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

[635 NYS2d 504]

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered February 25, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), and assault in the first degree under Indictment No. 5575/92, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered February 25, 1994, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 3817/90. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion made under Indictment No. 5575/92, which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress the lineup identification of him. It is well settled that there is no requirement "that a defendant in a lineup be surrounded by people nearly identical in appearance” *(People v*
      *650
      *Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336, *cert denied*498 US 833) and that, the constitutional identification procedures will be satisfied "[a]s long as the other individuals in the lineup sufficiently resemble the defendant” *(People v Valdez,*204 AD2d 369). None of the factors now relied upon by the defendant were of such a nature as to render the lineup suggestive *(see, People v Figueroa,*204 AD2d 103; *People v Baptiste,*201 AD2d 659; *People v Chalmers,*163 AD2d 528).

Furthermore, the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defense witness Andrew Chen regarding his failure to timely come forward with exculpatory information was proper pursuant to *People v Dawson*(50 NY2d 311).

The defendant’s sentence is not excessive *(People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.
No. 50545.

#### Protest 61179-K of Independent Cordage Co., Inc. (New York).

*284Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court 'found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as'to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
(Reap. Dec. 10528)

#### Unit Venetian Blind Supply Corp. (Wiley) *v.*United States

Entry No. 4305.

(Decided June 6, 1963)

*489
      *Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto:

> 1. That the above entitled appeal for reappraisement is limited to the merchandise shipped by Hasegawa Shoten Go., Shimamura Shoten Co., and Euchikawa Co. Ltd., from Japan.

> 2. That the said merchandise was withdrawn from Customs warehouse for consumption on or about March 4,1958 and was appraised under Section 402(b) of the Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, 2d Session, said merchandise not being identified in the Einal List published in T.D. 54521.

> 3. That at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were the unit invoice values plus packing.

> 4. That the above entitled appeal for reappraisement as heretofore limited, is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise shipped from Japan by Hasegawa Shoten Co., Shimamura Shoten Co., and Fuchikawa Co., Ltd., is export value, as defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by T.D. 54165, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the miit invoice values, plus packing.

As to any other items of merchandise included in the shipment covered by this appeal for reappraisement, the appraised values are affirmed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 65616.

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. *v.*United States,

protest 60/3784 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beads the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *S. H. Kress & Co.*(46 C.C.P.A. 135, C.A.D. 716), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 54151.

#### Monsanto Chemical Company *v.*United States,

protests 139669-K and 148047-K (Norfolk).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7937** 

WILLIE DEROD BEALE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:14

- hc

- 02064

- FL )

Submitted : August 26, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Willie Derod Beale, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Willie De rod Beale , a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leav e to proceed in forma pauperis , we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Beale v.
Andrews , No. 5:14

- hc

- 02064

- FL (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRME D
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 quarterly report of JohnsonDiversey Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2004 |  | /s/ GREGORY E. LAWTON                                                  
|                   |  | Gregory E. Lawton President and Chief Executive Officer                
|                   | 
|                   |  | /s/ MICHAEL J. BAILEY                                                  
|                   |  | Michael J. Bailey Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original 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.
#### William H. Ricketts, *as Receiver, etc., Plaintiff, v.*Gerhard Wessels, *Defendant.*

— Exceptions overruled, and judgment for plaintiff upon the verdict with costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22

                                   EXHIBIT A

                                AMENDMENT 2001-1
                                     TO THE
                              NEOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.
                          EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

          NeoTherapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), by
resolution of its Board of Directors (the "Board"), previously adopted the
NeoTherapeutics, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit
of the eligible employees of the Company and certain designated subsidiaries.

          In order to increase the limit on the amount of compensation that an
eligible employee may defer under the Plan, and to increase the number of shares
of the Company's Common Stock that may be purchased by an eligible employee
during any one offering period under the Plan, this Amendment 2001-1 to the Plan
has been adopted by the Board, pursuant to the Board's authority under Section
12 of the Plan, effective as of June 21, 2001. This Amendment 2001-1 shall apply
only to offering periods under the Plan commencing on or after June 21, 2001.
This Amendment 2001-1, together with the Plan, constitute the Plan in its
entirety.

          1. The fourth sentence in Section 3(a) shall be amended to read as
follows:

          The number of shares of Stock subject to a Participant's Option shall
          equal the cumulative payroll deductions authorized by such Participant
          in accordance with subsection (b) for the Option Period (if any),
          divided by the Option Price; provided, however, that the number of
          shares of Stock subject to such Option shall not exceed Twelve
          Thousand Five Hundred (12,500) shares; and, provided, further, that
          the number of shares of Stock subject to such Option shall not exceed
          the number determined in accordance with subsection (c).

          2. The fourth sentence in Section 3(b) shall be amended to read as
follows:

          A Participant may designate any whole percentage of Compensation which
          is not less than one percent (1%) and not more than twenty-five
          percent (25%).

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed
this ____________________ day of ____________________, 2001.


                                          NEOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.


                                          By:
                                              ----------------------------------


                                          Its:
                                               ---------------------------------
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. MILDRED THOMPSON, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Vincent P. Keuper*and *Mr. Thomas L. Yaccarino*for the petitioner.

*Messrs.*Baling, *Boglioli & Moore*and *Mr. Clifton Thomas Barkalow*for the respondent.

April 18, 1967.

Denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 Certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
  August 12, 2005
    
    /s/ John S. CooperDate
    
    John S. Cooper, President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 12, 2005
    
    /s/ Michael D. BornakDate
    
    Michael D. Bornak, Vice President of Finance and ChiefFinancial Officer
EXHIBIT 33.1








REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES






Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:






(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), 4(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);






(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;






(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2010 and for the period August 18, 2010 through December 31, 2010, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and






(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of December 31, 2010 and for the period August 18, 2010 through December 31, 2010, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.













Date:  March 29, 2011






Entergy Arkansas, Inc., as servicer




By:   /s/ Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.


Name:    Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.


Title:      Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Maxwell Meyers, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of
Directors, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





| | /s/ Daniel Maxwell Meyers
Daniel Maxwell Meyers
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First
Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7232
In re: DERWIN COLES, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:04-cv-01151) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derwin Coles, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Derwin Coles petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket sheet reveals that the district court denied Coles’ § 2255 motion on July 20, 2006. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Coles’ case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant Coles’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8894 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8894

 To improve the distribution of tsunami alerts to the public, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2024

 Mr. Kilmer (for himself and Mr. Issa) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 
and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To improve the distribution of tsunami alerts to the public, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF NOAA WEATHER RADIO COVERAGE.

    The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration shall--
            (1) conduct a review of the extent to which NOAA Weather 
        Radio coverage extends to populated areas at risk of tsunamis; 
        and
            (2) make the results of such review available to the 
        public.

SEC. 2. USE OF IPAWS TO DELIVER TSUNAMI ALERTS.

    The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in 
consultation with the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Communications Commission, 
shall clarify and document the responsibilities and decision-making 
process of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Federal Communications 
Commission with respect to the use of the Integrated Public Alert and 
Warning System to deliver tsunami alerts to the Emergency Alert System.
                                 <all>
```
Searched for **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/austrlia.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/austrlia.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 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 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41381 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE FRANCISCO FLORES, also known as Elisio Almasan-Tirado, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(1:06-CR-293) Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Francisco Flores, having pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, challenges his sentence on two bases. He first challenges its reasonableness, pursuant to U nited States v. Booker , 5 43 U.S. 220 (2005) (requiring, inter alia , “reasonableness” review of post-Booker sentences, to be guided by the factors stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). The district court’s having granted Flores’ objection to the use of a prior conviction2

in determining his criminal history score, his advisory Guidelines range was 70-87 months. The imposed 72-month sentence was at the low end of this range. Because the sentence was within the properly-calculated Guideline range (Flores does not maintain otherwise), it is presumed reasonable. E .g. , United States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Notwithstanding his claim that the district court failed to properly consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), such a sentence is afforded “great deference”, and we infer the sentencing court “has considered all the [§ 3553(a)] factors for a fair sentence”. U nited States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Flores has failed to rebut his sentence’s presumed reasonableness. See Alonzo , 435 F.3d 554-55. Indeed, even though Flores contends this presumption of reasonableness violates Booker , he properly concedes this contention is foreclosed; he raises the presumption issue only to preserve its further review. Flores also challenges, in the light of A pprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated-felony convictions as sentencing factors, rather than elements of the offense. As he concedes, this challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). See , e.g. , United States v. Garza-Lopez , 4103

F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir .), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Nonetheless, he raises it here to preserve it for further review. AFFIRMED
H. R. 8909 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 82–6110 

Mamalahoa Highway in Captain Cook, Hawaii, as the ‘‘Army 1st Lt. John Kuulei 

Kauhaihao Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ARMY 1ST LT. JOHN KUULEI KAUHAIHAO POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 82–6110 Mamalahoa Highway in Captain Cook, 

Hawaii, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Army 1st Lt. John 

Kuulei Kauhaihao Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Army 1st Lt. John Kuulei Kauhaihao Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.