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

In a *coram, nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County, dated September 27, 1963, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered March 30, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence upon him as a third felony offender. Order reversed and proceeding remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for the purposes of: (a) holding a hearing limited to the question of whether the defendant’s failure to serve and file a timely notice of appeal was attributable to any breach of promise on the part of his court-assigned trial counsel, or to any act or omission on the part of the prison authorities, or to the conduct of both the attorney and the prison authorities; and (b) making a determination *de novo*on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. Under the circumstances here, a hearing should be held for the purposes stated. Whether defendant is entitled to any relief must necessarily depend upon the proof to be adduced (cf. *People*v. *Kling,*19 A D 2d 750, affd. 14 N Y 2d 571; *People*v. *Marchese,*19 A D 2d 728, affd. 14 N Y 2d 695; *People*v. *Adams,*12 N Y 2d 417; *People*v. *Hairston,*10 N Y 2d 92; *People*v. *Bjornsen,*40 Misc 2d 986). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**I, Thomas W. Stoltz, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of The Cato Corporation,certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that onthe date of this Certification:1. the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended May 5, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complieswith 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 financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: June 13, 2007                  /s/ Thomas W. Stoltz   Thomas W. Stoltz        Executive Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer   
24
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert E. Schulze, President 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
January 24,
2003 (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: March 10, 2003



| | /s/ Robert E. Schulze
E. Schulze, President
(Principal Financial Officer)
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Updated:April 12, 2010

Current Report

Archived Annual Reports

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997
The official web site of the U. S.             Department of DefenseAccession Medical Standards Analysis &             Research Activity System�                         �� Click             Here to view our Security Notice and Links Disclaimer �This             site is best viewed at resolutions 800 x 600 and higher
# C_2016411EN.01000101.xml

| 8.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 411/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 411/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7902 — Marriott International/Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 411/01)

On 27 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7902. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7902. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted July 25, 2007

Decided July 26, 2007 Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge No. 06-3643 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. OMARI ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 04-CR-860-1 Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge. O R D E R Omari Andrews pleaded guilty to one count of possessing crack with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). In his plea agreement Andrews waived any right to appe al his convictions or sentences, but he nevertheless filed a notice of appeal. His appointed lawyer now moves to withdraw because he cannot discern a nonfrivolous basis for the appeal. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Andrews has not accepted our invitation to comment on counsel’s motion. See Cir. R. 51(b). Because counsel’s supporting brief is facially adequate, we limit our review to the potential issues identified by counsel. See United States v. Tabb , 125 F.3d 583, 584 (7th Cir. 1997). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 06-3643 Page 2
Andrews promised in his plea agreement to forego challenging his convictions or sentences so long as the district court sentenced him within the statutory maximum and ran the federal terms of imprisonment concurrent with Andrews’s prior undischarged state term of imprisonment. Andrews was subject to a maximum of 40 years’ imprisonment on the drug count, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii), and life on the firearm count, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court sentenced him to a total of 97 months (which was 50 months below the guidelines range) to run concurrently with his state sentence. Accordingly, Andrews is bound by the appeal waiver unl ess he wants his entire plea agreement set aside. See United States v. Whitlow , 287 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Hare , 269 F.3d 859, 860 (7th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a “waiver of appeal is valid, and must be enforced, unless the agreement in which it is contained is annulled”). And counsel advises that Andrews does not seek this relief. To the extent that counsel considers whether Andrews could challenge the execution of his sentence, counsel is correct that the issue would be beyond the scope of direct appeal. See Walker v. O’Brien , 216 F.3d 626, 629 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining that challenges to duration of prisoner’s confinement must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after exhaustion of administrative remedies). We therefore GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. STEEVES v. LEONARD et al., Com’rs.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Certiorari by the people, on the relation of John F. Steeves, against William D. Leonard and others, commissioners, to review a decision of the commissioners. Writ dismissed.

Charles S. Davidson, for relator.

Robert C. Beatty, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in People ex rel. Belmont v. Leonard (herewith handed down) 84 N. Y. Supp. 341, the writ should be dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements.
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 1:31 PM

To: Edwards, Brenda

Subject: Actions as a ballast manufacturer in order to comply with new DOE efficiency rules

Hello Brenda,

I work for a ballast manufacturer, located in Canada, inwhich we manufacturer our products in China & Taiwan.

We sell our products to many of the major fixture OEM’s in the USA & Canada. I was sent document 10 CFR Part

430 for review and to provide our organization with a direction of actions to be taken for compliance. Up to

know, the only requirements that we have had for selling products into the USA is listing some of our HID ballasts

to “ Appliances@energy.state.ca.us ” for Title 24 compliance, reporting that they meet the minimum 88%

efficiency requirement and that the products meet the requirements of UL 935 & 1029. UL compliance allows us

to attach a cULus marking on our products sold in Canada & the USA. We certify some of our products here in our

Canadian lab, under the UL “WTDP” (Witness Test Data Program). This is where we perform the UL tests, submit

the test data documentation to UL & then a UL engineer comes in and witness the tests in accordance of our

submitted data.

We have testing facilities in our Canadian lab to perform ballast BF & BEF measurements. We believe that we

have capabilities to perform BLE measurements as well.

I have been asked to review the document 10 CFR Part 430 (Vol. 76,No.219) and advise what we are required to

do with regard to comply with the new rulings. After reading this document, I am a bit confused as to where I am

to obtain the final rulings, test procedures etc., as a ballast manufacturer, in order to comply with these rules. We

want to act as soon as possible in order to comply with these new rules. It would very much appreciated for you

can help to provide me with guidance, as to what documents, we are to read and actions to take in order to

comply with these new rules.

I assume that I need “10 CFR Appendix Q to Subpart B of Part 430

‐ Uniform Test Method for Measuring the

Energy Consumption of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts”. Basically need to know the test procedure to measure “BLE”.

Would like to know,

1) When do we have to submit the test data?

2) Whom to submit the test data too?

3) Who is eligible/qualified/accepted to perform the ballast testing?

4) When the rules take effect?

5) Are we required to submit testing samples and to whom?

6) Product labeling requirements?

Thank you

Rick Savas

Commercial Technician

Ultrasave Lighting Ltd.

140 Amber St,Unit 12, Markham,Ont,L3R

‐ 3J8

905

‐ 940

‐ 0888x3010, Toll Free: 866

‐ 733

‐ 9217

Fax:905

‐ 940

‐ 0338, Toll Free Fax: 866

‐ 733

‐ 8831
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1001

Geological Interpretation of the Sea Floor Offshore of Edgartown, Massachusetts
ContactsTitle             PageList of             FiguresConversion             FactorsAbstractIntroductionSettingMethodsBathymetrySidescan             Sonar Seismic             Profiles SedimentsBottom             Photography Data             CatalogSummaryAcknowledgmentsReferences             Cited Contacts
Lawrence Poppe Coastal and Marine Geology Program U.S.       Geological Survey 384 Woods Hole Road Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598       508-548-8700 x2314 lpoppe@usgs.gov

Katherine McMullen Coastal and Marine Geology Program U.S.       Geological Survey 384 Woods Hole Road Woods Hole , MA 02543-1598       508-548-8700 x2277 mailto:kmcmullen@usgs.gov

David Foster Coastal and Marine Geology Program U.S. Geological       Survey 384 Woods Hole Road Woods Hole , MA 02543-1598       508-548-8700 x2271 dfoster@usgs.gov

Dann Blackwood Coastal and Marine Geology Program U.S.       Geological Survey 384 Woods Hole Road Woods Hole , MA 02543-1598       508-548-8700 x2227 dblackwood@usgs.gov

Jeffress Williams Coastal and Marine Geology Program U.S.       Geological Survey 384 Woods Hole Road Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598       508-548-8700 x2383jwilliams@usgs.gov

Seth Ackerman Coastal and Marine Geology Program U.S.       Geological Survey 384 Woods Hole Road Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598       508-548-8700 x2315 sackerman@usgs.gov

Marc Moser, LCDR Office of Coast Survey National Oceanic and       Atmospheric Administration439 West York Street Norfolk, VA 23510       757-441-6746 marc.s.moser@noaa.gov

Kimberly Glomb Office of Coast Survey National Oceanic and       Atmospheric Administration439 West York Street Norfolk , VA 23510       757-441-6746 kimberly.glomb@noaa.gov

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1001/html/contacts.htmlPage Contact Information: GS Pubs Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thursday, 22-Apr-2010 15:31:03 EDT
#### In re BOARD OF RAPID TRANSIT R. COM’RS. In the matter of the Board of Rapid Transit Railroad Commissioners.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 13, 1903.)

No opinion. Motion granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 297 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 297

Supporting Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of afterschool 
                   programs held on October 26, 2017.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2017

   Mr. Franken (for himself and Ms. Collins) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
                          Labor, and Pensions

                            October 26, 2017

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Supporting Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of afterschool 
                   programs held on October 26, 2017.

Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States have parents who work 
        outside the home;
Whereas high-quality programs that expand learning opportunities for children, 
        such as afterschool, before-school, summer, and expanded learning 
        opportunities, provide safe, challenging, engaging, and fun learning 
        experiences, including experiences that encourage science, technology, 
        engineering, and math, that help children and youth develop social, 
        emotional, physical, cultural, and academic skills;
Whereas high-quality afterschool programs and high-quality expanded learning 
        opportunities provide students with hands-on, engaging lessons that are 
        aligned with the school day;
Whereas high-quality afterschool programs complement regular and expanded school 
        days and support working families by ensuring that the children of those 
        families are safe and productive during the hours parents are working;
Whereas high-quality afterschool programs engage families, schools, and diverse 
        community partners in advancing the well-being of children and youth in 
        the United States;
Whereas high-quality afterschool programs that partner with high-quality 
        community-based organizations build stronger communities by integrating 
        schools with the larger community; and
Whereas Lights On Afterschool, a national celebration of afterschool, before-
        school, summer, and expanded learning opportunities programs, held on 
        October 26, 2017, highlights the critical importance of those high-
        quality programs to children and the families and communities of those 
        children: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate supports Lights on Afterschool, a 
national celebration of afterschool programs held on October 26, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

** **

I, John P. D. Cato, Chairman, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of The Cato Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that on the date of this Certification:

 

1.  theForm 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended May 1, 2010 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

Dated:June 9, 2010

|   |                    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | /s/ John P. D. Cato     |
|   | John P. D. Cato         |
|   | Chairman, President and |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

 

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

LORENZIE HUMPREYS, and YVETTE 

RHEAMS, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 12-cv-04671

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. 

Schenkier

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO: See attached certificate of service.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday July 30, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, Plaintiff’s counsel shall appear before the Honorable Charles 

P. Kocoras, or any Judge sitting in his stead, in Room 2325 of the Everett McKinley Dirksen 

United States Courthouse, located at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, and then 

and there present the Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff Yvette Rheams 

Without Substitution, a true and accurate copy of which is attached and hereby served upon you

Respectfully submitted,

EDELSON PC, DAVIS & NORRIS LLP, and 

S. JEROME LEVY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,

Dated: July 27, 2015 By: s/ J. Dominick Larry

 EDELSON PC

By: s/ Frank Davis

 DAVIS & NORRIS LLP

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/27/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:261
2

By: s/ S. Jerome Levy

 S.JEROME LEVY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Jay Edelson

jedelson@edelson.com

J. Dominick Larry

nlarry@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

D. Frank Davis

fdavis@davisnorris.com

DAVIS & NORRIS LLP

2154 Highland Avenue South

Birmingham, AL 35205

Tel: 205.930.9900

Fax: 205.930.9989

S. Jerome Levy

sjlevy@jeromelevylaw.com

Karin A.Olson

kaolson@jeromelevylaw.com

S. Jerome Levy & Associates, P.C.

33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1617

Chicago, IL 60602

Tel: 312.832.1616

Fax: 312.332.0270

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/27/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:262
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On July 27, 2015, I filed the above and foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification of such filing to all registered parties.

s/ J. Dominick Larry

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 69 Filed: 07/27/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:263
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF

DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.


This certification is provided pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is filed with respect to
the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the
Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended March 27,
2004 of Dole Food Company, Inc. (the Issuer). I,
Richard J. Dahl, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| |      |                                                                                                                                                                          
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i)  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
    78o(d)); and
|
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Issuer.           

May 3, 2004

| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ RICHARD J. DAHL                                  
| |                                                      
| | Richard J. Dahl                                      
| | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
    Officer
# C_2016398EN.01000301.xml

| 28.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8131 — Tele2 Sverige/TDC Sverige)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 398/05)

On 7 October 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8131. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8131. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---