alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Paul F. Gugino, Appellant, v Diana Tsvasman, Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 753]

*1342Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Julie A. Gordon, R.), entered March 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, ordered that respondent shall continue to have sole custody and primary physical residency of the child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order denying his petition, following a hearing, seeking to modify a prior custody order that granted sole custody of the parties’ daughter to respondent mother. It is axiomatic that the party “seeking a change in an established custody arrangement must show a change in circumstances [that] reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest [s] of the child” *(Matter of Moore v Moore,*78 AD3d 1630, 1630 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 704 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Maher v Maher,*1 AD3d 987, 988 [2003]). Family Court did not specifically address whether the father established a change of circumstances; however its determination that the father failed to establish that sole custody should be granted to him, rather than to the mother, “is the product of ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors’ . . . , and it has a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Matter of McLeod v McLeod,*59 AD3d 1011, 1011 [2009]; *see Fox v Fox,*177 AD2d 209, 211 [1992]). We reject the father’s contention that the court erred in referencing in its decision information that it obtained in the hearing it conducted two years earlier, inasmuch as a court has the power to take judicial notice of its own prior proceedings *(see Matter of A.R.,*309 AD2d 1153, 1153 [2003]).

Present—Scudder, PJ., Centra, Carni, Lindley and DeJoseph, JJ.
#### Koffi Steve Raoul DAGBA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1798.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 21, 2008.

Decided: May 1, 2008.

Oti W. Nwosu, The Law Office of Oti W. Nwosu, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen J. Flynn, Senior Litigation Counsel, Arthur L. Rabin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Koffi Steve Raoul Dagba, a native and citizen of Togo, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have reviewed the administrative record and Dagba’s claims and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to reconsider. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (b) (2007).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
[No. 67176-6-I.

Division One.

October 29, 2012.]

#### Lawrence Jametsky, *Appellant,*v. Rodney A. Olsen et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 10-2-24428-0, Jay V. White, J, entered April 29, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Leach, C.J.,

concurred in by Grosse and Schindler, JJ.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10879

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE VALLADAREZ-GONZALEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-43-1

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose ValladarezGonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Valladarez-Gonzalez has been

deported from the United States and has not filed a response. Our independent

review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 16, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10879

2

in part as frivolous, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2, and in part as moot. See United States

v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir. 2007).
Exhibit 10.4


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


AMENDED AND RESTATED

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, INCLUDING AGREEMENT TO

ARBITRATE, NONCOMPETITION AGREEMENT AND

NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), executed on
April 11, 2007 (effective as of January 1, 2007 (the “Effective Date”)), is
entered into between Michael W. Hessong (“Employee”) and Heeling Sports
Limited, a Texas limited partnership (the “Company”).


WHEREAS, Employee and the Company desire to amend Exhibit
1 to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, Including
Agreement to Arbitrate, Noncompetition Agreement and Nondisclosure Agreement
dated November 16, 2006 between Employee and Company (the “Agreement”), as
herein provided;


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


1.             Defined Terms.   Capitalized terms used but not otherwise
defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings assigned to such
terms in the Agreement.


2.             Amendment.   Exhibit 1 to the Agreement is hereby
amended and restated in its entirety as of the Effective Date as set forth on Exhibit
1 attached hereto.


3.             Relationship to Agreement.   The
terms and provisions of the Agreement, as amended hereby, are hereby ratified,
confirmed, and approved in all respects, and shall continue in full force and
effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is adopted as of the Effective Date.


	
  HEELING SPORTS LIMITED

  	
   

  	
  EMPLOYEE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  HEELING MANAGEMENT CORP.,

  its sole general partner

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Michael W. Hessong

  	
   

  
	
  Michael W. Hessong

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Michael G.
  Staffaroni

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
   

  
								



 











Exhibit 1


Salary and Benefits


Reference Section 4, part a.


1.               Salary to be $19,250 per month - $231,000 per
year.


2.               Bonus Plan:    An Annual Bonus amount as determined by the
Company’s Compensation Committee and for purposes of such Bonus Plan, Employee’s
“Target” amount is 50% of Employee’s then current base salary.


Reference Section 4, part b.


1.               Employee to receive four weeks paid vacation
each calendar year.


2.               Employee to receive life, medical and dental
insurance through the plan adopted by the Company for its full time employees.


3.               Employee shall be entitled to participate in
a 401(k) plan adopted by the Company for its full time employees, including any
matching arrangements in effect from time to time.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kaitlyn E. Shaw, Appellant.

[988 NYS2d 372]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), rendered June 26, 2012. The judgment revoked a sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment that, upon her admission to violating a condition of probation, revoked the sentence of probation imposed upon her conviction of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]) and sentenced her to a term of imprisonment. Defendant contends that her admission was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent because County Court failed to inform her at any time that she would be subject to postrelease supervision if the court sentenced her to prison. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as she failed to move to withdraw her admission on that ground *(see People v Barra,*45 AD3d 1393, 1393-1394 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 761 [2008]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

*People v Bolivar*(118 AD3d 91 [2014]) is distinguishable with respect to the threshold issue of preservation. In that case, in exchange for the defendant’s admission to violating probation, the parties agreed that sentencing would be adjourned to allow the defendant to complete an inpatient treatment program, and the parties further agreed that, if the defendant failed to complete the program, she would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment *(id.*at 92). The defendant failed to complete the treatment program and was sentenced to a period of postrelease supervision in addition to a term of imprisonment *(id.).*The court first mentioned the mandatory term of postrelease supervision, however, only moments before imposing sentence *(id.).*The Third Department therefore held that the defendant was not required to preserve for appellate review her challenge to the voluntariness of her plea of guilty to the probation violation *(id.*at 94). Here, by contrast, before defendant pleaded guilty to the underlying offense, the court informed her of the *1462mandatory period of postrelease supervision that would follow any term of imprisonment. Thus, defendant “was made aware— prior to entering her [admission] to the probation violation— that postrelease supervision would be a component of her sentence” *(id.),*and preservation of defendant’s contention is therefore required.

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe.

Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and DeJoseph, JJ.
Exhibit 99.2
                                                                    ------------
                          [iVideoNow, INC. LETTERHEAD]

                            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 iVideoNow, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Kevin R. Keating, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








                             /s/ Kevin R. Keating
                             --------------------------------
                             Kevin R. Keating
                             Chief Financial Officer
                             iVideoNow, Inc.

                             August 14, 2002




















                                       14
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3386 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3386

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
              RALI SERIES 2006-QS3 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 29, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, since April 6, 2017, ASME has published two new standards, initiated four new standards activities, withdrawn one standard activity, and discontinued one standard activity within the general nature and scope of ASME's standards development activities, as specified in its original notification. More detail regarding these changes can be found at                     *www.asme.org*.                

                    On September 15, 2004, ASME filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 13, 2004 (69 FR 60895).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 10, 2017. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 22, 2017 (82 FR 23297).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2017-23152 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 99.1

                           Section 906 Certifications


     I, Mario J.  Gabelli,  the Chief  Executive  Officer  of Lynch  Interactive
Corporation  (the  "Corporation"),  do hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 that the Corporation's  Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and that information  contained is such report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Corporation.



                                   /s/ Mario J. Gabelli
                                   --------------------
                                   Mario J. Gabelli, Chief Executive Officer of
                                   Lynch Interactive Corporation




     I,  Robert E.  Dolan,  the Chief  Financial  Officer  of Lynch  Interactive
Corporation  (the  "Corporation"),  do hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 that the Corporation's  Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)) and that information  contained is such report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Corporation.



                                   /s/ Robert E. Dolan
                                   ------------------
                                   Robert E. Dolan, Chief Financial Officer of
                                   Lynch Interactive Corporation
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00392

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021

- 006170

- 1

B efore Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel , JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### M ICHELLE 

### F EENEY 

### , Appellant

V



### . A GAVE 

### A SSETS 

### LLC AND 

### J OJOBA 

### A SSETS 

### LLC , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On April 13 , 2022, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that w e cou ld dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, appellant filed with the

court a n appellant ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10 .5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1 ), 42 .3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : May 19, 2022
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Verigy Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert J. Nikl, 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 to my knowledge:



|Date: December 20, 2007 |  | /s/KEITH L. BARNESKeith L. BarnesChief Executive
Officer
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------

---



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





In
connection with the Report of CoConnect, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Brad M. Bingham, Chief Executive Officer and principal accounting officer of the
Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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/ Brad M. Bingham,
Esq.


Brad M.
Bingham, Esq.


Interim
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer


November
11, 2009