alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Steven Lashway, Appellant, v Steven Wenderlich, as Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 268]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hayden, J.), entered June 28, 2013 in Chemung County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In 1990, petitioner was convicted of three counts of rape in the second degree and was sentenced to lOVa to 21 years in prison as a second felony offender *(People v Lashway,*187 AD2d *1200747 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 842 [1993]). He was paroled in 2007 and civilly confined *(Matter of State of New York v Lashaway,*100 AD3d 1372 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 861 [2013]). Petitioner was subsequently convicted in 2008 of assault in the third degree and received a sentence of one year in jail. Thereafter, his parole was revoked and he was reincarcerated on the 1990 convictions. In June 2013, petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding contending that his commitment had expired. Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application and he now appeals.

During the pendency of this appeal, petitioner was released from the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, having reached the maximum expiration date of his sentence. Accordingly, this appeal is moot *(see People ex rel. VanGuilder v Fischer,*79 AD3d 1499, 1499 [2010]; *People ex rel. Brown v LaClair,*74 AD3d 1642, 1643 [2010]).

Peters, PJ., Lahtinen, Stein, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Meralla, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 402]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Covington, J.), rendered on or about October 20, 1996, unanimously affirmed.

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

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application 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 thirty (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— Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

QUINTON FERGUSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 267 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.1







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 Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guohua Sun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; 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/ Guohua Sun                     
|-----------------------------------
|Guohua Sun, Chief Executive Officer
|November 15, 2016
#### Felipa DE LOS ANGELES-MORENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73234.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Adolfo Ojeda-Casimiro, Ojeda Law, Duvall, WA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Colin J. Tucker, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Felipa De Los Angeles-Moreno, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, upholding the immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

De Los Angeles-Moreno contends that she suffered persecution because she was harassed by gangs in El Salvador, and she is entitled to asylum and withholding relief. Petitioner’s refusal to comply with the gang’s extortion demands does not constitute a political opinion. *See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008) (holding that general aversion to gangs does not constitute a political opinion for asylum purposes). Petitioner does not allege she was part of a social group, and otherwise fails to establish that she was eligible for asylum or withholding relief.

We need not reach De Los AngelesMoreno’s contention that the immigration *757judge erred in finding that she was not credible, where the BIA did not reach the issue due to petitioner’s failure to establish her eligibility for asylum.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED   CONDENSED   CONSOLIDATED   FINANCIAL   STATEMENTS  INCLUDED  IN  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-Q  FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.


</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001016439
<NAME>                        Intelligroup, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         3,425
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  30,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,088
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               35,756
<PP&E>                                         5,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                 830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 42,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,372
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       120
<OTHER-SE>                                     34,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   42,128
<SALES>                                        27,323
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,323
<CGS>                                          17,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,891
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (80)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,569
<INCOME-TAX>                                   727
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,842
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,842
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.15 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.15 <F2>
<FN>
<F1>      This amount represents Basic Earnings per Share in accordance with the
          requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting Standards No. 128 -
          "Earnings per Share".

<F2>      This amount  represents  Diluted Earnings per Share in accordance with
          the  requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards No.
          128 - "Earnings per Share".
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<MULTIPLIER>1

<CAPTION>
Exhibit 27: Financial Data Schedule
<S>									<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>						12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>					DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>						JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>						DEC-31-1997
<CASH>								17,243,668
<SECURITIES>						0
<RECEIVABLES>						14,483,090
<ALLOWANCES>						0
<INVENTORY>							337,001
<CURRENT-ASSETS>					33,782,488
<PP&E>								668,464,373
<DEPRECIATION>						35,504,414
<Total Assets>						735,968,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>				23,392,756
<BONDS>								611,514,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>				0
<PREFERRED>							0
<COMMON>							0
<OTHER-SE>							0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>		735,968,011
<SALES>								162,962,195
<TOTAL-REVENUES>					162,962,195
<CGS>								78,638,733
<TOTAL-COSTS>						93,859,388
<Other-Costs>						9,535,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>					0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>					59,390,569
<Income-before-taxes>				18,008,777
<INCOME-TAX>						0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>					18,008,777
<DISCONTINUED>						0
<EXTRAORDINARY>						0
<CHANGES>							0
<NET-INCOME>						18,008,777
<EPS-PRIMARY>						0
<EPS-DILUTED>						0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20733 Summary Calendar

ANTHONY ATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; HASSEL R. TERRY, Warden; STELLA L. WILKERSON; CHERRYL J. PAULK, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-94-3604

- - - - - - - - - - April 25, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Anthony Atkins, Texas state prisoner # 560931, requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. On January 9, 1997, Chief Judge Politz ordered Atkins to file an affidavit for leave to proceed IFP on appeal pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The order held Atkins’ appeal in abeyanceNo. 96-20733 - 2 - for 30 days pending payment of the $105 filing fee or submittal of the required documents pursuant to the PLRA. Atkins timely responded; however, the documentation submitted by Atkins does not comply with the requirements imposed by the PLRA because he did not submit information regarding his prison trust account for the required six-month period. See § 1915(a), (b). Accordingly, Atkins’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3. Should Atkins wish to reinstate his appeal, he is instructed to pay the $105 filing fee to the clerk of the district court within 30 days from the date of this order.
MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated January 23, 1998 in the registration statements
on Form S-8 (No. 333-24217, No. 333-50189, and No. 333-59615) of Brooke Group
Ltd., relating to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
investment and cash flows of Thinking Machines Corporation and subsidiaries for
the year ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1999
annual report on Form 10-K of New Valley Corporation.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 30, 2000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6916

KEVIN ORLANDO SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-99-1544-AM)

Submitted: January 5, 2001 Decided: January 18, 2001

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Orlando Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Orlando Smith appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Smith v. Director, Virginia Dep’t. of

Corrections, No. CA-99-1544-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 25 & May 30, 2000).

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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



Exhibit 31.3 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, P. Chrisman Iribe, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 of Indiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation;  2
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state 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;  3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  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.
    
    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 in this report based on such
evaluation; andc.
    
    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  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    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. Date: March 29, 2004 /s/ P. CHRISMAN IRIBEP. Chrisman IribePresidentIndiantown Cogeneration Funding Corporation
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                              List of Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                           Name of Subsidiary                                      State of Incorporation
                           ------------------                                      ----------------------
   <S>                                                                             <C>
              Medirisk of Illinois, Inc. (formerly known as                               Indiana
                    Formations in Health Care, Inc.)

   Medirisk of Missouri, Inc. (formerly known as PracticeMatch, Inc.)                     Missouri

                               CIVS, Inc.                                                 Maryland

                         CareData Reports, Inc.                                           New York

                             Medsource, Inc.                                              Minnesota
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                   ----------

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Years Ended March 31,
                                         -----------------------
                                         1999      1998     1997
                                         ----      ----     ----
<S>                                      <C>      <C>      <C>

Weighted average number
  of common shares outstanding used
  in basic EPS calculation               209,786  212,602  215,491

Add common stock equivalents
  for shares issuable under
  Stock Option Plans                       3,566    1,026     -
                                         -------  -------  -------

Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding adjusted for common
  stock equivalents                      213,352  213,628  215,491
                                         =======  =======  =======

Net income                              $157,364  142,177   73,949
Basic earnings per share                $    .75      .67      .34
Diluted earnings per share              $    .74      .67      .34
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 193 (Friday, October 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 46831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21765]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-17-048]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date:  October 16, 2017 at 2:30 p.m.

Place:  Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 
1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-480 and 731-TA-1188 (Review) (High Pressure 
Steel Cylinders from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to 
complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by 
October 31, 2017.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 4, 2017.
William R. Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-21765 Filed 10-4-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P