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

[634 NYS2d 146]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered November 6, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred by denying his motions to excuse prospective jurors who had allegedly observed him on the street while he was in handcuffs. The general rule is that the trial court should lean towards disqualifying prospective jurors of dubious impartiality rather than testing the bounds of discretion by permitting such jurors to serve *(see, People v Branch,*46 NY2d 645, 651). However, absent evidence that the prospective jurors would not have been impartial and considering their expurgatory oath, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant’s motions to excuse the prospective jurors in question *(see, People v Dehler,*216 AD2d 643; *see also, People v Colon,*71 NY2d 410, *cert denied*487 US 1239; *People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to support the defendant’s contention. One of the prospective jurors, when questioned by the court, stated that he had not seen the defendant on the street after the previous day’s court session. The other stated that, although she saw a couple of people board a Department of Correction’s bus, she did not make eye contact with or recognize anyone and she could not describe any of the people whom she saw.

The People sustained their burden of proving the third count of the indictment, which charged the defendant with robbery in the first degree, even though the victim of that robbery did not testify at trial. "[Wlhile it would be preferable practice in cases such as [this] for the prosecution to introduce direct proof *568of another’s ownership of the subject [property], failure to do so is not necessarily fatal to the People’s case * * * [since] the defendant’s lack of ownership may reasonably be inferred from the surrounding circumstances” *(People v Borrero,*26 NY2d 430, 436; *see also, People v Stafford,*173 AD2d 233, 234; *People v Hardwick,*137 AD2d 714, 716-717). Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish that the defendant forcibly stole some jewelry from the nontestifying victim *(see, People v Borrero, supra; People v Stafford, supra; People v Hardwick, supra).*

We find that reversal is not required due to the prosecution’s failure to produce at trial two eyewitnesses to the robberies *(see, People v Maneiro,*49 NY2d 769; *People v Jenkins,*41 NY2d 307; *People v Torres,*213 AD2d 687; *People v Aguirre,*201 AD2d 485).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
[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:****Joint management plan review(JMPR)**
 
Volumes: One | Two| Three | Four
 
SuDoc:C 55.34:P 69/
Item Number:0250-E-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000683024
 
November 29, 2017
No. 51056.

#### Protests 14492-K, etc., of Johnson Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of oatmeals or oatmeal saucers and puree cups'or chowder cups the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Copeland & Thompson, Inc.*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 85, C. D. 833) and *Johnson Bros.*v. *United States*(15 id. 113, C. D. 955). In accordance therewith the merchandise was held dutiable as claimed.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 353]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ353.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 2982]]

Public Law 107-353
107th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To provide for the conveyance of Forest Service facilities and lands 
   comprising the Five Mile Regional Learning Center in the State of 
  California to the Clovis Unified School District, to authorize a new 
   special use permit regarding the continued use of unconveyed lands 
    comprising the Center, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Dec. 17, 
                         2002 -  [H.R. 3401]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: California Five Mile 
Regional Learning Center Transfer Act.>>  assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``California Five Mile Regional 
Learning Center Transfer Act''.

SEC. 2. LAND CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL USE AGREEMENT, FIVE MILE REGIONAL 
            LEARNING CENTER, CALIFORNIA.

    (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to the 
Clovis Unified School District of California all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of National Forest 
System land consisting of 27.10 acres located within the southwest \1/4\ 
of section 2, township 2 north, range 15 east, Mount Diablo base and 
meridian, California, which has been utilized as the Five Mile Regional 
Learning Center by the school district since 1989 pursuant to a special 
use permit (Holder No. 2010-02) to provide natural resource conservation 
education to California youth. The conveyance shall include all 
structures, improvements, and personal property shown on original map 
#700602 and inventory dated February 1, 1989.
    (b) Special Use Agreement.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into negotiations 
with the Clovis Unified School District to enter into a new special use 
permit for the approximately 100 acres of National Forest System land 
that, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, is being used by the 
school district pursuant to the permit described in subsection (a), but 
is not included in the conveyance under such subsection.
    (c) Reversion.--In the event that the Clovis Unified School District 
discontinues its operation of the Five Mile Regional Learning Center, 
title to the real property conveyed under subsection (a) shall revert 
back to the United States.

[[Page 116 STAT. 2983]]

    (d) Costs and Mineral Rights.--The conveyance under subsection (a) 
shall be for a nominal cost. Notwithstanding such subsection, the 
conveyance does not include the transfer of mineral rights.

    Approved December 17, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3401:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-574 (Comm. on Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            July 22, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 19, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
July 28, 2015

Robert Walker

Synergy UAS Inc.

1029 Paseo Entrada

Chula Vista, CA 91910

Dear Mr. Walker:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your May 15, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Synergy UAS Inc. into the 

public docket (No. FAA-2015-1687), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-4264.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-40740 Conference Calendar

__________________ MARLEX LEJON JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNIDENTIFIED BROWN, Doctor, Gregg County Jail; UNIDENTIFIED SHIRLEY, Nurse/LVN, Gregg County Jail; UNIDENTIFIED BECKY, LVN, Gregg County Jail, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6-96-CV-97

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marlex Lejon Johnson, a Texas prisoner (# 683867), appeals the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous, following an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). The magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion either in refusing to allow Johnson to amend his complaint after thehearing or in allowing an attorney for the defendants to crossexamine him during the hearing. See Adams v. Hansen , 906 F.2dNo. 96-40740 -2- 192, 194 (5th Cir. 1990); Wilson v. Barrientos , 926 F.2d 480, 483 (5th Cir. 1991). Otherwise, the magistrate judge correctly ruled that Johnson failed to state a cognizable claim that the defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to his medical needs.
See Johnson v. Brown, et al. , No. 6:96-CV-97 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 19, 1996). This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Johnson that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Johnson is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Codicil of Mary O’Hara, *Deceased.*

Decree of surrogate affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Gilbert, J.; Dyeman, d., not sitting.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Anthony Piscitelli, certify that:

 

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of American Defense Systems, Inc.;

 

     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 with respectto 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 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) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

          (b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

          (c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

     5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

          (a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

          (b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  November 14,2008

 

 
|   | /s/ Anthony Piscitelli                           |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   | Anthony  Piscitelli                              |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer, President and Chairman |

 

----
#### Ana Rosado, Appellant, v Trinity Church, Defendant, and City of New York, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 958]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered on or about August 17, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiffs motion to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs notice of claim, which defendant properly rejected on July 21, 1993 as filed more than 90 days after the alleged accident, failed to provide a detailed description of the defect which allegedly caused her injuries or the specific address of the accident scene, and therefore failed to give defendant sufficient knowledge of the events underlying the claim *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; *Caselli v City of New York,*105 AD2d 251, 253). Moreover, plaintiff failed to offer a valid excuse for not timely filing the notice of claim or for delaying almost a year after the initial rejection in making this application for leave to file a late notice of claim *(see,*General Municipal Law *251§ 50-e [5]; *Matter of Montanez v City of New York,*156 AD2d 185). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Eller in, Rubin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
----

Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned, Guoshen Tu, the Chief Executive Officer of CHINA SECURITY &SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that: 

-  The Company's Quarterly Report on  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report"), fully complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and Information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results  of operation of the Company. 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this5th day of May 2008. 

/s/ Guoshen Tu Guoshen Tu Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc.and will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing.
No. 54122.

#### Fries Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 145283-K, etc. (New York).

*395Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of eucalyptus oil the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *United States*v. *Fries Bros., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 36, C. A. D. 416), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002**




CERTIFICATION
      OF CUSTODIAN




In
      connection with the Annual Report of *Turner
      Valley Oil & Gas, Inc.* .,
      a
      Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
      2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Christorpher
      Paton-Gay ,
      Sole
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), 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.




Dated:
        March 31, 2006
 /s/Christopher
                  Paton-GayChristopher
                  Paton-Gay
                president/director/Sole
                  Officer
#### Nicholas Murray, *Respondent, v.*Theodore L. Minier, *Appellant.*

Order reversed, with costs of appeal and of motion to abide event. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
#### In the Matter of William Halsey, *Deceased.*In the Matter of Maria Halsey, *an alleged Incompetent.*

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by Daniels, J.
(Reap. Dec. 9536)

#### Eugene Dietzgen Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 709789.

(Decided November 10, 1959)

*Bug ene R. Pickrell*for tbe plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doul),*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LaweeNOe, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain drawing instruments and cases covered by the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement is before the court for determination.

The parties hereto have entered into the following stipulation of fact:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the items described below by catalog number consist of drawing instruments and cases which in the decision of *Keuffel & Esser Co.*vs. *United States,*Abstract No. 59557, were held to be separately dutiable; that the eases and drawing instruments, in accordance with 'that decision, should be appraised separately instead of as an entirety; and that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the drawing instruments and cases covered by the above appeal for reappraisement at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany in usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States plus the cost of all containers and all coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in question packed ready for shipment to 'the United States was as set forth below; that the weight of the cases was as set forth below:

> Catalog No. Value of drawing instruments Value of cases Weight of case

> 1096 $2.02 $0.71 .595 lbs.

> 1092 0.90 0.32 .285 “

> 1097 L 2.72 0.72 .570 “

> 712 C 1.63 0.40 .180 “

> 1097 LC 2.86 0.72 .550 “

> 1096 L 2.55 0.72 .505 “

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany.

Upon tbe agreed facts of record, I find and bold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402 (d)), is tbe proper basis for determining tbe value of tbe *542drawing instruments and cases in controversy and that said value is as tabulated in the above-quoted stipulation.

As to all other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Winton/Graham Series.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                              
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund



|                                                                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                   
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                       
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Winton/Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund

Date: November 26, 2008