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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

806 

CA 14-01792 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

JASON P. SADOWSKI, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, 

V ORDER

FORBES HOMES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

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

FORBES HOMES, INC., AND FORBES HOMES, INC., 

DOING BUSINESS AS FORBES-CAPRETTO HOMES, 

THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V

 

WETZEL DEVELOPMENT, LLC, THIRD-PARTY 

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (MAURICE L. SYKES OF

COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP, BUFFALO (MICHAEL T. GLASCOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR

THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme

Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered February 18, 2014. 

The order and judgment granted contractual indemnification to

third-party plaintiffs against third-party defendant and denied the

motion of third-party defendant to set aside a directed verdict and to

dismiss the third-party complaint. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by the attorneys for the parties on June 30 and July 7, 2015,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: July 10, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.2
                            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 Green Irons Holdings Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,
Sandy McDougall, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(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.

Dated this 14th day of December, 2007.

/s/ SANDY MCDOUGALL
-------------------
Sandy McDougall
Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-01018-CV

Ricky D. Parker and James Myers 

v.

Schlumberger Technology Corporation

NO. 14-DCV-218252 IN THE 268TH DISTRICT COURT OF FORT BEND COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

CLK RECORD

RPT RECORD

STATEWIDE EFILING

FILING

MT FEE

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$314.00

$4,500.00

$20.00

$175.00

$10.00

09/03/2015

08/28/2015

06/23/2015

03/20/2015

03/09/2015

01/08/2015

01/02/2015

12/29/2014

12/29/2014

12/29/2014

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$5,069.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment
I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this December 4, 2015.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robin C. Stracey, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cesca Therapeutics Inc.;
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                            

|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: | September 24, 2015 | By: | /s/Robin C. Stracey         | 
|----- | ------------------ | --- | --------------------------- | 
|      |                    |     | Chief Executive Officer     | 
|      |                    |     | Principal Executive Officer |
#### Henry White, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Consolidated Edison, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 533]

*515Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J., and a jury), entered March 24, 2005, in favor of defendant and against plaintiff dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The challenged videotape depicts plaintiff on the day of the accident slowly riding a motorcycle at an event for motorcycle enthusiasts at which some of the participants were performing dangerous stunts. While the tape does not contradict plaintiff s testimony that his motorcycle lost traction because of pebbles or gravel in the street near defendant utility’s excavation, nevertheless, given the eyewitness testimony that plaintiff himself performed stunts—indeed, one eyewitness testified that the accident occurred as plaintiff was performing a stunt—the tape was properly admitted as relevant to plaintiffs credibility *(see generally Boyarsky v Zimmerman Corp.,*240 App Div 361, 366 [1934]; *cf. Zegarelli v Hughes,*3 NY3d 64, 69 [2004]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Malone, JJ.
Program 

Letter

United States Railroad 

Retirement Board

Office of Programs

Office of Programs

Quality Reporting Service Center

 Phone: (312) 751-4992

 Fax: (312) 751-7190

e-mail: qrsc@rrb.gov

Letter No. 1998-03 Date: December 18, 1997

TO: Certification Contact Officials

SUBJECT: Change in SSA's Form W-2 Instructions for Railroad and Labor Employers

Please share this information with the appropriate members of your staff who file service 

and compensation reporting forms for employees of your organization.

Many of you are already aware that there is a new requirement that tier tax information be shown 

in Box 14 of Form W-2. The Railroad Retirement Board, although familiar with the issue, was not 

notified of the new requirement. As a result, we could not alert you to the change prior to it 

appearing in the instructions for the 1997 Form W-2.

We advised the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that, without advance notification, there may be 

insufficient time for some employers to make the change in their 1997 Forms W-2. We requested 

that no penalties be imposed this year and IRS agreed. We also asked that the requirement clearly 

state that Tier I and Tier II taxes only are required in Box 14.

What change do I have to make on Forms W-2?

Employers who are covered under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) are to report in Box 

14 of Forms W-2 the amount of Tier I and Tier II tax withheld. In addition to the Tier I and Tier 

II tax withheld, you may include in Box 14 optional information such as Medicare tax, Tier I and 

Tier II compensation.

Why was this Change Made?

The Tier I and Tier II tax information is needed by employees who also work for another employer 

in the year and where the combined earnings exceed the Tier II earnings base. The employees must 

include this information with their income tax return in order to receive a tax credit for the taxes 

withheld in excess of the annual limit. If this information is not included on Forms W-2, the income 

tax credit is disallowed.
#### Jo Ann HOFFMANN, Appellant, v. *693Michael LEAVITT,1 Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee.

No. 05-1600.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 5, 2006.

Decided: July 10, 2006.

Jo Ann Hoffmann, Bella Vista, AR, pro se.

Mark Winston Webb, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

1

. Michael Leavitt has been appointed to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

PER CURIAM.

Jo Ann Hoffmann appeals the district court’s2 judgment upholding the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying certain claims for benefits under Part B of the Medicare program. Following careful review, we agree with the district court that the Secretary’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. *See*42 U.S.C. § 405(g); 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(b)(l)(A). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. Hoffmann’s pending motions are denied.

2

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
Order entered July 14, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01122-CR

VICENTE ALEJANDRO PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-62649-N

ORDER

On June 24, 2015, the Court sent the parties a letter questioning our jurisdiction over the 

appeal. Specifically, we noted that sentence was imposed in open court on July 9, 2014 and no 

motion for new trial was filed. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due by August 8, 

2014. Appellant’s notice of appeal is file-stamped August 22, 2014, nothing in the record reflects 

that it was mailed on or before August 8, 2014, and no extension motion was filed in this Court 

within fifteen days of August 8, 2014. In response, appellant filed a letter brief seeking a thirtyday extension of time to supplement the record with documentation to support this Court’s 

jurisdiction. The State responds that it does not oppose the extension.

We GRANT the extension as follows. We ORDER appellant to file, within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental record that contains documentation that 
establishes the date, if any, on which appellant’s notice of appeal was mailed to the trial court. 

That documentation may be submitted in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.2. If the court does not receive the required documentation with the time specified, we will, 

without further notice, dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2

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 Intcomex, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Russell A. Olson, Chief Financial Officer of Intcomex, Inc., 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.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: August 17, 2007.



/s/ Russell A. OlsonRussell A. OlsonChief Financial Officer


The certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, or as a separate disclosure documents of the Company or the certifying officers.
### The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, United States District Judge 1 

### for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.



# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3140

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Steven J. Barnett, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 14, 1997 Filed: April 3, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and KOPF, District 1 Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Steve nJ. Barnett appeals from his conviction of bank robbery, 1 8 U.S.C. § 2113(a), contending that the evidence w as insufficient to support the conviction in lig ht of the fact that the bank employees were not able to identify him at the lineup conducted on the evening of the day of the robbery. Notwithstanding the misidentification, which may well have been the result of Barnett’s having shaved off his beard between the time of the mid-morning robbery and the evening lineup, there was ample, if indeed not overwhelming evidence that Barnett was the p erson who robbed the bank.

### -2- The judgment of conviction is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60939 Summary Calendar

**Sudhir Oli,**

Petitioner **,**

versus
**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A216 264 704

Before **Smith, Dennis,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Sudhir Oli, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing h is

a ppeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) finding him not credible and denying h is application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief unde r the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for substantial

* This opinion is not desig nated for publication. See **5th Ci r.**  **R**

**.** 47.5

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 23, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60939 Document: 00516653246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023No. 21

- 60939

2 evidence and will not disturb the BIA’s conclusions unless the evidence compels a c ontrary c onclusion

. Singh v. Sessions , 880 F.3d 220, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 2018). As the BIA explained, there were inconsistencies between Oli ’s statement to the asylum officer during his credible fear interview (CFI) and his hearing testimony. The inconsistenc ies were a sufficient basis for the contested credibility determination. Se e Arulnanthy v. Garland , 17 F.4th 586, 593 (5th Cir. 2021) ; Avelar

- Oliva v. Barr , 954 F.3d 757, 767 (5th Cir. 2020); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)

. Insofar as Oli insists that the IJ’s rejection of his CAT claim necessarily incorporated the adverse credibi lity determination, the record shows that he is wrong

. See Arulnanthy , 17 F.4th
at 597

- 98. The petition for review is **DENIED**

. Case: 21-60939 Document: 00516653246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Focus Gold Corporation, (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:  (1)    The quarterly report on form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended November 30, 2013 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and  (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Dated: January 21, 2014By:/s/ Michael GelmonMichael Gelmon
Chief Executive and Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Patricia Dowd, as Administratrix of the Estate of Carlos Pinto, Deceased, Appellant, v Luisa Pinto, Respondent and Third-Party Petitioner-Respondent. Mario Pinto, Third-Party Respondent-Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 756]

Although it is well settled that the determination of a guardian’s fee (SCPA 405 [1]) is within the sound discretion of the Surrogate *(Matter of Hassett,*47 AD2d 569, 570 [1975]), the *265brief and conclusory decision herein lacks any indication as to the factors considered by the Surrogate and the weight given to each *(Matter of Burk,*6 AD2d 429 [1958]; *cf. Matter of Schneider,*24 AD3d 225 [2005]). Without this, we are unable to render meaningful review of the compensation granted. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Buckeye GP Holdings L.P.; and2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report.
 MAINLINE MANAGEMENT LLC, as general partner of
the registrantDate:  August 26, 2010
    /s/  KEITH E. ST.CLAIRKeith E. St.ClairChief Financial Officer
FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/14/2015 9:03:59 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                                  USB CAPITAL V



     THIS Certificate of Amendment of USB Capital V (the "Trust"), is being duly
executed and filed by the undersigned trustee to amend a business trust formed
under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. ss. 3801 et seq.).


     1.   Name. The name of the business trust amended hereby is USB Capital V.


     2.   Amendment of Trust. The Certificate of Trust of the Trust is hereby
          amended by changing the name and address of the Trustee in the State
          of Delaware to:


          First Union Trust Company, National Association
          One Rodney Square
          920 King Street, Suite 102
          Wilmington, Delaware 19801


     3.   Effective Date. This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective upon
          filing.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned trustee of the Trust has executed this
Certificate of Amendment in accordance with Section 3811(a)(2) of the Act.






                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Lee R. Mitau
                                       not in his individual capacity but solely
                                       as Administrative Trustee
S04Y1748.

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIE J. LINAHAN.

(602 SE2d 638)

Decided September 13, 2004.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, K. Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to Respondent Willie J. Linahan’s petition for voluntary surrender of license in which Linahan admits that on February 24, 2004 he pled guilty to violating 18 USC § 1341 (mailfraud) and 18 USC § 1344 (bankfraud), both felony violations of the United States Code, and that the entry of judgment on this plea constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d), the maximum penalty for which is disbarment. Linahan requests that he be allowed to voluntarily surrender his license to practice law and asserts his understanding that a voluntary surrender is tantamount to disbarment.

We have reviewed the record and agree to accept Linahan’s petition for the voluntary surrender of his license. Accordingly, the name of Willie J. Linahan hereby is removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Linahan is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB program for Ohio.

The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EB status:
      - Ohio has modified its law by adding a total unemployment rate (TUR) trigger retroactive to February 22, 2009. As a result, Ohio has retroactively triggered “on” to a high unemployment period (HUP) for weeks of unemployment beginning March 15, 2009, and eligible unemployed workers will be able to collect up to an additional 20 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits.

## Information for Claimants

The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an HUP, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each individual who may be eligible for increased benefits due to the HUP (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)). Persons who wish to inquire about their rights under the program should contact their State Workforce Agency.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Frances Perkins Building, Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is not a toll-free number) or by e-mail:                         *gibbons.scott@dol.gov.*

Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of June 2009.

Douglas F. Small,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.

[FR Doc. E9-15165 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P