alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY, doing business as Ameren UE, Appellee, v. James DEVINE, Appellant.

No. 10-1410.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 12, 2010.

Filed: Nov. 17, 2010.

Colly Jane Durley, Amanda Allen Miller, Smith & Lewis, Columbia, MO, for Appel-lee.

James Devine, Osage Beach, MO, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In a prior appeal, this court affirmed the district court’s1 November 2007 and Janu*154ary 2008 orders holding James Devine in contempt and directing him to take action to remove certain docks and structures on his lake property, to reimburse Union Electric Company (UE) for its cost in removing a derelict houseboat, and to pay UE’s attorneys’ fees. *See Union Electric Co. v. Devine,*334 Fed.Appx. 37 (8th Cir. 2009) (unpublished per curiam). Devine now appeals an order entered in January 2010, granting UE’s motion for entry of judgment against him in the amount of $32,643.02, which includes UE’s new expenses in enforcing the November 2007 order and unpaid amounts awarded earlier. Because Devine’s arguments all relate only to matters resolved during the previous appeal, we affirm. *See In re Just Brakes Corp. Sys., Inc.,*293 F.3d 1069, 1072 (8th Cir.2002) (law-of-the-case doctrine prevents relitigation of issues resolved in earlier proceedings).

1

. The Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Helga Ingvarsdottir, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 460]

*1024Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered April 23, 2013, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, she was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel during the plea proceeding, as her attorney provided her with meaningful representation *(see People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397 [1995]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment insofar as asserted against her based on an approximate 28-month delay in the imposition of sentence. Courts are required to impose sentence “without unreasonable delay” (CPL 380.30 [1]). An unexplained lengthy delay between conviction and sentencing results in the loss of jurisdiction over the defendant unless the delay is the result of the defendant’s own conduct *(see People v Drake,*61 NY2d 359, 366 [1984]). Here, the delay in sentencing was due to legal proceedings involving the codefendant, in which the defendant participated pursuant to the terms of a cooperation agreement with the District Attorney’s office. The defendant could not be sentenced until after the investigation and prosecution of the codefendant had concluded, since only then could the District Attorney’s office fulfill its obligation of evaluating the sincerity and value of the defendant’s cooperation *(see People v Arroyo,*22 AD3d 881 [2005]; *People v Baez,*216 AD2d 121 [1995]). Additionally, the record clearly demonstrates that a significant portion of the delay was attributable to the defendant, who kept requesting adjournments. The record also clearly demonstrates that the defendant was not prejudiced by the delay, since she was, at all times, at liberty prior to sentencing.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Mastro, J.P, Roman, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of Equity Corporation International ("the Company") on Form S-3 (File No.
333-4436), Form S-4 (File No. 33-92876) and Form S-8 (File No. 33-98052) of our
reports dated March 6, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of the Company as of December 31,
1996 and 1995 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
1996, which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Houston, Texas
March 27, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,421
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              867
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,202
<OTHER-SE>                                       (648)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,421
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (977)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (977)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (977)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
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 Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection
 AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
 ACTION: Revocation of customs brokers' licenses.
 SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the revocation by operation of law of customs brokers' licenses.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia D. Peterson, Branch Chief, Broker Management, Office of Trade, (202) 863-6601, 
                        *julia.peterson@cbp.dhs.gov.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides notice of the revocation of customs brokers' licenses pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), and section 111.45(a) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 111.45(a)). The following list of customs brokers' licenses and all associated permits are revoked by operation of law for failure to employ at least one qualifying individual. Company name
License
Port of issuanceGlobal Dispatch Services, Inc
16679
Laredo.FK Logistics LLC
30968
Chicago.Naniq Global Logistics, LLC
30012
Anchorage.
 Dated: October 18, 2017. Brenda B. Smith, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Trade.


[FR Doc. 2017-23001 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Bonilla, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 587]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered May 16, 1995, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his request to call the prosecutor as a witness to testify about alleged promises of benefit made to the complaining witness in exchange for that witness’s testimony. This issue is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object to the court’s remedial action (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Woodberry,*239 AD2d 448). In any event, the court properly denied the defendant’s request as there was a complete dearth of evidence to support the defendant’s allegations (see, *People v Mullady,*180 AD2d 408).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.
#### Boyd *vs.*The State of Georgia.

'There was sufficient evidence in this case to authorize a verdict of assault with intent to rape, and the refusal of a new trial was right.

Judgment affirmed.

December 19, 1884.

Blandeord, Justice.

[Boyd was indicted for rape committed on a child of ten or eleven years of age, a young sister of his wife. *357The evidence was of a character which it is unnecessary to detail. The jury found the defendant guilty of an assault with intent to rape. He moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted. The legal questions made were, whether the evidence authorized the verdict found, or whether it.showed an actual consummation of the rape, if any offense was shown, and whether the evidence authorized the court to charge as he did on that subject. The child on tvhom the offense was committed testified that the defendant violated her persbn. In one part of her testimony, she stated that he entered her person, but she did not know how far. In another part, she stated that he tried to do so. A physician testified that there had been no penetration, and he saw no rupture or sign of violence, when he examined her some three months after the time the act was done; that she had a venereal disease, and that the wife of defendant was similarly affected; that defendant himself did not have that form of disease, but another, at that time; but that it was possible for him to have recovered from the one and contracted the other; and that the disease which the child had could be communicated by contact, without actual intercourse. The court charged the jury on this subject, that if they believed from the evidence that there was an unsuccessful attempt made by the defendant to consummate the crime by taking hold of the girl’s person, they might convict him of an assault with intent to rape.]
#### Thomas E. NEWBERRY, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2011-7042.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 27, 2011.

Thomas E. Newberry, Fort Payne, AL, pro se.

Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

ON MOTION

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

Thomas E. Newberry moves without opposition for reconsideration of this court’s order dismissing his appeal for failure to file a brief, to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and to remand for further proceedings in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in *Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,*— U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (U.S.,2011).

The appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Veterans Claims more than 120 days after the Board of Veterans’ Appeals mailed its decision in his case. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dismissed the appellant’s appeal as untimely, concluding that there is no equitable tolling exception to the 120-day judicial appeal period established by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for appealing Board of Veterans’ Appeals decisions.

In *Henderson,*the Supreme Court reversed this court’s decision in *Henderson v. Shinseki,*589 F.3d 1201 (Fed.Cir.2009) (en banc), concluding that the 120-day deadline for filing an appeal with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences. We reinstate Newberry’s appeal, vacate the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment, and remand for further proceedings.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion for reconsideration is granted. The mandate is recalled, this court’s dismissal order is vacated, and the case is reinstated.

(2) The motion to remand is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(3) All sides shall bear their own costs.
Exhibit 10(c)

                                      NOTE

$1,000                                                  Date: August 2, 1999


     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   Archer  Systems  Limited,   Inc.,  the  undersigned
("Payor"),  hereby  promises  to pay to the order of  Richard  J.  Margulies  an
individual,  ("Holder"), the principal amount of $1,000.00,  payable twenty four
(24) months after the date first set forth above.  The  principal  amount hereof
from time to time  outstanding  shall bear  interest  at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum,  payable on the date set forth  above.  All  payments  hereunder
shall be in lawful  money of the United  States of America at the address of the
Holder  hereof or at such  address as shall be specified by the Holder to Archer
Systems Limited, Inc.
     If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or principal,  then
the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of its legal rights
to collect  the  balance due unless  within  five (5)  business  days after such
notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such notice  shall be deemed given
three (3) days after having been  deposited in the United  States Mail  properly
addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the  particular  addressee,  return
receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.



                                                 Archer Systems Limited, Inc.


                                                 BY: /S/ Walter J. Krzanowski
                                                         --------------------
                                                         Walter J. Krzanowski
                                                         Secretary/Treasurer


                                      2
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
                                     BY THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         Each of Thomas J. Mazzarisi, Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen J.
Schoepfer, Chief Financial Officer, of JAG Media Holdings, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
October 31, 2004 ("Form 10-QSB") 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ Thomas J. Mazzarisi                     /s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer
-----------------------                     ------------------------
Name: Thomas J. Mazzarisi                   Name: Stephen J. Mazzarisi

Date: December 20, 2004
#### In the Matter of Steven Kessler Motor Cars, Inc., Appellant, v Ferrari North America, Inc., Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 613]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about November 8, 1996, which denied claimant’s motion to continue a preliminary injunction against *212termination of respondent’s franchise and denied claimant’s motion to vacate the interim arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record herein does not come near to satisfying the “clear and *convincing*proof’ standard governing an allegation of an arbitrator’s actual bias *(see, Matter of Infosafe Sys. [International Dev. Partners],*228 AD2d 272). A colorful comment by the arbitrator, with respect to the credibility of claimant’s principal, does not demonstrate bias or misconduct *(see, Ballantine Books v Capital Distrib. Co.,*302 F2d 17, 21; *Matter of Schenectady Police Benevolent Assn. [City of Schenectady],*224 AD2d 908, 909, *lv denied*88 NY2d 806). We also find that the arbitrator correctly applied the terms of section 13 (a) of the agreement to this nonrenewal of claimant’s franchise, and not section 12, which governs termination prior to the expiration date.

We have considered claimant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
**EXHIBIT  31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ren Huiliang, ActingChief Financial Officer of NextMart, Inc., certify that

1.      Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of NextMart, Inc.;

2.      Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)       designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report was being prepared;

(b)      evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)       disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.      Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)       allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)      anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| /s/ Ren Huiliang                              |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Ren Huiliang,  Acting Chief Executive Officer |   |
| Date: August 20,  2007                        |   |

 

----
**EXHIBIT      32.1 **

**CERTIFICATION      **

| (1) | The                Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the company at the end of the periods covered by the Periodic Report. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By     | /s/                Steven Malone                       |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Steven                Malone                           |
|   |   | President                & Chief Executive Officer |
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 April 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Angelo Chinnici, M.D., Chief Executive 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/ Angelo Chinnici, M.D.
-------------------------
Angelo Chinnici, M.D., Chief Executive Officer
June 14, 2005
Order entered November 18, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00389

- CV

JOHN HURT AND LESLEA HURT , Appellant s

V.

AMALENDU GOSWAMI AND HARSHA GOSWAMI , Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 003

- 02059

- 2020

O RDER

Before the Court is appellants’ November 17, 2022 unopposed motion to

extend the deadline for filing their brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORD ER the

brief be filed no later than December 23, 2022.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE