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

[633 NYS2d 33]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J., on speedy trial motion; Patricia Ann Williams, J., at trial and sentence), rendered February 1, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s speedy trial motion was properly denied since the court properly excluded the fifteen days between March 22 and April 6, 1993 upon the ground that the adjournment was precipitated by the failure of counsel for the codefendant to appear and the need to ascertain whether the codefendant was, in fact, represented by counsel (CPL 30.30 [4] [f]). Without this fifteen day period, there was insufficient includable time to require dismissal. Moreover, the court should have also excluded the period from May 18 to June 9, 1993, wherein the adjournment was explicitly requested by defense counsel.

Defendant’s argument that the prosecutor committed misconduct in summation is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor did not mischaracterize the defense in arguing that defense counsel had accused the People’s witnesses of lying and therefore, it was not improper for the People to respond by arguing that the witnesses lacked any motive to lie *(see, People v Bailey,*58 NY2d 272, 277). Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the court’s refusal to give a "police witness” charge where the police officers were the only witnesses to testify *(People v Miller,*159 AD2d 224, *lv denied*76 NY2d 739) and the court gave appropriate instructions to the jury on assessing a witness’s credibility. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
NO. 07-02-0277 -CV IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L C JULY 9, 2002

______________________________ IN RE E RASM O GONZALEZ, RELATOR

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. Bythis original proceeding, rel ator Erasm o Gonzalez, an inm ate proceeding pro se and info rm a p aupe ris , seeks a w rit of mandam us to com pel the Judge of the 69th Di strict Court to s et ahea ring and ruleon am otio n for writ of mandam us to compel the Distri ct Clerk of Dallam Co unty to produce a public record. B y opinion dated March 8, 2 002 , in
cause num ber

07-02-0105-CV, this Court denied a petiti on for writ of mandamus by w hich relatorsought the sam e relief he requests by this procee ding. Forthe sam e reasons expressed in ou r prior opinion, relator’s motion for leave to file a petition for writ of manda mus

and his petition for writ of m andam us m ust be denied.2

An orig inal p roceed ing f iled in this

Court m ust com ply with the req uire m ents of Rul e 52 of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Proce dure. R ule 52.3 s ets for th the m andatory requir ements of a petition as fo llows: (a) Identity of Parties and Couns el (b) Table of Contents (c) Index of

Authorities (d) Statement of the Case (e) Statem ent of Jurisdiction (f) Issues Prese nted (g) Statem ent of Facts (h) Argum ent (i) Prayer (j ) A ppe ndix
Relator’s petition is in substantial compliance with only subparagraphs (e) and (i). Otherwise, the pet ition lacks t he nece ssary inform ation for t his Court to determ ine whether relatoris entitled to the relief he seeks. Specifically, relator has failed to provide a certified
or sworn copy of the m otion he filed in the 69th Di strict Court sh owing the matter of which he com plains. Tex. R. App. P. 5 2.3(j)(1)(A). As stated in our prior opinion, relator has not demon strated thathe has requested and been refused a hearing on his pending m otion. Even a prose applicant for a writ of m andam us m ust show himself entitled to the relief he seeks. Barnesv. State, 83 2 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex.A pp.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceed ing).3

Accordingl y, relator’s m otion for leave to file a petition for writ of m andam us and his petition for writ of m andam us are hereby denied.
Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.
----

| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of East Coast Diversified Corporation. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: September 23, 2010                                               |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                   |
| /s/ Kayode Aladesuyi                                                   |
| Kayode AladesuyiChief Executive OfficerInterim Chief Financial Officer |
EXHIBIT 5



| |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                  
| |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Deloitte LLP
Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street
Suite 1400
Toronto ON M5J 2V1
Canada
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Tel: 416-601-6150 Fax:
416-601-6151 www.deloitte.ca                              

Consent of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-90920, 333-105310 and 333-151733 on Form S-8 and to the use of our reports dated February 13, 2013 relating
to the consolidated financial statements of Sun Life Financial Inc. (the Company) and the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

/S/ Deloitte LLP

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants

Licensed Public Accountants

February 13, 2013
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DAVID K. MURRAY, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

19 USCMA 109, 41 CMR 109

No. 22,451

December 5, 1969

*Captain Frank A. Nelson,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Richard L. Fruchterman, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

*110Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

On initial review of the accused’s conviction for two unauthorized absences, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886, the supervisory authority noted that the instructions as to sentence were inadequate under United States v Wheeler, 17 USCMA 274, 38 CMR 72. However, he concluded the accused was not prejudiced by the deficiency and approved the sentence, which includes a bad-conduct discharge. A board of review affirmed, and the accused appealed to this Court for further review of the correctness of the sentence instructions.

A bad-conduct discharge is authorized for the offenses of which the accused was convicted only because the aggregate confinement is more than six months. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969, paragraph 127c, section B, pages 25-17 and 25-18. The instructions do not mention this basis for imposition of the punitive discharge. The omission is prejudicial. United States v Yocom, 17 USCMA 270, 38 CMR 68.

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the Court of Military Review. In its discretion, the Court of Military Review may order a rehearing of the sentence or reassess an appropriate sentence which does not include a bad-conduct discharge. United States v Wheeler, supra.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

            I, Klaus Moeller, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief
Financial Officer of Genius Products, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify
pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
that:

            (1) the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant
for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), to which this statement
is filed as an exhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

            (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.


Dated:  August 12, 2004               By: /S/ KLAUS MOELLER
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Klaus Moeller
                                          Chief Executive Officer and Interim
                                          Chief Financial Officer (principal
                                          financial officer)
No. 49207.

#### Protest 80933-K of American Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

This case was inadvertently abandoned by counsel and rehearing was granted. It was stipulated between counsel that the fur dogs in question are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 41823. In accordance therewith the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e) was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Transax International Limited
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Adam Wasserman, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.

/s/ Adam Wasserman
------------------
Adam Wasserman
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
April 15, 2009
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4794 

To require the Social Security Administration to make changes to the social 

security terminology used in the rules, regulation, guidance, or other 

materials of the Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2024 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mr. COONS, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To require the Social Security Administration to make 

changes to the social security terminology used in the 

rules, regulation, guidance, or other materials of the 

Administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Claiming Age Clarity 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHANGES TO SOCIAL SECURITY TERMINOLOGY. 

7 Not later than January 1, 2025, the Commissioner 

8 of Social Security shall ensure that, in any rules, regulaVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:37 Aug 22, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4794.IS S4794

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4794 IS

1 tion, guidance, or other materials of the Social Security 

2 Administration, whether online or in print— 

3 (1) the term ‘‘early eligibility age’’ is replaced 

4 with the term ‘‘minimum monthly benefit age’’; 

5 (2) the terms ‘‘full retirement age’’ and ‘‘nor6 mal retirement age’’ are replaced with the term 

7 ‘‘standard monthly benefit age’’; and 

8 (3) the term ‘‘delayed retirement credit’’ shall 

9 not be used and any reference to age 70 as the max10 imum age up to which delayed retirement credits 

11 can be received shall be replaced with the term 

12 ‘‘maximum monthly benefit age’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Order

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

O.Z. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. CIV S-04-2234 FCD KJM P

ORDER

On June 10, 2005, defendants filed a request to file their a responsive pleading beyond

time.

Defendants’ request is denied as unnecessary. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (d)(3). 

DATED:June 13, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2/mart2234.eot.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-02234-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 1
** **

**Exhibit 31(a)**

**CERTIFICATION**

I,Martin S. Lapera, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)        Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)       Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)        Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)       Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: July 23, 2007 |   | Martin S. Lapera                       |
|---------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                |   | Martin S. Lapera                       |
|                |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

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

In connection with the Annual Report of PARK HILL CAPITAL I CORPORATION (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis
Mailhot , Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 28, 2005


                                        /s/ Francis Mailhot
                                        -------------------
                                        Francis Mailhot
                                        Principal Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

AS OF JUNE 30, 2003



|    | 
|--- | 
|1.  | 
|    | 
|2.  | 
|    | 
|3.  | 
|    | 
|4.  | 
|    | 
|5.  | 
|    | 
|6.  | 
|    | 
|7.  | 
|    | 
|8   | 
|    | 
|9   | 
|    | 
|10. | 
|    | 
|11. | 
|    | 
|12. | 
|    | 
|13. |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-4362 DOUGLAS E. MILLS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-205) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: March 9, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Theodore R. Dues, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, J ohn J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Douglas Mills pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). At sentencing, the district court heard from witnesses and found that Mills should be held responsible for 191.41 grams of crack cocaine. Mills alleges on appeal that the Government's evidence supporting three ounces of that total amount was not sufficiently reliable, and that the district court erred in attributing the three ounces of crack cocaine to him. Finding no error, we affirm. Mills pled guilty after he and his girlfriend, Latricia Collins, werearrested for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. Mills made controlled buys from Collins' father, Ricky High, a Government informant. At sentencing, High testified that, in Collins' presence, Mills showed him cocaine base shaped in a cookie form and that Mills toldHigh the total quantity of this cocaine base was three ounces. Detective Hart testified that Mills reported this incident to him the next morning. Collins, however, who was to be sentenced for her part in the conspiracy less than one week later, testified that the incident described by her father never happened. We give due deference to the district judge's opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, and will only reverse the court's factual findings if they are clearly erroneous. See United States v. Williams , 977 F.2d 866, 870 (4th Cir. 1992). After full review of the record, andin deference to the district court's credibility determinations, we cannot say that the district court's crediting of Mills' testimony over Collins' was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm Mills' sentence.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
2
(Reap. Dec. 10474)

#### D. E. Sanford Company et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 17747, etc.

(Decided April 4, 1963)

*Lawrence é Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That this stipulation is limited to merchandise appraised in Belgian francs.

> 2. That as so limited, the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Descornare Corp.*v. *United States,*R.D. 10158, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 3. On or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, were the appraised *per se*unit values in Belgian francs, plus 9% sales tax, plus packing as invoiced, said prices including the 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; and that on or about the said dates of exportation, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered in the principal markets of the country of exportation for sale to the United States.

> 4. That the involved merchandise was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption before the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> 5. That the appeals on Schedule “A” annexed may be submitted upon this stipulation, the same being limited to the merchandise and issues described above and abandoned in all other respects.

Ou the agreed facts and consistent with, tlie cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise appraised in Belgian francs is foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. (1952 edition) § 1402), and that such statutory value therefor is the appraised *per se*unit values in Belgian francs, plus 9 per centum sales tax, plus packing, as invoiced.

*434As to all other merchandise, not appraised in Belgian francs, enumerated on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.