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

[834 NYS2d 114]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John S. Moore, J.), entered March 16, 2005, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender *286pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed 30 points for the number-of-victims factor, since the evidence established a total of five victims. In making this finding, the court properly relied on grand jury minutes and other reliable evidence *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Quintana,*29 AD3d 308 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 709 [2006]). These 30 points, when added to 90 points that are uncontested on appeal, produce a total of 120 points, which exceeds the 110-point threshold for a level three sex offender adjudication. In any event, we have considered and rejected defendant’s arguments concerning 20 additional points assessed by the court. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Williams, Buckley, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
### Geology of the Tanama and Helecho porphyry copper deposits and vicinity, Puerto Rico

By: D. P. Cox

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1327

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
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

Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 03/03-0260 issued to F.N.B. Capital Partners, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and void.

United States Small Business Administration.

Thomas G. Morris,

Acting Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2020-28939 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAY-02-1998
<CASH>                                      9,977,000
<SECURITIES>                               10,364,000         
<RECEIVABLES>                              14,460,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                1,076,621
<INVENTORY>                                73,538,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          111,651,000 
<PP&E>                                    282,515,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            160,976,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            259,558,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      87,728,000
<BONDS>                                   100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      115,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 32,273,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              259,558,000
<SALES>                                   231,568,000 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          231,568,000
<CGS>                                     173,844,000         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             173,844,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           54,678,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          2,922,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               124,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           124,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  124,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.01
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John S. Chen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sybase, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 28, 2003

                                /s/ JOHN S. CHEN
                      -------------------------------------
                                    John S. Chen
                      Chief Executive Officer and President
#### Knolls Cooperative Section No. II, Inc., Respondent, v. William Cashman et al., Appellants.

Order, entered on April 3, 1963, granting plaintiff’s motion lor summary judgment affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Concur — Rabin, J, P., McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.; Steuer, J., dissents and votes to reverse and deny summary judgment.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Auditof the financial statements for the Fiscal Year ended....**
 
2008 | 2009| 2010
2011 | 2012| 2013 | 2014| 2015 | 2016
2017| 2018| 2019| 2020| 2021| 
 
 
 
SuDoc Number:Y 1.2/13-2:
Item Number:0998-A-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 001058456
 
May 24, 2018
Appeal Nos. 76-343, 76-352, 76-422.

#### Herbert H. Walker *v.*Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.; Steven Moran *v.*Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.; Louis P. Maisano *v.*Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.

In these cases the Workmen’s Compensation Commission proceeded on the theory that an employer’s right to discontinue or suspend payment of weekly compensation benefits prior to the termination of the statutory maximum period for payment required:

> (1) an order or decree in review proceedings commenced under G.L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §28-35-45;

> (2) resort to the notice of intention to discontinue procedures set out in §§28-35-46 through 28-35-53 inclusive; or

*953*Lovett & Linder, Ltd., Raul L. Lovett,*for petitioners.

*Quinn, Cuzzone & Geremia, Bruce Q. Morin,*for respondent.

> (3) due execution of a suspension agreement and receipt. ■

The court desires further argument on the following questions:

> (1) The authority for use of a suspension agreement and receipt for the accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose; and

> (2) The availability of the same or other authority as a basis for discontinuing or suspending an employer’s obligation to make further payments of weekly compensation benefits 'to an employee who has returned to his former employment at wages at least the equal of his preinjury average weekly earnings.

Briefs shall be filed by the employer on or before July 30, 1977, and by the employees within 20 days after those of the employer have been filed. The cases are assigned for oral argument to the first week of October 1977.
Appeal No. 74-324.

#### James I. Ryan *v.*Grinnell Corp.

*Abedon, Stanzler, Biener, Skolnik & Lipsey,*for petitioner.

*Eldridge H. Henning, Jr.,*for respondent.

Motion for a counsel fee pursuant to G.L. 1956, §28-35-32, as amended, is granted, and petitioner is awarded a counsel fee in the amount of $1200 for services rendered before this court.
#### SOLTZ v. NEWMARK et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Trial—Failure of Proof—Dismissal.

Where plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed at the close of his case for failure of proof, such dismissal should have been without prejudice, and not on the merits.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Barnet Soltz against Morris Newmark and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Modified.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J„ and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

David W. Rockmore (Joseph Fischer, of counsel), for appellant.

Jacob R. Schiff, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The complaint is based upon two accounts alleged to have been stated between one Barnett N. Rod and defendant firm, and the assignment of Rod’s claims to the plaintiff. The answer of the defendants, among other things, denies these, allegations. At the trial the plaintiff clearly failed to establish the statement of either of the accounts sued upon within the rules applicable to such a cause of action, and the complaint was properly dismissed at the close of his case. But the dismissal should not have been upon .the merits.

Judgment modified by striking out the words “upon the merits thereof,” and, as thus modified, affirmed, without costs to either party upon the appeal.
### BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06

- 14

- 00029

- CV

In re: The Estate of James W. Fisher, Deceased

(No. 2011

- 16,479

- CCL IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF HARRISON C OUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

CLERK'S RECORD

SUPREME CO URT CHAPTER 51 FEE

FILING

INDIGENT

STATEWIDE EFILING FE E $314.00

$50.00
$100.00

$25.00
$20.00 PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID FRANK M. MASON, PC
FRANK M. MASON, PC
FRANK M. MASON, PC
FRANK M. MASON, PC
FRANK M. MASON, PC

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Cour t of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.**

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of

the COURT OF APPEALS for the Sixth District of Texas, this January 15, 2015

.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___

________________________ Deputy
Contacts, With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Cohtacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft A.ssociation Eli CoW LIh;t/1 -

Regional A.irline Association Davc Lotterer

''1///0'1 -

Aircraft Owners & Pilol:S Association Robert Hackman '-(Mer

ATA Craig Fabian

, Lflr/lff -
### §70503. Ground-based analog capabilities

(a) In General.—The Administrator may establish a ground-based analog capability in remote United States locations in order to assist in the development of lunar operations, life support, and in-situ resource utilization experience and capabilities.

(b) Environmental Characteristics.—The Administrator shall select locations for the activities described in subsection (a) that—

(1) are regularly accessible;

(2) have significant temperature extremes and range; and

(3) have access to energy and natural resources (including geothermal, permafrost, volcanic, or other potential resources).

(c) Involvement of Local Populations and Private Sector Partners.—In carrying out this section, the Administrator shall involve local populations, academia, and industrial partners as much as possible to ensure that ground-based benefits and applications are encouraged and developed.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3430.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 70503 | 42 U.S.C. 16764. | Pub. L. 109–155, title V, §504, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2929. |

Section
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer ofSerologicals Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’sAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 1, 2006 (the “Report”)as filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: March 16, 2006

 
|   |   | /s/ Harold W. Ingalls                                |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Harold W. Ingalls                                    |
|   |   | Vice President, Finance and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

2

----
### §424. Increased micro-purchase threshold for certain procurements

In the administration of section 1902 of title 41 with respect to a procurement referred to in section 422 of this title, the amount specified in subsections (a), (d), and (e) of such section 1902 shall be deemed to be $7,500.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §854, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2236.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In text, "section 1902 of title 41" substituted for "section 32 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428)" and "subsections (a), (d), and (e) of such section 1902" substituted for "subsections (c), (d), and (f) of such section 32" on authority of Pub. L. 111–350, §6(c), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3854, which Act enacted Title 41, Public Contracts.
§ 1698.3 Requests for additional information. ( a ) The Director may request additional appropriate information from the requester for an advisory opinion.
( b ) The Director will forward a copy of the request by a Federal, state or municipal governmental agency for an advisory opinion to the person to whom the request pertains and invite his comments on it.
### §312302. Declaration of national interest

Because the fabric of a society is strengthened by visible reminders of the historical roots of the society, it is in the national interest to encourage the preservation and protection of the cemeteries, monuments, and historic buildings associated with the foreign heritage of United States citizens.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3252.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 312302 | 16 U.S.C. 469j(a). | Pub. L. 99–83, title XIII, §1303(a), Aug. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 280. |

Section
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SAMAD HAASIM ARRINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-26, CA-96-69-1-V)

Submitted: September 30, 1997 Decided: October 17, 1997

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samad Haasim Arrington, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Arrington, Nos. CR-94-26; CA-96-69-1-V

(W.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00222-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF Carlos AGUILAR, Deceased

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PB4-000048-L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 3, 2015

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

Appellants Vanessa Arce and Eudelia Aguilar filed a notice of appeal from a probate court 

order dated February 13, 2015. In response, appellee Clarissa Aguilar filed a motion to dismiss 

the appeal for want of jurisdiction, arguing the order from which appellants are attempting to 

appeal is not a final, appealable order, but is merely a discovery order that is not appealable. We 

grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 

S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 2006) (citing Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 

2001)). A judgment or order is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending 

parties and claims before the court. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. In the probate context, however, 

there may be multiple judgments on discrete issues that are final for purposes on appeal. De Ayala, 
04-15-00222-CV

- 2 -

193 S.W.3d at 578. However, not every interlocutory order in a probate case is appealable. Id. In 

De Ayala, the supreme court held that if there is no express statute declaring the phase of the 

probate proceeding to be final and appealable, a probate court order is final and appealable only if 

it disposes of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings. Id. at 579. 

Here, the order appellants seek to appeal concerns discovery issues. Because we found no 

statute declaring such an order appealable under the Probate Code, it did not appear that the order 

disposed of all parties or issues in a particular phase of the proceedings, and we discovered no 

other statutory authority permitting an appeal from an interlocutory discovery order, we ordered

appellants to file in this court, on or before May 18, 2015, a written response showing cause why 

this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id.; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2014). We advised appellants that if they failed to 

satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), (c). Appellants did not file a response. 

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. We order costs assessed against appellants. 

PER CURIAM