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

[632 NYS2d 113]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.), rendered December 8, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying *271defendant’s application to excuse a prospective juror for cause *(see, People v Williams,*63 NY2d 882, 885; *People v Pagan,*191 AD2d 651, 651-652). Although the juror, who managed a retail store in the neighborhood of defendant’s arrest, stated during voir dire that it "seemed” to her that she recognized defendant, the record is devoid of any indication that she had ever actually encountered him at any time. There is only speculation that she did because she manages a business near where he was arrested, he is a homeless person who frequented the area, and she "had quite a few [homeless] people arrested” because of "a lot of problems” she had with them at her store. But, "[i]n virtually all of the cases decided by [the Court of Appeals] where a prospective juror has been challenged for cause based upon an actual bias, the challenge has been premised on the juror having expressed an opinion as to the guilt of the defendant for the charges being tried” *(People v Torpey,*63 NY2d 361, 366). Although the existence of actual bias can be the product of a prospective juror having formed "an unfavorable impression of the defendant” through, for example "having heard or read about him in a context apart from the specific crimes for which he is being tried”, or being "prejudiced against a minority group of which the defendant is a member” *(supra,*at 366), not every predisposition toward bias, of which there is no indication whatever herein, subjects a potential juror to disqualification *(supra,*at 367, citing *People v Williams, supra).*Here, the prospective juror never expressed an opinion as to defendant’s guilt, and there is no hint that she had any preexisting impressions of him that would have compromised her impartiality.

Defendant’s contention that the court delivered an erroneous charge with respect to burglary in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; *People v Jackson,*76 NY2d 908), defendant having expressed satisfaction with the charge before it was delivered, and having specifically requested the additional instructions on the subject of unlawful remaining. In any event, the evidence was sufficient to support the prosecution’s theory that defendant’s entry into the store’s basement was unlawful, justifying a charge on unlawful entry as well as unlawful remaining, and distinguishing this case from *People v Gaines*(74 NY2d 358), relied upon by defendant. We find no abuse of sentencing discretion or merit to defendant’s other contentions. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         321,684
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,704,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,956,473
<INVENTORY>                                  6,619,830
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,048,953
<PP&E>                                       1,278,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,198,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,244,295
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,539,756
<OTHER-SE>                                (92,178,154)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,198,253
<SALES>                                      6,685,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,685,141
<CGS>                                        4,172,855
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,262,227
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             520,595
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,097,681)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,488)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,095,193)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,095,193)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.2



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



Jaguar Mining, Inc. (the “Company”) is filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended 2013 (the
“Report”).

I, Derrick Weyrauch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/Derrick Weyrauch           | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Name:Derrick Weyrauch         | 
|Title:Chief Financial Officer | 
|Date: May 13, 2014            |
# L_2022156EN.01000201.xml

| 9.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 156/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 156/2

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/897

of 2 June 2022

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Lenticchia di Onano’ (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Lenticchia di Onano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Lenticchia di Onano’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Lenticchia di Onano’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Lenticchia di Onano’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Lenticchia di Onano’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 June 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 87, 23.2.2022, p. 19.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
Exhibit 10.5.1

AMENDMENT TO THE  EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH DIGHTON PACKARD, M.D.

WHEREAS, Emergency Medical Services L.P. ("Company") and Dighton Packard, M.D. ("Executive") entered into an Employment
Agreement ("Agreement") on April 19, 2005, as amended; and

WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to reflect compliance with the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

NOW,
THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended effective January 1, 2009 as follows:

1.     Section 7.F.(ii)
is deleted and replaced with the following:



2.     The
following language is added to the end of Section 7.F:



---





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Company and Executive have executed this Agreement, in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, this 30th day of December, 2008 and effective
January 1, 2009.

COMPANY

ATTEST:By:

/s/ William A. Sanger

By:Its:

Chairman and CEO

Its:




EXECUTIVE/s/ Dighton Packard, M.D.Print:

Dighton Packard, M.D.


---



QuickLinks
/

, ’ ‘~,. OFFICE OF THE ATT ’ ORNEY GENERAL OF T&AS AUSTIN * ‘ W. _..~,. 6cmAa.m c. MAran Atlumt” amEnaL

### APPROVECJUL 8, 1942 ATTORNEY GENERAL OX' TEXAS Am Yf
No. 52433.

protests 954232-G, etc. (New York).

#### H. H. Schmidt Glove Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,293
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,364
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,523
<PP&E>                                          17,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,479
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,975
<BONDS>                                          4,927
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,666
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,038
<SALES>                                        138,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,218
<CGS>                                          117,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  117,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,880
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,555
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,336
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,219
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,219
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10


</TABLE>
Rotor F/X LLC 

16209 Victory Blvd #267 

Van Nuys, CA 91406 

July 28, 2015 

Federal Aviation Administration 

. _ Atl€lf1ii()n: I::IE:l~ringJ).c>t:~E;l!CII,lrk,_fi.QQ:4:30 ......... _ 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1 000 

BOO Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

To Whom It May Concern: 

RECEI\/ED 

AUG 1 3 2015 

HEARII\lG DOCKET 

,;Jo \CS -- J L\ ~5 

In response to FAA Case No. 2013WP910153, Rotor F/X LLC would like to request a hearing 

for this matter. 

If you should have any questions, please contact us at 818.462.3333. 

Sincerely, 

s~~~~~~--
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 02, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 02, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0177. TYRESE GIBSON v. SAMANTHA GIBSON. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2020CV340644
EXHIBIT 16.1

                                                    ANDERSEN
                                                    Arthur Andersen LLP
                                                    Suite 1600
                                                    701 B Street
                                                    San Diego, CA  92101-8195

Securities and Exchange Commission                  Tel 619 699 6600
450 Fifth Street, N.W.                              Fax 619 699 6990
Washington, D.C.  20549
                                                    www. andersen.com


April 3, 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         RE:      ADVANCED MARKETING SERVICES, INC.

We have read Item 4 of the Advanced Marketing Services, Inc. Current Report on
Form 8-K dated April 3, 2002 and we are in agreement with the statements
contained therein as they relate to Arthur Andersen LLP.

Very truly yours,

/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth
below is being submitted in connection with the annual report of Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report)
for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Takashi Tsukamoto, Chief Executive Officer, and Tetsuji Kosaki, Chief Financial Officer of Mizuho Financial Group, Inc., each certifies that, to the best
of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 19, 2009



By:

/s/ Takashi TsukamotoName: Takashi TsukamotoTitle: Chief Executive Officer




By:

/s/ Tetsuji KosakiName: Tetsuji KosakiTitle: Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0745. MOGUL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC et al. v. GW

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC.

The Appellants in the above-styled case have filed a motion entitled

Appellants’ Unopposed Motion For Permission To Withdraw Appeal. Pursuant to

Court Rule 41(g)(1), said motion is hereby GRANTED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 31, 2020

12/31/2020
(Reap. Dec. 10622)

#### Thalson Co. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 15641; 17305; 17506.

(Decided November 13, 1963)

*Stein & Shostalc*for tbe plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe respective parties hereto, subject to tbe approval of tbe Court, that tbe merchandise covered by tbe appeal for reappraisement enumerated in tbe attached Schedule of Cases, consists of artificial flowers, fruits, etc., exported from Japan; and that, at tbe time of exportation thereof to tbe United States, tbe market value or tbe price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in tbe principal markets of the country from which exported, in tbe usual wholesale quantity and in tbe ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including tbe cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values, net packed.

> That all the merchandise covered by the appeal for reappraisement was entered subsequent to February 27,1958.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under Sec. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for reap-praisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for a decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and bold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise bere involved and that such.values were the invoice unit values, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

LAURA VAN DER MEULEN, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D15-5711 

 ) 

MICHAEL VAN DER MEULEN, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

Opinion filed July 14, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Charlotte County; Robert J. Branning, 

Judge. 

Jane H. Grossman of the Law Office of 

Jane H. Grossman, St. Petersburg; and 

Susan Hartmann Swartz of the Law office 

of Stanley R. Swartz, Bradenton, for 

Appellant. 

Amber L. Weaver of Amber L. Weaver, 

Esquire, P.A., Punta Gorda, for Appellee. 

SILBERMAN, Judge. 

 Laura Van Der Meulen, the Former Wife, seeks review of a final judgment 

of dissolution of marriage. She challenges the calculation of both parties' incomes, the 

requirement that she pay real estate taxes from the temporary support award, and the 

equal allocation of the children's unreimbursed medical expenses. Michael Van Der 
- 2 -

Meulen, the Former Husband, properly concedes that the trial court erred in failing to 

allocate the unreimbursed medical expenses on a percentage basis. See § 61.30(8), 

Fla. Stat. (2011); Zinovoy v. Zinovoy, 50 So. 3d 763, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Finding 

no reversible error in the Former Wife's remaining arguments, we affirm in part, reverse 

in part, and remand for the reallocation of the children's unreimbursed medical 

expenses. 

 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 

CRENSHAW and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 129 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 129

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-275, is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 106(c) and 
inserting ``December 15, 2000''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 129

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
Before the Third Division,

July 17, 1946

No. 51247.

#### Petition 6437-R of F. G. Jackson (Laredo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

At the trial the petitioner testified that when the entry was appraised, he was assessed the sum of $77.84; that he appealed to reappraisement but abandoned the same on the advice of the prosecuting attorney, with the understanding that he might file an application for a refund. The official papers indicated that petitioner’s only error was in calculation, no undervaluation existing. It was found that the petitioner, in making the entry in this case, acted without intention to misrepresent the facts or to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the goods. The petition was therefore granted.