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

[804 NYS2d 257]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Alessandro, J.), rendered November 29, 2004, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Munquia, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 595]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered May 29, 2003, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant correctly contends that the prosecutor improperly impeached a defense witness about a recent arrest. “Although a witness may be impeached upon cross-examination about certain convictions or specific criminal acts bearing on credibility . . . the fact of an arrest... is ‘not a permitted area for impeachment’ ” *(People v Miller,*91 NY2d 372, 380 [1998], quoting *People v Rodriguez,*38 NY2d 95 [1975]; *see People v Cook,*37 NY2d 591 [1975]; *cf. People v Daniels,*225 AD2d 632 [1996]).

However, this error was harmless. Given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, there was no significant probability that he would have been acquitted but for the prosecutor’s impeachment of the witness, who was not an eyewitness to the assault *(see People v Miller, supra*at 381; *People v Crim*
      *584
      *mins,*36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]). The prosecutor’s improper reference to the witness’s arrest during his summation was also harmless error *(see People v Diaz,*239 AD2d 518 [1997]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it as a matter of discretion in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Adams, J.P., Crane, S. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### § 1010.530 [Reserved]
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1315

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 19, 1995

Received, read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

AN ACT

For the relief of Kris Murty.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1315 RFS

1 SECTION 1. RELOCATION EXPENSES FOR KRIS MURTY.

2 For the purpose of receiving reimbursement for relo3 cation expenses under sections 5724 and 5724a of title

4 5, United States Code, Kris Murty of El Paso, Texas, an

5 employee of the Department of the Army, is deemed to

6 have been an employee transferred by the Department of

7 the Army from one official station to another for perma8 nent duty when he relocated from Houston, Texas, to Fort

9 Bliss, Texas, in February 1985.

10 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

11 No amount exceeding 10 percent of a payment made

12 pursuant to section 1 may be paid to or received by any

13 agent or attorney in consideration for services rendered

14 in connection with the payment. Any person who violates

15 the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an infrac16 tion and shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided

17 under title 18, United States Code.

Passed the House of Representatives December 19,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics

HomeOffice of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund...About Us – Office of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund

# 									About Us – Office of the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund							

The NDF provides a means through which the Department of State addresses unanticipated nonproliferation opportunities and priorities that emerge around the world. The NDF maintains expertise in policy development, negotiations, program management, financial operations, and contract administration to ensure the work is accomplished in the most secure, safe, and cost-efficient manner possible. The NDF is a global operation, with projects executed worldwide, often in areas where other U.S. government programs lack legal authority to operate. The NDF typically has a small footprint when working in foreign countries and maintains readiness for fast and flexible responses to a wide variety of situations. For this reason, NDF resources are not committed to any project or region in advance, unlike traditional assistance programs. The Fund has established a record of real threat reduction achievement. Examples include destroying WMD facilities, removing nuclear material from unsecured areas, and securing WMD until it can be eliminated.

## Operation

The FREEDOM Support Act authorized the President to establish the NDF. The President delegated that authority to the Secretary of State, who redelegated that authority to the Under Secretary of State for International Security Affairs (subsequently renamed the **Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security**). NDF funds are “no-year” (funds need not be expended in the fiscal year in which they are appropriated) to permit maximum flexibility in project execution and may be made available “notwithstanding any other provision of law.”

Back to Top
#### In the Matter of Anthony Viscomi, Appellant, v Village of Herkimer, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[803 NYS2d 504]

Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J), dated October 19, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The decision dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Kuhn v Kuhn,*129 AD2d 967 [1987]). Present—Green, J.P., Gorski, Smith, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
# Euroopa Liidu C 29A/9. v

| | ISSN 1725-5171 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 29A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 50. köide9. veebruar 2007 |

ISSN 1725-5171

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 29A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

50. köide9. veebruar 2007

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Teated |
| | HALDUSMENETLUSED |
| | Euroopa Kemikaaliamet |
| 2007/C 029A/01 | Teade Helsingis asuva Euroopa Kemikaaliameti tegevdirektori vaba ametikoha kohta (palgaaste AD 15) | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

V   Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Kemikaaliamet

2007/C 029A/01

Teade Helsingis asuva Euroopa Kemikaaliameti tegevdirektori vaba ametikoha kohta (palgaaste AD 15)

1

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

V Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Kemikaaliamet

| 9.2.2007 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 29/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2007

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 29/1

---

Teade Helsingis asuva Euroopa Kemikaaliameti tegevdirektori vaba ametikoha kohta (palgaaste AD 15)

(2007/C 29 A/01)

1. juunil 2007 jõustuva REACH-määrusega (kemikaalide registreerimine, hindamine ja lubamine) luuakse Euroopa Liidus keemiliste ainete uus õiguslik raamistik. REACH-määruse keskmes on Euroopa Kemikaaliamet (ECHA), mis luuakse Soome Helsingisse. Euroopa Kemikaaliamet vastutab REACH-määruse tehniliste, teaduslike ja haldusaspektide juhtimise eest ning tagab määruse ühtse kohaldamise. Amet annab liikmesriikidele ja Euroopa Liidu institutsioonidele parimat teaduslikku ja tehnilist nõu kemikaalide küsimuses.

Tegevdirektori ametikohale otsib komisjon kandidaate, kes on suutelised juhtima Euroopa Liidu olulist reguleerivat ametit selle otsustavate aastate jooksul ning on valmis täitma keerulise reguleerimisprotsessi loomisel teaduslikke, tehnilisi ja korralduslikke ülesandeid valdkonnas, mis on poliitiliselt tundlik ning oluline inimeste tervisele, keskkonnale, majanduslikule konkurentsivõimele ja uuendustele. Edukal kandidaadil on märkimisväärne juhtimiskogemus asjakohases teaduslikus või tehnilises valdkonnas.

Tegevdirektori nimetab ametisse kemikaaliameti haldusnõukogu Euroopa Komisjoni poolt valitud kandidaatide nimekirjast. Edukas kandidaat nimetatakse ametisse ajutise töötajana palgaastmega AD 15 vastavalt Euroopa ühenduste muude teenistujate teenistustingimuste artiklile 2a viieks aastaks. Teenistusaega võib pikendada üks kord viieks aastaks.

Täieliku teabe ametikoha täitmise kohta ja avaldusvormi leiate veebilehtedelt

http://www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm

ja

http://www.ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/prep_jobs_en.htm.

Avalduste esitamise tähtaeg on 23. märts 2007.

---
107°45'00"

107°37'30"

107°45'00"

107°37'30"

37°52'30" 

Middle

Fork

Mineral Creek

South

Fork

Mineral Creek

Copper

Gulch

Bear

Mtn

Sultan

Mtn

Creek

Bear

Snowslide

Gulch

South

Fork

Mineral

Creek

Kendall Mtn

Idaho

Gulch Gulch

Swansea

Gulch

Blair

Creek

Arrastra

Cunningham

Animas

Howardsville

Silverton

Zuni

Gulch

Soda

Gulch

Henrietta Gulch Anvil

Mountain

Niagara Gulch Hancock

Gulch

Browns

Gulch

Topeka

Gulch

Porcupine

Gulch

Mineral

Creek

Mill

Creek Chattanooga

Minnesota Gulch

Fairview Gulch

Cascade

Gulch

Grassy Gulch

Illinois

Gulch

Storm

Peak

Boulder

Gulch

Tower

Mountain

Macomber

Peak

Cataract

Gulch Hematite

Gulch

Gulch Porphyry

Big Horn

Gulch

Mineral

Creek

Red Mtn

No. 2

Red Mtn

No. 3

Red

Mtn

Red Mtn

No. 1

Georgia Gulch McMillan Peak

Tiger Gulch

Prospect Gulch

Dry

Gulch

Cement

Creek South

North

Fork

Cement

Creek

Fork

Middle

Fork

Minnehaha Creek

South Fork

Animas River

Eureka

G

Emery

Peak

Bonita

Peak

Parson

Gulch

Eureka

Mtn

Hurricane

Peak

California

Mtn Treasure

Mtn

California

Gulch

Placer

Gulch

Houghton

Mtn

BONITA

FAULT

Ohio

Peak

Kendall

Peak

Hazelton

Mtn

Ohio Gulch

5 KILOMETERS 1 .5 0 1 2 3 4

SCALE 1: 48,000

CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET

NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929

4 MILES 1 0 1 2 3 1/ 2

APPARENT CONDUCTIVITY MAP OF THE ANIMAS RIVER WATERSHED STUD

Compiled by

Bruce D. Smith, Robert R. McDougal, Maryla Deszcz-Pan, and Douglas B. Yag

2007

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORU.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000 Handies Peak, Howardsville, Ironton,Ophir, Silverton (1955). Projection: Universal Transverse Mercator, zone 13.10,000-foot grid based on Coloradocoordinate system, south zone.1927 North American datum
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1286 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1286

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel GIBRALTAR.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 1995

  Mr. Bonior introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
               coastwise trade for the vessel GIBRALTAR.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 
App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and 
section 12106 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel GIBRALTAR (United States official number 668634).
                                 <all>
```
§ 1.35 Information forms. ( a ) *Review of forms.* Except for forms developed and used by components, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, & Records must review all forms Treasury develops and uses to collect information from and about individuals. Component heads are responsible for reviewing forms used by their component to collect information from and about individuals.
( b ) *Scope of review.* The responsible officers must review each form for the purpose of eliminating any requirement for information that is not relevant and necessary to carry out an agency function and to accomplish the following objectives: ( 1 ) To ensure that Treasury does not collect information concerning religion, political beliefs or activities, association memberships, or the exercise of other First Amendment rights except as authorized in § 1.28(b)(2)(v);
( 2 ) To ensure that the form on which information is collected (or a separate form that can be retained by the individual) makes clear what information the individual is required to disclose by law (and the statutory of other authority for that requirement), and what information requested is voluntary;
( 3 ) To ensure that the form on which information is collected (or a separate form that can be retained by the individual) states clearly the principal purpose or purposes for which Treasury is collecting the information, and summarizes concisely the routine uses that will be made of the information;
( 4 ) To ensure that the form on which information is collected (or a separate form that can be retained by the individual) clearly indicates to the individual the effect that not providing all, or part of the requested information will have on their rights, benefits, or privileges of; and
( 5 ) To ensure that any form on which Treasury requests a Social Security number (SSN) (or a separate form that can be retained by the individual) clearly advises the individual of the statute or regulation requiring disclosure of the SSN or clearly advises the individual that disclosure is voluntary and that they will not be denied any right, benefit, or privilege if they refuse to voluntarily disclose it, and the uses that will be made of the SSN whether disclosed mandatorily or voluntarily.
( c ) *Revision of forms.* The responsible officers must revise any form which does not meet the objectives specified in the Privacy Act as discussed in this section. A separate statement may be used in instances when a form does not conform. This statement will accompany a form and must include all the information necessary to accomplish the objectives specified in the Privacy Act and this section.
p.1 

OAR Box 1796 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

56) VI-B-7 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37 PM Sheet 56 of 107 
P.2 

A-90-37 

VI-B-7 

This document has been moved to IV-E-25 at the request of the project 

officer. It was incorrectly categorize originally.
39892.

#### ANDERSON v. PREFERRED RISE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

Decided February 1, 1963.

*294*Rich, Bass & Kidd, Casper Rich,*for plaintiff in error.

*Powell, Goldstein, Fraser & Murphy, C. B. Rogers, Gregg Loomis,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

It is now well settled that, where an insurance policy provides for cancellation by the insurance company by mailing a notice of cancellation to the insured, evidence of mailing in compliance with the terms of the policy is sufficient to authorize a finding that such policy is canceled although the insured does not in fact receive such notice of cancellation. See *New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Russell,*102 Ga. App. 597 (117 SE2d 239); *Genone v. Citizens Ins. Co.,*207 Ga. 83 (60 SE2d 125); *Davis v. Travelers Indem. Co.,*94 Ga. App. 102 (93 SE2d 810), and citations.

The sole contention of the plaintiff is that the notice was mailed to the wrong address and therefore the notice of cancellation was not effective. The policy provided in part: “Notice to any agent or knowledge possessed by any agent or by any other person shall not effect a waiver or a change in any part of this policy or estop the company from asserting any right under the terms of this policy; nor shall the terms of this policy be waived or changed, except by endorsement issued to form a part of this policy.” Plaintiff’s contention is that the notice of cancellation should have been mailed to the address shown in the original policy and not to an address furnished the insurer *295by the insured after the policy was originally issued. The renewal certificate upon which the plaintiff must rely as a part of the insurance contract (otherwise the policy had expired long before the occurrence in dispute) showed the address to which the notice was mailed as being the address of the plaintiff and it was undisputed that such address was the last address furnished the defendant by the plaintiff. This renewal certificate became a part of the policy and the notice was mailed to the address shown in the thus amended policy. The finding by the trial court that the policy was canceled by mailing the notice of cancellation to the address furnished by the plaintiff to the company was authorized by the evidence, and the trial court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4770

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JE DUKOBI BRADFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR01-524-DKC)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Daniel W. Stiller, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.

Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Je Dukobi Bradford pled guilty to possession with intent to

distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine and 500 grams or more

of powder cocaine. In his plea agreement, he waived the right to

appeal his sentence, except that he reserved the right to appeal

from any upward or downward departures from the guideline range.

At sentencing, the Government moved for a downward departure based

on Bradford’s substantial assistance and argued for a four offenselevel reduction. The district court granted the motion, reduced

Bradford’s offense level by six, and imposed a 150-month term of

imprisonment.

Bradford’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising the issue of whether the

district court erred by not departing further, but asserting that,

in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Bradford

has been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,

but he has not done so. A defendant may not appeal the extent of

a downward departure unless the departure decision resulted in a

sentence imposed in violation of law or resulted in an incorrect

application of the sentencing guidelines. United States v. Hill,

70 F.3d 321, 324-25 (4th Cir. 1995). We discern no such error in

the district court’s departure in this case.

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for reversible

error and found none. We therefore affirm the conviction and
3

sentence. 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. Thus, we deny counsel’s motion to

withdraw from representation. If the client requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would

be frivolous, then counsel may refile his motion for leave to

withdraw. 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
Exhibit 32

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 Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 (the Form 10-Q), 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 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 2, 2012

By:

/s/ William J. DoyleWilliam J. Doyle
President and Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 2, 2012

By:

/s/ Wayne R. BrownleeWayne R. Brownlee
Executive Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of
Regulation S-K, 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, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q.