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

[633 NYS2d 4]

—Judgment, Supreme *318Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.), rendered September 21, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The description of defendant broadcast over the police radio as testified to by the sending officer, which included defendant’s sex, race, height, two distinctive pieces of clothing, and location, was sufficient to justify the receiving officer’s detention of defendant for a showup identification. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
From: c-helfer@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:46:59 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Carol Helfer

Wheeling, WV 26003
SUPREME COURT.

#### Alice Douglas agt. Joseph L. Haberstro, as sheriff of the county of Erie.

*Appearance*— *what is sufficient—Effect of signing “atty. for deft.”*— *Practice*— *Code of Civil Procedure, sections*421, 422.

The act of an attorney in subscribing himself as attorney for defendant to notice of motion, while probably sufficient to constitute an appearance for the purpose of waiving mere irregularities, is insufficient to entitle the attorney to notice of other and entirely different proceedings in the action.

To require the service of notice of such proceedings, where no demurrer or answer has been served, a formal notice of appearance has been rendered necessary by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, sections 421, 422.

*Erie Special Term,*November, 1879.

Motion to set aside judgment for irregularity, on the ground that defendant had no notice of the application therefor.

*John Campbell Mubbell,*plaintiff’s attorney, opposed.

*AdeTbert Moot,*of counsel for defendant, in favor of.

Daniels, *J*.

The act of subscribing himself as attorney for the defendant, to the notice of motion, served for the exoneration of the sheriff, from liability as bail, was probably *277sufficient to constitute an appearance, for the purpose of waiving mere irregularities *(Baxter*agt. *Arnold,*9 *How.,*445; *Kelsey*agt. *Davis,*15 *id.,*92; *Ayers*agt. *Western Ins. Co.,*48 *Barb.,*132). But while it may very well have been attended with that result, it was still insufficient to entitle the attorney to notice of other and entirely different proceedings in the action. To require the service of notice of such proceedings, when no demurrer or answer has been served, a formal notice of appearance has been rendered necessary by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure *(id., secs.*421, 422), and it is quite evident from the affidavits produced on this motion, that no such notice was served on the plaintiff’s attorney at any time. The consequence of that omission is, that the application for judgment, the reference ordered and executed under it, and the judgment afterwards entered upon the report of a referee, were irregular. But, as the defendant swears to merits and excuses his default, he should be let in to defend. The judgment, order and report, must, for that reason alone, be set aside, and the defendant allowed to answer within ten days, on payment of ten dollars costs of opposing the. motion, and the expenses attending the proceedings set aside.

Hots. —Under the old supreme court rules, which are abrogated bisection 431, Code of Civil Procedure, signing *“ atty. for deft.,”*was an appearance entitling to notice. The new Code has changed the practice. [Ed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Thompson, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 852]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered March 23, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees and coercion in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, *31h*to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claims that the court improperly modified its *Sandoval*ruling to permit reference to a prior conviction involving a gun and that the prosecutor compelled defendant *240to characterize the People’s witnesses as liars are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law *(see, People v Fleming,*70 NY2d 947), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review these claims, we would find that neither warrants corrective action. Defendant’s hearing testimony making reference to a gun was inconsistent with his trial testimony and thus properly admitted for purposes of impeachment *(People v Fardan,*82 NY2d 638) with appropriate limiting instructions. Moreover, the evidence against defendant was overwhelming, rendering error, if any, in this regard harmless. As for prosecutorial misconduct, at no time was defendant asked to characterize the People’s witnesses as "liars” or as "lying”, but simply whether any testimony contrary to his own was not "true” *(People v Butler,*185 AD2d 141), and, here too, any overzealousness on the part of the prosecutor was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6306**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
JOHN WESLEY INGRAM , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle D istrict of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. James A. Beaty , Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:0 3

- cr - 003 72

- JAB

- 1 )

Submitted : May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John Wesley Ingram, Appellant Pro Se

. Robert Michael Hamilton , Assistant United States Attorney , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Wesley Ingram appeals the di strict court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Ingram , No. 1:03

- cr - 00372

- JAB

1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 11, 2011). 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
From: shuser6924@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:20:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Susan Huser

Fishers, IN 46037
**Form        8-K**

**Current        Report**

**Pursuant        to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of        1934**

** **
**        July 21, 2006**

| Delaware                                  | 37-1105865                                            |
|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| (State                  of incorporation) | (IRS                  Employer Identification Number) |

|   |   |   | Written                  communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17                  CFR                  230.425)                  |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                      |
|   |   |   | Soliciting                  material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR                  230.425)                                     |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                      |
|   |   |   | Pre-commencement                  communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act                  (17 CFR                  240.14d-2(b)) |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                      |
|   |   |   | Pre-commencement                  communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act                  (17 CFR                  240.13e-4(c)) |
|   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                      |

**Item        2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition and Item 7.01. Regulation        FD        Disclosure.**

**Item        9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.**

| c)     | Exhibits: |
|--------|-----------|
|   |      | 99.1 | 2nd                  Quarter Results Press Release dated July 21, 2006 |
|   |      |   |   |
|   |      |   |   |

**SIGNATURES**

**Caterpillar        Financial Services Corporation**

| Date:                  July 21, 2006 | By:                  /s/ Michael G. Sposato |
|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                 | Michael                  G. Sposato         |
|                                 | Secretary                                   |
No. 59711.

#### F. B. Wilcon Company *v.*United States,

protest 266188-K (Boston).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended May 25, 1955, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
EXHIBIT 32.1



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Matthiessen, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Date:	November 12, 2010

/s/ Robert E. Matthiessen
Robert E. Matthiessen
President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.02

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 quarterly report of Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended July 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Frey, Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with 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 financial condition and results of the operations of the company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Mark S. Frey       
|Mark S. Frey           
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 9, 2007
From: jfkpastor@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:27:40 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

john kassouf

Myrtle Beach, SC 29579
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,510-01

EX PARTE DANE EDWARD WEATHERFORD, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1482268-A IN THE 262ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of sexual assault

of a child and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Weatherford v. State, No. 01-16-01016-CR (Tex. App. — Houston [1 Dist.] August st

7, 2018) (not designated for publication). This Court refused Applicant’s pro se petition for

discretionary review on December 5, 2018. 

Applicant contends that he was denied the opportunity to file a motion for rehearing of the

refusal of his petition for discretionary review, because he did not receive timely notification that his
2

petition had been refused. This Court’s records indicate that although Applicant timely notified this

Court of a change of address, the notification of the refusal of his petition for discretionary review

was erroneously sent to his former address. Applicant did not receive that notification until after the

deadline for filing a motion for rehearing had passed. 

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time motion

for rehearing from this Court’s refusal of his petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the

First Court of Appeals in Cause No. 01-16-01016-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 01-

16-01016-CR from the 262nd District Court of Harris County. Applicant shall file his motion for

rehearing with this Court within 15 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: November 6, 2019

Do not publish
No. P69/7.

protests 59/9043 and 59/9042 (Laredo).

#### Joe King and Eugenio Mireles *v.*United States,

Newman, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of so-called dedicated moldings, produced by a molding machine, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bailey-Mora*Company, *Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 99, C.D. 2737), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(R.D. 11429)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 18, 1967)

*Sharp, Bolter & Eutohison*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.).

2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

5. That at the time relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

6. That as to 'all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

*8117. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Stanley Lorenzo WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dean WALKER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6365.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 29, 2001.

Decided July 10, 2001.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Lorenzo Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motion for a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. *See Williams v. Walker,*No. CA-00-326-1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2001). We deny Williams’ request to stay this appeal pending exhaustion of his state remedies. *See*28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b)(2). 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1994 & Supp.2000).