alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 8 , 2011

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KENNETH LEE WILLIAMS, Appellant

NO. 14-10-01025-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14277-14278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; The Board 
of Scientific Counselors Meeting (BSC), National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC)

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

    Time and Date: 9 a.m.-3 p.m., May 10, 2007.
    Place: Holiday Inn on the Hill, 415 New Jersey Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20001.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
The meeting room accommodates approximately 50 people.
    Purpose: The Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and 
by delegation, the Director, CDC, are authorized under Sections 301 
and 308 of the Public Health Service Act to conduct directly or by 
grants or contracts, research, experiments, and demonstrations 
relating to occupational safety and health and to mine health. The 
BSC shall provide guidance to the Director, NIOSH, on research and 
prevention programs. Specifically, the Board shall provide guidance 
on the Institute's research activities related to developing and 
evaluating hypotheses, and systematically documenting findings and 
disseminating results. The Board shall evaluate the degree to which 
the activities of NIOSH: (1) Conform to appropriate scientific

[[Page 14278]]

standards; (2) address current, relevant needs; and (3) produce 
intended results.
    Matters to be Discussed: Agenda items include a report from the 
Director of NIOSH, Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention 
Program review, Training Grant Program review, Noise-induced Hearing 
Loss Program review, and closing remarks.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    For Further Information Contact: Roger Rosa, Executive 
Secretary, BSC, NIOSH, CDC, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 715H, 
Washington, DC 20201, telephone (202) 205-7856, fax (202) 260-4464.

    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 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: March 20, 2007.
Elaine L. Baker,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E7-5583 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
No. 47927.

#### Protest 943046-G of New York Mdse. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, .J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the brass base shells are similar to those the subject of *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607) they were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 353 as parts of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as signs. It was further stipulated that the tape measures in question are the same as those the subject of Abstract 43372 and the atomizers are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Rice Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373). The tape measures and atomizers were therefore held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
[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:****An assessment of communityplanning for mass transit**
 
1 |2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7| 8 | 9| 10 | 11| 12
 
SuDoc Number:Y 3.T 22/2:2/T 68/2/V.1-12
Item Number:1070-M (online)
CGP systemNumber:001091349
 
October 19, 2018
#### In the Matter of Shafii J., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 481]

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Paul Grosvenor, J.), entered July 21, 1994, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation for one year upon a fact-finding that he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of burglary in the second and third degrees, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, criminal trespass in the second and third degrees, menacing in the second and third degrees and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of dismissing the third and fifth counts of the petition charging burglary in the third degree and criminal trespass in the second degree, respectively, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The non-hearsay allegations of the petition and the complainant’s supporting deposition established every element of each of the counts of burglary, criminal trespass, and unlawful imprisonment (Family Ct Act § 311.2). These charges were sustained by legally sufficient evidence at the fact-finding hearing. Before the complainant retrieved a gun from a holster around her waist, the respondent had grabbed her arm, pulled her toward him, placed a knife to her chest and ordered her to "come with me”. These facts were sufficient to establish the element of "substantial interference” with the complainant’s liberty *(see,*Penal Law § 135.00 [1]). The complainant’s description of the manner in which respondent gained entry into the residential building, not open to the public, and his behavior inside the building demonstrating that he was not there for a legitimate reason, established the element of " 'entering] or remaining unlawfully’ ” (Penal Law § 140.00 [5]).

*210Contrary to respondent’s argument, the complainant’s testimony and the physical evidence are reconcilable and we therefore decline to disturb the court’s factual findings as against the weight of the evidence *(see, Matter of Christopher T.,*156 AD2d 190).

The presentment agency concedes that the counts of the petition charging third-degree burglary and second-degree trespass should be dismissed as lesser included offenses of burglary in the second degree *(People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
* 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. 96-40602

Summary Calendar

 

EDWARD C. CHARLES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CAROL S. VANCE, Chairman, 

Texas Board of Criminal Justice;

et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:94-CV-136

- - - - - - - - - -

April 22, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward C. Charles, Texas state prisoner # 627324, requests

permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of

the denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Chief Judge Politz

ordered Charles to file an affidavit for leave to proceed IFP on

appeal pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995

(PLRA). The order held Charles’ appeal in abeyance for 30 days
No. 96-40602

- 2 -

pending payment of the $105 filing fee or submittal of the

required documents pursuant to the PLRA. Charles timely

responded; however, the documentation submitted by Charles does

not comply with the requirements imposed by the PLRA because he

did not submit information regarding his prison trust account for

the required six-month period. See § 1915(a), (b). Accordingly,

Charles’ motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and

his appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.3. Should Charles wish to reinstate his appeal, he is

instructed to pay the $105 filing fee to the clerk of the

district court within 30 days from the date of this order. 

MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8260 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend acute hospital 

care at home waiver flexibilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2024 

Mr. WENSTRUP (for himself and Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend 

acute hospital care at home waiver flexibilities. 

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 ‘‘Hospital Inpatient 

5 Services Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENDING ACUTE HOSPITAL CARE AT HOME 

7 WAIVER FLEXIBILITIES. 

8 Section 1866G of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 1395cc–7) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8260 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘2024’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘2029’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (b)— 

4 (A) in the header, by striking ‘‘STUDY AND

5 REPORT’’ and inserting ‘‘STUDIES AND RE6 PORTS’’; 

7 (B) in paragraph (1)— 

8 (i) in the matter preceding subpara9 graph (A), by striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘Not later than September 

11 30, 2024, and again not later than Sep12 tember 30, 2028, the Secretary’’; 

13 (ii) in clause (vi), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

14 the end; 

15 (iii) in clause (vii), by striking the pe16 riod and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

17 (iv) by adding at the end the following 

18 new clause: 

19 ‘‘(viii) in the case of the second study 

20 conducted under this paragraph, the qual21 ity of care, outcomes, costs, quantity and 

22 intensity of services, and other relevant 

23 metrics between individuals who entered 

24 into the Acute Hospital Care at Home ini25 tiative directly from an emergency departVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:12 Jun 06, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8260.IH H8260

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8260 IH

1 ment compared with individuals who en2 tered into the Acute Hospital Care at 

3 Home initiative directly from an existing 

4 inpatient stay in a hospital.’’; and 

5 (C) in paragraph (2)— 

6 (i) in the header, by striking ‘‘RE7 PORT’’ and inserting ‘‘REPORTS’’; and 

8 (ii) by inserting ‘‘and again not later 

9 than September 30, 2028,’’ after ‘‘2024,’’; 

10 and 

11 (iii) by striking ‘‘on the study con12 ducted under paragraph (1).’’ and insert13 ing the following: ‘‘on— 

14 ‘‘(A) with respect to the first report sub15 mitted under this paragraph, the first study 

16 conducted under paragraph (1); and 

17 ‘‘(B) with respect to the second report sub18 mitted under this paragraph, the second study 

19 conducted under paragraph (1).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
|   | **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**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Calypso Media Services Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, **Michael D. Parnell**, Chief Executive Officer and Principal                Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

| /s/ | **MICHAELD.PARNELL** |
|-----|----------------------|

 

**Michael D. Parnell**

Chief Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

March 30, 2009

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission                or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-K solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROGER STANLEY, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 213, 39 CMR 213

No. 21,709

March 21, 1969

*Captain Frank A. Nelson,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review in this case to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> “We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 88(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Fizam Hosein, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 491]

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), dated March 14, 1995, which dismissed the indictment on the ground that the prosecutor failed to instruct the Grand Jury on the defense of justification.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and the indictment is reinstated.

A prosecutor need not instruct a Grand Jury as to every conceivable defense suggested by the evidence, but rather must charge the Grand Jury only as to any "complete” defense that is supported by the evidence and that could potentially obviate a needless or unfounded prosecution *(People v Lancaster,*69 NY2d 20, 26-28, *cert denied*480 US 922; *People v Valles,*62 NY2d 36). Justification is such a complete defense.

*564However, a person is "justified” in using "deadly physical force” (Penal Law § 10.00 [11]) against another *only*when "[h]e reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating” (Penal Law § 35.15 [2]; *see, People v Hall,*220 AD2d 615).

The evidence before the Grand Jury establishes that when the defendant shot Earl Smalls, Smalls was not armed, and the defendant had no reason to believe that Smalls either had a weapon or was about to use deadly physical force against him *(People v Reynoso,*73 NY2d 816; *People v Guido,*198 AD2d 433; *People v Porter,*161 AD2d 811; *People v Harris,*134 AD2d 369; *People v Figueroa,*111 AD2d 765).

In addition, at the time the defendant fired the gun, his friend Dudley McCormick was at his side and Smalls’ uncle was actively trying to disengage the two combatants, who were some six to seven feet apart from each other on a public street. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the defendant could have retreated in safety from whatever threat Smalls may have posed to him *(see, e.g., People v Vasquez,*161 AD2d 678, 679; *People v Porter, supra; People v Harris, supra; People v Pabon,*106 AD2d 587, 588; *People v Alston,*104 AD2d 653).

Since neither of the two prerequisites justifying the use of deadly physical force set out in Penal Law § 35.15 (2) was met in this case, no justification charge was warranted, and the indictment voted by the Grand Jury was improperly dismissed. Sullivan, J. P., Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
No. 56512.

protest 177722-K (New York).

#### Helene Malioufa *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson J.

From an examination"'of the papers in the case the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness of the collector’s classification. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 58613.

protest 232842-K (New York).

#### Alltransport, Incorporated *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 50530.

#### Protest 113120-K of Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinon by

Keefe, J.

At the trial plaintiff’s witness testified that the case of whisky in question was missing from the shipment, it never having been received,, and that a claim for loss was made against the insurance company. Counsel for the plaintiff stated that the affidavit of shortage, as required under article 812, Customs Regulations of 1937, was not filed within the time prescribed. Government counsel admitted that an investigation showed the case of whisky was not imported. In view of the evidence, judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the collector was directed to make refund of duties taken upon the one ease of whisky in question.
Exhibit 32.1

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 The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 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 The Frontier Fund.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



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

Date: November 26, 2008
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 30, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00761

- CV

IN RE THE COMMITMENT OF KEVIN JOHNSON,

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2 018CI23245

Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED.

Appellant’s brief is due on or before March 4, 2020. No further extensions will be granted absent

extraordinary circumstances.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of January, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### Frank Sibley and James Holmwood, *Appellants, v.*James T. Hastings, *Respondent.*

— Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO ) COMPANY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4007 ) ROSEMARIE C. GRAFFEO, ) individually and as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of ) FRANK GRAFFEO; PHILIP ) MORRIS USA INC., and ) LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed December 6, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Declan P. Mansfield, Judge. Marie Attaway Borland and Troy A. Fuhrman of Hill Ward Henderson, Tampa; and Charles R.A. Morse of Jones Day, New York, New York for Appellant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Maegen P. Luka and Celene H. Humphries of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa; Eric D. Roslansky of The Ruth Law Team, St. Petersburg; Brent R. Bigger and Shane A. Newlands of Paul- 2 -

Knopf Bigger, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellee Rosemarie C. Graffeo. No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
No. 47423.

#### Protests 990828-G, etc., of Bianchini Ferier, Inc. (New York).

*388Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the evidence produced the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) certain of the silk mufflers in question, not hemmed or hemstitched, imported, prior to. the effective date of said trade agreement, at 55 percent under paragraph-1209; (2) woven silk mufflers, valued at more than $5 per dozen, not hemmed or hemstitched, but block printed by hand, imported subsequent to the effective date of said trade agreement, at 30 percent under paragraph 1209 and T. D. 49753; and (3) woven silk mufflers, valued at more than $5 per dozen, not hemmed or hemstitched, not block printed by hand, imported subsequent to the effective date of the trade agreement, at 40 percent under paragraph 1209 and T. D. 49753. Protests sustained in part.