alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 132 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16521]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 20, 2009, Organix Inc., 
240 Salem Street, Woburn, Massachusetts 01801, made application by 
letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as 
a bulk manufacturer of Marihuana (7360), a basic class of controlled 
substance listed in schedule I.
    The company plans to manufacture a synthetic cannabinol in bulk for 
sale to its customers for research purposes. No other activity for this 
drug code is authorized for this registration.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than September 11, 2009.

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-16521 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Verlin Brown, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 887]

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ, concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Cook, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 558]

On appeal, the defendant challenges the validity of his plea on the ground that the Supreme Court failed to inform him that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision. Review of the record reveals that the court did inform the defendant of this condition at sentencing, but it failed to so inform *778him at the plea allocution. Under such circumstances, the defendant did not waive his challenge to the sufficiency to the plea allocution on direct appeal, despite the fact that he did not make a formal post-allocution motion to withdraw the plea or a motion to vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Louree,*8 NY3d 541 [2007]; *People v Pagan,*43 AD3d 1086 [2007]). Accordingly, as the People correctly concede, “the failure of a court to advise of postrelease supervision [at the time of the plea] requires reversal of the conviction” *(People v Catu,*4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]; *see People v Pagan,*43 AD3d at 1086).

In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Spolzino, J.P., Miller, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Title: BIG WET ASSES #17 Network: BitTorrent

SHA-1 Hash: 0F570BFFD01696FCB514C67DCCFE089AC3C6C68E Swarm Date: 10/3/2010

DOE# IP

First Hit 

UTC

Last Hit 

UTC City State ISP

1 68.36.179.152

9/28/2010 

18:36

10/21/2010 

3:54 Audubon NJ Comcast Cable

2 68.45.124.129

9/29/2010 

10:01

10/4/2010 

9:13 Tuckerton NJ Comcast Cable

3 69.248.171.151

9/28/2010 

19:17

10/13/2010 

10:37

Egg Harbor 

Township NJ Comcast Cable

4 69.115.112.206

10/3/2010 

3:04

10/6/2010 

22:48 Teaneck NJ Optimum Online

5 69.125.45.217

9/29/2010

3:02

10/8/2010 

4:26 Elizabeth NJ Optimum Online

6 108.14.90.15

9/28/2010 

17:53

10/30/2010 

0:03 Jersey City NJ Verizon Internet Services

7 108.21.183.13

9/30/2010 

1:48

10/31/2010 

1:58 Jersey City NJ Verizon Internet Services

8 72.82.193.34

9/28/2010 

15:54

10/14/2010 

1:26 Mount Laurel NJ Verizon Internet Services

9 98.109.42.86

10/3/2010 

2:37

10/3/2010 

4:19 Bloomfield NJ Verizon Internet Services

10 98.116.141.31

9/28/2010 

13:33

10/28/2010 

3:20 Jersey City NJ Verizon Internet Services

EXHIBIT A

NJ2

Case 1:11-cv-01512-JBS -AMD Document 1-1 Filed 03/16/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 13
Case 2:11-cv-00322-SDW-MCA Document 2 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 22
Exhibit 32



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Sole
Executive Officer of 4net Software, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies, that to his
knowledge:

         1) the Company's Form 10-K for the annual period ended September 30,
         2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2) the information contained in the Company's Form 10-K for the annual
         period ended September 30, 2009 fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
         Company.


 December 29, 2009


                                           /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Steven N. Bronson, President
**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 Kinder Travel, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        Daniel
        L. Baxter, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
        ss.
        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 Company.
  /s/ 
                  Daniel L. BaxterDaniel
                  L. Baxter
                Principal
                  Executive Officer
                
                November
                  8, 2007
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13a-14
PROMULGATED UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 /s/ William P. MoffittWilliam P. MoffittPresident and Chief Executive Officer
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAR 06, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15887 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 1 9 0 - C R - 2 - K O B - T MP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R E G I N A L D D E W A Y N E H U T C H E R S O N , a .k .a . M a in M a in , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 6, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J o s e p h A . I n g r a m , ap p o in te d c o u n s e l f o rR e g in a ld D e w a y n e H u tc h e r s o n in2

thi s di r e c tc r i m i na l appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the appe l l a nta nd f

i l e d abr i e f

pur s ua ntt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 13 96 , 18 L . E d. 2d 49 3 (19 67 ). O ur i nd ependentre vi ew of the ent i re re cord r e v e a ls th a t c o u n s e l’s a s s e s s m e n t o f th e r e la tiv e m e r it o f

th e ap p e a l is c o rr e c t. B e c aus e i nde pe nde nte xa m i na t i on of the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s no a r guabl e i s s ue s of m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd H ut c he r s on’ s c onvi c t i ons and sent ence s are A FFI R M ED . W e a l so construe H ut cher son’ s r es po nse l ett eras am o tio n f

o rap p o in tm e n t o f

n e w c o u n s e l a n d am o tio n f o re x te n s io n o f

tim e to f ile ar e s pons e br i e f

a nd DE NY th o se m o t i o n s.
An unpublisHed order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAVONNE A. KOLENDER, No. 68217

Appellant,

vs.

DENNIS KOLENDER,

Respondent. FI L E D
JUL 27 2015

TRACIE K. LINDEMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

BERUTY CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This appeal was docketed in this court on June 16, 2015,
without payment of the requisite filing fee. On that same day a notice was
issued directing appellant to pay the filing fee within ten days. The notice
further advised that failure to pay the filing fee within ten days would
result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not paid the
filing fee or otherwise responded to this court’s notice. Accordingly, cause
appearing, this appeal is dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
TRACIE K. LINDEMAN

By: MOU Pdi

ce: Hon. Linda Marquis, District Judge, Family Court Division
Lavonne A. Kolender
Dale E. Haley
Eighth District Court Clerk

Supreme Court
OF
NevADA

CLERK'S ORDER

(0197 GRR (S-22G43 _|
#### W. C. Olson v. The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Trego.

No. 152.

Office and Officers — *County Commissioner.*Where the term of office of a member of the board of county commissioners has expired, and his successor has been duly elected and qualified and is ready and willing to perform the duties of the office, the person whose term has expired has no color of right to the office and his pretended official acts are void.

Error from Trego district court; Lee Monroe, judge.

Opinion filed October 17, 1898.

Affirmed.

*Allen*Cox, for plaintiff in error.

*S. M. Iiutzel,*county attorney, for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wells, J.:

Prior to the second Monday of January, 1897, John P. Marquand was county commissioner of the first district of Trego county for the term ending at that time. A. P. Hinshaw was commissioner of the second district and held over. F. C. Swiggett was commissioner of the third district and held over. At the general election held in November, 189G, Joshua Musgrove and John F. Barclay were the opposing candidates to succeed Marquand and were the only persons voted for to fill the office. Musgrave received the certificate of election. Barclay contested, and on January 9, 1897, the contest court decided in his favor. Musgrave filed Ms official bond and oath of office November .14, 1896, and Barclay filed his official bond and oath on January 9, 1897. On January 11, 1897, it being the second Monday of January and the-beginning of the new term of office, Barclay, as commissioner from' the first district, and Hinshaw *415from the second, met, elected Hinshaw as chairman, and proceeded to transact business as the board of county commissioners, and among other things let the county printing to the *Western World,*Swiggett, the commissioner from the third district, refusing to act with them. Later in the same day, Swiggett, the county clerk and Marquand organized a pretended board of county commissioners, and among other business let the county printing to the plaintiff in error, and this action was brought to recover pay therefor under said contract. The action was tried in the court below without a jury, and the issues were found for the defendant generally and judgment rendered accordingly. To reverse this the cause is brought to this court.

The only question necessary to consider is, Was John P. Marquand county commissioner *de facto*-of Trego county at the time the county printing was claimed to have been let to the plaintiff ? The supreme court has held that two persons cannot be officers *de facto*for the same office at the same time. *(McCahon v. Comm’rs of Leavenworth Co.,*8 Kan. 437.) Marquand’s term of office had expired and his successor had been elected and qualified. Either Musgrave or Barclay was commissioner *de jure*of that district, and Barclay was such *defacto.*Marquand had no claim to the office. In order to constitute a person an officer *de facto,*he must hold the office under some appearance or color of right.

The judgment of the court below was correct and is affirmed.
#### Tatyana Ferraro, Respondent, v Ridge Car Service et al., Appellants.

[854 NYS2d 408]

The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Ón appeal, the plaintiff claims that her submissions raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member and/or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system, as set forth in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). To establish that she sustained an injury that falls within either of these categories of serious injury, the plaintiff was required to show the duration of the alleged injury and the extent or degree of the limitations associated therewith *(see Lee v Fischer,*244 AD2d 389 [1997]; *Beckett v Conte,*176 AD2d 774 [1991]). While the plaintiff submitted evidence of a recent examination in which significant limitations in cervical and lumbar ranges of motion were noted by her treating osteopath, she failed to proffer competent medical evidence of any range-of-motion limitations in her spine that were contemporaneous with the subject accident *(see D’Onofrio v Floton, Inc.,*45 AD3d 525 [2007]; *Morales v Daves,*43 AD3d 1118 [2007]; *Rodriguez v Cesar,*40 AD3d 731 [2007]; *Borgella v D & L Taxi Corp.,*38 AD3d 701 [2007]). Thus, in the absence of contemporaneous findings of range-of-motion limitations in her spine, the plaintiff was unable to establish the duration of the injury.

Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor her treating osteopath adequately explained the significant gap in treatment between May 2005, when, based on the plaintiff’s assertions, she was last treated by a chiropractor and March 2007, when she was examined by her treating osteopath in direct response to the *499defendants’ motion for summary judgment *(see Siegel v Sumaliyev,*46 AD3d 666 [2007]; *Yudkovich v Boguslavsky,*11 AD3d 607 [2004]). Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: TONY RODRIGUEZ,

 Relator.

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-16-00324-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this cause on the Relator=s petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Laura Strathmann, Judge of the 388th District Court of El Paso County, 

Texas, and the Honorable Jesus Rodriguez, Associate Judge, and concludes that Relator=s 

petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 April 1, 2009 Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 07-4014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FREDIANDO CONTRERAS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 06 CR 30083 Michael J. Reagan, Judge

.

O R D E R On consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by Defendant-Appellant on December 18, 2008, the panel’s order dated December 4, 2008 is hereby AMENDED . The fourth and fifth sentences of the opening paragraph are deleted. In all other respects, all members of the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED .
Case 3:10-cv-03269-AET -LHG Document 29 Filed 02/22/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 121
Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC   Document 142   Filed 11/21/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 769

Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC   Document 142   Filed 11/21/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 770
Case 2:11-cv-00623-KSH -PS Document 28 Filed 02/24/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 154
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID ESPINOZA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00268-CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120D03772)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until 

September 4, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza, the State’s Attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 4, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of July, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 58 Filed 12/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 319
#### Great Plains Capital Corporation, Appellant, v Narinder Bindra, Doing Business as Banc Enterprises, et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 589]

*501On October 18, 2006, the plaintiffs attorney failed to appear for a court-ordered deposition of the defendant Narinder Bindra. On the same day, the defendants’ attorney made an oral application before the Supreme Court to dismiss the action based on the “failure to prosecute.” The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ oral application and issued an order dated October 23, 2006, directing dismissal of the action with prejudice. By notice of motion dated January 3, 2007, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, to vacate the order dated October 23, 2006. The Supreme Court denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to vacate.

The dismissal of the action with prejudice was a nullity since the defendants’ oral application to dismiss the action was made without notice to the plaintiff and an opportunity to be heard *(see Xand Corp. v Reliable Sys. Alternatives Corp.,*35 AD3d 849, 850 [2006]; *Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr.,*15 AD3d 375 [2005]). Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to vacate the order dated October 23, 2006, directing dismissal of the action with prejudice, should have been granted. Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 2
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 3
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 4
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 5
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 6
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 7
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 8
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 9
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 10
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 11
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 12
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 13
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 14
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 15
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 16
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 17
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 18
Case 3:11-cr-00161-AET Document 1 Filed 03/17/11 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ROBERT J. BARKER AND DIANE B.

BARKER, HUSBAND AND WIFE,

 Petitioners

 v.

DAHLKEMPER LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECTS & CONTRACTORS, INC.,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 18 WAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
# cawgt20