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

[822 NYS2d 455]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated October 31, 2005 *(People v Cato,*22 AD3d 863 [2005]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 11, 2004.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Florio, J.E, Krausman, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of David Schermerhorn, Appellant, v Karen Vermillion, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 907]

*644In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Eisenpress, J.), entered March 6, 2013, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Miklitsch, S.M.), entered January 23, 2013, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition to terminate his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order entered March 6, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly determined that the subject child was not emancipated. A parent is obligated to support his or her minor child until the age of 21 (see Family Ct Act § 413), unless the child becomes emancipated, which occurs once the child becomes economically independent through employment and is self-supporting (see *Matter of Lowe v Lowe,*67 AD3d 682, 683 [2009]; *Matter of Fortunato v Fortunato,*242 AD2d 720 [1997]). Here, the evidence at the hearing established that the child generally did not work full time and that she lived with her mother, who paid her expenses. Under these circumstances, the child was not economically independent of her parents at the time of the hearing *(see Matter of Catabro v Catabro,*297 AD2d 808, 809 [2002]; *Matter of Jaffee v Jaffee,*202 AD2d 264, 264-265 [1994]).

The father’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.

Accordingly, the termination of the father’s obligation of support was not warranted, and the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. Dillon, J.R, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7108
BRETT C. KIMBERLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee.
No. 97-7452
BRETT C. KIMBERLIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1687-AW) Submitted: June 10, 1998 Decided: July 31, 19982 Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brett C. Kimberlin, Appellant Pro Se. Tamera Lynn Fine, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kimberlin v. United States Parole Comm’n , No. CA-97-1687-AW (D. Md. June 6, 20, and 27, 1997, and Aug. 29, 1997). Additionally, we grant Appellant’s motion to suplement the record. However, we deny Appellant’s motions for sanctions and Appellee’s motion to file a surreply. Further, we deny as moot Appellant’s motion for expedited disposition of his appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Hello, 

I am requesting an extension on the appeal record of trial cause number D-1-GN-15-000785. I am not 

able to prepare this in time. Thank you. Let me know if anything further action is needed. Thank you. 

Carissa Crocker, CSR, 8808
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Gregory, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J), imposed February 2, 2005, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, PJ., Miller, Crane, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### Ulman *v.*Chickering *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

January 16, 1888.)

Patents for Inventions—License—Action for Infringement—Equity Jurisdiction.

A licensee, claiming damages for past infringement of a patent,^ sued in equity in the name of the patentee. *Held,*that the court had no jurisdiction, as the remedy was at law.

In Equity. On defendants’ plea to the bill.

This action was brought by William F. Ulman, on behalf of Epaminondas Wilson, against Charles F. Chickering and another, to recover damages for the infringement of a patent. Defendants pleaded in bar to the suit. Plaintiff set down the plea for argument.

*I. D. Van Dmee,*for complainant.

*J. H.*Young, for defendants.

Colt, J.

This case now comes before the court on defendants’ plea to the bill which the plaintiff had set down for argument. The plea sets up in bar to the suit that the suit is prosecuted in the name of Ulman, by and on behalf of Wilson; that Wilson is the only party interested in prosecuting the suit; that his only interest in the patent in question is under and by virtue of the license granted him June 1, 1877, and that said license was revoked, and his said interest in the patent thereby terminated prior to filing the present bill, August 18,1880; and that it was so determined by this court in the suit brought by Ulman and his new licensees, Hammacher & Co., against said Wilson.

The only question before the court is the sufficiency in point of law of the facts set up in the plea to prevent the plaintiff’s recovery. The plea alleges that the license to Wilson was revoked August 13, 1880. Admitting the truth of this allegation, as the plaintiff does, for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the plea, the case is one in which the plaintiff’s only claim at the time of the filing of his bill, November 23, 1881, was for damages for past infringements, and, therefore, his remedy was at law, and not in equity. The case comes clearly within the decision of *Root*v. Railway, 105 U. S. 189, and *Hayward*v. *Andrews,*106 U. S. 672, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 544. There is no distinct equitable ground in the case that can give this court jurisdiction. The fact that Wilson was obliged to sue in the name of the patentee gives him no standing in equity, because he could sue at law in the name of the patentee. *Hayward*v. *Andrews, supra.*The argument of the plaintiff, that the plea sets up an estoppel by judgment which does not bind him because the parties are different, fails to meet the plea, because the plea also specifically alleges that the license was revoked at a certain date which was more than a year prior to the filing of this bill; and it is the admission of the truth of this allegation that is fatal to the bill. The grounds upon which the plaintiff seeks to distinguish this case from *583
      *Root*v. *Railway,*I do not think sufficient to take the case out from the principle there established. Nor in the other reasons urged by the plaintiff do I find any good ground for invoking equitable jurisdiction of the court.

The plea should be sustained and the bill dismissed *j*and it is so ordered.
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00569-CV

SHAWN WILLIAMS, SR. AND PLESHETTE WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND 

AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF SHAWN WILLIAMS, JR., JOE 

HOLLINGSHEAD, SHAY HOLLINGSHEAD, AND MARLENE HAWKINSON, 

Appellants

V.

THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, Appellee

Appeal from the 127th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2013-06741).

TO THE 127TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 5th day of May 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or to 

reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed 

by the trial court on June 24, 2014. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s judgment.
The Court orders that the appellants, Shawn Williams, 

Sr. and Pleshette Williams, Individually, and as 

Representatives of the Estate of Shawn Williams, Jr., Joe 

Hollingshead, Shay Hollingshead, and Marlene Hawkinson, 

jointly and severally, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered May 5, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and

Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Bland.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

July 17, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Nesbitt, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 764]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered on or about June 23, 2004, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making *426application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Tom, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
@article{1210651,
  author = {Velencia Witherspoon and Kanae Ito and Chad R. Snyder and Madhusudan (Madhu) Tyagi and Tyler Martin and Peter Beaucage and Ryan Nieuwendaal and Richard Vallery and David Gidley and Jeffrey Wilbur and Dean Welsh and Christopher Stafford and Christopher Soles},
  title = {Correlating the Diffusion of Water in Model Polyamides with Controlled Crosslink Densities to the Performance in Reverse Osmosis Membranes for Desalination},
  year = {2023},
  number = {678},
  month = {2023-04-18 04:04:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Membrane Science},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935733},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2023.121670},
  language = {en},
}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,991,695
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          70,611
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               314,652
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,181,889
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     46,392,855
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (520,953)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,528,783
<DEPOSITS>                                  45,267,171
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,744,188
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          4,168,761
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,749,070
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,919
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,384,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              57,528,783
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,074,994
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              661,117
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,736,111
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,675,469
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,208,083
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,528,028
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  260,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               7,715
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              7,867,874
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,410,742)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 (1,410,742)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,117,924)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.14
<LOANS-NON>                                    586,709
<LOANS-PAST>                                   534,896
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,667,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               297,783
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   83,265
<RECOVERIES>                                    46,435
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              520,953
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           520,953
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        110,000
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RAFAEL M. SERRANO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2758

[April 21, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Jeffrey J. Colbath, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2017-CF007885-AXXX-MB.

David J. Joffe of Joffe Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Bean v. State, 264 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

GROSS, CIKLIN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Card *v.*Hines.

*(District Court, E. D. South Carolina.*

December 28, 1887.)

Shipping—Ohaetek-Pakty—Action on—Pleading.

In an action on a charter-party, a copy thereof should be filed with the libel.

In Admiralty. Libel on charter-party *in personam.*

*J. N. Nathans,*for libelant.

*J. P. K. Bryan,*for respondent.

Simonton, J.

This is a motion by respondent that libelant he required to file with his libel a copy of the charter-party on which he brings suit. The libel states fully the articles in the charter-party; but it does not profess to set out the charter-party in full. The practice on this point docs not seem to be fixed. Mr. Benedict (2d Ed., form 105, p. 582) gives the form of a libel exactly like this, not accompanied by a copy of the charter-party. That is a libel *in personam,*and *in rem*for the violation of a charter. But in precedent 104, p. 579, in a form of libel *in personam*on a charter-party against the charterer for money, he annexes a copy of the charter-party, and craves reference thereto. In form 102, a libel on bill of lading, he adds “annex copy of bill of lading.” In form 101, libel on bottomry bond, he puts copy of bond as an exhibit. See, also, 2 Conk. Adm. form 108, p. 505, in which a copy of the charter-party is annexed as an exhibit. See, also, 2 Conk. Adm. 485. It cannot bo said that the libelant has violated any rule in omitting the copy. There, however, seems excellent reason for annexing it. As a matter of good practice, lot it be done in this case, and in all future cases within this jurisdiction.
Exhibit
32.1






Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


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 Green Irons Holdings Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"),
I, Sandy McDougall, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, President,
Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, and a member of the Board of
Directors 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:




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




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Green Irons Holdings Corp., and will be retained by Green Irons Holdings Corp.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.






Dated
this 15th day of December 2008.




/s/
      Sandy McDougallSandy
      McDougallChief
      Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer,
              President,
      Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, and a member of the
      Board of Directors
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-7083

ANDRE SYLVESTER WATTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-87-13-A, CA-96-784-AM)

Submitted: September 8, 1998

Decided: September 23, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Andre Sylvester Watts, Appellant Pro Se. Ellyn Marcus Lindsay,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a district court order that concluded his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)

was barred by the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 1998). Appellant's conviction became final in 1988, and

he filed his habeas motion on May 31, 1996. Appellant had until April

23, 1997 to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone, ___ F.3d

___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-

7208) (decided after the district court's order). Therefore, his motion

was not time barred. For these reasons, we grant a certificate of

appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and

remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
@article{1209646,
  author = {Arik Avagyan and Scott Glancy and Emanuel Knill},
  title = {Multi-mode Gaussian State Analysis with Total Photon Counting},
  year = {2023},
  number = {56},
  month = {2023-07-11 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Physics B},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935269},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/ace175},
  language = {en},
}
#### BARTER v. EASTERN S. S. LINES, Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 27, 1939.

Abraham M. Fisch, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Haight, Griffin, Deming & Gardner, of New York City (Arthur O. Louis, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

CONGER, District Judge.

Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that “Unless otherwise ordered by the court * * *, the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, * * and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts”.

As has been frequently pointed out by the judges interpreting Rule 26(b), great liberality is allowed in these examinations.

Therefore, applying this rule with the liberality with which it was intended to be applied, I allow and direct the witness to answer all of the questions except: “Q. Mr. Barter, will you give me the names of anybody who knows anything about your accident?” and “Q. What are the names of any of the ship’s officers or petty officers or members of the crew that know anything about how your accident happened?” I do not believe that the rule contemplates any such general question.

I am satisfied that the attorney, in advising the deponent not to answer the questions, did so in good faith and under the belief that the questions were improper, and therefore he should not. be liable for any expense incurred in obtaining the order herein.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Concho Resources Inc.
(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:      August 6, 2009
    /s/ Darin G. HoldernessDarin G. HoldernessVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)