mordecia Vishegho Phungeh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the 

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Phungeh’s application for asylum, withholding 

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Initially, we discern no 

abuse of discretion in the IJ’s decision to deny Phungeh’s motion for a continuance. Lendo 

v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007). Next, the record belies Phungeh’s 

arguments that the IJ failed to adjudicate her withholding claim and that she was unduly 

prevented from testifying. Finally, we must dismiss Phungeh’s petition with respect to her 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as she did not present that claim to the Board. See

Stewart v. U.S. I.N.S., 181 F.3d 587, 596 (4th Cir. 1999) (explaining that appellate court 

lacks jurisdiction over noncitizen’s unexhausted ineffective assistance claim). 

Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part Phungeh’s petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1768 Doc: 15 Filed: 08/31/2022 Pg: 2 of 2