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

[633 NYS2d 568]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered March 7, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the night of February 28,1993, a masked man robbed the complainant at knifepoint and fled in the complainant’s livery cab. One week later, the defendant was arrested while driving the complainant’s vehicle, and the complainant identified him from a lineup as the individual who had robbed him.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the People failed to prove his identity as the individual who committed the robbery and car theft beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal due to the People’s failure to prove a prima facie case was not sufficiently specific to preserve for appellate review his claim with respect to the issue of identity *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). 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. Moreover, 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]).

Here, the record reveals that the complainant, a driver employed by a Queens car service company, had picked up the defendant at the same address three days prior to the robbery. On that occasion, the defendant was seated in the front seat of the complainant’s cab for about 20 minutes, and the complainant was able to view his entire face while they talked. Thus, although the defendant was wearing a mask on the night of the robbery, the complainant was able to recognize him based upon his height, weight, and distinctive voice. Moreover, the *474complainant’s conclusion that the defendant was the same man he had picked up three days earlier was supported by the fact that the defendant asked him whether his vehicle was car number seven, which was information he had sought from the complainant during the prior trip.

We find no merit to the defendant’s claim that it was error for the court to admit into evidence the knife which was recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest *(see, People v Del Vermo,*192 NY 470, 481-482).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8220 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8220

To clarify coverage of occupational therapy under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2024

 Mr. Trone (for himself and Mr. Nunn of Iowa) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
 addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 clarify coverage of occupational therapy under the Medicare program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Occupational Therapy Mental Health 
Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFYING COVERAGE OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY UNDER MEDICARE.

     Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide education and 
outreach to stakeholders about the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual with 
respect to occupational therapy services furnished to individuals under 
the Medicare program for the treatment of a substance use or mental 
health disorder diagnosis using applicable Healthcare Common Procedure 
Coding System (HCPCS) codes.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 6.1


<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>





Calculation of Loss per ADR and Ordinary Share
----------------------------------------------
                                                                    $'000's                   (pound)'000's


<S>                                  <C> <C>                   <C>                       <C>
Net Loss for the year ended December 31, 2002                  (30,511,000)              (18,958,000)
                                                             ===============           ===============

Weighted average ADR's Basic and Diluted                         24,370,517                24,370,517

Weighted average Ordinary Shares - Basic and Diluted             48,741,033                48,741,033

Loss per ADR                                                         (1.25)                    (0.78)
                                                             ===============           ===============

Loss per share                                                       (0.63)                    (0.39)
                                                             ===============           ===============

</TABLE>
#### EDWARD FUNARI, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-PETITIONERS, v. WILLIAM H. COURTNEY & SON, INC., *ET AL..*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS, v. MOHAWK CONSTRUCTION CO., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Mr. Thomas J. McGann*and *Mr. William L. Boyan*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Lulce A. Eiernan, Jr., Mr. Joseph P. Merlino, Mr. Jack DiNola*and *Mrs. Linda Brenner Lengyl*for the respondents.

May 14, 1968.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Will Eglin, Chief Financial Officer of MD Technologies
Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD Technologies Inc.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 11, 2004 |  | /s/ William D. Eglin   
|                   |  | Will Eglin             
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer
Before the First Division,

June 15, 1959

No. 63170.

#### Sonotone Corporation *v.*United States,

protests 58/18653, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of “articles composed wholly or in chief value of synthetic material of gem stone quality such as spinel,” the claim of the plaintiff was 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL McCEE FOUNTAIN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2350 GEB DAD P

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

By order filed June 28, 2005, the court ordered respondents to lodge the state

court transcripts and show cause for their failure to respond to the court’s previous order. 

Respondents have filed a timely response to the June 28, 2005 order and have lodged the state

court transcripts. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s June 28,

2005 order to show cause is discharged.

DATED: July 14, 2005.

DAD:13

foun2350.dch

Case 2:04-cv-02350-GEB-DAD Document 28 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-161140, 333-150777, 333-140952, 333-136935, 333-125893, 333-118488, 333-106167, 333-87088, 333-60354 and 333-33382) pertaining to theWebsense, Inc. 2009 Equity Incentive Plan, the Websense, Inc. 2007 Stock Incentive Assumption Plan, the Websense, Inc. Amended and Restated 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and the Websense, Inc., Amended and Restated 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan ofour report dated February 24, 2009 (except for the effects on the consolidated financial statements of the restatement described in Note 2, as to which the date is October 28, 2009) with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedule of Websense, Inc. and our report dated February 24, 2009 (except for the effects of the material weaknesses described in the sixth paragraph, as to which the date is October 28, 2009) with respect to the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Websense, Inc. included in the Amendment No.1 to its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Diego, California 

October 28, 2009
Exhibit 23-1.a



CONSENT OF COUNSEL

As Executive Vice President-Corporate and Shared Services and Secretary of Great Plains Energy Incorporated, I have reviewed the statements as to matters of law and legal conclusions in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, and consent to the incorporation by reference of such statements in the Company's previously-filed Form S-3 Registration Statements (Registration No. 333-97263 and Registration No. 333-87190) and Form S-8 Registration Statements (Registration No. 33-45618 and Registration No. 333-98781).

/s/Jeanie Sell Latz
Jeanie Sell Latz

Kansas City, Missouri
February 28, 2003
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 496 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to reaffirm the importance of workers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Ms. WARREN, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. 

BOOKER, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. PADILLA, Mr. 

MERKLEY, and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Reserve Act to reaffirm the 

importance of workers. 

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 ‘‘Respect for Workers 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE 

7 SYSTEM. 

8 The Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.) is 

9 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 496 IS

1 (1) in section 2B(b) (12 U.S.C. 225b(b)), by in2 serting ‘‘and distributional effect’’ after ‘‘conduct’’; 

3 and 

4 (2) in section 10 (12 U.S.C. 241), in the third 

5 sentence of the first undesignated paragraph, by in6 serting ‘‘and at least 1 member with demonstrated 

7 primary experience in supporting or protecting the 

8 rights of workers, who shall be the lead member of 

9 the Board in charge of promoting effectively and de10 veloping policy recommendations for the Board to 

11 meet the goal of maximum employment described in 

12 section 2A’’ before the period at the end. 

13 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY. 

14 The amendment made by section 2(2) shall apply to 

15 any appointment to the Board of Governors of the Federal 

16 Reserve System made on or after the date of enactment 

17 of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# C_2007296EN.01000401.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/4

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities

(2007/C 296/02)

Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a), second indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) are amended as follows:

1

2

On page 349, the following text is inserted:

On page 349, the following text is inserted:

| ‘8544 70 00 | Optical fibre cables
  This subheading also includes optical fibre cables, designed for example for telecommunication use, made up of optical fibres individually coated with a dual layer of acrylate polymer placed in a protective casing. The coating consists of an inner sheath of soft acrylate and an outer sheath of hard acrylate, the latter being coated by a layer of various colours.
  The coating of the individual optical fibres provides protection and structural integrity, for example by protecting the individual fibres against fracture. |
| --- | --- |

‘8544 70 00

Optical fibre cables

This subheading also includes optical fibre cables, designed for example for telecommunication use, made up of optical fibres individually coated with a dual layer of acrylate polymer placed in a protective casing. The coating consists of an inner sheath of soft acrylate and an outer sheath of hard acrylate, the latter being coated by a layer of various colours.

The coating of the individual optical fibres provides protection and structural integrity, for example by protecting the individual fibres against fracture.

Image

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1352/2007 (OJ L 303, 21.11.2007, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 50, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

2

---
July 16, 1943

No. 48569.

#### Protest 95868-K of August F. Stauff & Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing^granted.
No. 38886.

#### Protest 992991 of E. Stegemann, Jr. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 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

WATERKEEPERS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2647 KJM

vs.

RUTH COLEMAN, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

A status conference was held in this matter on October 12, 2005 before the

undersigned. Layne Friedrich appeared for plaintiff. Denise Hoffman and Kathryn Tobias

appeared for defendant. Upon consideration of the joint status report on file in this action,

discussion of counsel and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT ORDERS AS

FOLLOWS:

1. Initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) shall be

made as set forth in the updated joint status report filed October 5, 2005.

2. A settlement conference is set before the Honorable Peter A. Nowinski on

December 19, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. 

3. The presumptive limit on the number of interrogatories is extended to 40

interrogatories per side.

Case 2:04-cv-02647-KJM Document 21 Filed 10/17/05 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

4. Initial expert disclosures shall be made no later than September 5, 2006.

5. Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be made no later than October 9, 2006.

6. Discovery, including the hearing of discovery motions, shall be completed by

February 14, 2007. Discovery motions, if needed, shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule

37-251.

7. Dispositive motions, other than discovery motions, shall be noticed to be

heard by March 14, 2007.

8. The pretrial conference is set for May 16, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. before the

undersigned. Pretrial statements shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 16-281.

9. Trial of this matter is set for August 13, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. before the

undersigned. The parties shall file trial briefs in accordance with Local Rule 16-285.

DATED: October 17, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

waterkeepers.oas

Case 2:04-cv-02647-KJM Document 21 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 50 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12177-12178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): China-United States Collaborative, Population-
Based Surveillance and Research Program for Maternal-Child and Family 
Health, Request for Applications (RFA) DD07-006

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned 
SEP:

    Time and Date: 1 p.m.-3 p.m., April 26, 2007 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference. Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director,

[[Page 12178]]

Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 
92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of scientific merit of grant applications 
received in response to RFA DD07-006, ``China-United States 
Collaborative, Population-Based Surveillance and Research Program 
for Maternal-Child and Family Health.''
    For Further Information Contact: Juliana Cyril, Ph.D., 
Scientific Review Administrator, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, 
Telephone 404.639.4639.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: March 8, 2007.
Elaine L. Baker,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E7-4744 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
[No. 20915.

In Chambers.

April 1, 1892.]

#### Ex parte WILLIAM N. HART, on Habeas Corpus.

Divorce — Allowance of Alimony — Construction of Decree —Term not Specified. — A decree of divorce, for the offense of the husband, allowing alimony to the divorced wife, without specifying the period during which it is to be paid, is valid and sufficiently certain in its terms, and will be construed as intending the payment of alimony to continue during the life of the divorced wife, or until modified by the court.

Id. — Jurisdiction — Contempt. ■— Such a decree is within the jurisdiction of the court, and can be enforced by process of contempt..

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Maguire & Gallagher,*for Petitioner.

*Eugene N. Deuprey,*for Respondent.

Beatty, C. J.

The petitioner is imprisoned upon a charge of contempt of court, consisting in his refusal to pay alimony awarded to his divorced wife by the decree of divorce. He contends that the imprisonment is unlawful, because, as he claims, the decree as to the order for alimony is void by reason of the fact that it does not *255specify the period during which the alimony is to he paid.

As I construe the decree, it intends the payment of alimony to continue during the life of the plaintiff in the divorce suit, or until modified by the court. Such a decree the court had power to make in granting a divorce for the offense of the husband. (Civ. Code, sec. .139.) The decree is, in my opinion, sufficiently certain in its terms. It is within the jurisdiction of the court, and can be enforced by process of contempt.

The prisoner is remanded to custody.
No. 58610.

protest 230252-K (New York).

#### Carole Stupell, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
Holland & Knight 

2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100 | Washington, DC 20006 | T 202.955.3000 | F 202.955.5564 

Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com 

Anita M. Mosner 

(202)419-2604 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

June 20, 2011 

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Mr. George Wellington 

Division Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-45) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Joint Application of Singapore Airlines Limited and Open Joint Stock Company 

Transaero Airlines (Docket OST-2011-0115) 

Dear Mr. Wellington: 

By Application dated June 13, 2011, Singapore Airlines Limited and Open Joint Stock Company 

Transaero Airlines ("Joint Applicants") applied for statements of authorization and related 

exemption authority to engage in reciprocal codesharing between Moscow, Russian Federation 

and Houston, Texas, and beyond Moscow. 

Singapore Airlines has polled all interested parties, and no party has objected to the Application. 

For this reason, the Joint Applicants respectfully request that the Department promptly grant the 

requested authority. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Holland & Knight, LLP 

lita M. Mosner 

Jennifer M. Nowak 

Attorneys for Singapore Airlines 

Atlanta | Bethesda | Boston | Chicago | Fort Lauderdale | Jacksonville | Lakeland | Los Angeles | Miami | New York 

Northern Virginia | Orlando | Portland | San Francisco | Tallahassee | Tampa | Washington, DC | West Palm Beach 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I 

by causing a copy to 

have this date served the foregoing letter on the persons identified below 

be sent by electronic mail. 

RECIPIENT 

Robert Silverberg 

John L. Richardson 

Carl B. Nelson 

Dan Weiss 

Alexander Van der 

Bellen 

Sam White 

John Allen 

Angeline Bird 

Sandra Lunsford 

Russell E. Pommer 

Anita Mosner 

Howard Kass 

Malcolm L. Benge 

Kris Urs 

COMPANY 

ABX 

Amerijet 

American Airlines 

Continental Airlines/ 

United Airlines 

Delta Air Lines 

Evergreen 

International Airlines, 

Inc. 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

FedEx 

Atlas Air, Inc. 

UPS 

US Airways 

World Airways, Inc. 

U.S. Department of 

State 

E-MAIL 

rsilverberq@sqbdc.com 

irichardson@iohnlrichardson.com 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

dan.weiss@coair.com 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

sam.white@everqreenairlines.com 

iohn.allen@faa.oov 

anbird@fedex.com 

sllunsford@fedex.com 

rpommer@atlasair.com 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

howard kass@usairwavs.com 

mlbenqe@zsrlaw.com 

urskr@state.qov 

(,w<A 7^ $/H&k 

, Jennifer M. Nowak 

June 20, 2011 

#10417512 vl
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 14, 2022.

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, February 14, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22I0117. MAURICIO EMILIANI et al. v. BLUE CRYO FRANCHISE, LLC et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2021CV352947