alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marinucci, Appellant, *v.*Ace Cleaning & Maintenance Co.

Argued November 13, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*608*Carl M. Mazzocone,*with him *Joseph Hakun,*and *Sheer & Mazzocone,*for appellant.

*Joseph J. Murphy,*with him *Murphy, Veldorale, Weisbrod & Dougherty,*for appellee.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

Order affirmed.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Performance and accountabilityreport**
 
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006
 
SuDoc Number:E 1.1:
Item Number:0429-A-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000551092
 
December 11, 2019
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1420 KA 11-02608**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHAWN D. WEEZORAK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (GEOFFREY KAEUPER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Daniel J. Doyle, J.), rendered October 21, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of overdriving, torturing and injuring animals in violation of Agriculture and Markets Law § 353.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of overdriving, torturing and injuring animals (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353). The charges arose from an incident in which defendant punched his dog and held its head underwater in a bathtub, after the dog excreted in defendant’s home. Contrary to defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial, we conclude that “an acquittal would have been unreasonable . . . , and thus the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence” ( People v Kreutter , 121 AD3d 1534, 1535-1536, lv denied 25 NY3d 990). We conclude that defendant abandoned his further contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the dog’s exhumed remains because the warrantless search was illegal. Although defendant initially moved to suppress the evidence on that ground, he expressly limited the scope of the suppression hearing in his written closing statement following the hearing to the custodial interrogation issue, and he also failed to seek a ruling on that part of his omnibus motion in which he argued that the search and seizure was illegal ( see People v Britton , 113 AD3d 1101, 1102, lv denied 22 NY3d 1154; see generally People v Adams
, 90 AD3d 1508, 1509, lv denied 18 NY3d 954).

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
p. 1


# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 150 ) ll-E-11 0 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:08 AM

Sheet 150 of 264P 2 -

K.I
. GILLET

T Fax:414-855-130 0 No v 2 0 '9 ? 14=3 1 P
. 0 3
J Contac tRepor t Melani e Proctor

, Pacific Environmenta

l Services , Inc . (PES ) Novembe r 20,199 7 Mr . Jame s Span g From : Date : Contact : Company : Kruege r International. In

c Telephon e Number : (920)855-218 8 Fa x Number : (920)855-130 0 

## TO 72)899
EP A AI R DOCKE T 

### •A-94-5 2 

## ll-Eno '

Contac t Summary : Ms . Procio r explaine d tha tPE S i s working wit

h th e U.S . EP A o n th e developmen to f a nationa l emissio n standar

d fo r th e reinforce

d plasti c composite s industry . Ms . Proctor added tha t Kruege r International, Inc . wa

s contacte d t o updat e informatio

n provide d i n th e 199 3 EP A screenin g surve y submitted forthei r facilit y located i n Giliett , Wisconsin . Whe n Mr . Span g wa s aske d abou tth e us e o f flow coater

s an d pressure-fe

d rollers a tKruege r International , Inc. , h e indicate d tha tall o f their resi n spra y operatio n wa s converte d to non-atomize d applicatio n b y switchin g to flow choppe r guns . Ms . Procto r inquire

d whethe r Kruege r International , Inc . i s stil l usin g a vapo r suppresse d resi n wit h a n averag e weighte d HA

P conten to f 4 1 percent

. Mr . Span g responded tha

tth e average weighte d HA P conten

to f their resi n i s still 4 ] percen

tbu th e pointe

d ou ttha ttheir resi n i s no tvapor suppressed . 

### INFORMATIO

N I S ACCL'RATET_WV^ S 

### (-> 5y)f0f rP. 3

K.I . GILLET T Fax:414-855-130 0 No v 2 0 '9 7 14:3 0 P.0 1 ^

.•WWiW , **»• - 

# FA X TRANSMISSIO N KI-GILLETT

, ^~,^... - - £^431iE^MAIN STREET^-^s^.^ . TM~; : GILLETT

, Wl.54124-019 7 : TE L 920-855-218 8 FA X 920-855-130 0 ""'DATE : 

# //--?£5-ib"'.;': . '•:•"•'• • COMPANY : D £ S . FAX# : ?.?

_•7«//-<533' f 

# FROM : 3 ~ SpftfiJisiTOTA L PACE S INCLUDIN G COVE RSHEET - 

# MESSAGE : " _ = 

# ~ 

# S^^_ \upD^V ^

• j
. .«,#.
. •-.*»,. ,


# 4 -P. 4 

# i K.I . GILLET T Fax:414-855-130 0


# ^** V

' MemC9fVKI9MMTM.S01MCa.MC . 

# *2

5 •^r-199 6 No

v 2 0 '9 7 14:3 0 

### P . 0 2

Centra l Par k

W« « 500 1 Sout h Miam i Boulevard , Suit e 30 0 P.O . BO X 1807 7 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 27709-807 7 (919 ) 0*1-033 3 FAX(0ie)04i<ea * 

# FAX COMMUNICATIO N
Date : ///go/^ v FROM : 

## sfatr"" £*'*•* TO : Name : 

### Address : 

# ^ M :*fs 

# l£±y-
*Tit *ye« J/*J'*/» i r»°" «S r 

### J**c

Phon e Nu^r - ff**) **?-*>

?f FA X NUMBER : C

1 *>*) ***- '*** REFERENC E CODE : S^i 7 

### ". <"" THI S COMMUNICATIO N COMPRISE S ^ PAGE

S INCLUDIN G THI S PAGE . COMMENTS : 3V- ^ Sf~-$/?*"Jeftv^s-i Aon jeart&xs- ^+o6>f. /$&a$*r c*i-*e1rf*_s <>y»o t 

### £
at*A Vow J

ju you* /i*//3

HOfctwOTOM . D,C . •XMAWCH1WM8 U WML. W C • Ifl i AltOM* . ft* .BMeiNN4.T1.O M 

# 3
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00023

- CR

JAMES FRANKLIN KIRBY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 25159

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Franklin Kirby , appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss h is appeal. The motion

wa s signed by both Kirby a nd h is counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2 (a), we grant the

motion.

Acc ordingly, w e dismiss this appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: July 30, 2014

Date Decided: July 31, 2014

Do Not Publish
May 20, 2015

During the past several years, we have worked hard to position our region as a premier convention and leisure travel destination. Our major conventions, attractions and events —including the 2015 Super Bowl— draw a large number of international visitors

. Gr owth in travel to our destination is only possible if international travelers find it easy and affordable to come to the United States.

That is why we support Open Skies agreements with other countries. For 30 years, Open Skies has increased the number of flights to all regions of the United States, leading to more airline competition, access to growing markets and lower fares. It is good for travelers, the travel industry and the entire U.S.
economy.

If we are to effectively compete in the market for global travelers, we need to preserve policies like Open Skies that grow the market for international travel of all types.

We compete aggressively with other destinations across the country and around the world. We are not afraid of competition. We believe that more competition in all aspects of the travel industry is good for consumers and good for the growth of our industry, produc ing a better, more attractive travel “product” and encouraging more visitors to come here.

While I do not speak on behalf of our c ity a viation d epartment, I believe that same spirit applies to competition in international aviation as well. So I urge you to preserve all existing Open Skies
agree ments and work to expand th is successfu l policy.

Sincerely,

Steve Moore President & CEO The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary of Transportation U.S. Department of Transporta tion 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 The Honorable Penny Pritzker Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 The Honorable John Kerry Secretary of State U.S. Depart ment of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CHARLIE W. BABERS, Staff Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

11 USCMA 163, 28 CMR 387

No. 13,452

Decided January 15, 1960

*Lieutenant Colonel James L. Kilgore*was on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel John F. Hannigan*and *Major Lawrence J. Gross*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

The question in this case is whether the law officer erred to the prejudice of the accused by refusing to give the following requested instruction:

> *“A*plea of guilty is a matter in mitigation which may be considered along with all the other facts and circumstances in the case. Time, effort, and expense to the Government usually are saved by a plea of guilty. Such a plea also may be a manifestation of repentance and a first step toward rehabilitation.”

A similar issue was considered by us in United States v Rake, 11 USCMA 159, 28 CMR 383. For the reasons set out in our opinion in that case, we conclude that the law officer did not commit prejudicial error.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judge Latimer concurs.

FeRGüson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Rake, 11 USCMA 159, 28 CMR 383.
Before the Second Division,

March 5, 1951

No. 55296.

#### Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6785-R (New York).

Opinion by Rao, J.

At the trial the secretary of petitioner testified that the entry herein was made as one of a series of entries upon which petitioner had received memoranda from the appraiser to increase the values of certain of the items included in the shipments. The amendments were filed within a timely period, ¡but, in this case, and one other, the entries were overlooked. When he noticed that the time for amendment was about to expire in this case, he filed an amendment but said amendment did not reach the appraiser before the merchandise had come under his observation for appraisement. Upon consideration of the record the court was satisfied that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of *372the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Standby Commitment Agreement Amendment


EXHIBIT 10.16




Joseph V. Vittoria

1616 South Ocean Boulevard

Palm Beach, FL 33480

(T) 561 659 0860 (F) 561 659 1045










Puradyn Filter Technologies, Inc.

2017 High Ridge Road

Boynton Beach, FL 33426

Attention: Alan J. Sandler, VP/CAO, Principal Financial Officer




March 19, 2015




RE:

Standby Commitment Agreement Amendment #17




Dear Mr. Sandler:




Pursuant to the Standby Commitment Agreement letters dated March 28, 2002, and March 14, 2003 and all Amendments thereto, I, Joseph Vittoria (the “Lending Party”), agree to extend the payback dates from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016.




All other terms defined in the original Standby Commitment Agreement letters and the Amendments thereto, not otherwise in conflict with this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed and delivered by the respective officers hereunto duly authorized on the date first written above.










_________________________

Joseph V. Vittoria













Accepted and Agreed:

Puradyn Filter Technologies, Inc.










By:

____________________________________

Alan J. Sandler, Vice President, 

Chief Administration Officer, Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit31.3****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)**I, Marc Kilbride, Vice President and Treasurer of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC(formerly Reliant Energy, Incorporated), as servicer (the “servicer”), certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1), and all reports on Form 8-Kcontaining distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the yearcovered by this annual report, of CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to thetrustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion inthese reports is included in these reports;4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under the pooling andservicing, or similar, agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance reviewrequired under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilledits obligations under that agreement; and5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance with theminimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for MortgageBankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,that is included in these reports./s/ MarcKilbride Marc Kilbride
#### Judson Sheldon Corporation, agent for Charles Meurisse & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6619.

Entry No. 458, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, June 23, 1941, etc.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., August 1, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 16, 1946)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivee, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) *oí*the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EFIH-2014.12.31-Exhibit 10(a)






Exhibit 10(a)


Manager Compensation Arrangements
Managers who are current or former officers of Energy Future Holdings Corp. or any of its subsidiaries or employed by the Sponsor Group do not receive any fees for their service as managers. Mr. Cremens receives $200,000 annually and $7,500 per day for days substantially spent on matters related to our restructuring.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seifi Ghasemi, Chairman and Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 12,   2011                   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                   |   |   |
| /s/ SEIFI   GHASEMI                    |   |   |
| Seifi Ghasemi                          |   |   |
| Chairman and   Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

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 required by Section 906, 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.

 

1

----
#### Alexanders Dept. Stores, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6628.

Entry No. 732921, etc.

-Invoices dated Leicester, England, October 27, 1941, etc.

Certified October 28, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 5, 1942, etc.

(Decided December 16, 1946)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included»in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Adminis*222trative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn. Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant ^merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the items in question are the appraised values less additions made on entry because of advances in similar cases.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I,Seifi Ghasemi, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (the “Registrant”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.             The Registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

 

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theRegistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)           Disclosed in this report any changein the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The Registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  November 15, 2004         |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| /s/  SEIFI GHASEMI                    |   |   |
| Seifi  Ghasemi                        |   |
| Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----