alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: August 11, 2009
    /s/ John A. MorrisseyJohn A. MorrisseyChief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian D. La Brosse, Appellant.

[777 NYS2d 543]

Rose, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered April 22, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of murder in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts).

After defendant was indicted for murder in the second degree and two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, County Court ordered an examination pursuant to CEL 730.30 to determine defendant’s competency to stand trial. Based on assessments conducted in July 2001, two psychologists reported that they found defendant to be an incapacitated person. When no hearing was requested, County Court issued an order of commitment placing him in the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health for a period of one year. Shortly thereafter, based on assessments conducted in late August 2001, two different examiners reported that they found defendant to no longer be an incapacitated person and to be competent to stand trial. Upon receiving these reports, County Court conducted a hearing—at which defendant called no witnesses—and ultimately found that defendant was fit to stand trial. During trial, defendant pleaded guilty to all charges contained in the indictment and waived his right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to prison terms of 15 years to life on the murder conviction and concurrent terms of lVs to 4 years on the grand larceny convictions. This appeal ensued.

Defendant’s sole argument, which cannot be waived (see *People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 9 [1989]), is that County Court erred in concluding that he was competent to stand trial. We disagree. The psychiatrist and psychologist who examined defendant most recently testified at the competency hearing. They stated that defendant was diagnosed with an antisocial personal-

*925ity disorder and an impulse control disorder for which he was medicated, but that neither of these disorders rendered him unfit to stand trial. They indicated that defendant was cooperative during the examinations, did not exhibit signs that he was psychotic or clinically depressed and demonstrated a logical thought process. They further opined that he understood the nature of the charges against him, was able to assist in his own defense and was, therefore, competent to proceed to trial. Inasmuch as their testimony provided ample support for County Court’s conclusion that defendant was competent to stand trial, we find no reason to disturb its finding (see *People v Jeffrey,*277 AD2d 714, 715 [2000]; *People v Tillman,*260 AD2d 656, 657 [1999]). Although defendant now complains that the two examiners who earlier provided a different opinion concerning his competency did not testify at the hearing, he chose not to call them as witnesses and County Court was not obligated to do so (see *People v Cooper,*298 AD2d 131, 132 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 581 [2003]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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, Amos
Eiran, the Chief Executive Officer of Tissera, Inc. (the "Company"), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1) the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 31,
2008 (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 78o(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:
      December 15, 2008By:
      /s/Amos EiranName:
      Amos EiranTitle:
      Chief
Executive  Officer
§ 1.304 Investigation. ( a ) The investigating official may investigate allegations that a person is liable under § 1.303 of this part.
( b ) If an investigating official concludes that a subpoena pursuant to the authority conferred by 31 U.S.C. 3804(a) is warranted, the investigating officer may issue a subpoena, which shall notify the person to whom it is addressed of the authority under which it is issued and shall identify the information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, or data sought.
( c ) The investigating official may designate a person to act on his behalf to receive the documents or other materials sought by a subpoena issued under paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) The person receiving such subpoena shall be required to tender to the investigating official or the person designated to receive the documents a certification that the documents or other materials sought have been produced, or that such documents or other materials are not available and the reasons therefore, or that such documents or other materials, suitably identified, have been withheld based upon the assertion of an identified privilege.
( e ) Each agency shall develop criteria for determining which allegations that a person is liable under § 1.303 of this part are to be referred to the investigating official.
( f ) If the investigating official concludes that an action under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act may be warranted, the investigating official shall submit a report containing findings and conclusions of such investigation to the reviewing official.
( g ) Nothing in this section shall preclude or limit an investigating official's discretion to refer allegations directly to the Department of Justice for suit under the False Claims Act or other civil relief, nor preclude or limit such official's discretion to defer or postpone a report or referral to the reviewing official in order to avoid interference with a criminal investigation or prosecution.
( h ) Nothing in this section modifies any responsibility of an investigating official to report violations of criminal law to the Attorney General.
#### In the Matter of Adriana Curbelo, Respondent, v Hector Clemente, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 569]

In a child support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated September 11, 2003, as, upon an order of the same court dated May 28, 2003, finding that he willfully violated an order of support of the same court (Plosky, H.E.), dated July 18, 2002, committed him to the Suffolk County jail for a period of 120 days.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from the order dated May 28, 2003, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order dated September 11, 2003 *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The father was committed to jail for a period of 120 days for his willful violation of an order of support. As the father has since been released from incarceration upon payment of the purge amount, and he does not challenge the finding of a willful violation, the appeal must be dismissed as academic *(see Matter of Donahue v Buisch,*258 AD2d 826 [1999]; *Fiedler v Fiedler,*230 AD2d 822 [1996]; *Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v Wolkoff,*209 AD2d 469 [1994]). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### Mary A. Benton, Appellant, v David M. Kreitzer et al., Respondents.

[777 NYS2d 172]

an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated January 6, 2003, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to amend her complaint to add a third cause of action against all of the defendants.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a third cause of action against all of the defendants, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion only to the extent of allowing the plaintiff to add her proposed third cause of action against the defendants David M. Kreitzer, Donald H. Vogelman, and Kreitzer and Vogelman, P.C., and otherwise denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add a third cause of action against the defendants David M. Kreitzer, Donald H. Vogelman, and Kreitzer and Vogelman, P.C. *(see Edenwald Contr. Co. v City of New York,*60 NY2d 957 [1983]; *Ruby Land Dev. v Toussie, 4*AD3d 518 [2004]).

However, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to amend her complaint to add a third cause of action *555against the defendants Daniel M. Pariser, and Pariser & Vogelman, PC. The proposed amendment with respect to those defendants alleged that they departed from the applicable standard of care in the underlying litigation by failing to amend the complaint therein to assert a particular claim. However, as the plaintiff herself noted, as is relevant to the defendants Daniel M. Pariser, and Pariser & Vogelman, P.C., their ability to amend the complaint depended on the applicability of the relation-back doctrine *(see*CPLR 203 [f]). Under the circumstances, the relation-back doctrine was inapplicable to those defendants *(see Rende v Cutrofello,*226 AD2d 694 [1996]). H. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
August 16, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

VINCENT LAMON WILLIAMS, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00220-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED. We further order 

appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision 

certified below for observance.
#### PINTO, Respondent, v. INTERURBAN ST. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Simy B. Pinto against the Interurban Street Railway Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

WOODWARD and JENKS, JJ., dissent.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago CRUZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50268

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, JR., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*425Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Santiago Cruz-Sanchez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *petition for cert. filed*(Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People *ex rel.*Kochersperger, County Treasurer, *v.*John Cudahy.

*Opinion filed April 21, 1898.*

The decision in *People v.Warneke, (ante,*p. 40,) controls this case, the points involved in each case being the same.

Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.

Charles S. Thornton, Corporation Counsel, and John A. May, for appellant.

Per Curiam:

This was an application by the appellant treasurer for a judgment and order of sale of certain tracts of land belonging to the appellee, for alleged unpaid delinquent special assessments. The court sustained the objection presented by the appellee and denied the prayer of the application, and this is an appeal from such ruling of the court.

The ordinance, the objections filed and the points raised in this case are identical with those presented in the case of *People ex rel.*v. *Warneke, (ante,*p. 40,) and upon the authority of what is there said this judgment must be affirmed.

The judgment of the county court is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Why is Sleep Important?      

# Why is Sleep Important?

In terms of health, sleep should be considered just as important as eating right and getting enough exercise. While adults need between seven and eight hours of sleep, teens need up to nine hours each night.

http://www.hhs.gov/blog/2014/12/29/why-sleep-important.html?utm_source=FindYouthInfo&utm_medium=Federal%20Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
#### 9.201 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Qualified bidders list (QBL)* means a list of bidders who have had their products examined and tested and who have satisfied all applicable qualification requirements for that product or have otherwise satisfied all applicable qualification requirements.

*Qualified manufacturers list (QML)* means a list of manufacturers who have had their products examined and tested and who have satisfied all applicable qualification requirements for that product.

[50 FR 35476, Aug. 30, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 34227, Sept. 2, 1988; 66 FR 2128, Jan. 10, 2001]
Exhibit 12-A



               Chrysler Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries
             Computations of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                            (dollars in millions)

 <TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Three Months Ended
                                                  March 31,
                                             ------------------
                                               1998       1997
                                               ----       ----
<S>                                            <C>        <C>
Net earnings before cumulative effect of
 changes in accounting principles              $108       $ 93
                                                          
 Add back:                                                
  Taxes on income                                52         48
  Fixed charges                                 221        200
                                               ----       ----
   Earnings available for fixed charges        $381       $341
                                               ====       ====
  
 Fixed charges: 
  Interest expense                             $218       $195
  Rent                                            3          5
                                               ----       ----
   Total fixed charges                         $221       $200
                                               ====       ====
  
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges             1.72       1.71
                                               ====       ====
</TABLE>

The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by dividing earnings
available for fixed charges by total fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of
interest, amortization of debt discount and expense, and rentals. Rentals
included in fixed charges are the portion of total rent expense
representative of the interest factor (deemed to be one-third).

<PAGE>






                    THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,
United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Metro International S.A. (the "Company") does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated:  June 18, 2003   |  | /s/    | PELLE TÖRNBERG         
|----------------------- |  | ------ | -----------------------
|                        |  |       
|                        |  | Name:  | Pelle Törnberg         
|                        |  | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
|Dated:  June     , 2003 |  | /s/    | ROBERT PATTERSON       
|                        |  |       
|                        |  | Name:  | Robert Patterson       
|                        |  | Title: | Chief Financial Officer

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
and is not being filed as part of the Form 20-F or as a separate disclosure document.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Metro International S.A. and will be retained by Metro International S.A. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of Michael Colacino, Appellant, v Board of Trustees of the Village of Palmyra et al., Respondents.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated at Special Term. There is no need to determine that sections 95 through 106 of the Public Officers Law supersede section 22-2200 of the Village Law since the petition fails to allege an intentional failure fully to comply with the notice provisions required by article 7 of the Public Officers Law. An unintentional failure of notice is not grounds for vacating the village enactment (Public Officers Law, § 102, subd 1). (Appeal from judgment of Wayne Supreme Court — art 78.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.