alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lehman Brothers, Inc., Formerly Known as Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. Formerly Known as Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Hughes Hubbard & Reed, L. L. P., Respondent.

[665 NYS2d 900]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 24, 1997, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for review an order of the same court and Justice, entered December 3,1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order is unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

The IAS Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint, sounding in legal malpractice, as time-barred. Plaintiffs’ prior Texas State court action is not a “prior action” within the meaning of CPLR 205 (a) *(see, Talarico v Crimmins Contr. Co.,*1995 US Dist LEXIS 10053, *6-7, [SD NY, July 18, 1995, Patterson, J.], citing *Baker v Commercial Travelers Mut. Acc. Assn.,*3 AD2d 265). Even if it were, plaintiffs’ New York action, commenced more than six months after the termination *204of the Texas action, is still time-barred *(Cohoes Hous. Auth. v Ippolito-Lutz, Inc.,*65 AD2d 666, *affd*49 NY2d 961; *see, Santulli v Englert, Reilly & McHugh,*78 NY2d 700). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,502
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,525
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,302
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,698
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,698)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,698)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Corindus Vascular
Robotics, Inc. S-1/A

 


 Exhibit 10.31


 


[***] Certain information in this document has been omitted
and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the
omitted portions. 


 





 






    	 



    	 



    

 





 


[***]
Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential
treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET 
AT JANUARY 31, 1997 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                             613
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       22
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,289
<PP&E>                                         555,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 564,241
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          408,307
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      81,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   564,241
<SALES>                                         10,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,857
<CGS>                                           11,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,852
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,406
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,406
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,406
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Jesus HERNANDEZ-ANDRADE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70452.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*722Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

David Nicholas Harling, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Xavier Rosas, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents.

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 **

Jesus Hernandez-Andrade, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft,*382 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir.2004), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Hernandez-Andrade’s contention, his conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) is categorically a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). *See Banuelos-Ayon v.*
      *723
      *Holder,*611 F.3d 1080, 1083-1086 (9th Cir.2010).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance where Hernandez-Andrade did not demonstrate good cause. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant motion for a continuance for good cause shown); *Baires v. INS,*856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th Cir.1988). It follows that Hernandez-Andrade’s due process challenge fails. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
DIGITAL DESCRIPTOR SYSTEMS, INC.

                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 Digital Descriptor Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Pellegrino, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Digital Descriptor Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Digital
Descriptor Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

                                        Date: September 12, 2006


                                        /s/ Michael Pellegrino
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Michael Pellegrino
                                        Chief Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 24, 2014

NO. 03-14-00220-CV

Nandita Berry, in her Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas, 

Appellant

v.

Texas Democratic Party and Gilberto Hinojosa in his Official Capacity as Chair of 

The Texas Democratic Party, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

REVERSED AND DISMISSED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on March 18, 2014. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible 

error in the court’s interlocutory order. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s 

interlocutory order and renders judgment dismissing the claims of the Texas Democratic Party 

and Gilberto Hinojosa in his Official Capacity as Chair of The Texas Democratic Party for want 

of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellees shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in 

this Court and the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2913 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2913

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton 
Street in Key West, Florida, as the ``Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 
                             Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton Street in Key 
West, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Sidney M. 
Aronovitz United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sidney M. 
Aronovitz United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2913

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton 
Street in Key West, Florida, as the ``Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 
                             Courthouse''.
```
#### MALICO INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COOLER MASTER USA INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2010-1459.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 16, 2011.

Philip P. Mann, Mann Law Group, of Seattle, WA, for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel on the brief was John E. Whitaker, Whitaker Law Group, of Seattle, WA.

Paul T. Meiklejohn, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, of Seattle, WA, argued for defendant-appellee.

*992Before NEWMAN, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,340
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,254
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     59,145
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,344
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,375
<LOANS>                                        145,852
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,675
<DEPOSITS>                                     183,520
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,631
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 225,675
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,960
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  832
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    89
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,881
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,591
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,591
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,290
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    812
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         538
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       538
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.61
<LOANS-NON>                                        393
<LOANS-PAST>                                       129
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   3552
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,776
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       86
<RECOVERIES>                                       108
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,798
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,798
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SE Global Equities Corp. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended March 31, 2002, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Tim Leong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)  of the Securities 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  Partnership.

 

| Date: May      15, 2003 | /s/ Tim Leong      _______________________      Tim Leong, Chief Financial Officer |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL 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  filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year  ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") by Intervest Bancshares Corporation
(the  "Company"),  the  undersigned,  as  the  principal executive and principal
financial  officers of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that,  to  our  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/  Jerome Dansker
-------------------
Jerome Dansker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
February 23, 2006

/s/ Lowell S. Dansker
---------------------
Lowell S. Dansker, Vice Chairman, President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
February 23, 2006




A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or  otherwise adopting the signatures
that  appear  in  typed  form  within  the  electronic  version  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.
Exhibit
32.2



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO

THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER



I,
Vincent De Lorenzo, certify that:

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital Creative Development Corporation for the quarter ending September
30, 2012 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; and
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|Date | December 17, 2012             
|---- | ------------------------------
|By:  | /s/
    Vincent De Lorenzo    
|     | Name: Vincent De Lorenzo      
|     | Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kyron William GEANES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7436.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 5, 2011.

Kyron William Geanes, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kyron Geanes appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Geanes,*1:04-cr-00425-LMB-l (E.D.Va. Sept. 29, 2010). 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
STATE OF TEXAS gw fcagglH^ . PENALTY FOR wife®??5K£Kl!«lsG diu

PRIVATE USE „_ __ z,p78701

02 1W

0001401603NOV 20 2015

11/18/2015

DIAB, ZACHARIAH Jr. ^fsJor^bJ^661=68Q(A) ,_.. On this day, the application fo%1^0.^^it^ofJ^ibeas Corpus has been received

"""• ~ urtj. ^^isfLisy^J p| ^zszzzzz^ Abe| AcQsta C|er|<

WR-84,207-01

and presented to the Court*

ZACHARIAH DIAB

SEGOVIA UNIT - TDC # 1434945

1201 E. CIBOLORD.

EDINBURG, TX 78539 NMR
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2013

s0520

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2013

146614

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146614

COA: 309499

Wayne CC: 10-010344-FH

RODELL BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals. That court 

shall treat the defendant’s claim of appeal, filed in Docket No. 307163, as having been 

timely filed and shall reinstate the appeal. The defendant’s attorney acknowledges that 

the defendant did not contribute to the delay in filing and admits his sole responsibility 

for the error. Accordingly, the defendant was deprived of his appeal of right as a result of 

constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. See Roe v Flores-Ortega, 528 US 470, 

477; 120 S Ct 1029; 145 L Ed 2d 985 (2000); Peguero v United States, 526 US 23, 28; 

119 S Ct 961; 143 L Ed 2d 18 (1999).

Costs are imposed against the attorney, only, in the amount of $250, to be paid to 

the Clerk of this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.