alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN DR E W G. HA R VE Y, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. B E N C U R R Y , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 15905 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 2 0 4 - SBA ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S aundr aB . A rm s tr ong, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , L E A V Y , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner A nd re w G . H arvey app ea l s pro se fr om the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en td en yi n g h i s 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 h ab eas p et i t i o n . W e d i sm i ss. 

# FI LED MA R 10 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 15905 2 H a rve yc ont e nds tha tthe B oa r d’ s 2004 de c i s i on t o de nyhi m pa r ol e w a s not supp ort ed by “ som e e vi dence” and there fore vi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s. A ft er br i e f i ng w a s c om pl e t e d i n thi s c a s e , thi s c ourthe l d tha tac e rt i f i c a t e of ap p e a lab ility( “C O A ” ) is r e q u ir e dto c h a lle n g e th e d e n ia l o f p a r o le . See H

a yw a rd v . M a rs h a ll , 6 0 3 F. 3 d5 4 6 , 5 5 4 - 5 5 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) . N o w th e Su p r e me C o u rt h a s h e ldth a t th e o n lyf e d e r a l r ig h t a t is s u e in th e p a r o le c o n te x t is pr oc e dur a l , a nd the onl ypr ope ri nqui ryi s w ha tpr oc e s s the i nm a t e r e c e i ve d, not w h e th e rth e s ta te c o u rt d e c id e dth e c a s e c o rr e c tly . See Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 1 3 1 S. C t . 8 5 9 , 8 6 2 - 6 3 ( 2 0 1 1 ) . B e c au s e Harv e yr a i s e s n o p r o c e du r a l c h a l l e n g e s , aC OA c a n n o t is s u e , a n dw e d is m is s th e ap p e a l f o rla c ko f

ju r is d ic tio n . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) . D I SM I SSED .
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:96cr61/RV

JOHNNIE C. REED

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Vinson on 01/26/2006 

Type of Motion/Pleading MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF IMPOSED TERM, etc.

Filed by: Defendant Reed on 1/5/06 Doc. No. 321

( ) Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading

RESPONSES:

Government Motion to Dismiss on 1/25/06 Doc. No. 322

on Doc. No.

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ V. Harmon

Deputy Clerk

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 26th day of

 January , 2006, that:

(a) The requested relief is DENIED.

(b) The Government’s Motion to Dismiss the defendant’s motion is 

Granted.

/s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:96-cr-00061-RV-CJK Document 323 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 1
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Merrill, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Merrill*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 110.]

(No. 98-441

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Wendell R. Jones,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Rush*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Resnick, J., not participating.
Editorial Note on Part 1956
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1956.97 Disposition of promissory notes. ( a ) Notes evidencing debts settled by completed adjustments, completed compromise with or without signature, or canceled with signature will be returned to the debtor or to the debtor's legal representative. The original and copies of notes will be stamped “Satisfied by Approved Compromise,” “Satisfied by Approved Cancellation,” or “Satisfied by Completed Adjustment Offer.” In such cases, the security instrument(s) will be released of record according to State law.
( b ) Notes evidencing debts canceled without application will be placed in the debtor's case folder and disposed of pursant to FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 Instruction 2033-A (available in any FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 office). However, if the debtor requests the notes, they may be stamped “Satisfied By Approved Cancellation” and returned.
( c ) Notes evidencing charged off debts will be retained in the servicing office and will not be stamped or returned to the debtor. They will be destroyed six years after charged off pursuant to FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 Instruction 2033-A (available in any FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 office).
( d ) In case of a transfer of security with assumption for less than the debt, the promissory note will be attached to the assumption agreement covered by the note and kept in the transferee's file.
[56 FR 10147, Mar. 11, 1991. Redesignated and amended at 58 FR 21346, Apr. 21, 1993]
#### § 29.3526 Leaf scrap.

A byproduct of unstemmed tobacco Leaf scrap results from handling unstemmed tobacco and consists of loose and tangled whole or broken leaves.

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### § 301.48-1 Definitions.

Terms used in the singular form in this subpart shall be deemed to import the plural and vice versa, as the case may demand. The following terms, when used in this subpart shall be construed, respectively, to mean:

*Administrator.* The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service or any person authorized to act for the Administrator.

*Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

*Compliance agreement.* A written agreement between the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and a person engaged in the business of moving regulated articles interstate, in which the person agrees to comply with the provisions of this subpart.

*Inspector.* Any employee of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, or other person, authorized by the Administrator to enforce the provisions of the quarantine and regulations in this subpart.

*Interstate.* From any State into or through any other State.

*Japanese beetle.* The live insect known as the Japanese beetle (*Popillia japonica* Newm.) in any stage of development (egg, larva, pupa, or adult).

*Person.* Any individual, corporation, company, partnership, society, or association, or other organized group of any of the foregoing.

*Regulated airport.* Any airport or portions of an airport in a quarantined State declared regulated in accordance with provisions in § 301.48-2.

*Regulated articles.* Aircraft at or from regulated airports.

*State.* Any State, territory, or district of the United States, including Puerto Rico.

*State Plant Regulatory Official.* The authorized official of a State who has responsibility for the operation of the State plant regulatory program.

[44 FR 24035, Apr. 24, 1979, as amended at 61 FR 32640, June 25, 1996; 70 FR 33268, June 7, 2005; 87 FR 80006, Dec. 29, 2022]
#### § 29.6087 Rule 1.

Each grade shall be treated as a subdivision of a particular type. When the grade is stated in an inspection certificate, the type also shall be stated.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 00-1358 JOHN M. GERA, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. ALAN HASSENFELD, CEO; HASBRO, INC.,

Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Boudin, Circuit Judge , Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge , and Stahl, Circuit Judge .

John M. Gera on brief pro se. Neil Jacobs , Lisa Stephanian Burton , C. Tama Benson and Hale and Dorr LLP on brief for appellees.

February 16, 2001Per Curiam . After carefully reviewing the briefs

and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment for substantially the reasons developed below. The appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation by providing definite, non-speculative evidence that national origin played a role in the defendants’ actions. His own conjectures and conclusions were insufficient. Feliciano De La Cruz v. El Conquistador Resort and Country Club , 218 F.3d 1 (1 st Cir. 2000) . His defamation claims were either time-barred or otherwise untenable. Mikaelian v. Drug Abuse Unit , 501 A.2d 721 (R.I. 1985). Affirmed . Loc. R. 27(c).
#### § 29.3516 Elasticity.

The flexible, springy nature of the tobacco leaf to recover approximately its original size and shape after it has been stretched. (See Elements of Quality, § 29.3586.)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 2287** 

JULIAN HARMAN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville
. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 6:13

- cv - 01728

- TMC )

Submitted : July 30, 2015 Decided: August 13, 2015

Before KING and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. W. Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN, & MAYES, P.A., Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Hugh Dun Rappaport, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts; Marshall Prince, Assistant United Stat es Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Julian Harman appeals the district court ’ s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and entering judgment for the Commissioner in this action challenging the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Harman v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin. , No. 6:13

- cv - 01728

- TMC (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
§ 30.43 Class 8; Foreign-grown cigar-leaf types. No group divisions are established for any of the types in Class 8. Type designations for Class 8 tobacco are based on the utilization of the leaf in the manufacture of cigars with no reference to physical characteristics. For tobacco stocks reporting purposes Foreign-grown cigar leaf shall be designated as follows: ( a ) *Type 81.* Foreign-grown cigar wrapper.
( b ) *Type 82.* Foreign-grown cigar filler.
( c ) *Type 83.* Foreign-grown cigar binder.
( d ) *Type 89.* Other Foreign-grown cigar leaf
[56 FR 25613, June 5, 1991]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ANDREW BARBARESI,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv3656/LAC/EMT

LARRY ASHLEY, OKALOOSA 

COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on February 

16, 2021 (ECF No. 23). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it 

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

23) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-03656-LC-EMT Document 24 Filed 03/24/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv3656/LAC/EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with an order of the court.

3. The clerk of court is directed to close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2021.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03656-LC-EMT Document 24 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 2
#### In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases.

[Cite as *In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases,*109 Ohio St.3d 518, 2006-Ohio-3254.]

(Submitted June 7, 2006

Decided July 12, 2006.)

{¶ 1} The following dispositions of currently pending appeals are hereby entered based on our decision in *State v. Foster,*109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

I

{¶ 2} Discretionary appeals are accepted in the following cases, the judgments of the courts of appeals are reversed, and the causes are remanded to the trial courts for resentencing. If propositions of law are noted, such reversals apply only to those portions of the judgments of the courts of appeals as are implicated by the applicable propositions of law:

{¶ 3} 2006-0411. *State v. Hall,*Cuyahoga App. No. 85861, 2006-Ohio-89, 2006 WL 60777. Also reversed and remanded on the authority of *State v. Mathis,*109 Ohio St.3d 54, 2006-Ohio-855, 846 N.E.2d 1, and *State v. Saxon,*109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824.

{¶ 4} 2006-0421. *State v. Berry,*Scioto App. No. 04CA2961, 2006-Ohio-244, 2006 WL 164919. Accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. I and II.

{¶ 5} 2006-0455. *State v. Perry,*Ross App. No. 05CA2837, 2006-Ohio-219, 2006 WL 158861. Accepted on Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 6} 2006-0534. *State v. Batin,*Stark App. No. 2005CA00066, 2006-Ohio-512, 2006 WL 281052.

{¶ 7} 2006-0541. *State v. LaBoy,*Cuyahoga App. No. 86255, 2006-Ohio-168, 2006 WL 134827.

II

{¶ 8} The discretionary appeal is accepted in the following case, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing:

*519{¶ 9} 2006-0399. *State v. Mozena,*Hamilton App. No. C-050208, 2006-Ohio-717, 2006 WL 367096, and 2006-Ohio-1220, 2006 WL 664157.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32605

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Demetrius E. MCGEE

Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 12 December 2019

________________________

Military Judge: Thomas J. Alford.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 45 days, reduction to E-1, and a reprimand. Sentence adjudged 4 June 2019 by 

SpCM convened at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas.

For Appellant: Major Rebecca J. Otey, USAF.

Before J. JOHNSON, POSCH, and KEY, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 30.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 

59(a) and 66(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d).

∗ 

 

∗ Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.).
United States v. McGee, No. ACM S32605

2

Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T20:42:08-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### § 28.20 When license is required.

Samples for Form A determination shall be accepted under this subpart from licensed warehousemen only. Samples for classification pursuant to §§ 28.901 through 28.917 shall be accepted from licensed gins or warehouses. No license is required to sample cotton for Form C or Form D determination.
#### § 29.1041 Oil.

A soft, semifluid constituent of tobacco. (See Elements of Quality Chart.)

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
§ 248.19 Investigations. ( a ) *Authority.* The Department may make an investigation of any allegation of noncompliance with this part and FNS guidelines and instructions. The investigation may include, where appropriate, a review of pertinent practices and policies of any State and local agency, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this part occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the State and local agency has failed to comply with the requirements of this part.
( b ) *Confidentiality.* No State or local agency, recipient, or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege under this part because that person has made a complaint or formal allegation, or has testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this part. The identity of every complainant shall be kept confidential except to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of this part, including the conducting of any investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding.
#### Rosalie Stutz et al., Respondents-Appellants, v 15 West 72nd Street Associates, Appellant, and Robert Abrams, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent-Respondent.

Appeal from the order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered in this action for injunctive relief on January 17, 1980, granting plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant during the pendency of this action from withdrawing, revoking or rescinding during the exclusive right of purchase period defendant sponsor’s special *9 ¥2%*financing offering as set forth in the co-operative conversion offering plan dated August 30,1979, and from attempting to enforce the provisions of the first amendment thereto dated December 14, 1979 withdrawing such offer effective January 18, 1980, and cross appeal from the same order and judgment which granted the cross motion of the Attorney-General to dismiss the companion CPLR article 78 proceeding as against the Attorney-General, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs. The original offering plan made *9¥i%*financing available until the day before the date set for closing. When defendant filed an amendment revoking and withdrawing the offering of *9¥i%*financing as of January 18, 1980 instead of the day before closing, plaintiffs obtained the preliminary injunction appealed from, enjoining such revocation and any attempt at withdrawal of the original offer. On the day the appeal was set for argument, counsel for the parties asked that it not be decided until April 18, 1980 pending settlement. Although the settlement and negotiations apparently failed, defendant filed with the Attorney-General a third amendment which restored the original terms of the offer extending it to the last business day before closing. On this basis, plaintiffs moved to dismiss defendant’s appeal as moot. Plaintiffs, as petitioners in the CPLR article 78 proceeding against the Attorney-General, requested, however, that their appeal from the dismissal of their petition and proceeding against the Attorney-General proceed. It is undisputed that the third amendment filed by the sponsor coincides with and makes the same offering as the original offering. This was the relief plaintiffs had sought and obtained by virtue of the temporary injunction. Accordingly, the basis for the temporary injunction no longer exists and the issue is moot. In this context we find it unnecessary and inappropriate to pass on the underlying issue of the power of a sponsor to change the terms of financing on appropriate notice and *774filing, as defendant requests, as a guide to the industry. For the same reasons, we have *sua sponte*dismissed as moot the appeal of plaintiffs as petitioners from the dismissal of their CPLR article 78 proceeding. The effect of our dismissal is "to erase [the injunction] from the books” *(Matter of Park East Corp. v Whalen,*43 NY2d 735, 736; *Matter of Two Lincoln Sq. Assoc. v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd.,*75 AD2d 751). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Fein and Lynch, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6247** 

WALTER THOMAS GODBEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HUBERT SIMMONS, Correctional Officer; PAUL J. MASTERSON, Detective , Defendants

- Appellees , and

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T. S. Ellis , III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00704

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : June 23, 2014 Decided: July 2, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Walter Thomas Godbey, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Patrick Skoff, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Walter Thomas Godbey appeals the district court ’ s
order s dismissing his civil rights complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Godbey v.
Simmons , No. 1:11

- cv - 00704

- TSE

- TCB (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 2, 2012 & entered Aug. 3, 2012; Jan. 30, 2014)

. We grant Godbey’s
motion for the appeal to be heard on the original record and his request that we take judicial notice of the record in his previous interlocutory appeal in this same civil action

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald Watford, Appellant.

In a *eoram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the -County -Court, Nassau 'County, dated January 10, 1968, which denied the -application after a hearing. Order affirmed. Defendant’s application was based on the claim that the prosecuting attorney knowingly used perjured testimony -by a codefendant, one Hamilton, against him at the trial. The application was originally denied without a hearing and on appeal this court reversed and remitted the proceeding to the County 'Court for a hearing and determination *de novo (People*v. *Watford,*28 A D 2d 858). The instant appeal is from an -order which again denied the application following such hearing. In our opinion -the record conclusively demonstrates that Hamilton’s testimony against defendant at the trial was not perjurious and that, in any event, the prosecuting attorney in good faith believed it to be true (cf. *People*v. *Fanning,*300 N. Y. 593; *People*v. *Oddo,*300 N. Y. 649, mot. for rearg. den. 9 N Y 2d 908). We are also of the opinion that Hamilton was properly allowed to invoke his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and that, even if it be assumed that such ruling was erroneous and that he would have testified in support of -defendant’s claim, the error was not prejudicial and may be disregarded in view of the overwhelming proof to the contrary. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.