alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Senior Judge Duff Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

ERIK TIANTE JOHNSON MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2498-97-4 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON OCTOBER 6, 1998 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Alfred D. Swersky, Judge (Donald R. Allen, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Erik Tiante Johnson (defendant) appeals his conviction for malicious destruction of property in violation of Code § 18.2-137. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Because we hold the evidence was sufficient, we

affirm. The parties are fully conversant with the facts in this case and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedental value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly

deducible therefrom. See Martin v. Commonwealth , 4 Va. App. 438,

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - 443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). We will reverse the conviction only if plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. See Higginbotham v. Commonwealth , 216 Va. 349, 352, 218 S.E.2d 534, 537 (1975). So viewed, the salient facts of this case provide sufficient evidence to support the conviction. Defendant was the victim's unfaithful lover whom she had recently expelled from her apartment. Defendant had threatened the victim on previous occasions and had intimated his desire for revenge. The victim saw him leave work during the time her apartment was entered and her property destroyed. Most importantly, the kind of destruction indicates defendant was the perpetrator: property belonging to the victim was destroyed while items belonging to defendant were either missing or disturbed but not damaged.

Because all the circumstances of this case are consistent with defendant's guilt and inconsistent with his innocence, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. See Boothe v.

Commonwealth , 4 Va. App. 484, 492, 358 S.E.2d 740, 745 (1987). Accordingly, defendant's conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.
§ 123.24 Shipments by U.S. Postal Service. ( a ) The export of any defense hardware using a license or exemption in this subchapter by the U.S. Postal Service must be filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection using its electronic system(s) and the license must be filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection before any hardware is actually sent abroad by mail. The exporter must certify the defense hardware being exported in accordance with this subchapter by clearly marking on the package: “This export is subject to the controls of the ITAR, 22 CFR (identify section for an exemption) or (state license number) and the export has been electronically filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”
( b ) The export of any technical data using a license in this subchapter by the U.S. Postal Service must be notified electronically directly to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). The exporter, using either a license or exemption, must certify, by clearly marking on the package, “This export is subject to the controls of the ITAR, 22 CFR (identify section for an exemption) or (state license number).” For those exports using a license, the exporter must also state “The export has been electronically notified directly to DDTC.” The license must be returned to DDTC upon completion of the use of the license (*see* § 123.22(c)).
[68 FR 61102, Oct. 27, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 50963, Aug. 29, 2005; 82 FR 19, Jan. 3, 2017]
§ 39.7 Enforceability. An agreement, contract or transaction submitted to a derivatives clearing organization for clearing shall not be void, voidable, subject to rescission, or otherwise invalidated or rendered unenforceable as a result of: ( a ) A violation by the derivatives clearing organization of the provisions of the Act or of Commission regulations; or
( b ) Any Commission proceeding to alter or supplement a rule under section 8a(7) of the Act, to declare an emergency under section 8a(9) of the Act, or any other proceeding the effect of which is to alter, supplement, or require a derivatives clearing organization to adopt a specific rule or procedure, or to take or refrain from taking a specific action.
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC

Exhibit 32.2

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 DIRECTV Holdings LLC (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Palkovic, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|                                                                                                |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ MICHAEL W. PALKOVICMichael W. Palkovic
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|May 9, 2007                                                                                     |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### § 5.68 Judicial review.

A respondent against whom the Commission has issued an order imposing disciplinary action under this part may seek judicial review of the Commission's determination in an appropriate United States District Court by filing a petition for such review within sixty (60) days of receipt of notice of the Commission's final decision.
### §§242f to 242j. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 242f, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §308, as added July 12, 1960, Pub. L. 86–610, §3, 74 Stat. 364, which related to international cooperation with respect to biomedical research and health services research and statistical activities, was renumbered section 307 of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 93–353 and transferred to section 242l of this title.

Section 242g, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §309, as added Sept. 8, 1960, Pub. L. 86–720, §1(a), 74 Stat. 819; amended Aug. 27, 1964, Pub. L. 88–497, §3, 78 Stat. 613; Nov. 3, 1966, Pub. L. 89–749, §4, 80 Stat. 1190; Dec. 5, 1967, Pub. L. 90–147, §§2(g), 8(c), 81 Stat. 534, 540; Aug. 16, 1968, Pub. L. 90–490, title III, §302(a), 82 Stat. 788; Mar. 12, 1970, Pub. L. 91–208, §§1, 2, 84 Stat. 52; June 30, 1970, Pub. L. 91–296, title IV, §401(b)(1)(B), 84 Stat. 352; June 18, 1973, Pub. L. 93–45, title I, §104(b), (c), 87 Stat. 91, which related to graduate public health training grants, was renumbered section 313 of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 93–353 and transferred to section 245a of this title, and was subsequently repealed.

Section 242h, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §310, as added Sept. 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87–692, 76 Stat. 592, and amended and renumbered, which related to health services for domestic agricultural migrants, was renumbered section 319 of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 93–353, title I, §102(d), July 23, 1974, 88 Stat. 362, transferred to section 247d of this title, and subsequently renumbered and transferred to section 254b of this title, prior to being omitted in the general amendment of subpart I (§254b et seq.) of part D of this subchapter by Pub. L. 104–299, §2.

Section 242i, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §310A, as added Oct. 30, 1970, Pub. L. 91–515, title II, §270, 84 Stat. 1306; amended Nov. 18, 1971, Pub. L. 92–157, title II, §201, 85 Stat. 461, which related to administration of grants in multigrant projects, was renumbered section 226 of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 93–353 and transferred to section 235 of this title.

Section 242j, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §310B, as added Oct. 30, 1970, Pub. L. 91–515, title II, §280, 84 Stat. 1307, which provided for and annual report by Secretary on activities related to health facilities and services and expenditure of funds, was renumbered section 227 of act July 1, 1944, by Pub. L. 93–353 and transferred to section 236 of this title, and was subsequently repealed.
#### In the Matter of Brian D., Appellant, v Kathleen M.D., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[821 NYS2d 544]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Marilyn L. O’Connor, J.), entered January 31, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order, among other things, dismissed the petition seeking to modify the support provisions of the judgment of divorce.

*1321It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 89 FR 71806, Sept. 4, 2024.

§ 3.50 Service. ( a ) For purposes of this subpart, service upon an applicant or registrant will be sufficient if mailed by registered mail or certified mail return receipt requested properly addressed to the applicant or registrant at the address shown on his application or any amendment thereto, and will be complete upon mailing. Where a party effects service by mail, the time within which the person served may respond thereto shall be increased by three days.
( b ) A copy of any notice served in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section shall also be served upon: ( 1 ) Any registrant sponsoring the applicant or registrant pursuant to the provisions of § 3.12 of this part if the applicant or registrant is an individual registered as or applying for registration as an associated person; or
( 2 ) Any futures commission merchant or retail foreign exchange dealer which has entered into a guarantee agreement in accordance with § 1.10(j) of this chapter, if the applicant or registrant is registered as or applying for registration as an introducing broker.
( c ) Documents served upon the Market Participants Division or upon the Division of Enforcement or filed with the Commission under this subpart shall be considered served or filed only upon actual receipt at the Commission's Washington, DC headquarters.
( d ) Except for the documents which may be served under § 3.51, any documents served upon an applicant or registrant or upon the Market Participants Division or the Division of Enforcement or filed with the Commission under this subpart shall be concurrently filed with the Proceedings Clerk, together with proof of service, in accordance with the provisions of § 10.12 (d) and (e) of this chapter.
[49 FR 8220, Mar. 5, 1984, as amended at 57 FR 23151, June 2, 1992; 60 FR 49334, Sept. 25, 1995; 60 FR 54801, Oct. 26, 1995; 67 FR 62351, Oct. 7, 2002; 75 FR 55427, Sept. 10, 2010; 78 FR 22419, Apr. 16, 2013]
#### § 295.7 Notice of availability of funds.

The Program shall publish at least annually a Federal Register notice inviting interested parties to submit proposals, and may more frequently publish invitations for proposals in the Commerce Business Daily, based upon the annual notice. Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the guidelines in the ATP Proposal Preparation Kit as identified in the published notice. Proposals will only be considered for funding when submitted in response to an invitation published in the Federal Register, or a related announcement in the Commerce Business Daily.

[63 FR 64414, Nov. 20, 1998]
### §1862o–2. Reporting of research results

The Director shall ensure that all final project reports and citations of published research documents resulting from research funded, in whole or in part, by the Foundation, are made available to the public in a timely manner and in electronic form through the Foundation's Web site.

(Pub. L. 110–69, title VII, §7010, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 680.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the America COMPETES Act, also known as the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act, and not as part of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 7001 of Pub. L. 110–69, set out as a note under section 1862o of this title.
PGI 215.406-2 Certificate of current cost or

pricing data.

(c)(i) Prior to the start of negotiations, contracting officers should notify offerors and contractors

that—

(A) A Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, as prescribed by FAR 15.406-2, shall be submitted

as soon as practicable after agreement on price (preferably within 5 days after price agreement), but

before contract award or execution of a modification (except for unpriced actions such as letter

contracts).

(B) A Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data that deviates from the language specified in FAR

15.406-2, or has been amended to include certification of data submitted after the date of price

agreement, will not be accepted.

(ii) If any data is submitted after the date of price agreement, contracting officers shall—

(A) Notify offerors in writing that such data will not be reviewed until after contract award and will

be dispositioned in accordance with FAR 15.407-1 and FAR clause 52.215-10 or 52.215-11, as

applicable; or

(B) Consider the previous price agreement null and void, and prior to award—

(1) Reopen negotiations to assess the impact of the data submitted after the date of price agreement

(“sweep data”);

(2) Reestablish price agreement based on cost or pricing data that is accurate, complete, and

current as of the date of the revised agreement on price; and

(3) Request a new Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, as prescribed by FAR 15.406-2, to

include the sweep data and any new or revised data submitted after the previous certification.

(iii) If a contractor persistently submits untimely “sweep” data or fails to timely submit cost or

pricing data or the certification that the data are accurate, complete, and current as of the data of

price agreement, the contracting officer should refer the matter to the Defense Contract Audit

Agency (DCAA) via the Administrative Contracting Officer, Divisional Administrative Contracting

Officer, or Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer, as appropriate, for consideration in DCAA’s

review of the adequacy of the contractor’s estimating system.

Parent topic: PGI 215.406 RESERVED
§ 1104.1 Purpose. ( a ) The regulations in this part implement provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa-11) by establishing the definitions, standards, and procedures to be followed by the Commissioner in providing protection for archaeological resources, located on public lands through permits authorizing excavation and/or removal of archaeological resources, through civil penalties for unauthorized excavation and/or removal, through provisions for the preservation of archaeological resource collections and data, and through provisions for ensuring confidentiality of information about archaeological resources when disclosure would threaten the archaeological resources.
( b ) The regulations in this part do not impose any new restrictions on activities permitted under other laws, authorities, and regulations relating to mining, mineral leasing, reclamation, and other multiple uses of the public lands.
#### Roger P. Klempner et al., Appellants, v Raffaele Leone, Individually and Doing Business as Pine Hollow Commons, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[715 NYS2d 743]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 6, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant Raffaele Leone, individually and d/b/a Pine Hollow Commons, and against them dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant landlord negligently maintained the furnace in their apartment which emitted an excessive amount of carbon monoxide, exacerbating the injured plaintiffs asthma condition. The plaintiffs contend that the landlord violated CPLR 3101 (d) and 22 NYCRR 202.17 by having his medical witness testify in contradiction to the medical report supplied to the plaintiffs.

Absent a showing of good cause, a medical expert’s testimony should be precluded if it contradicts the facts and opinions in his or her medical report or discusses a condition or ailment not mentioned in the report *(see, Gregory v Mulligan,*266 AD2d *288344; *Holder v Bowery Sav. Bank,*250 AD2d 813). However, the landlord’s medical expert did not contradict himself when he stated that the injured plaintiffs carbon monoxide exposure was not causally related to the exacerbation of her asthma condition. His medical report stated that environmental factors may have been causally related to the exacerbation of her condition, but never specifically mentioned that the carbon monoxide exposure was one of those environmental factors. Thus, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the testimony.

The plaintiffs claim that the trial court erred in not allowing evidence that other furnaces in the apartment complex had malfunctioned. However, the landlord conceded that he had not regularly maintained the furnace at issue, that it had malfunctioned, and that it was emitting carbon monoxide. That concession made the evidence of other furnaces malfunctioning unnecessary, because the plaintiffs did not have to prove the existence of the dangerous condition of the object which caused the accident *(see, Klatz v Armor El. Co.,*93 AD2d 633; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 4-622 [Farrell 11th ed]). Thus, the trial court providently exercised its broad discretion in determining the materiality and relevance of the proposed evidence *(see, Hyde v County of Rensselaer,*51 NY2d 927). Thompson, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
|         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| • | the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”), 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 Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2019 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|                                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                       |
| Dated: March 20, 2020                                                 |
| /s/ Jeffrey S. Levin                                                  |
| Jeffrey S. Levin Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| * | The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. |
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70705-70706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26949]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-653 (Second Review)]


Sebacic Acid From China

AGENCY: International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Cancellation of the hearing in the full five-year review 
concerning the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from China.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Effective Date: December 3, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jai Motwane (202) 205-3176, Office of 
Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information 
on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 
205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special 
assistance in gaining access to the

[[Page 70706]]

Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-
2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be 
obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The 
public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's 
electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 28, 2004 (69 FR 45075), the Commission published a notice 
in the Federal Register scheduling a full five-year review concerning 
the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from China. The schedule 
provided for a public hearing on December 7, 2004. A request to appear 
at the hearing was filed by Arizona Chemicals (``Arizona'') on November 
26, 2004. On December 2, 2004, Arizona withdrew its request. As no 
other requests to appear at the hearing were filed, the Commission 
determined to cancel the public hearing on sebacic acid from China. The 
Commission further determined that no earlier announcement of this 
cancellation was possible.
    For further information concerning this review, see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and 
part 207, subparts A and F (19 CFR part 207).

(Authority: This review is being conducted under authority of title 
VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 
sections 201.35 and 207.62 of the Commission's rules.)

    Issued: December 3, 2004.
    By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-26949 Filed 12-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P