alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Anthony Messina, Robert Orr and Joseph Grande, Respondents.

In a criminal action, in which, on a prior appeal to this court (see 19 A D 2d 655), judgments of conviction against the defendants were reversed and a new trial ordered, the People appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 31, 1963, which, after a hearing and upon the court’s opinion, granted the defendants’ motion to suppress certain evidence against them on the ground that it was obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure. The People have filed the statement required by statute to perfect their appeal from said order (Code Grim. Pro., § 518, subd. 6; § 518-a). Order reversed on the law and the facts and motion denied. In our opinion, at the time that the defendants were questioned by the police and the automobile occupied by defendants was searched, the police had reasonable cause to believe in good faith that the defendants had committed the crime of burglary *(People*v. *Coffey,*12 N Y 2d 443; *People*v. *Santiago,*13 N Y 2d 326, 331; *People*v. *Cassone,*20 A D 2d 118; cf. *Preston*v. *United States,*376 U. S. 364). The mere fact that, at the time of the search and seizure the police did not know about the specific burglary which had actually been committed, does not require a determination that the arrest and the search and seizure were unlawful *(People*v. *Cassone, supra).*Accordingly, the motion to suppress should have been denied. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### Margaret Barish, Respondent, v. David B. Carmel et al., Appellants.

Order entered on January 23, 1962, denying motion pursuant to section 96 of the Civil Practice Act to sever action, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ. [33 Misc 2d 78.]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Hines, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to discontinue appeal granted on the consent of District Attorney; appeal discontinued. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from National
Property Investors 4 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000318508
<NAME> NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 4
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,674
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          25,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,026)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         19,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,939)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,037
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,329
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    781
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                781
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (370)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       411
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.78<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
----

----

| $150,716.43 (the “Principal Amount”) |                                  Date: October 28, 2010As set forth in Section 1 hereof, the Date of Issuance shall be September 1, 2010 |
|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | PHOTOMEDEX, INC. |                                             |
|--------|------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |             |                                             |   |
|   | By:              | /s/ Dennis M. McGrath                       |   |
|   |             | Name:  Dennis M. McGrath               |   |
|   |             | Title :   Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |             |                                             |   |

----

----
#### In the Matter of Herbert Lane et al., Respondents. Gusta Phillips, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 22, 1978, granting petition for appointment of a conservator of the property of appellant’s wife, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to the extent of striking so much of it as directed appellant to make all payments for the maintenance and support of conservatee in the nursing home in which she is presently confined from his own assets and directed certain payments to the conservatee to be held in escrow and not applied to payment of conservatee’s nursing home expenses, without prejudice to the conservator’s right in an appropriate proceeding to seek support from appellant, and otherwise affirmed. In this appeal from a judgment appointing a conservator, the only issue is raised by that part of the judgment that directed the appellant, the conservatee’s husband, to make from his own assets all payments for the maintenance and support of the conservatee in the nursing home in which she is presently confined from his own assets. We are in agreement with appellant’s central contention that he was not fairly informed that the court would include in its judgment a direction with regard to his obligation to support the conservatee from his own separate funds, and that he was not afforded an adequate opportunity to litigate the nature and extent of his obligation. The petition to appoint a conservator, initiated by the conservatee’s children by a prior marriage, included in its proposed plan the following: "(d) To institute an action against David Phillips, the proposed Conservatee’s husband, seeking support for the proposed Conservatee in the event he refuses to voluntarily support his wife.” Implicit in that subdivision was a proposal that such an action should be brought by the conservator thereafter, not that the instant proceedings were to be the vehicle for determining the question. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address the separate question raised whether in a proceeding to appoint a conservator pursuant to article 77 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the court has the power to require support from the spouse of a conservatee. Under the circumstances presented, we do not think it prudent to direct at this time restitution to the appellant of the money paid pursuant to the judgment appealed from. (See CPLR 5523.) The facts before us are inadequate to permit a determination as to the impact such an order of restitution would have on the capacity of the conservator to discharge his duties to the conservatee, or to reach an informed judgment as to the *656underlying merits. (See Family Ct Act, § 412.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Lane, Markewich and Silverman, JJ.
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

Sincerely, 

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration.

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties 

of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

cc: State Director

July 15, 2020

Honorable Tony Dearman 

Director 

Bureau of Indian Education, U.S. Department of Interior 

1849 C Street Northwest, MS-3609 MIB 

Washington, District of Columbia 20240 

tony.dearman@bie.edu 

Dear Director Dearman: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act for 

grant award H027A180009. 

The Department received your June 17, 2020 request on behalf of Bureau of Indian Education,

U.S. Department of Interior for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal fiscal 

year (FFY) 2018 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for obligation 

through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) State Lead, Jennifer

Wolfsheimer, at Jennifer.Wolfsheimer@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

/s/
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-60222 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Kevin Vincent Ellis, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi 

No. 1:20-CR-98-1 

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Kevin Ellis appeals the 90-month within-guidelines sentence imposed 

for possession of a firearm as a felon. He contends that his offense level was 

erroneously enhanced by four for his possessing the firearm in connection 

with another felony offense. Seeking to enforce the waiver of appeal in Ellis’s 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances 

set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

October 19, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-60222 Document: 00516060718 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2021
No. 21-60222 

2 

plea agreement, the government moves to dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, for summary affirmance. 

Whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal is a question this court 

reviews de novo. United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). The 

question turns on “a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the waiver was knowing 

and voluntary and (2) whether the waiver applies to the circumstances at 

hand, based on the plain language of the agreement.” United States v. Bond, 

414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). 

The record reflects that both those conditions are met here. Ellis 

maintains that the court should apply a miscarriage-of-justice exception and 

disregard the waiver. “Though some other circuits recognize such an exception, we have declined explicitly either to adopt or to reject it.” United States 

v. Barnes, 953 F.3d 383, 389 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 438 (2020). We 

do not do so now. 

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, the alternative 

motion for summary affirmance is DENIED, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Case: 21-60222 Document: 00516060718 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2021
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Allan L. Bridgford, Chairman of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period July 9, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: August 23, 2004



/s/ Allan L. BridgfordAllan L. Bridgford, Chairman(Principal Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of Megan M. Carmichael, Appellant, and Elspeth E. Carmichael, Plaintiff, v National Shawmut Bank of Boston et al., Respondents.

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 26, 1978 in St. Lawrence County, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss appellant’s cause of action on the ground that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of Shea, J., at Special Term. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
[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:****Des Moines SE quadrangle, Iowa:7.5-minute series**
 
2010 | 2013
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.81:41093-E 5-TF-024/
Item Number:0619-M-15 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000687846
 
January 10, 2020
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

FRANCIS FIGUEROA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 2465 STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed April 7, 2017 Appeal from the Circui t Court for Orange County , Keith A. Carsten , Judge. William R. Ponall, of Ponall Law, Maitland, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. We affirm Appellant's convictions without prejudice to his right to file a motion pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. AFFIRMED. PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., and BOATRIGHT, J., Associate Judge, concur.
225.408 Procedures. ( a ) (4) The requirements of FAR 25.408(a)(4), on submission of offers in U.S. dollars, do not apply to overseas acquisitions or to Defense Energy Support Center post, camp, or station overseas requirements.
[70 FR 73154, Dec. 9, 2005]
Appeal No. 73-226.

#### Esquire Swimming Pool Products, Inc. *v.*Harry C. Pittman *et ux.*

*Quinn, Cuzzone & Geremia, John F. Cuzzone, Jr.,*for plaintiff. *F. Monroe Allen,*for defendants.

Petition for reargument denied.
§ 757.6 Waiver, compromise, and referral of claims. ( a ) *Officials authorized to compromise claims.* The officers identified in § 757.5(b) may collect the full amount on all claims, and may compromise, execute releases or terminate collection action on all claims of $20,000.00 or less. Collection action may be terminated for the convenience of the Government if the tortfeasor cannot be located, is found to be judgment-proof, has denied liability, or has refused to respond to repeated correspondence concerning legal liability involving a small claim. A termination for the convenience of the Government is made after it is determined that the case does not warrant litigation or that it is not cost-effective to pursue recovery efforts.
( b ) *Claims over $100,000.00.* Claims in excess of $100,000.00 may not be compromised for less than the full amount or collection action terminated without approval from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
( c ) *Notification.* The Judge Advocate General shall be notified prior to all requests made to the DOJ to compromise, terminate collection, or referral for further collection action or litigation.
( d ) *Litigation reports.* Litigation reports prepared in accordance with 31 CFR part 904 shall be forwarded through the Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation) to the Department of Justice along with any case file for further collection action or litigation as required by the Federal Claims Collections Standards.
[57 FR 5072, Feb. 12, 1992, as amended at 72 FR 53428, Sept. 19, 2007]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1711

_____________________________
H OZELL C OLE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duva l County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. February 21, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_ ____________________________2 Hozell Cole, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley B

. Moody , Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for the Project Known as Cadman Plaza Urban Renewal Project. Jackline Realty Corp., Appellant.

In a condemnation proceeding, the claimant with respect to Damage Parcel No. 75 appeals from so much of the second and last separate and partial final decree of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 20, 1964 upon the court’s decisions and opinions after a nonjury trial, as awarded $300,000 to the claimant for said damage parcel. Decree modified on the law and the facts by increasing the award from $300,000 to $402,000. As so modified, the decree, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with costs to the claimant. Findings of fact made by the court below which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the award was inadequate in view of the facts that: (1) in an arms-length transaction in February, 1934, at the depth of the real estate depression, claimant had purchased the property for $312,000; (2) for a number of years the city had assessed the property at $400,000; and (3) the city’s own expert in this proceeding had valued the property at $402,000. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cr−00109

Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman

Heon Seok Lee

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, May 20, 2015:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: as to Heon Seok

Lee; Status hearing held on 5/20/2015. Status hearing set for 6/10/2015 is stricken and

reset to 7/15/2015 at 09:45 AM. Defendant granted leave to consult with work that is not

concerning the product that is the subject of this investigation. As long as defendant is in

the care of the 3rd party custodian, he may accompany them outside of the home for their

purposes, not his. Defendant to be present at the next status. Time excluded to 7/15/2015

pursuant to 18:3161(h)(7)(B)(i). Mailed notice (rth, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cr-00109 Document #: 31 Filed: 05/20/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:110
#### In the Matter of County of Suffolk, Respondent, v Pauline Glover, Appellant.

Order and decree (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 10, 1978, affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Glickman at Special Condemnation Term. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Mangano, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7403

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC JUNIOR HOLLOWELL, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief 

District Judge. (2:08-cr-00076-RBS-JEB-1)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Junior Hollowell, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott 

Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Junior Hollowell, Sr. appeals the district 

court’s order construing his successive 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2006) motion for sentence reduction as a motion for 

reconsideration, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Hollowell, No. 2:08-cr-00076-RBS-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2012). 

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