alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Gregory A. Pazkowski, Respondent.

Appeal by the People pursuant to CPL 450.20 (subd 4) from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed September 23, 1976 (see CPL 460.10, subd 6), upon defendant’s conviction of arson in the second degree, a class B felony, upon a jury verdict. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentence in accordance herewith. In view of the fact that defendant was convicted of arson in the second degree, a class B felony (Penal Law, § 150.15), the intermittent sentence imposed was invalid as a matter of law. Such a sentence may only be imposed upon a conviction of a class D or E felony, or for an offense not a felony, provided the defendant is not a second or persistent felony offender (Penal Law, § 85.00). Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### §5678. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5678 was editorially reclassified as section 11188 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §254c–4. Repealed. Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title II, §2201(a)(2), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5729

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §330D, as added Pub. L. 106–129, §3, Dec. 6, 1999, 113 Stat. 1670, authorized grants for establishment and operation of regional centers to develop, evaluate, and disseminate effective strategies on facilitating utilization of preventive health services among various populations.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 117–328, which directed amendment of Part B of title III of the Public Health Service Act by striking section 330D, was executed by striking section 330D (this section) of Part D of title III of the Public Health Service Act, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
#### §§ 530.161-530.169 [Reserved]
§ 1006.400 May I enter into a transaction with an excluded or disqualified person? ( a ) You as an agency official may not enter into a covered transaction with an excluded person unless you obtain an exception under § 1006.120.
( b ) You may not enter into any transaction with a person who is disqualified from that transaction, unless you obtain a waiver or exception under the statute, Executive order, or regulation that is the basis for the person's disqualification.
### §5783. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5783 was editorially reclassified as section 11313 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### New York City Transit Authority, Appellant, v. Green Bus Lines, Inc., Respondent.

In an action by an assignee of a contract to recover moneys claimed to be due and owing under the contract, plaintiff, by permission of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, appeals from its order dated June 29, 1961, which affirmed a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, First District, entered September 19, 1960, in favor of defendant, pursuant to an order of said Municipal Court, dated November 20, 1959, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or for alternative relief, and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment (20 Misc 2d 659). Order of Appellate Term affirmed, with costs. At the time of the making of the contract on November 6, 1936, plaintiff’s remote assignor had been operating a street surface railroad along Jamaica Avenue, west of 168th Street, in the Borough of Queens, City of New York. The defendant had been granted a franchise by the City of New York to operate omnibuses along certain streets in that borough, including part of this portion of Jamaica Avenue, and, in accordance with law, defendant had applied to the then extant Transit Commission of the State of New York for a certificate of convenience and necessity. The commission had scheduled a hearing on the application. Said assignor opposed the application, but it desisted because it entered into the contract in question with defendant. The contract provided that the assignor would withdraw its opposition and that defendant would make certain payments to the assignor. In our opinion the contract, being one to pay for another’s refraining from opposing a legal *960proceeding such as the one -here, was against public policy and therefore is unenforcible (cf. *Atcheson*v. *Mallon,*43 N. Y. 147). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Pacific Biometrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Ronald R. Helm, Chief Executive Officer, and John P. Jensen, Vice President of
Finance and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. the 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: November 14, 2007

                                        /s/ Ronald R. Helm
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Ronald R. Helm
                                        Chief Executive Officer



                                        /s/ John P. Jensen
                                        ------------------------------
                                        John P. Jensen
                                        Vice President of Finance and Controller
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          57,088
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                42,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,738,939
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      4,109,677
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (40,655)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,304,112
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,985,493
<SHORT-TERM>                                   869,161
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            161,798
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,730,793
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           792
<OTHER-SE>                                     556,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               7,304,112
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                226,073
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              174,698
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   843
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               401,614
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             128,701
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             251,809
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          148,805
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (17,049)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 65,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,821
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      65,801
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    65,801
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.28
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,497
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 10,270
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                40,155
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      612
<RECOVERIES>                                       112
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               40,655
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            40,655
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2009\0032\order re extension of time.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

    v.

DEMAURIAE NOLAN,

Defendant.                                                                      /

No. CR 09-00032 CRB

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TOCONTINUE FILING AND HEARINGDATES FOR MOTIONS PURSUANT TOFED. R. CRIM. P. 29, 33

The Court is in receipt of Defendant’s Application to Continue Filing and Hearing Dates for

Motions Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 and 33, the Declaration of Defendant’s counsel David J.

Cohen in support thereof, and the Government’s Opposition to that Application.  Having carefully

reviewed the materials and finding good cause therefor, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s

Application.  Defendant’s motions papers are now due on February 3, 2010.  The Government shall

have until February 17, 2010 to respond to Defendant’s papers.  The hearing date for Defendant’s

motion, currently scheduled for January 13, 2010, is hereby VACATED and RESET for February

24, 2010 at the same time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010                                                              CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cr-00032-CRB   Document 94   Filed 01/05/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2020-01-24T08:28:11-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §4702. Administration of authorities

The authorities provided by this chapter shall be administered in such manner as (1) to recognize fully the rights, powers, and responsibilities of State and local governments, and (2) to encourage innovation and allow for diversity on the part of State and local governments in the design, execution, and management of their own systems of personnel administration.

(Pub. L. 91–648, §3, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1909.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 91–648, Jan. 5, 1971, 84 Stat. 1909, known as the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4701 of this title and Tables.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4414 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4414

      To extend temporarily the reduction of duty on certain dyed 
                       polyacrylonitrile staple.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

Mr. Bishop of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend temporarily the reduction of duty on certain dyed 
                       polyacrylonitrile staple.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN DYED POLYACRYLONITRILE STAPLE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.40.30 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain dyed 
polyacrylonitrile staple) is amended by striking ``12/31/2012'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Advanced Optics  Electronics,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the six months ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Leslie Robins, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

      1.    The 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/ Leslie Robins
                                               -----------------------
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               November 4, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40148

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SIXTO RODRIGUEZ RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-468-1

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sixto Rodriguez Rodriguez appeals his guilty plea conviction

for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. 

He argues that 8 U.S.C. 1326(b), the statute under which he was

convicted and sentenced, is unconstitutional on its face and as

applied in his case in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000). However, Rodriguez concedes that his argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224
No. 03-40148

-2-

(1998), but wishes to preserve the issue for further review by

the Supreme Court. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d

979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court therefore must follow

Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself

determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal

quotation and citation omitted). Rodriguez’s argument is without

merit.

AFFIRMED.
### §3797w–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797w–2 was editorially reclassified as section 10633 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement, which was repealed by Pub. L. 115–391, title V, §504(g)(1), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5234.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JEROME RAYMOND BANKS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 364 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28122]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-310-0777-XG]


Meeting Date Correction for Public Meeting: Northwest California 
Resource Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 
the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated 
below.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday and Wednesday, Feb. 1 and 2, 
2005, in Redding, California. An earlier notice, published in the 
Federal Register on December 17, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 242)] 
[Notices] [Page 75561]) incorrectly listed the meeting dates as Feb. 2 
and 3, 2005. On Feb. 1, the council members convene at 10 a.m. at the 
BLM Redding Field Office, 355 Hemsted Dr., and depart immediately for a 
field tour of projected land exchange sites. Members of the public are 
welcome on the tour, but they must provide their own transportation and 
lunch. On Feb. 2, the council convenes at 8 a.m. in the Conference 
Center at the McConnell Foundation headquarters, 800 Shasta View Drive 
in Redding. Time for public comment has been set aside for 10:30 a.m. 
Other meeting details published in the above referenced notice are 
unchanged.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Burns, BLM Ukiah Field Office 
manager, (707) 468-4000; or BLM Public Affairs Officer Joseph J. 
Fontana, (530) 252-5332.

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Joseph J. Fontana,
Public Affairs Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-28122 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
#### Donald V. Armondi, Respondent, v. Julian Johnson, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Chenango County Court entered after a trial by jury awarding respondent $532.79 for property damage and dismissing *713appellant’s counterclaim. This lawsuit arises from an automobile collision on the morning of February 18, 1958 on a two-lane rural road in the Village of Oxford, Chenango County, N. Y. On the day previous to the accident there had been a very heavy snowstorm and there were high snowbanks along the side of the road at the point of the collision. The accident occurred when the respondent backed into the road from between eight-foot snowbanks bordering his driveway, and appellant skidded into the rear of his ear. The closeness of the questions of fact involved is demonstrated by the fact that a previous trial of the same case had ended in a mistrial when the jury could not agree on a verdict. A second jury resolved the issues of fact in favor of respondent but appellant alleges reversible error on the part of the Trial Judge in that he charged verbatim, to the prejudice of appellant, subdivision 1 of section 56 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law which had been declared unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals as “too vague” and “indefinite” prior to the date of the accident in question *(People*v. *Firth,*3 S Y 2d 472). We are constrained to agree. Subdivision 1 of section 56 provided as follows: “No person shall operate a motor vehicle or a motor cycle upon a public highway at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person, nor at a rate of speed greater than will permit such person to bring the vehicle to a stop without injury to another or his property.” It is not necessary here to find the charge improper solely because the statute was declared unconstitutional. Prejudice exists because by charging the provisions involved the jury could have found appellant negligent on the mere fact that he was unable to prevent his car from colliding with respondent’s ear, no matter what the circumstances happened to be (see *Griffiths*v. *Delaware & Hudson Co.,*238 App. Div. 246). As the Court of Appeals said in *Firth (supra,*p. 475) : “ As to the second prohibition, the only possible meaning is that a speed is unlawful unless it permits the ear to be stopped without injuring anyone or anything. That amounts to saying that if, under any circumstances, the driver is unable to bring his car to a stop without injuring someone or something, he has been driving too fast.” Thus we have interjected here a standard of care beyond reasonable care which, without benefit of the statute, was improper on the part of the trial court. That, in fact, it was prejudicial is indicated by the statement of the foreman that “ the jury believed that the defendant was negligent in not having his car under control.” Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.