alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J

- S39026

- 19

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. JESUS ROSARIO

- TORRES Appellant No. 925 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered February 28 , 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal Division at No

. : CP

- 52

- CR

- 0000286

- 2008

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. * JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 Appellant Jesus Rosario

- Torres pro se appeals from the February 28, 2019 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County (“trial court”), which denied his “Motion to Vacate and/or Reconsider Fines, Costs & Restitution
Nunc Pro Tunc on the Grounds of Indigence ” (the “Motion”). Upon review, we affirm. Given our disposition of this appeal, we need not recite the lengthy factual and procedural history of thi s case, which has been set forth in detail in our May 4, 2016 memorandum affirming the lower court’s decision to deny Appellant post

- conviction relief. See Commonwealth v. Rosario - Torres , No. 1223 EDA 2015, unpublished memorandum at 1

- 4 (Pa. Super. filed May 4, 2016). Following the denial of post

- conviction relief, Appellant pro se filed

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S39026

- 19

- 2

-

the Motion on February 27, 2019, requesting that the trial court either vacate or reconsider the imposition of fines, costs and restitution. 1 On February 28, 2019, the t rial court denied the Motion. Appellant timely appeal. On March 15, 2019, the trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal within twenty

- one days. The trial court cautioned Appellant that “failur e to comply with this direction may” result in waiver of claims on appeal. Appellant failed to comply. On April 18, 2019, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion , concluding that Appellant ’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement resulted in wa iver of all issues he wished to raise on appeal. We agree. It is well established that the failure to file a court

- ordered Rule 1925(b) statement results in the waiver of all claims on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Auchmuty , 799 A.2d 823, 825 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding that a pro se appellant ’ s failure to file a court

- ordered Rule 1925(b) statement results in

w aiver of all issues on appeal); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“[i]ssues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”). Accordingly, we decline to entertain the merits of this appeal because A ppellant has waived all issues. Order affirmed.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 Appellant currently i s serving a life sentence for, inter alia , his first

- degree murder conviction.J

- S39026

- 19

- 3

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 9/27/19
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry E. Hathaway, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 74]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that Supreme Court erred in receiving evidence of his refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test *(see, People v Peabody,*206 AD2d 754, 755) and that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction of driving while intoxicated *(see, People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject the contention that the court erred in admitting the photograph taken of defendant at the time of his arrest *(see, People v Logan,*25 NY2d 184, 195, *cert denied*396 US 1020; *People v Dent,*183 AD2d 723, 723-724, *lv denied*80 *1067NY2d 928). Finally, the court properly exercised its discretion in precluding a lay defense witness from offering his opinion with respect to defendant’s intoxication (see, *People v Jacobs,*188 AD2d 897, 899, *lv denied*81 NY2d 887). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J.—Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.
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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - RIN 0648-XF711

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting cancellation.

# SUMMARY:

The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee is cancelling the 5-day meeting that was to be held from October 30, 2017 to November 3, 2017 due to the devastation of the island from the hurricanes.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The meeting was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 11, 2017 (82 FR 47190). The meeting will be rescheduled at a later date and announced in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

 Dated: October 12, 2017.

Jeffrey N. Lonergan,

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2017-22467 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6009.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Antonio Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stewart’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of Members for the FY 2017 Performance Review Board.

Title 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) (4) requires each agency to publish notification of the appointment of individuals who may serve as members of that Agency's Performance Review Board (PRB). The following individuals have been designated to serve on the FY 2017 Performance Review Board for the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Members:

1. Joseph Loddo (Chair), Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Chief Operating Officer.

2. Pradeep Belur, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Administrator, Office of the Administrator.

3. Barbara Carson, Associate Administrator, Office of Veterans Business Development.

4. Eugene Cornelius Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of International Trade.

5. Allen Gutierrez, Associate Administrator, Office of Entrepreneurial Development.

6. Holly Schick, Director, Mentor Protégé Program, Office of Government Contracting and Business Development.

7. Robert Steiner, District Director (Illinois District Office), Office of Field Operations.

8. William Manger, Associate Administrator, Office of Capital Access.

Linda E. McMahon,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2017-21926 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the “Company”) for the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Robert M. McMurrey, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best
of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report is in full compliance 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 operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/ Robert M. McMurrey  | 
|----------------------- | 
|Robert M. McMurrey      | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|September 28, 2012      |
[No. 67837-0-I.

Division One.

November 13, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Octavius Tremoyne Rostick, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 10-1-09096-3, Joan E. DuBuque, J., entered October 21, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Lau, J.,

concurred in by Grosse and Cox, JJ.
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 Quarterly Report of Amazon Biotech, Inc., a Utah
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D., Chief Financial 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/ Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------
Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D., Chief Financial Officer
December 17, 2004
<PAGE>



                                                             Exhibit 99.2
                                                             ------------

                                 iVideoNow, Inc.
                        383 Inverness Parkway, Suite 100
                               Englewood, CO 80112


                            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 September 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 ___,  2003




                                       14
<PAGE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3270 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to add New York to the New England Fishery Management Council, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2009 

Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself and Mr. ISRAEL) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to add New York to the New England 

Fishery Management Council, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New York Fair Fishing 

5 Act of 2009’’. 


bajohnson on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3270 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADDITION OF NEW YORK TO NEW ENGLAND FISH2 ERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. 

3 Section 302(a)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fish4 ery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

5 1852(a)(1)(A)) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘New York,’’ after ‘‘New 

7 Hampshire,’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘except’’ and inserting ‘‘except 

9 New York and except’’; 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘18’’ and inserting ‘‘20’’; and 

11 (4) by striking ‘‘12’’ and inserting ‘‘14’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Romont Lachea ROBBINS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40389

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

Erri Lynn Hagan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, Charles Eugene Roy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Frank Warren Henderson, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Defender, Eastern District, Frisco, TX, Amy R. Blalock, Federal Defender’s Office, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Romont Lachea Robbins, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Robbins has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1)    | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)    | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.                                                                                                  |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

|                           |                               |        |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:  February 28, 2011 | /s/ Thomas B. Specketer       |   |
|                      | Thomas B. Specketer           |   |
|                      | Vice President and Controller |   |
|                      | (principal financial officer) |   |
#### In the Matter of Edward C. Cosgrove, as Special District Attorney of Chautauqua County, Petitioner, v John T. Ward, Jr., Chautauqua County Judge, et al., Respondents.

[858 NYS2d 646]

Motion for reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Green and Pine, JJ.
#### Colonial Woods Condominium, Appellant, v Hanover Insurance Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[665 NYS2d 102]

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant Hanover Insurance Company has a duty to defend and indemnify its insured, the plaintiff Colonial Woods Condominium, in an underlying negligence action commenced by the defendant Hazel Organ, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), entered October 1, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment, granted the cross motion of the defendant Hanover Insurance Company for summary judgment, and declared that the latter is not obligated to defend and indemnify it in the underlying action.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On January 21, 1992, Hazel Organ was injured when she slipped and fell on snow and ice on premises owned by the plaintiff Colonial Woods Condominium (hereinafter Colonial Woods). Within a week or two after the accident Organ contacted Colonial Woods, informed their representative that she had been injured and was seeking reimbursement for nothing more than medical expenses that were not covered under her insurance policy. She asked for $300, and was told to submit her claim in writing. By letter dated July 6, 1992, she submitted bills totalling $302.92. On August 28, 1992, the plaintiff sent Organ a letter indicating that there was absolutely no evidence of any negligence on its part and that, accordingly, it saw no reason for “submitting anything to our community carrier”.

Upon receiving a letter from Ms. Organ’s attorneys, in or around November 1993, indicating that a lawsuit was planned, the plaintiff sent a letter to its insurance broker the defendant, the Hanover Insurance Company (hereinafter Hanover), containing the attorneys’ letter as well as the letters dated July 6, 1992, and August 28, 1992, and asked the broker to examine the documents. Hanover denied the claim based upon the failure of Colonial Woods to give timely notice. Colonial Woods commenced the instant action for a declaration that Hanover was obligated to defend and indemnify it. The *330Supreme Court declared that Hanover was not so obligated. We affirm.

Under the circumstances presented in this case, the plaintiff’s delay of, at minimum, 16 months, in notifying Hanover was unreasonable as a matter of law (see, *E.B. Gen. Contr. v Nationwide Ins. Co.,*189 AD2d 796). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT23.1**

** **

# **Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

# ** **

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-111302, 333-128338, 333-134896, 333-142066 and 333-149592 and Form S-3No. 333-127154) of NitroMed, Inc. and in the related Prospectus ofour report dated March 19, 2009, with respect to the financial statementsof NitroMed, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended December 31, 2008.

 

 
|   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------|--------------------------------|

 

 

Boston, Massachusetts

March 19, 2009

 

----