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

[634 NYS2d 77]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered September 23, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 71⁄2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was neither based on legally insufficient evidence, nor was it against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, the People proved that defendant possessed the gun with the "intent to use the same unlawfully against another” even without the benefit of the statutory presumption (Penal Law § 265.15 [4]), which was not submitted to the jury. Such intent could readily be inferred from the evidence. Defendant did not merely possess the gun but removed his glove, pulled the gun from his jacket, aimed it at the victim’s face and said, "I’ll bust you right now” clearly evidencing an intent to use the gun unlawfully *(People v Rivera,*171 AD2d 583, *lv denied*78 NY2d 973; *People v Fields,*179 AD2d 458, *lv withdrawn*79 NY2d 947). The credibility issues defendant now raises were properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its determination.

Defendant argues that the People improperly elicited testimony of his pretrial statement on their direct case and during the defense case after having withdrawn notice of their intent to introduce that statement. The record does not contain the proceedings during which notice of the statement had allegedly been withdrawn. Since defendant failed to make a record documenting this claim, this Court may not review it *(People v Charleston,*54 NY2d 622). In any event, such error, had it in fact occurred, would have been harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON D.C. 

Petition of: 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

OPERATING CERTIFICATE DALA026A 

Docket FAA-2016-4676 

For exemption of certain requirements of 14 

C.F.R. §121.438(a), §121.438(b) and 

§121.652(a) 

Supplementary Request 

July 5, 2016 

Delta Air Lines, Incorporated, operating certificate DALA026A, received the following request from the 

FAA: 

Reply: 

"In accordance with Title 14 CFR § 11.81(h), if Delta Air Lines wants to exercise the privileges 

of an exemption, if granted, outside the United States, "the reason why you need to do so" 

must be included in the petition for exemption. Otherwise, in accordance with§ 11.83, the 

FAA will limit the exemption, if granted, to use within the United States. 

The Delta Air Lines petition for exemption from Tlt!e 14 CFR §§ 121.438 and 121.652, dated 

February 29, 2016, did not specifically request use of the petition outside of the United States. 

However, the FAA is aware that Delta Air Lines conducts international operations with the 

Boeing 767. Therefore, the FAA requests ciarification on whether Delta Air Lines wants to 

exercise the privileges of this exemption, if granted, outside the United States. 

Please submit the clarlficatlon directly to the docket ID FAA-2016-4676. If Delta Air Lines 

wants to exercise the privileges of this exemption, if granted, outside the United States, 

please also include the information required by§ 11.Sl(h)." 

Thank you for making this inquiry. It is Delta's desire to apply the relief worldwide. The Delta B-767 

and B-757 operate to the continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. If the 

relief was not granted for operations outside the United States, pilots would not be able to acquire the 

operating experience in the theaters/operating areas they normally operate. This would be counter 

intuitive to the consolidation rules since the pilot would be prohibited from gaining experience where 

they normally operate. This would also signlficantly lmpact Delta's ability to effectively schedule 

crews. The traveling pubic would be impacted by higher operating cost being absorbed through ticket 

pricing. 

Our internal analysis did not indicate any safety concern with our exemption request being applied 

worldwide. Delta has conducted a review of !CAO ANNEX 1 and ANNEX 6 to determine if there are 

specific !CAO recommendations affecting our request. It appears the requirements around licensing 

and aircraft operator requirements are to be determined by the states. Delta respectfully request the 

exemption be granted to any area the Delta Operations Specifications allows the B-767 or B-757 to 

operate. 
Petition for Exemption - {FAR) §121.438(a), §121.438(b) and §121.652(a) 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

Julys, 2016 

Page 2 

Pl~ase contact me, at (404) 715-1112 or e-mail at chuck.schramek@delta.com, if you have and 

questions or need additional information, 

Charles M. Schramek 

Director - Quality Assurance, Compliance and Business Support 

Delta Flight Operations
No. 50127.

#### Protests 894193-G, etc., of Bullocks, Inc., et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400' the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 33736]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-24]                         

[[Page 33736]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 930

[Doc. No. AO-370-A8; AMS-FV-06-0213; FV07-930-2 W]

 
Tart Cherries Grown in the States of Michigan, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin; Withdrawal of 
Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Withdrawal of a proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is withdrawing a 
proposed rule published in the June 4, 2010 [75 FR 31719], issue of the 
Federal Register, inviting written exceptions to proposed amendments to 
Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930 (order), which regulates the 
handling of tart cherries grown in Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, 
Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The proposed rule was 
published in error.

DATES: The proposed rule published at 75 FR 31719, June 4, 2010, is 
withdrawn as of June 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel May, Marketing Order 
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 
Independence Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; 
telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail: 
Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 
proposed to amend Marketing Agreement and Order No. 930 (order) 
regulating the handling of tart cherries grown in the states of 
Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and 
Wisconsin. As part of the amendment process, a proposed rule was 
published in the Federal Register on May 12, 2009, at 74 FR 22112, and 
the period for filing exceptions closed June 11, 2009. A duplicate of 
the proposed rule was inadvertently published in the Federal Register 
on June 4, 2010, at 75 FR 31719. However, it is not AMS's intention to 
reopen the comment period. Accordingly, the proposed rule published at 
75 FR 31719 in the June 4, 2010, issue of the Federal Register is 
hereby withdrawn.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 601-674.

    Dated: June 9, 2010.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-14287 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
No. 61934.

#### Bluefries New York, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 177081-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1909), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. §2636 (d)). *United States*v. *William Heyer,*31 C. C. P. A. 111, C. A. D. 259, followed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001098826
<NAME>                                         Greenleaf Technologies Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     1

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         637,485
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               713,299
<PP&E>                                         614,177
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,625,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,791,458
<BONDS>                                        4,559,368
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       121,414
<OTHER-SE>                                     (846,447)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,625,793
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               90
<CGS>                                          82,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  47,246,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (293,805)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (47,035,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (47,035,777)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (47,035,777)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.39)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with the Annual report of Innovative Companies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mihir K. Taneja, Chief Executive 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.

| |  | /s/ Mihir K. Taneja                                  
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                      
| |  | Mihir K. Taneja Chief Executive Officer June 30, 2003
| |  |                                                      







---



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARABANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with the Annual report of Innovative Companies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,Carol Dore-Falcone , Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| | (3) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                          
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                    
| | (4) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/ Carol Dore-Falcone                                                    
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                                           
| |  | Carol Dore-Falcone Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerJune 30, 2003
#### George N. Fisher et al., Respondents, v Big V. Supermarkets, Inc., Doing Business as Shoprite, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 823]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Sherwood, J.), dated July 8, 1994, which, after a jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiffs George N. Fisher and Judith Fisher and against it in the principal sums of $90,258.21 and $10,000, respectively.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On November 22, 1991, shortly after 4:00 p.m., the plaintiff George N. Fisher (hereinafter Mr. Fisher) was grocery shopping with his wife at the local Shoprite supermarket, which was owned and operated by the defendant. While walking along the snack aisle, Mr. Fisher slipped and fell, allegedly on some broken potato chips and pretzels and a wet paper towel that were lying on the floor.

The defendant contends that the plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case against it for negligence, and therefore its motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the evidence should have been granted. The defendant also contends that the jury was improperly instructed as to the definition of constructive notice. We disagree.

The plaintiffs presented evidence, both in the form of testimony and the store’s floor sweeping log, from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the floors had last been swept at 8:30 that morning. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every reasonable inference, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of showing that the store had constructive notice of the hazardous condition *(see, Negri v Stop & Shop,*65 NY2d 625). The trial court, therefore, properly allowed the case to proceed to the jury.

We are satisfied that the court properly instructed the jury as to the definition of constructive notice *(see, Gordon v Ameri*
      *500
      *can Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836; *Negri v Stop & Shop, supra).*O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) of TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT CAPITAL CORP. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, JONATHAN H. COHEN, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|                                              
|/s/ JONATHAN H. COHEN                         
|Name: Jonathan H. Cohen Date: November 8, 2006
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20

Northrop Grumman                                Northrop Grumman Corporation
Component Technologies                          Poly-Scientific
                                                1213 North Main Street
                                                Blackbsburg, Virginia 24060-3127


March 15, 2002



Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology, Inc.
8851 Trans-Canada Highway
Ville Saint Laurent, Quebec
Canada H4S 1Z6

Attn:    Gary Moskovitz,
         President and Chief Executive Officer

Re:      Optical Channel Monitor

Dear Gary:

This letter confirms discussions recently held by Lumenon Innovative Lightwave
Technology, Inc. ("Lumenon") and the Poly-Scientific Division of Litton Systems,
Inc. ("Poly-Scientific") covering a specifically designed optical channel
monitor ("OCM") for use in various applications including, without limitation,
for use with arrayed waveguides and a configurable optical add drop multiplexer
("COADM") for telecommunication applications. The parties have been completing
negotiations of a Joint Development and Marketing Agreement (the "Agreement")
covering the COADM. Under the terms of the Agreement, the parties have agreed to
the allocation of intellectual property rights as defined by the entities
employing the parties responsible for developing intellectual property covering
the COADM and for certain licenses to define the rights of Lumenon and
Poly-Scientific with respect to intellectual property owned by each party, and
jointly developed, in connection with the COADM.

The parties have had recent discussions concerning the OCM for use in connection
with arrayed waveguides that are used in a COADM and which may have other
applications. Poly-Scientific and Lumenon agree that the rights and obligations
of the parties with respect to the OCM are covered by the terms and conditions
of the Agreement. In addition to the terms and conditions of the Agreement,
Lumenon and Poly-Scientific agree that either party can sell the OCM for any
application whatsoever and that Poly-Scientific will manufacture Lumenon's
requirements for the OCM.
<PAGE>
Agreement Letter Optical Channel Monitor, cont'd.
March 15, 2002
Page Two

If Lumenon is in agreement with the foregoing, please sign the enclosed
duplicate copy of this letter and return same to my attention as soon as
possible.

Sincerely,

NORTHROP GRUMMAN COMPONENT TECHNOLOGIES
Poly-Scientific

/s/ Lawrence J. Ball
Lawrence J. Ball
President

JDM/MHW/nlb

cc:  Dr. Jeffrey Miano
     Dr. Norris E. Lewis


Accepted and Agreed to:
Lumenon Innovative Lightwave Technology, Inc.

By: /s/ Gary S. Moskovitz
   -----------------------------------

Title: President and CEO
      --------------------------------
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

September 24, 2003 

The Board of Directors 

and Shareholders 

Molecular Imaging Corporation 

2150 West Washington Street, Suite 110 

San Diego, California 92110 

 

As the independent public accountants for Molecular Imaging Corporation we hereby consent to the incorporation in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB ofMolecular Imaging Corporation, of our report dated September 24, 2003, regarding the June 30, 2003 and 2002, consolidated financial statements. We also consent to all other references to our company included in this annual report. 

 

/s/ PETERSON & CO.

 

Peterson & Co. 

3655 Nobel Drive, Suite 500 

San Diego, California 92122-1089
#### In the Matter of Mario Ocasio, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 288]

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of petitioner that the inmate misbehavior report, by itself, did not constitute substantial evidence in support of the determination that he violated two inmate rules *(see, People ex rel. Vega v Smith,*66 NY2d 130). The report alleges that petitioner engaged in conduct disturbing to the order of the facility by talking with other inmates while being escorted to the facility hospital and that he disobeyed a direct order not to talk. It was authored by the correction officer who issued the order and escorted the inmates and it contains a detailed description of petitioner’s conduct. The fact that another correction officer who co-signed the report could not positively identify petitioner at the hearing as one of the inmates who was talking did not negate the reliability and probative value of that report *(see, Matter of Foster v Coughlin,*76 NY2d 964, 966; *Matter of Taylor v Coughlin,*190 AD2d 900, *lv denied*82 NY2d 651). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Wesley, Balio, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADDED BY**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fidelity D & D Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Steven C. Ackmann, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by § 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.               To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
| Date:  | March 29, 2005 | By:    | /s/ Steven C. Ackmann                |   |
|--------|----------------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   |           |   |    Steven C. Ackmann, |
|   |           |   |   President and Chief      |
|   |           |   |   Executive Officer        |

 

81

----