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

[635 NYS2d 500]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered August 16, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (nine counts), attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the pros*666ecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the People’s witness viewed the defendant for only a short amount of time, it was sufficient to support his identification of the defendant *(see, People v Hyatt,*162 AD2d 713; *People v Androvett,*135 AD2d 640). Moreover, 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; *People v Nieves,*203 AD2d 390; *People v Androvett, supra; People v Caldwell,*125 AD2d 402; *People v Rosa,*125 AD2d 345). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant was not deprived of his right to counsel at the pre-accusatory lineup *(see, People v LaClere,*76 NY2d 670; *People v Coates,*74 NY2d 244; *People v Cherry,*161 AD2d 185).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
(Reap. Dec. 8563)

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 738220; 742866; 747703.

(Decided March 23, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

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

Laweence, Judge:

It appears from the record before me that when the above-enumerated appeals for a reappraisement were called for hearing, counsel for defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The motion was taken under advisement and the cases ordered submitted by the court.

In conformity with the requirements of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2631), I have examined the records in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### In the Matter of Susan Butler, Petitioner, v H. Carl McCall, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 265]

—Casey, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

During January 1993, petitioner traveled to Florida to attend the American Correctional Association’s winter conference in her capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Correctional Services. During the conference, petitioner suffered the onset of lower back pain. In an employee accident report dated February 19, 1993, petitioner stated that during the course of the conference she was required to sit for long periods of time and walk a great deal and on January 13, 1993 began experiencing excruciating back pain. The report was also signed by the Commissioner of Correctional Services. On December 22, 1993, petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits. Within her application, petitioner failed to detail the accident where requested, referring instead to the nature of her disability. Subsequently, petitioner stated that her disability resulted from a slip and fall on bus steps on January 13, 1993.

After a hearing in which both petitioner and the Commissioner testified that petitioner had slipped and fallen while exiting a bus at the conference, respondent found that the events precipitating the disability were those described in the accident report and denied the application. Petitioner com*893menced this proceeding contending that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence.

We confirm. The testimony of petitioner and the Commissioner was inconsistent with the description contained in the accident report and, as such, merely presented a credibility issue for respondent *(see, Matter of Smith v New York State & Local Retirement Sys.,*199 AD2d 763; *see also, Matter of Dering v Regan,*177 AD2d 931). We find no merit to petitioner’s contention that the introduction into evidence of a portion of her attending physician’s notes was error *(see, Matter of Gray v Adduci,*73 NY2d 741; *People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130). The medical notes dated January 21, 1993 stated that petitioner, with a history of two surgeries for scoliosis, "had been overdoing it about a week and a half or so ago and developed” back pain. It was introduced for the purpose of assessing petitioner’s credibility. Petitioner was offered, but did not accept, the opportunity to adjourn the hearing to call the physician *(see, Matter of Gray v Adduci, supra; Matter of Simpson v Wolansky,*38 NY2d 391, 395). As respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed *(see, Matter of Mazur v Regan,*188 AD2d 820; *Matter of Galioto v Regan,*126 AD2d 880).

Cardona, P. J., White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 National Residential Properties, Inc.
(the "COMPANY") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity
as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (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.

August 10, 2004

                             By:/s/RICHARD ASTROM
                                ---------------------------
                             Richard Astrom
                             Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the annual report of National Residential Properties, Inc.
(the "COMPANY") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the SEC on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), I hereby certify, in my capacity
as an officer of the Company, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (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.


                             By: /s/CHRISTOPHER ASTROM
                                ---------------------------
                             Christopher Astrom
                             Chief Financial Officer

         August 10, 2004
**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 Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Ricketts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Cano Petroleum, Inc. and willbe retained by Cano Petroleum, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| February 16, 2005 | /s/ Michael J. Ricketts |   |
|------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                   | Michael J. Ricketts     |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer |
### Re: Bensulfuron Draft FWP and DCI for approval Brian Kiernan to: Maia Tatinclaux 02/23/2012 12:43 PM Cc: Nancy Tsaur, Reuben Baris, Sheila Healy, Jude Andreasen, Mark Corbin, Patricia Parrott, Paula Deschamp, Stephanie Syslo History: This message has been replied to. Maia- I have reviewed the documents as requested and, for my part, find them complete. I only mention that the term 'Tier 1' next to the vegetative vigor data requirement in the DCI draft remains a potential source of confusion. Removal of this term would be consistent with the language in the current Part 158 data requirement.
Brian D. Kiernan Biologist EPA/OPP/EFED 703.305.0033

Maia Tatinclaux 02/22/2012 02:42:25 PM Hello again scientists, This is the last call for com...
From: Maia Tatinclaux/DC/USEPA/US To: Brian Kiernan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nancy Tsaur/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Reuben Baris/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sheila Healy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Jude Andreasen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Corbin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia Parrott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula Deschamp/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/22/2012 02:42 PM Subject: Re: Bensulfuron Draft FWP and DCI for approval Hello again scientists, This is the last call for comments on the bensulfuron methyl FWP and draft DCI. I have not actually heard from any of you regarding these documents. I am taking this as good news and if I don't receive any comments by COB tomorrow (2/23/12) I will assume all is correct and this FWP will go forward for signature on Friday, February 24. I have attached an updated FWP which includes a few changes recommended by my PRD management. Thanks again for all your hard work, Maia Tatinclaux Chemical Review Manager Risk Management & Implementation Branch V Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA Phone: (703) 347-0123 tatinclaux.maia@epa.gov Maia Tatinclaux 02/09/2012 04:50:12 PM Hello Scientists, Attached are the draft FWP and...
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0148 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0148

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea and inland waterways in the event of accidents (COM(2005)0592 - C6-0057/2006 - 2005/0241(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0562 - 0563 *

P6_TA(2007)0148

Liability of carriers of passengers by boat in the event of accidents ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 April 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea and inland waterways in the event of accidents (COM(2005)0592 — C6-0057/2006 — 2005/0241(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0592) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0057/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0063/2007);

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Case No. 14,499.

#### UNITED STATES v. BAKER.

[3 Ben. 68.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec., 1868.

Setting aside Verdict — Deaf Juror — Chad LENGE.

1. Nothing that is a cause of challenge to a juror before verdict, can be used' to set aside a verdict.

[Cited in Johns v. Hodges, 60 Md. 215.]

2. Where one of the jurors in a criminal trial was deaf, and the defendant was ignorant of the fact when the jury were empanelled: *Held,*that this was no cause for setting aside the verdict.

[Cited in Brewer v. Jacobs, 22 Fed. 239.]

[Cited in Re Waterman’s Will (R. I.) 28 Atl. 1027; Ryan v. River Side & Oswego Mills, 15 R. I. 436. 8 Atl. 246: State v. Powers, 10 Or. 145; U. S. v. Augney, 6 Mackey, 89.]

The defendant in this ease [Garniss E. Baker] was convicted of an offence under the national banking act. After the verdict, a motion was made to set it aside on the ground, among others, that one of the jurors was deaf and did not and could not hear the evidence, and that the defendant was ignorant. at the time the jury were sworn and empanelled, of the deafness of the juror.

B. K. Phelps. Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty.

John Sedgwick, for defendant.

BLATCHFORD. District Judge.

On principle. as well as on authority, nothing that is a cause of challenge to a juror before verdict, can be used to set aside a verdict, as for a mistrial, even though the cause of challenge was unknown to the party when the jury *953were sworn. Hollingsworth v. Duane, 4 Dall. [4 U. S.] 353. The nonpossession of any natural faculty stands, in respect to a juror duly summoned, in the same category with alienage or infancy or sex. That a juror is an alien is an objection that must be taken advantage of before verdict and by challenge. Hollingsworth v. Duane, before cited. So, it is a ground for challenge, that a juror is an infant or a female. Whart. Or. Daw (2d Ed.) p. 856. Where an infant is duly summoned as a juror and returned od the panel, his infancy must be objected to by challenge. In the present case the juror was duly summoned and returned on the panel. His alleged incompetency was, therefore, a cause of challenge. Rex v. Tremaine, 7 Dowl. & R. 684. The motion for a new trial on this ground is denied.

A new trial was granted on a question of the weight of evidence, on two counts of the indictment.
No. 58594.

protests 865346-G and 941950-G (New York).

#### Schild Adelstein Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
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 Essential Innovations Technology
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenneth G.C. Telford, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Kenneth G.C. Telford
--------------------------
Kenneth G.C. Telford
Chief Financial Officer
September 14, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 November 7, 2008
    Date:/s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Douglas S. NormanDouglas S. NormanChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2015 - 1570 Directorate ID : 2014 - SW - 054 - AD Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Model AS365N3, EC155B, and EC155B1 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 0 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of an external life raft to deploy preventing evacuation of passengers during an emergency . Costs : There are currently no costs of compliance with this AD because there are c urrently no U.S. - registered helicopters equipped with the life raft deploy ment system that is the subject of this AD. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Pro cedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Martin R. Crane
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, the undersigned officer of Lightspan, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2003
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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.

Dated: May 29, 2003                    /s/ Michael A. Sicuro
                                       -----------------------
                                       Michael A. Sicuro,
                                       Senior Vice President,
                                       Chief Financial Officer,
                                       Treasurer and Secretary

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Lightspan, Inc. and will be retained by Lightspan, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 14, 2008
    /s/ Heath B. ClarkeHeath B. ClarkeChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) /s/ Douglas S. NormanDouglas S. NormanChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 12.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Stephen T. H. Ng, the Chief Executive Officer of i-CABLE Communications Limited, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 20-F/A of i-CABLE Communications Limited; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |        |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 27, 2005 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Stephen T. H. Ng   
|                     |  | Name:  |  | Stephen T. H. Ng       
|                     |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 13.1

Certification pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Kappa Holding B.V. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.P.F. Beurskens, President/Managing Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
that, to my knowledge:



|Date: June 27, 2005 |  |        |  |                            
|------------------- |  | ------ |  | ---------------------------
|                    |  | By:    |  | /s/G.P.F. BEURSKENS        
|                    |  | Name:  |  | G.P.F. Beurskens           
|                    |  | Title: |  | President/Managing Director

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a disclosure document

---



QuickLinks