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

[633 NYS2d 354]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County *385(Gerges, J.), rendered December 7, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither the fact that the complaining witnesses themselves had criminal records nor the existence of minor inconsistencies in the testimony renders the evidence legally insufficient *(see, People v Titus,*125 AD2d 428; *People v Peterson,*112 AD2d 172; *People v Sutton,*108 AD2d 942; *People v Oquendo,*133 AD2d 709). Moreover, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94; *People v Scott,*168 AD2d 523). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

To the limited extent that the issue is preserved for our review, the remarks made by the prosecutor in summation constituted fair comment in response to those made by defense counsel *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399; *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 109). Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE BAILEY, III,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2067 GEB PAN P

vs.

J. WEDELL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 22, 2006, this court issued an order directing the United States

Marshal to serve process on defendants in this action. Subsequently, the action was dismissed

due to plaintiff’s apparent failure to comply with Local Rule 83-182(f), which requires that a

party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address change. On June 16, 2006,

the United States Marshal returned service unexecuted due to the dismissal of this action.

On June 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a request to reopen this action. By order filed

August 14, 2006, the district court granted the request and remanded the matter to the

undersigned for further proceedings. Good cause appearing, the United States Marshal will be

directed to comply forthwith with this court’s order filed March 22, 2006. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 2:04-cv-02067-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order, this court’s

March 22, 2006 order, and a copy of the unexecuted service documents returned on June 16,

2006 to the United States Marshal;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this court’s March 22,

2006 order and a copy of the Local Rules of Court to plaintiff at his address of record; and

3. The United States Marshal shall forthwith take all steps necessary to comply

with the March 22, 2006 order. 

DATED: August 17, 2006.

/bail2067.8new

Case 2:04-cv-02067-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.10(a)

 

ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

The Parties hereto previously entered into an Employment Agreement which became effective as of January 1, 2014.  The Parties wish to amend the terms of that agreement.   The Parties hereby agree to amend the terms thereof by extending the termination date of the agreement as set forth in Paragraph 2.1 therein by one year.   Therefore the termination date of December 31, 2014 shall be amended to be  December 31, 2015.  All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain effective until the new termination date.

 

In all other regards the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement are hereby ratified and affirmed.

 

Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.

 

	
By:
    	
/s/   Joseph Tomkinson
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Name:
    	
s/   Joseph Tomkinson
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Title:
    	
CEO
    	
 
    


 

 

Employee

 

	
/s/   Ron Morrison
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Ron   Morrison
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8154 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8154

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend telehealth 
   services for federally qualified health centers and rural health 
                                clinics.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2024

  Mr. Murphy (for himself, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Van Orden, and Mr. Nehls) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
   Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend telehealth 
   services for federally qualified health centers and rural health 
                                clinics.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENDING TELEHEALTH SERVICES FOR FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH 
              CENTERS AND RURAL HEALTH CLINICS.

    Section 1834(m)(8)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395m(m)(8)(A)) is amended by striking ``During the emergency period 
described in section 1135(g)(1)(B) and, during the 151-day period 
beginning on the first day after the end of such emergency period--'' 
and inserting ``With respect to telehealth services furnished during or 
after the emergency period described in section 1135(g)(1)(B)--''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 45007.

#### Protest 903364-G/11053 of United China & Glass Co. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Walkeb, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of hat brushes similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Heinrich Herrmann & Weiss*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30). The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was therefore sustained.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOK T. LAU,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-04-2351 WBS EFB PS

vs.

ANTONIO V. SILVA, P.C.,

Attorney at Law,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On August 17, 2006, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Defendants Antonio V. Silva, P.C. and

Antonio V. Silva have filed objections on August 28, 2006, which have been considered by the

undersigned district judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 48 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

Defendants’ objections relate solely to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to

deny their motion to dismiss counts one and two of the Amended Complaint. On a motion to

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must construe the allegations of the complaint in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff, and may not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt

that plaintiff could prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Cervantes v. City of

San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274-75 (9th Cir. 1993). Defendants’ arguments, relating to whether

plaintiff will be able to prove that his employment discrimination suit would have been

successful but for the alleged negligence of defendants, are more properly presented by way of

summary judgment or at the time of trial. They are insufficient to justify dismissal under Rule

12(b)(6), particularly in light of the pro se status of the plaintiff. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520-21 (1972).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 17, 2006, are

ADOPTED; 

2. Defendants’ October 4, 2005 motion to compel arbitration and to stay this

action is denied; and

3. Defendants’ October 4, 2005 motion to dismiss is denied.

DATED: September 8, 2006

Case 2:04-cv-02351-WBS-DAD Document 48 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “request for production of documents to

defendant.” Plaintiff is informed that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests

and that neither discovery requests served on an opposing party nor that party’s responses should

be filed until such time as a party becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the

court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties

shall not be filed with the court unless, and until, they are at issue. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s May 11, 2005 “request

for production of documents to defendant” will be placed in the court file and disregarded. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that further filing of discovery requests or responses, except as required by

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 24 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

rule of court, may result in an order of sanctions, including, but not limited to, a recommendation

that this action be dismissed. 

DATED: June 2, 2005.

/kf

whit2313.411 

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 24 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2
Section 333 Amendment 

Trumbull Unmanned, LLC

Prepared by: Dyan Gibbens, LLC

June 10, 2015 

 Page 1 of 2

TRUMBULL UNMANNED
Request for Amendment to FAA Exemption No. 11146

 Docket No. FAA-2014-0890

10 June 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington DC 20590

Re: Amendment ot Trumbull Unmanned Exemption No. 11146

Dear Sir or Ma’am,

Trumbull Unmanned respectfully requests amendment to our FAA Exemption No. 11146, Docket No. 

FAA-2014-0890. We request for the additional UAS listed below to be added to our exemption for 

continued safe operation:

• Altavian F6500

• Altavian R8400

• sensefly eXom

• Aibotix X6

The confidential operations manual will be sent via email. Thank you for your time and consideration 

in this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact us. 

Respectfully,

Dyan Gibbens

CEO

Trumbull Unmanned

Cc: 

Rob Pappas

Jake Troutman

 Page 2 of 2

TRUMBULL UNMANNED

 Dyan Gibbens
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  Quarterly  Report of Total  Entertainment,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Richard B. Davis., Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                       /s/ RICHARD B. DAVIS
                                       --------------------
                                       Richard B. Davis

April 1, 2004
6730

#### MESSERVY v. MESSERVY.

1. Appeal. — Order requiring party to show cause is not appealable.

*2.*Ibid. — Alimony.—Order allowing temporary support or alimony is appealable.

3. Ibid. — -Res Judicata. — Order dismissing an appeal does not preclude the movant from renewing the motion on a ground not stated in the moving papers but urged in argument.

Motion.' to dismiss' appeal in Pearl C. Messervy against John E. Messervy.

*Messrs. Logan &*Grace, for the motion.

*Messrs. Legare, Holman & Baker,*contra.

January *22,*1908.

Per Curiam.

A motion is made to dismiss the appeal from two orders of Judge Memminger, the first requiring the defendant to pay temporary alimony for plaintiff's support and fees to her attorneys pending the final judgment, and the other requiring the defendant to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt in failing to comply with the first order.

1 The motion is on the sole ground that the orders are not appealable. The order requiring the defendant to show cause is not appealable, and! as to that order the appeal is dismissed.

*2***The order allowing temporary support or alimony and counsel fees pending the litigation is appealable, and as to that order the motion is refused.

3 In the argument it was insisted the appeal should be dismissed on the further ground that the appeal from the first order was not perfected in due time nor accoding to the rules of Court. No notice, was given of this ground and the Court can not consider it. This order, however, does not preclude the plaintiff from making a motion to dismiss on that ground after due notice.

*59'The order of Associate Justice Gary 'having served its purpose of staying proceedings until the matter could be heard by the Court, is now revoked.

Mr. Justice Gary *did not sit in this hearing.*
**Exhibit 23**

 

 

# **Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

#  

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc.’sAnnual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of our report dated March 6, 2009 relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. andSubsidiary as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and for each of the years inthe three-year period ended December 31, 2008, which report appears in theRegistrant’s Annual Report to Shareholders for the year ended December 31,2008.

 

****

 

Scranton, Pennsylvania

March 6, 2009

 

90

----
(V. D. 20)

#### American Thermo-Ware Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 863682, etc.

(Decided October 14, 1955)

*Walter Auster*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This matter is presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *American Thermo-Ware Company*v. *United States,*34 Cust. Ct. 379, Abstract 59079. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matter be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

The matter has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as set forth in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and, made a part hereof.

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

> Schedule “A”

> 

> *371
No. 53606.

protests 112542-K, etc. (New York).

#### Wine Shippers Import Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 53041.

#### Hormann, Schutte & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 53009-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

By virtue of the decision in *United States*v. *American Viscose Corporation*(30 C. C. P. A. 240, C. A. D. 239), the protests were dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

VICTOR R. SAWYERS

v.

NOVELETTE DAVIS AND JOSITA 

DEJESUS

PETITION OF: NOVELETTE DAVIS

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 729 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**Exhibit
      23.1**








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The
      Board
      of Directors


First
      Mutual Bancshares, Inc.





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the First Mutual Bancshares, Inc.
      2000 Stock Option and Incentive Plan Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed
      July 7, 2000, of our report dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the
      consolidated statement of financial condition of First Mutual Bancshares, Inc.
      and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2004, and the related
      consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the
      three years ended December 31, 2005, and in our same report, with respect to
      First Mutual Bancshares, Inc., management’s assessment of the effectiveness of
      internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal
      control over financial reporting, which is included in the annual report on
      Form
      10-K of First Mutual Bancshares, Inc., for the year ended December 31,
      2005.











/s/
      Moss
      Adams LLP





Everett,
      Washington


March
      10,
      2006
No. 59052.

protest 224263-K (New York).

#### Traders Service Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The record disclosed that the merchandise was liquidated upon the basis'of 71 pounds per case, instead of on the correct basis of 71 kilograms per case; that there are approximately 2.2 pounds to a kilogram; and that, had the merchandise been liquidated on the correct basis of 71 kilograms, the applicable rate of duty would have been on the basis of 26 ounces per square foot, with a consequent assessment of duty at the entered rate. The Government conceded that the liquidation of the merchandise was in error. Accordingly, the merchandise was held dutiable at 8 cents per pound under.paragraph 219, as modified, *supra,*as entered.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-Qof Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31,2008, I, Martin S. Lapera, President and Chief Executive Officer of FrederickCounty Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of myknowledge and belief, that:

 

(1) such Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the informationcontained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008,fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.

 

 
| /s/ Martin S. Lapera                   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Martin S. Lapera                       |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
No. 48509.

#### Protests 602763-G, etc., of Paolo Alonge & Bro. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the cheese in question is similar to that involved in *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706, and Abstract 42146). As to this merchandise the collector was directed to reliquidate, allowing 2)4 percent in the weight thereof. Protests sustained to-this extent.
No. 58604.

protests 145442-K, etc. (New York).

#### Geo. F. Bassett & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of china figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Santos Neris, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 957]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.), rendered on or about April 26, 1993, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

*231Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.