alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(May 23, 1962)

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v. Charles Trudeau, Also Known as Charles Truedell, Also Known as Charles Devereau, Also Known as Paul Denning, Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal by defendant unanimously dismissed upon the ground that the order appealed from is not appealable. Appeal by the People unanimously dismissed in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: The trial court at the close of the People’s case granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the second and third counts of the indictment charging forgery, second degree, and the fifth count charging grand larceny, first degree, the latter in violation of section 1293-a of the ¡Penal Law. The People appeal. Subdivision 3 of section 518 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes an appeal by the People “ From an order of the court, made at any stage of the action * * * dismissing the indictment on a ground other than the insufficiency of the evidence adduced at the trial”. It is clear that the motions made by the defense herein were addressed to the sufficiency of the proof adduced by the People and were not made on any defect or legal insufficiency appearing on the face of the three counts as set forth in the indictments. Thus at the outset defense counsel stated: *“*I would like to make various motions addressed to the indictment *and the sufficiency of the proof.”*(Emphasis supplied.) It is plain from a reading of the following 63 pages of the transcript that both the court and respective counsel were addressing themselves to the sufficiency, or lack thereof, of the proof. Finally the court dismissed the fifth count “ for failure of proof.” After a short recess the court granted the motion to dismiss all three counts. While the court did not again repeat ritualistically the basis of its decision, it is plain that all counts were dismissed because of “the insufficiency of the evidence adduced at the trial”. It follows that an appeal from such order is barred by the exception contained in subdivision 3 of section 518. (Cf. *Matter of Kraemer*v. *County Court,*6 N Y 2d 363.) (Appeals from order of Onondaga County Court dismissing the second, third and fifth counts of an indictment No. 9270 charging the defendant, Charles Trudeau, with forgery, second degree (two counts) and grand larceny, first degree, (Penal Law, § 1293-a), at the close of the People’s ease, and denying motion to dismiss the other two counts.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
§ 2004.12 ISOO review of agency NISP implementation. ( a ) ISOO fulfills its oversight role based, in part, on information received from NISP Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC) members, from on-site reviews that ISOO conducts under the authority of E.O. 12829, and from any submitted complaints and suggestions. ISOO reports findings to the responsible CSA or agency.
( b ) ISOO reviews agency policies and guidelines to ensure consistency with NISP policies and procedures. ISOO may conduct reviews during routine oversight visits, when a problem or potential problem comes to ISOO's attention, or after a change in national policy that impacts agency policies and guidelines. ISOO provides the responsible agency with findings from these reviews.
### §6373. Authority to participate in both programs

(a) The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations under which an employee participating in a leave bank program under this subchapter may, subject to such terms or conditions as the Office may establish, also make or receive donations of leave under subchapter III.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of section 6337 or 6371, if an employee uses leave transferred to such employee under subchapter III and leave made available to such employee under this subchapter in connection with the same medical emergency, the maximum number of days of annual leave and sick leave, respectively, which may accrue to such employee in connection with such medical emergency shall be the same as if all of that leave had been made available to such employee under this subchapter.

(Added Pub. L. 100–566, §2(a), Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2843; amended Pub. L. 103–103, §5(a)(1), Oct. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 1023.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–103 substituted "Authority to participate in both programs" for "Limitation on employee participation" in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "An employee in a unit of an agency that establishes a leave bank program under the provisions of this subchapter may not participate in a leave transfer program under the provisions of subchapter III."

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

#### Effective Date of 1993 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–103 effective as of the 120th day after Oct. 8, 1993, or such earlier date as the Office of Personnel Management may by regulation prescribe, see section 6 of Pub. L. 103–103, set out as a note under section 6331 of this title.
§ 1803.1 Authority and purpose. ( a ) *Authority.* This part is issued under the authority of and in order to implement § 3.6 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12958 (or successor Orders); and Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 403).
( b ) *Purpose.* This part prescribes procedures, subject to limitations set forth below, for members of the public to request a declassification review of information classified under the various provisions of this or predecessor Orders. Section 3.6 of E.O. 12958 and these regulations do not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, officers, or employees.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Bogan, Respondent, v. J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Clinton County which sustained a writ of habeas corpus *“*to the extent that ” relator was directed to be remanded for resentence for the felony to which he pleaded guilty on May 14, 1941 and for which he was resentenced as a third felony offender; the order reciting as *569the basis for this relief its determination that relator’s resentence upon one of the prior convictions used to constitute him a multiple offender was invalid for failure of compliance with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that such prior conviction “ should not be considered as a' prior felony conviction". The prior adjudication was properly considered as constituting relator a multiple offender and while it remains in force no infirmity in the sentence affords ground for an attack upon the sentence under which relator is presently held. *(People ex rel. Emanuel*v. *McMann,*7 N Y 2d 342; *People ex rel. Egitto*v. *Jackson,*7 A D 2d 808, motion for leave to appeal denied 5 N Y 2d 711, cert. denied 360 U. S. 906.) Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and writ dismissed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 32.4

Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 on Form 10-Q of Duquesne Light Company (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), Mark E. Kaplan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITNESS the due execution hereof this 10thday of May, 2007.



/s/ Mark E. KaplanMark E. KaplanSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or 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 Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. and will be
retained by Duquesne Light Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
M. P. No. 77-194.

#### Catherine A. Greene *v.*Gloria M. McDonald, *in her capacity as Warden of the Adult Correctional Institution, Women’s Division.*

*Everett A. Petronio,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, for respondent.

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed in the above-entitled matter. Pending a decision by the full court on the issue of granting the petition, the petitioner will be released on bail in the amount of $1,000 without surety.
#### Charles A. Griffin, appellee, v. Alfred Hodges, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,818.

Suit for real estate broker’s commissions. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. J. R. Pritchard, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Rehearing denied April 27, 1925.

Ellis *&*Westbrooks, for appellant; Harris B. Gaines and Blaine G. Alston, of counsel.

Alonzo E. Tansil, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §9501. Internal Revenue Service personnel flexibilities

(a) Any flexibilities provided by sections 9502 through 9510 of this chapter shall be exercised in a manner consistent with—

(1) chapter 23 (relating to merit system principles and prohibited personnel practices);

(2) provisions relating to preference eligibles;

(3) except as otherwise specifically provided, section 5307 (relating to the aggregate limitation on pay);

(4) except as otherwise specifically provided, chapter 71 (relating to labor-management relations); and

(5) subject to subsections (b) and (c) of section 1104, as though such authorities were delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1104(a)(2).

(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall provide the Office of Personnel Management with any information that Office requires in carrying out its responsibilities under this section.

(c) Employees within a unit to which a labor organization is accorded exclusive recognition under chapter 71 shall not be subject to any flexibility provided by sections 9507 through 9510 of this chapter unless the exclusive representative and the Internal Revenue Service have entered into a written agreement which specifically provides for the exercise of that flexibility. Such written agreement may be imposed by the Federal Services Impasses Panel under section 7119.

(Added Pub. L. 105–206, title I, §1201(a), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 712.)
### §350. Workforce health and medical support

#### (a) In general

The Under Secretary for Management shall be responsible for workforce-focused health and medical activities of the Department. The Under Secretary for Management may further delegate responsibility for those activities, as appropriate.

#### (b) Responsibilities

The Under Secretary for Management, in coordination with the Chief Medical Officer, shall—

(1) provide oversight and coordinate the medical and health activities of the Department for the human and animal personnel of the Department;

(2) establish medical, health, veterinary, and occupational health exposure policy, guidance, strategies, and initiatives for the human and animal personnel of the Department;

(3) as deemed appropriate by the Under Secretary, provide medical liaisons to the components of the Department, on a reimbursable basis, to provide subject matter expertise on occupational medical and public health issues;

(4) serve as the primary representative for the Department on agreements regarding the detail of Commissioned Corps officers of the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department, except that components of the Department shall retain authority for funding, determination of specific duties, and supervision of such detailed Commissioned Corps officers; and

(5) perform such other duties relating to the responsibilities described in this subsection as the Secretary may require.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VII, §710, as added Pub. L. 115–387, §2(d), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5167.)
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 Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David J. Noble, Chairman/Director and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ David J. NobleDavid J. NobleChairman/DirectorAnd Principal Executive OfficerNovember 8, 2004Date




-9-
#### Dorothy Ames v. Michael G. Ames.

Motion for a stay granted on condition that the defendant pays all arrears in support and maintenance, if any, as well as the current weekly support and maintenance payments fixed in the judgment appealed from, and in addition thereto $25 per week for so long as defendant continues to occupy the apartment at 14 Stuyvesant Oval, New York, N. Y., and upon the further condition that the defendant-appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed with this court on or before December 12, 1960, with notice of argument for the January 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before December 27, 1960. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 3121—NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES**

Sec.
312101.
Definitions.
312102.
Establishment and purposes.
312103.
Principal office.
312104.
Board of trustees.
312105.
Powers.
312106.
Consultation with National Park System Advisory Board.
EAA Aviation Center ▪ PO Box 3086, Oshkosh, WI 54903

- 3086 ▪ Ph: 920

- 426

- 4800 ▪ Fax: 920

- 426

- 6560 ▪ www.eaa.org October 13, 2010

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System

400 7 th Street S.W., Room PL 401 Washington, DC, 20591

- 0001

Dear Sirs:

Reference: DOT Docket No. FAA

- 200 7

- 27080

, Request for Rulemaking change to 14 CFR part 91.151(a)(3)

.
EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With an international membership of 170,000 people in more than 112 nations, EAA brings togethe r aviation enthusiasts, pilots and aircraft owners who are dedicated to the continued growth of aviation, the preservation of its history and a commitment to aviation’s future. EAA programs, activities and events are known throughout the world for Preserv ing the heritage of aviation, Promoting access to flight, Protecting the right to fly, Preparing the future of aviation, and of

our Passion for aviation safety and education.

The International Aerobatic Club (IAC) was for med in 1970 for the purpose of formalizing the Experimental Aircraft Association’s (EAA) Precision Flying Division into a true membership organization, to write the rules and to set up the corporate structure to promote "g rass roots" aerobatics. Included within that purpose was to encourage the development of the basic skills needed in aerobatic flying through the creation of a "building block" system of aerobatic competition categories

- what became the Sportsman, Intermed iate, Advanced and Unlimited levels. These categories remain in place today with a Primary category added in the early 1990’s.

On M ay 7, 2007 the FAA terminated the EAA and IAC petition for Rulemaking action to change 14 CFR 91.151 by adding a new paragraph (a)(3).

The same conditions exist today that were noted on the original petition for Rulemaking

.

T herefore

, EAA and IAC are asking the FAA re

- estab lish this R u lemaking action because the general aviation industry continues to need this rule change to ensure/enable safer flight

op erations.

Sincerely,

/s/

Randy Hansen

Government Relations Director
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 86572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28841]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group; Health, Behavior, and Context 
Subcommittee.
    Date: February 22, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NICHD/NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 
(Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Kimberly L. Houston, M.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, 6701B Rockledge Drive, Room 2137C, Bethesda, 
MD 20892, 301-827-4902, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#741f1d19161106180d5a1c1b0107001b1a341a1d1c5a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96fdfffbf4f3e4faefb8fef9e3e5e2f9f8d6f8fffeb8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 23, 2020.
Ronald J. Livingston, Jr.,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-28841 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Jacob Harmon Snyder, Appellant, *v.*Waity Sherman et al., Respondents.

Under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 2545), declaring that the decree of a surrogate “ shall not be reversed for an error in admitting or rejecting evidénce unless it appears to the appellate court that the exceptant was necessarily prejudiced thereby, ” to justify a reversal it must appear that had competent evidence, which was rejected, been received, the appellant’s case would not have failed, or without improper evidence which was received, the respondent’s case was deficient.

(Argued February 27, 1882;

decided March 14, 1882.)

This was an appeal from a judgment of General Term affirming the decree of a surrogate admitting to probate the will of Elizabeth Snyder, deceased. The probate was contested on the ground of want of mental capacity to make a will. The court held that the evidence sufficiently established mental capacity, and that the decisions of the surrogate and of the General Term were final. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1337; *Davis*v. Cla/rk, 87 N. Y. 623 ; *In re*Ross, id. 514.) It was argued “ that the surrogate admitted illegal incompetent testimony under objection by the contestant, and rejected proper and competent-testimany 'offered in his behalf.” The court say on this question :

“It is provided (§ 2545, Code, *supra,)*that the decree of a surrogate c shall not be reversed for an error in admitting or rejecting evidence, unless it appears to the appellate court that the exceptant was necessarily prejudiced thereby. ’ It is •not necessary in this case to determine the extent or limitation of this new statute. Each case must be determined upon its own circumstances; but it is not enough for us to see that incompetent evidence has been received or pertinent evidence excluded, we must also be satisfied that with the excluded evidence the appellant had not failed in his proof, or that without the improper evidence the respondents’ case was deficient. ”

After considering the alleged improper ruling, the court held that the evidence alleged to have been improperly rejected could not have aided the contestant, and that without any of the evidence to which exceptions appear the other evidence established the testamentary capacity of the- testatrix at the time of the execution of thé will.'

*657
      *James Lansing*for respondents.

Danforth, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur, except Rapadlo, J., absent; Tract, J., concurring in result.

Judgment affirmed.
#### STATE v. STEWART

No. 497P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 554

Petition by defendant (Stewart) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 December 1997.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEITH LAMAR FOSTER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 194 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether, under the applicable totality of the circumstances test, the 

detective’s representation to petitioner that he was not a suspect rendered 

petitioner’s subsequent statement involuntary?
### SUBCHAPTER I—TRANSPORTATION SECURITY PLANNING AND INFORMATION SHARING
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Michael J. Hoffman, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Constar International Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 quarterly report.



|                      |  |     |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 25, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ MICHAEL J. HOFFMAN               
|                      |  |     |  | Michael J. Hoffman                   
|                      |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer