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

[775 NYS2d 888]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered June 24, 2002, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his identity as the perpetrator is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858 [1987]; *People v White,*192 AD2d 736 [1993]; *People v Pittman,*186 AD2d 282 [1992]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable *644doubt *(see People v White, supra; People v Sierra,*191 AD2d 657 [1993]; *People v Baxter,*157 AD2d 788 [1990]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Creech,*60 NY2d 895 [1983]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### 847.305-70 Potential destinations known but quantities unknown.

When the contracting officer contracts with multiple bidders to provide items directly to VA field installations, on an f.o.b. origin basis, the evaluation of bids must follow specific procedures. In these instances, the contracting officer shall insert clause 852.247-70, Determining Transportation Costs for Evaluation of Offers, or a clause substantially the same as clause 852.247-70. By inserting this clause, each bid is placed on an equal basis, even though specific quantities required by each facility cannot be predetermined. The contracting officer must use an anticipated demand factor in proportion to the number of hospital beds or patient workload.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

Certification 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)

 

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), the undersigned officer of Grupo Aeroportuario del Sureste, S.A.B. de C.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify to his knowledge that:

 

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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.

 

 
| Date:   March 30, 2012 |                      |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        |                      |
|                        |                      |
|                        | /s/   Adolfo Castro Rivas |
|                        | Adolfo   Castro Rivas     |
|                        | Chief   Executive Officer |
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 32-c**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of The Cincinnati Gas & ElectricCompany and PSI Energy, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James, L. Turner, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of myknowledge and belief, that:

          (1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Companies.

Date:  May 9, 2006
| /s/    | James L. Turner         |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | James L. Turner         |   |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.d**

**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 QuarterlyReport of The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company and PSI Energy, Inc. (the “Companies”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Myron L. Caldwell,Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to thebest of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Companies.
| /s/    | Myron L. Caldwell       |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Myron L. Caldwell       |   |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
|   | August 11, 2006         |   |   |

 

 

----
#### 970.2770-3 Technology transfer and patent rights.

The National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989 (NCTTA) established technology transfer as a mission for Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories, including weapons production facilities, and authorizes those laboratories to negotiate and award cooperative research and development agreements with public and private entities for purposes of conducting research and development and transferring technology to the private sector. In implementing the NCTTA, DOE has negotiated technology transfer clauses with the contractors managing and operating its laboratories. Those technology transfer clauses must be read in concert with the patent rights clause required by this subpart. Thus, each management and operating contractor holds title to subject inventions for the benefit of the laboratory or facility being managed and operated by that contractor.
9904.405-30 Definitions. ( a ) The following are definitions of terms which are prominent in this Standard. Other terms defined elsewhere in this part 99 shall have the meanings ascribed to them in those definitions unless paragraph (b) of this subsection, requires otherwise. ( 1 ) *Directly associated cost* means any cost which is generated solely as a result of the incurrence of another cost, and which would not have been incurred had the other cost not been incurred.
( 2 ) *Expressly unallowable cost* means a particular item or type of cost which, under the express provisions of an applicable law, regulation, or contract, is specifically named and stated to be unallowable.
( 3 ) *Indirect cost* means any cost not directly identified with a single final cost objective, but identified with two or more final cost objectives or with at least one intermediate cost objective.
( 4 ) *Unallowable cost* means any cost which, under the provisions of any pertinent law, regulation, or contract, cannot be included in prices, cost reimbursements, or settlements under a Government contract to which it is allocable.
( b ) The following modifications of terms defined elsewhere in this chapter 99 are applicable to this Standard: None.
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/ Michael J. BourgMichael J. BourgPresident, Chief Operating Officer

and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### 9901.315 Executive Secretary.

The Board's staff of professional, technical and supporting personnel is directed and supervised by the Executive Secretary.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MARLETTE D. WELLS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-382

)

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY )

F.S.B. D/B/A CHRISTIANA TRUST AS )

OWNER TRUSTEE OF THE )

RESIDENTIAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES )

TRUST III, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 28, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; James H. Seals, Judge.

Marlette D. Wells, pro se. 

Arnold M. Straus, Jr. of Straus & Eisler, 

P.A., Pembroke Pines, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4166

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT JAMES MURPHY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-93-68)
Submitted: June 9, 2005 Decided: June 15, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Because the sentencing guidelines relating to revocationof supervised release have always been advisory, seeU.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7 Pt. A, the sentence in this appeal is not impacted by the decision in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert James Murphy appeals the district court’s orderrevoking his supervised release and imposing two concurrent twentymonth sentences and, upon release, an additional sixteen-month and four-month term of supervised re lease, to run concurrently. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal, but suggesting that the term of imprisonment imposed by the district court is unreasonable. * Murphy has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We review a district court’s order imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Moreover, because Murphy’s sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum sentencing range, we review the sentence to determine only whether it is plainly unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000). Upon review of the record, we conclude that Murphy’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. We have reviewed Murphy’s pro se supplemental brief and find no meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm.- 3 - This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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
#### THOMAS R. LEVIS & CO., Respondent, v. EHRENBERG, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, .ppellate Division, Fourth Department.

Janury 10, 1906.)

Action by Thomas R. Levis & !o. against Louis Ehrenberg.

No opinion. Or-er affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-95908, 333-64044,333-100310, 333-109882 and 333-118228 on Form S-8 of our report dated January 26, 2006 relating tothe consolidated financial statements of Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd. and subsidiary as of October31, 2005 and for each of the two years in the period then ended, appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd. for the year ended October 31, 2006./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPHartford, Connecticut
#### 970.3204 Advance payments.
905.502 Authority. ( a ) *Newspapers.* When it is deemed necessary to use paid advertisements in newspapers and trade journals, written authority for such publication shall be obtained from the Head of the Contracting Activity or designee.
[49 FR 11943, Mar. 28, 1984]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CASE NO. DA 22-0731

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

RAMES, INC. formerly d/b/a

CENTRAL INSURANCE AGENCY,

Defendant/Appellant,

-vs.-

TCF ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a

MALMQUIST CONSTRUCTION

and CINCINATTI INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiffs/Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER EXTENDING TIME

LIMITATION TO COMPLETE

APPELLATE MEDIATION

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

Based upon Appellant Rames, Inc. formerly d/b/a Central Insurance

Agency’s unopposed Motion to Extend Time Limitation to Complete Appellate

Mediation, no objection being made by counsel for Appellees herein, and good

cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time period for the parties to complete

the court mandated appellate mediation, as set forth in M.R.App.P. 7(3)(a), is

hereby extended through and including April, 13, 2023. M.R.App.P. 7(3)(a).

ORDER EXTENDING TIME LIMITATION TO

COMPLETE APPELLATE MEDIATION Page 1

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 3 2023

03/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0731
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

            -           SPRC Launches New Video Series      

# SPRC Launches New Video Series

SPARK Talks is a new video series from SPRC. In these **s**hort, **p**rovocative, **a**ction-oriented, **r**ealistic, and **k**nowledgeable videos, leaders in the suicide prevention movement describe developments in the field that can have an impact on suicide. 

http://sparktalks.sprc.org/?utm_source=FindYouthInfo.gov&utm_medium=Federal%20Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vladimir Nunez, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 551]

*299Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J., at hearing; Rosalyn Richter, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 8, 2002, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to reopen the suppression hearing. The record supports the court’s finding that defendant did not base the motion on pertinent facts which he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the original suppression motion (CPL 710.40 [4]). Further, the new evidence would have shed no new light on the issue before the hearing court, which was whether defendant’s warrantless arrest violated *Payton v New York*(445 US 573 [1980]). In any event, even if the court had found a *Payton*violation, there would have been no benefit to defendant, since the alleged fruits of that violation constituted a lineup, which was not suppressible on *Payton*grounds *(People v Jones,*2 NY3d 235 [2004]), and an exculpatory statement that added nothing to the People’s case.

The trial court accorded defendant appropriate latitude in which to develop the circumstances of the arrest and impeach the arresting officer’s credibility. The court properly exercised its discretion in placing reasonable restrictions on defendant’s cross-examination of the officer as to matters that were irrelevant to any issue to be considered by the jury *(see People v George,*197 AD2d 588 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 925 [1994]). To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court did not deprive defendant of his right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see *Delaware v Van Arsdall,*475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]).

Limited evidence that the police took certain investigatory steps after speaking to two testifying witnesses was properly admitted, with suitable limiting instructions, as background ev*300idence to complete the narrative of events leading up to defendant’s arrest and to explain police actions (see *e.g. People v Nieves,*294 AD2d 152 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 700 [2002]). Defendant’s constitutional argument is unpreserved and unavailing, because the Confrontation Clause does not bar prior statements of declarants who appear for cross-examination at trial, or statements admitted for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted *(Crawford v Washington,*541 US —, — n 9, 124 S Ct 1354, 1369 n 9 [2004]). Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
Exhibit 16.1



LOGO

April 20, 2017

The
Commissioners

Securities and Exchange Commission

100F
Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 201549

United States of America

Dear Sirs:

We have read the statements made by ChipMOS
TECHNOLOGIES INC., which we understand will be filed with the Securities and Futures Commission, pursuant to and as part of the Form 20-F of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES INC. dated April 20, 2017. We agree with
the statements concerning our Firm in such Form 20-F.

Yours faithfully,

/s/ TIAOHO & CO.

Certified Public Accountants

Taiwan
#### Sarah Storfer, Appellant, v. Jack Fogel, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for injury to person and property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 4, 1964, which denied her motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3212). Order affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the record presents issues of fact which should be resolved after a trial *(Kind*v. *Barone,*12 A D 2d 625; *Hilton*v. *Feinerman,*11 A D 2d 1027). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.