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

Judgment convicting defendant after trial of three counts of robbery in the first degree unanimously affirmed. Defendant argues he was incapable of making his defense because of “ idiocy, imbecility, lunacy, or insanity” (Penal Law, § 1120). He testified in his own behalf. Implicit in the trial court’s rulings is the finding that there was no reasonable ground for believing the defendant’s assertion of insanity and consequent inability to defend. During the trial, at the direction of the court, a psychiatric examination of defendant was attempted. Defendant was uncommunicative and the report therefore was that continuous observation of him over a period of time was necessary in order to make a diagnosis. A presentence examination resulted in the medical opinion that defendant was not in such a state of “idiocy, imbecility or insanity as to be incapable ■* a * of making his defense.” The said medical reports are not part of the trial record. However, on this court’s motion, the medical reports were submitted to defendant’s counsel and have been considered by this court together with the comments of defendant’s counsel thereon (cf. *People*v. *Hawa,*15 A D 2d 740; *People*v. *Wilson,*16 A D 2d 207). In the circumstances we conclude it was well within the discretion of the trial court to proceed with the trial and not to direct a statutory proceeding under section 658 *et seq.*of the Code of Criminal Procedure. *(People*v. *Esposito,*287 N. Y. 389.) Defendant also alleges error in the trial court’s refusal to permit defendant’s counsel to inspect the pretrial statement of Sease. The statement was submitted to defendant’s counsel by our direction and he stated he had no comment thereon. The statement of Sease is not inconsistent with his testimony and the denial of its inspection by defendant during the trial was in accord with *People*v. *Walsh*(262 N. Y. 140). After the trial of this case, *People*v. *Rosario*(9 NY 2d 288) enlarged a defendant’s right of inspection as to such a statement by dispensing with the showing of its variance with the testimony of the witness. The record establishes defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and our examination of the statement leads us to conclude the omission to make it available to defendant during the trial was not prejudicial and does not require a reversal. (Code Grim. Pro., § 542; *People*v. *Rosario,*supra;*People*v. *Hernandez,*10 N Y 2d 774; *People*v. *Turner,*10 N Y 2d 839.) We have examined the other errors urged by defendant and find them without substance. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Union Agreements in the Canned Fruit and Vegetable Industry

              																	Zander, Judith Phyllis. 						*Union Agreements in the Canned Fruit and Vegetable Industry : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 794*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1944,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4269,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

 

**FORM 6-K**

 

**REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER**

**PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF**

**THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

For the Month of May 2005

GENESYS S.A.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

L'Acropole, 954-980 avenue Jean Mermoz, 34000 Montpellier, FRANCE

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

> 
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F. 

Form 20-F    X            Form 40-F         

> 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):____ 

> 
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):____ 

> 
Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the     information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

Yes                No     X    

> 
If “Yes” is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-_______________.

 

 

 

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6193

KELVIN A. CANADA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER WALTER DAVIS; SGT. WILLIAM WRIGHT; SGT. PAUL PAYNE; 

CAPT. DEWAYNE TURNER,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

HEAD NURSE VICKI PHIPPS; DR. TIMOTHY MCBRIDE; NURSE M. 

SCOTT,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:11-cv-00569-SGW-PMS)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin A. Canada, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 
2

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin A. Canada appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Canada 

v. Davis, No. 7:11-cv-00569-SGW-PMS (W.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2013). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 870.15 Reclamation fee payment. ( a ) You must pay the reclamation fee based on calendar quarter tonnage no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
( b ) Along with any fee payment due, you must submit to us a completed Coal Sales and Reclamation Fee Report (OSM-1 Form). You can file the OSM-1 Form either in paper format or in electronic format as specified in § 870.17. On the OSM-1 Form, you must report: ( 1 ) The tonnage of coal sold, used, or transferred;
( 2 ) The name and address of any person or entity who is the owner of 10 percent or more of the mineral estate for a given permit; and
( 3 ) The name and address of any person or entity who purchases 10 percent or more of the production from a given permit, during the applicable quarter.
( c ) If no single mineral owner or purchaser meets the 10 percent criterion in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, then you must report the name and address of the largest single mineral owner and purchaser. If several persons have successively transferred the mineral rights, you must include on the OSM-1 Form information on the last owner(s) in the chain before the permittee, i.e. the person or persons who have granted the permittee the right to extract the coal.
( d ) At the time of reporting, you may designate the information required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section as confidential.
[73 FR 67632, Nov. 14, 2008]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9931 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9931

          To provide bankruptcy relief for student borrowers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2024

   Mr. Nadler (for himself, Mr. Correa, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. 
   Scanlon, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Norton, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. 
 Velazquez, Mr. Neguse, Mr. Lieu, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, 
   Ms. Waters, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
Raskin, Ms. Lee of California, and Mr. Carson) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To provide bankruptcy relief for student borrowers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief 
Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Exception to Discharge.--Section 523 of title 11, United States 
Code, is amended in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (8).
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1328(a)(2) of title 11, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``(8),''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this Act 
shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under title 11, United 
States Code, on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 941.783 Underground mining permit applications—minimum requirements for information on environmental resources.

Part 783 of this chapter, *Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Information on Environmental Resources,* shall apply to any person who submits an application to conduct underground mining operations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheeet at June 30, 2000 and the Company's
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the six months ended June 30,
2000 and is qualified in its entirety by refernce to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             394
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    11569
<ALLOWANCES>                                       428
<INVENTORY>                                       3753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 15762
<PP&E>                                            6690
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   19775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            15694
<BONDS>                                            562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1235
<OTHER-SE>                                         951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     19775
<SALES>                                          21188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 21219
<CGS>                                            18674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    18674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (170)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (170)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (170)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
#### HOWARD v. ROBBINS ENTERPRISES, INC.

No. 394P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 829

Motion by defendant to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 October 1997. Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Wages in Petroleum Drilling and Production in the Southwest, April 1944

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Division of Industrial Relations					 and 	Watson, Walter T. 						*Wages in Petroleum Drilling and Production in the Southwest, April 1944 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 810*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1945,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4279,			accessed on September 17, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1*


Section 1350 Certification


        We, Christopher J. Dyball and Richard M. Haddock, the co-chief executive
officers of Drexler Technology Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), certify pursuant to section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the
United States Code that, to our knowledge:

        (i)     the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and

        (ii)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: August 11, 2004


/s/ Christopher J. Dyball                    /s/ Richard M. Haddock
-------------------------                    ----------------------
Christopher J. Dyball                        Richard M. Haddock


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

*       The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed "filed" with
the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.


                                       52
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Pay Differentials for Night Work Under Union Agreements

              																	Williams, Constance Willard. 						*Pay Differentials for Night Work Under Union Agreements : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 748*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1943,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4234,			accessed on September 22, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      587
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            23,786
<ALLOWANCES>                              1,430
<INVENTORY>                              15,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         45,019
<PP&E>                                   18,096
<DEPRECIATION>                           13,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           60,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    16,075
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  2,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                               20,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             60,864
<SALES>                                  21,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         21,299
<CGS>                                    15,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            15,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          5,156
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           74
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,019
<INCOME-TAX>                                391
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         628
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                628
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.10




</TABLE>
Second Department,

Mat, 1963

(May 6, 1963)

#### Elias Auerbach, Respondent-Appellant, v. Shafstor, Inc., et al., Defendants, and R. C. Williams *&*Company, Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

In a stockholder’s derivative action, the plaintiff and the defendant R. C. Williams *&*Company, Inc., cross-appeal as follows from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester .County, dated July 3, 1962, which granted in part their respective motions: (1) Plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as directed him to furnish to said defendant security in the sum of $35,000, pursuant to statute (General Corporation Law, § 61-b); and (2) said defendant corporation appeals from so much of the order: (a) as directed it to furnish to plaintiff a list of its stockholders; and (b) as extended plaintiff’s time to *532furnish such security until 60 days after he shall have received such list. [For opinion below, see 34 Mise 2d 658.] On September 28, 1962, the court made an order resettling the order appealed from without changing its substance. No appeal was taken, however, from such resettled order. Appeals from the original order of July 3, 1962, dismissed, without costs; such order was superseded by the subsequent order of September 28, 1962. Pursuant to the authority conferred by statute (Civ. Prae. Act, § 562-a), we have reviewed the subsequent order of September 28, 1962, and have considered the respective appeals as if they were taken from such order. Order of September 28, 1962, affirmed, without costs. The time of the defendant Williams Corporation to furnish plaintiff with -the list of its stockholders, as directed in the second decretal paragraph of said order (and of the original order), is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon or until such time as the parties, by written stipulation, may hereafter mutually agree. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Opinion filed October 21, 2010



## In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________



### No. 11

- 10

- 00 218

- C V

__________

ANDREW McCORMACK , Appellant

V.

VICTORIA DIANE (McCORMACK) TORRES

, Appellee

On Appeal from the 318 th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FM 50,246

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Andrew McCormack has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. McCorm a ck

states that all disputes and controversies have been resolved. The motion is granted, and the

appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 21, 2010

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.