alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 865.117 Final disposition of the record of proceedings.

The original record of proceedings and all appendices thereto shall in all cases be incorporated in the military record of the applicant and returned to the custody of the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St. Louis, Missouri. If a portion of the original record cannot be stored with the service record, the service record shall contain a notation as to the place where the record is stored.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John V. Moise, Appellant.

Judgment of February 19, 1962, insofar as it convicted defendant of the fourth count of the indictment (criminally carrying a loaded pistol) unanimously reversed on the law and facts and new trial granted as to that count and otherwise judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. The indictment herein contained five counts charging defendant with (1) attempted robbery, first degree, while armed with a loaded pistol; (2) attempted grand larceny; (3) assault, second degree; (4) criminally carrying concealed upon his person a loaded pistol without a license; and (5) criminally possessing three pistols. There was proof upon the trial that defendant entered a small store with a loaded pistol concealed upon his person and carrying an attache case in which there was another loaded pistol. Appellant attempted to obtain personal property by force and in the course thereof produced the weapon concealed upon his person. At the close of the evidence the court denied a motion to dismiss the several counts. In its charge, however, the court withdrew from the jury all of the counts except that of attempted robbery and the charge of criminally carrying concealed a loaded pistol. Although the court in summarizing the proof outlined the evidence relating to the two pistols it was never made clear to the jury that the submitted count related to the firearm that defendant had concealed upon his person and not the one in the attache case. The subject was further confused by the instruction to the jury that they were required to find that appellant “had this pistol or carried it concealed upon his person.” This was repeated on one or more occasions. Proof of the weapon in the attache case was initially received under the fifth count of the indictment which was not submitted. It is unnecessary to pass upon the present contention of respondent that such proof was admissible under the fourth count — in other words that it constituted a violation of subdivision 5-a of section 1897 of the Penal Law as distinct from possession in violation of subdivision 4 of the same section. In the state of the present record and in the light of the contentions advanced by the prosecutor in this court defendant is entitled to a new trial on the fourth count where the issues may be framed anew with greater precision and clarity. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Bergan and Bastow, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1994
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                               5,241
<SECURITIES>                                        10,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                       23,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    40,453
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      51,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              214,145
<BONDS>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                           249,992
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (412,456)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        51,681
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     7,692
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      102,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (94,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (94,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (37,450)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (132,192)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### Nancy M. Meurer, Respondent, v. John Meurer, Appellant.

Order, entered on April 13, 1964, which, among other things, appointed a receiver in this property and debt action between a husband and wife, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to provide that defendant-appellant forthwith account to the receiver and turn over to the receiver any of the proceeds aggregating $56,000 obtained by him from the sale of the securities and any assets traceable to such proceeds, in his possession or control, and the receiver shall have authority to investigate and appropriately enforce this obligation, pending the determination of this action, otherwise the order is affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-respondent. On defendant husband’s own version of the facts, the health of the plaintiff wife entitles her to the extraordinary protection of the court to prevent any abuse of the fiduciary relationship between the husband and wife. While a provisional receiver may not be appointed in an action based only on a money debt, one may be appointed if the subject of the action is specific moneys (see CPLR 6401, subd. [a]; 13 Carmody-Wait, Cyclopedia of N. Y. Prac., Receivers, § 9, p. 396; 1 Clark, Receivers [3d ed.], § 167.1). Under the extraordinary circumstances involved in this ease, and in view of the admitted facts, the pleadings present, among other things, a claim for an accounting of specific assets, derived from the fiduciary relationship. Hence, the receiver may take into his possession the specific proceeds of the sales of stock and *779traceable assets, in defendant’s husband’s possession or control, but no more. Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Staley, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.1





SECTION
906 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION





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 Annual Report of New Century Companies, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Duquette,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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.





May
      20, 2009
                /s/ David DuquetteName:
                David
      DuquetteTitle:
                Chief
      Executive Officer andChief
      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 Company and will be retained by Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### WATERS et al. v. GAZZAM.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by George S. Waters and Harold B. Sherwin, doing business as copartners, etc., against Anua R. Gazzam.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, without costs.
#### 1816.405-2 Cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contracts.

[62 FR 3478, Jan. 23, 1997. Redesignated at 62 FR 36706, July 9, 1997]
### §6405. Findings and issuance of orders

#### (a) In general

After notice and opportunity for public comment are given, as provided in section 6404 of this title, the Secretary shall issue an order, taking into consideration the comments received and including in the order provisions necessary to ensure that the order is in conformity with the requirements and the declared policy of this chapter.

#### (b) Effective date

Such order shall be issued and, if approved by fluid milk processors as provided in section 6413 of this title, shall become effective not later than 180 days following publication of the proposed order.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIX, §1999F, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3916.)
#### Evalyn Mauss, Respondent, v. Harry Mauss, Appellant.

In an action by a wife for a judicial separation, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered December 11, 1963 after trial, upon the court’s written decision in the wife’s favor, as directed the husband to pay to the wife: (a) permanent alimony of $40 per week; and (b) " all medical, surgical and hospitalization expenses, in a reasonable amount, in excess of such expenses allowed by” the Blue Cross and Blue Shield agencies. Judgment modified on the, facts by amending the second decretal paragraph so as to direct the defendant husband to pay to the plaintiff wife the sum of $25 per week for her support, in addition to her medical, surgical and hospitalization expenses, as specified in the next succeeding paragraph of the judgment. As so modified, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs. The sixth finding of fact in the court’s decision is modified accordingly. In the light of all the facts disclosed by this record, we are of the opinion that the weekly alimony award was excessive to the extent indicated. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### 1503.602 Exceptions.

The Assistant Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources Management may authorize an exception, in writing, to the policy in FAR 3.601 and 1503.601 for the reasons stated in FAR 3.602, if the exception would not involve a violation of 18 U.S.C. 203, 18 U.S.C. 205, 18 U.S.C. 207, 18 U.S.C. 208, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch at 5 CFR part 2635, or the EPA supplemental regulations at 5 CFR part 6401. The Assistant Administrator shall consult with the Designated Agency Ethics Official before authorizing any exceptions.
#### Anne Rosenblum, an Infant, by Louis Rosenblum, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Harry Rosenblum, Appellant, and Daniel Giannini et al., Copartners Doing Business as Danny’s Garden Center, et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Dominick A. Giannini, Respondent, v. Sheldon Rosenblum et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.) (And a Third Action.)

In consolidated negligence actions, the defendants Harry Rosenblum and Sheldon Rosenblum appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 29, 1963, as denied their motion for discovery and inspection of: (a) the I960 and 1961 income tax returns of the plaintiff Dominick A. Giannini; and (b) a certain landscaping Contract between Danny’s Garden Center (a firm in which said plaintiff was a partner) and Clearview Gardens Apartment. Said plaintiff claimed that he suffered a financial loss under such contract because of his inability to pursue his vocation due to the injuries resulting from the accident. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion for discovery and inspection of the tax returns and the contract granted as follows: within 10 days after entry of the order hereon, the plaintiff Dominick A. Giannini is directed to make true copies of his 1960 and 1961 tax returns and of said contract available to defendants Harry and Sheldon Rosenblum, and to permit them to inspect and copy the same; and, in the event suieh copies of the tax returns cannot 'be made available for any reason, then the said plaintiff is directed, within 10 days after entry of the order hereon, to execute and to deliver to said defendants’ attorney, an appropriate instrument authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to send certified copies of the tax returns to such attorney at the latter’s expense. Under the circumstances here, it was an improvident exercise of discretion not to permit such discovery and inspection. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

November 22, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Representatives, 

October 20, 2010

FROM: Chris Nevers

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0865

This memo documents a meeting held on Wednesday, October 20, 2010 between 

representatives of General Motors and EPA to discuss EPA’s proposal “Revision to 

Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label”. The meeting attendees from the Alliance included

Giedrius Ambrozaitis, Tony D’Ambrosi, Rajinder Dhatt, Steve Fornetti, Dan Frakes, 

Ross Gatzke, Matthew Kevnick, Ed Kulik, Will Meschievitz, Donald Nagy, Jessica 

Robinson, Joe Supina, Alex Travis, Sahsi Velnati, and Mahmoud Yassine,, and from 

EPA included Linc Wehrly and Chris Nevers. 

The discussion topics included plug in hybrid range determination and fuel economy 

testing procedures and calculations. The Alliance requested clarification on the above 

topics to better comment on the proposal.
A05A1481.

#### NELSON v. THE STATE.

(618 SE2d 192)

Miller, Judge.

Following a bench trial, Demetrius Nelson was found guilty and convicted of one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and one count of trafficking cocaine. On appeal he contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction on the trafficking charge, and he asserts several other enumerations of error. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and since Nelson has abandoned his remaining enumerations, we affirm.

1. On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. *Short v. State,*234 Ga. App. 633, 634 (1) (507 SE2d 514) (1998). We do not weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, but only determine if the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

So viewed, the evidence reveals that police responded to a call from a motel about Nelson going in and out of a motel room without being a registered guest there. After police determined his identity, Nelson consented to a pat down search. Nelson then removed a motel room safe key from his pocket and a card key that accessed the room in which he claimed to be staying. Though he refused consent at first, Nelson soon agreed to a search of the room, where police found crack cocaine in a pair of pants.1

The police also discovered that several people had been trying to access the room across the hall from Nelson’s room, leading the police and motel management to suspect possible drug trafficking activity. The police searched the room and discovered that the safe key that they had obtained from Nelson opened the safe in the room. The police recovered 58.1 grams of 82 percent pure cocaine from the safe.

The evidence outlined above sufficed to sustain Nelson’s conviction for trafficking cocaine. See OCGA§ 16-13-31 (a) (1) (possession of *586twenty-eight grams or more of cocaine with a purity of ten percent or more constitutes trafficking); see also *Covington v. State,*226 Ga. App. 484, 484-485 (1), (2) (486 SE2d 706) (1997) (evidence sufficed to sustain cocaine trafficking conviction where testimony connected defendant to large quantity of cocaine found in a safe at the home of defendant’s mother).

Decided July 26, 2005.

*Sharon L. Hopkins, Brian W. Whiteside,*for appellant.

*Daniel J. Porter, District Attorney, Lisa A. Jones, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

2. Nelson has failed to support his remaining enumerations by citation of authority or argument. Thus he has abandoned them on appeal. *Thompson v. State,*262 Ga. App. 17, 21 (6) (585 SE2d 125) (2003); Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn, P. J., and Bernes, J., concur.*

1

 Nelson’s conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute arose from the crack cocaine found in this search. Nelson does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to this conviction.
#### In the Matter of Association for the Preservation of Freedom of Choice, Inc., against Caroline Simon, as Secretary of State of the State of New York.

Motion for leave to dispense with printing granted insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard upon a typewritten record, without printing the same, and upon mimeographed appellant’s points, upon condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten record and one copy of the mimeographed appellant’s points on the Attorney-General of the State of New York and files 6 typewritten copies of the record on appeal and 19 mimeographed copies of appellant’s points with this court on or before September 6, 1960, with notice of argument for the October 1960 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1787
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:1788
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:1789
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:1790
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:1791
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:1792
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:1793
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:1794
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:1795
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:1796
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:1797
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:1798
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:1799
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:1800
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:1801
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:1802
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:1803
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:1804
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:1805
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:1806
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:1807
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:1808
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:1809
Case: 1:12-cv-01410 Document #: 226-1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:1810
#### 1432.304 Procedures.
#### Alan R. Varley *v.*Nina B. Varley

*Nina B. Varley,*pro se, in support of the motions.

Submitted September 18

decided October 2, 1974

The defendant’s “Motion to Direct Referee to Hear Defendant-Appellant’s Motion to Amend and Consolidate Assignment of Errors” in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.

The defendant’s “Motion to Direct Referee to Hear Defendant-Appellant’s Motion to Add to Her Pro Se Motion to Add Amendments to Draft Finding of December 6,1973, that were denied by Referee Dec. 17,1973” in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
(April 30, 1962)

#### Patricia M. Ludeman, Respondent, v. Louis H. Ludeman, Appellant.

Motion by respondent to vacate the existing stay of the order appealed from, granted; stay vacated in view of the decision herewith determining the appeal *(Ludeman*v. *Ludeman,*16 A D 2d 703). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEAN BRINSON

No. 147A97

(Filed 3 October 1997)

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 125 N.C. App. 744, 483 S.E.2d 746 (1997), finding no error in defendant’s trial resulting in a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder and a judgment of not less than 270 and not more than 333 months’ imprisonment entered by Brown, J., on 3 June 1996 in Superior Court, Edgecombe County. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 September 1997.

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Harriet F. Worley, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Edward B. Simmons for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.