alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[890 NYS2d 759]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Zapas, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

October 13, 2009

*92APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael Zapas,*appellant pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the judgment convicting defendant of failing to stop at a stop sign is affirmed; and it is further ordered that the judgments convicting defendant of improper use of an in-transit permit, driving without front or rear license plates and failing to display an inspection sticker are reversed, on the law, the sentences imposed thereunder are vacated, and the accusatory instruments charging these offenses are dismissed.

The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of failing to stop at a stop sign (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1172 [a]). Moreover, giving much deference to the trial court’s verdict, particularly with respect to its credibility determinations *(see People v Lane,*7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; *see also People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]), even as we conduct our own review of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we find that the verdict of guilt of failing to stop at a stop sign was not against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, said judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was also convicted of improper use of an in-transit permit (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401-a), driving without front or rear license plates (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 [1]) and failing to display an inspection sticker (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 [b]). We find that defendant’s vehicle bore a temporary New Jersey registration *(see*NJ Stat Ann § 39:3-4b), not an in-transit permit *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401-a), as it is undisputed that defendant’s vehicle bore “a State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles temporary nonresident sticker.” Under the circumstances, defendant was not subject to the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 (1) *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 252) or Vehicle and Traffic Law § 306 (b) *(see*15 NYCRR 79.2 [d] [8]).

Accordingly, the judgments of conviction for improper use of an in-transit permit, driving without front or rear license plates and failing to display an inspection sticker are re*93versed, and the accusatory instruments charging these offenses are dismissed.

Molía, J.E, Nicolai and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.
#### BETHLEHEM FABRICATORS, Inc., v. JOHN BOWEN CO.

Civ. A. No. 484.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

May 17, 1940.

*275Anthony Brayton, of Hale & Dorr, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Harry Bergson, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

SWEENEY, District Judge.

The plaintiff who is a subcontractor sued on his contract with the defendant, the John Bowen Co.

In addition to this right of action, the plaintiff could have had recourse to the performance bond furnished by the defendant and four sureties. No action was brought on this bond.

The defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim growing out of the contract on which the plaintiff sued. The plaintiff then filed a reply to the defendant’s counterclaim, and in it included a counterclaim of its own. This claimed relief under the performance bond and against the various sureties who were all doing business in Massachusetts, and asked that they be joined as parties defendant in this action.

The defendant has orally moved to strike the plaintiff’s counterclaim on the ground that Rule 13(a), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, applies only to defendants and involves compulsory counterclaims arising only out of the subject matter of the plaintiff’s complaint.

I am not persuaded that Rule 13(a) applies only to defendants for the rule uses the words “pleadings” and “pleader” rather than “answer” and “defendant”. If there is any ambiguity in the rule, recourse to the proceedings of the American Bar Ass’n. Institute in Washington and Cleveland indicates that the defendant’s contention is without merit. At page 247 of the Report of the Cleveland Symposium it is stated: “It is required rather generally in these rules as well as in the pleading reform of the present day that you should settle all matters that you start litigating in a single action.”

A glance at Rule 18 which was adopted contemporaneously with Rule 13 indicates that it was the intent of the framers of the New Rules to give the pleaders, that is, both the plaintiff and the defendant, the right to file a counterclaim, for, in that rule, it states: “ (a) The plaintiff in his complaint or in a reply setting forth a counterclaim and the defendant in an answer setting forth a counterclaim may join either as independent or as alternate claims * *

It seems therefore that Rule 13 permits this plaintiff to file the counterclaim, and I am persuaded that it should not be stricken. I think, with the defendant, that better practice would call for an amendment to the complaint rather than a counterclaim to a counterclaim (Downey v. Palmer, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 83), but the same results will be reached whichever course is pursued. See, also, Warren v. Indian Refining Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 281.

The question whether the plaintiff is compelled under Rule 13(a) to file this counterclaim is something that is left open.

The defendant’s motion to strike is denied, and the plaintiff’s motion that the Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, Continental Casualty Co., and Standard Accident Insurance Co., be joined as parties defendant is allowed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7889
LEVERN HENRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-2908) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Levern Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Appellant's motions to supplement the record and his motion to amend his informal brief, we deny his motion for a detailed inventory of the pleadings in the record on appeal andaffirm on the reasoning of the district court. Henry v. South Carolina , No. CA-95-2908 (D.S.C. Nov. 9, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT
      31.2**






**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**** **PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**






I,
      Joel
      D. Knudson, Vice President - Finance and Secretary of Criticare Systems, Inc.,
      certify that:





1. I
      have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Criticare Systems, Inc.;
      and





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: 
      October 30, 2006








/s/
      Joel D.
      Knudson




Vice
      President - Finance and Secretary
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Angela G. Clough v. Bryan S. Ryan

Appellate case number: 01-21-00474-CV

Trial court case number: 101576-F

Trial court: 300th District Court of Brazoria County

Appellant, Angela G. Clough, has filed a second “Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to 

File Parties’ Notification to Court of Mediator and Motion to Extend Deadline to Conduct 

Mediation.” Appellant’s motion is granted. The deadline for the parties to notify the Court of 

their selection of mediator is December 13, 2021. The deadline for the parties to conduct 

mediation is January 14, 2022.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss__________

Acting individually 

Date: November 23, 2021
****EXHIBIT 32.2****

 

****Certificationof Periodic Financial Report****

****Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350****

 

Forpurposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Dannette Boyd, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Integrated Management Information, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

 

(i)    the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,2009, 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)   the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  May 14, 2009                |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  Dannette Boyd                      |   |
| Dannette  Boyd, Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Exhibit
32.1



Certifications
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



The
undersigned, George Furlan, in his capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Intelligent
Buying, Inc. (the “Registrant”) does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant
for the period ended September 30, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
that, to the best of his 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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:
    November 23, 2020 | /s/
    George Furlan                                                                
|--------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                            | George
    Furlan                                                                    
|                            | Chief
    Executive Officer, President and Director
    (Principal Executive Officer)
|                            |                                                                                      
|                            |                                                                                      
|Date:
    November 23, 2020 | /s/
    George Furlan                                                                
|                            | George
    Furlan                                                                    
|                            | Chief
    Financial Officer
    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

SHANTICE TILLERY, IN HER OWN

RIGHT AND PARENT AND NATURAL

GUARDIAN ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR SON, SHAMIR D. TILLERY

v.

THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA, CHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC., MONIKA GOYAL, M.D., JOEL FEIN, M.D., KYLE NELSON, M.D.

PETITION OF: THE CHILDREN'S

HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA AND MONIKA GOYAL, M.D. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 227 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

The Application for Leave to File Reply is also DENIED

.
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

          - [TA-W-70,543]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 26, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Mercedes-Benz, MBUSI, Vance, Alabama.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-70,272) filed on May 20, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15752 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Guillermo Olmos Munoz v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00810

- CR

Trial court case number: 13CR0151

Trial court: 122nd District Court of Galveston County

The Court directs the Galveston County District Clerk to supplement the record filed in

the above

- referenced appeal with the following omitted exhibits , which the trial court admitted

into the evidence at trial and appellant designated for inclusion in the appellate record :

1. State’s Exhibit No. 1 (CD

– 911 call )

2. State’s Exhibit No. 2 (CD

– Store s urveillance )

See T EX

. R. A PP P. 34.6( b)(1 )

, 35.3

.

The exhibits must be filed in this Court no later than 10 days from the date of this

order

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 7, 2014
##### 



Exhibit 10.2
  CN
 CHICAGO CENTRAL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
  th /s/ JG
  CHICAGO CENTRAL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
  WESTERN IOWA ENERGY, LLC
 1




---



##### 



10th th April s/s JG
   RIGHT-OF-WAY
   OWNERSHIP, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS
   2




---



##### 



ADDITIONS, BETTERMENTS AND CHANGES TO TRACK
   SERVICE & USE
   CLEARANCES
  3




---



##### 



INDEMNIFICATION
   (i)
    
    Damage to or loss of use of any public or private property whatsoever;
contamination of or adverse effects on the environment; or any violation or alleged
violation of statutes, ordinances, orders, rules or regulations of any governmental
entity or agency, directly or indirectly caused by, or arising in whole or in part
out of, any act or omission of INDUSTRY, its employees, agents or representatives;(ii)
    
    Bodily injuries, including death, to any person whomsoever directly or
indirectly caused by, or arising in whole or in part out of, any act or omission of
INDUSTRY, its employees, agents or representatives;(iii)
    
    Bodily injuries, including death, to any trespasser or other third
party on the Track or associated right of way, regardless of any act or omission of
RAILROAD; and(iv)
    
    Violation by INDUSTRY of any provision of this Agreement.
   4




---



##### 



INSURANCE
    RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARS
  RESPONSIBILITY FOR LADING
  5




---



##### 



ASSIGNMENT
  USE OF TRACK BY THIRD PARTIES
  TERMINATION AND ABANDONMENT
  TRACK REMOVAL
  6




---



##### 



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
   GENERAL TERMS
     7




---



##### 



8




---



##### 



WESTERN IOWA ENERGY, LLC
    
    
    
    CHICAGO CENTRAL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.P.O. Box 399
    
    
    
    935 de la Gaurchetiere Street West Floor 8Wall Lake, Iowa
    
    
    
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada51466
    
    
    
    H3B 2M9By:
    
    s/s John Geake
    
    
    
    By:
    
    s/s Ghislain HouleName:
    
    John Geake
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Ghislain HouleTitle:
    
    Chairman
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Vice-President-Treasurer
 9




---



##### 



Sec. 18, T86N, R36W            Sec 19, T86N, R36W
County rd. M -64 Sec 24, T86N, R37W North CN Chicago Central & Pacific Railroad
Sidetrack Agreement with Western Source Energy
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 Archon Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year
ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Paul W. Lowden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Grant L. Siler, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, respectively, do
each hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:



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



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



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|Dated: September 15, 2010                        
|                                                 
|/s/ Paul W. Lowden                               
|Paul W. Lowden                                   
|Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
|                                                 
|/s/ Grant L. Siler                               
|Grant L. Siler                                   
|Principal Accounting Officer
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part IV – Particular Types of Compensation Payments

Chapter 3: Delegate Service and Other Exclusions to Creditable Compensation

1

Payments Not Considered Creditable Compensation

 

The following payments made to an employee by an employer are not considered creditable 

compensation under the RRA and the RUIA, and therefore should NOT be reported to the RRB: 

• Payments made by a national labor organization to delegates for attending the sectional, 

regional, or national convention. These earnings are considered non-railroad earnings and 

are subject to the monthly earnings limit for disabled employee annuitants.

 

• Earnings from a local lodge of less than $25 a month for services to a railway labor 

organization do not generate a service month and are not creditable as compensation. 

 

• Earnings of any amount for services to local lodges of railway labor organizations are not 

creditable as compensation under the RUIA. (Earnings of $25 or more a month for 

services to a local lodge are creditable as Tier I and Tier II compensation.) 

 

• Contributions and payments for pension or profit sharing under a plan which qualifies for 

exclusion from income under the Internal Revenue Code. (Note- This exclusion does not 

apply to amounts withheld from the employee's compensation for deposit into the 

pension plan in lieu of a wage increase, as negotiated with a labor union, including 

401(k) and 401(a) plans.) 

 

• The exercise of a statutory stock option. Under Public Law (P.L.) 108-357, effective with 

tax year 2002, the exercise of a statutory stock option does not yield creditable 

compensation under the RRA or RUIA. See PL 05-04, "Changes in Creditable 

Compensation for Stock Options". 

Reimbursements for employment-related expenses incurred where reimbursement is not subject 

to tax are not considered creditable compensation. For reimbursements to be excluded from 

compensation, documentation of expenses is required. The following reimbursements are not 

creditable compensation: 

• Educational assistance that is excluded from compensation under Section 127 of the 

Internal Revenue Code. 

 

• Allowances or provisions for meals and lodging which are excluded from compensation 

under Section 119 of the Internal Revenue Code. That section covers meals and lodging 

provided by the employer and usually on the employer's premises.

 

• Allowances or reimbursements for travel, meals, and lodging which are incurred while 

traveling in the business of the employer and where paid under a plan in which the 

employee must account for expenditures. Any expenditures not accounted for are 

creditable compensation.
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part IV – Particular Types of Compensation Payments

Chapter 3: Delegate Service and Other Exclusions to Creditable Compensation

2

• Reimbursement for moving expenses which are deductible under Section 217 of the 

Internal Revenue Code.