alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### United States *v.*L. Bamberger & Co.

No. 7768.

Entry No. N-757.

(Decided December 29, 1949)

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *{John J. Antus,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Strauss & Hedges {Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for a reappraisement of decorated earthenware imported from France was filed by the collector of *501customs. At the trial of the case it was submitted for decision upon a statement of facts agreed to between counsel for both sides, as follows:

> * * * that at the. time of the exportation of the merchandise involved herein, such or similar merchandise was freely offered fqr sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States at the unit invoice prices, plus 22 percent, less 2 percent, plus packing as invoiced.

> # **** **** * *

> * * * that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation. (Record, p. 2.)

Od tbe agreed fact I find tbe export value of tbe mercbandise, as tbat value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe mercban-dise, and tbat sucb values are tbe unit invoice prices, plus 22 per centum, less 2 per centum, plus packing as invoiced.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### Stix, Baer & Fuller Co. *v.*United States

No. 6857.

Entry Nos. 895; 1018.

Invoices dated Fenton, England, April 1943, etc.

Certified April 1943, etc.

Entered at St. Louis, Mo., June 21, 1943, etc.

(Decided February 11, 1947)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliveb, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the earthenware and chinaware here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Insofar as the appeals relate to all other merchandise they are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 23.1     INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement of International Smart Sourcing, Inc. on
Form S-3 (File No. 333-48701) of our report dated March 12, 2008 with respect to
our audits of the consolidated financial statements of International Smart
Sourcing Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and for the years ended December 31, 2007
and December 31, 2006, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of International Smart Sourcing, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2007.

/s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLPMarcum & Kliegman LLPNew
      York, NYMarch 12, 2008


---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Duke Energy Field Services, LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jim W.
Mogg, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange act of 1934; and

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

          /s/ Jim W. Mogg
------------------------------------
Jim W. Mogg
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2003
Exhibit
32.2





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 Sino Clean Energy Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Hon Wan Chan, Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
            The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the date and for the periods
      indicated.




Dated: November
      16, 2009
              /s/ Hon Wan ChanHon
      Wan ChanChief
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the Annual Report of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas Frank, as Chief
Financial Officer hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates and periods
covered by the Report.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |     |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 10, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/    Thomas Frank    
|                         |  |     |  | Thomas Frank           
|                         |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Before the Third Division,

January 18, 1939

No. 40467.

#### Protest 960906-G of Jordan Marsh Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Kwong*v. *United States*(T. D. 49409) the wooden stands in question were held dutiable at 337⁄8 percent under paragraph 412 as claimed.
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
China Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shuwen Kang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.



Date: February    , 2012



| | /s/ Shuwen Kang                         
| | ----------------------------------------
| | Shuwen Kang, Principal Executive Officer
#### Inter-Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6215.

Invoices dated Hawick, Scotland, January 1943, etc.

Certified February 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 23, 1943, etc.

Entry No. 722704, etc.

(Decided August 29, 1945)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Ausier,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

In a written stipulation filed August 20, 1945, the parties have agreed that the issues involved in these appeals for re-appraisement of wool wearing apparel are the same as those decided in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*32 C. C. P. A. 187, C. A. D. 305, and that the record in the said case be incorporated herein.

*United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., supra,*found cost of production, section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. §1402 (f)), to be the proper basis for appraisement, and held that the so-called British purchase tax described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48,” was not an item to be included in the “usual general expenses” contemplated within subdivision (2) of section 402 (f), *supra,*and therefore not to be calculated in determining such statutory value.

On the agreement of counsel that the several elements entering into the statutory cost, of production of the items in question is equal to the appraised values thereof, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, I hold such values to be the cost of production, section 402 (f), *supra,*which I find to be the proper basis for appraisement, of the instant merchandise.

*424The foregoing conclusion applies to all merchandise covered by the appeals under consideration, except those items described on schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof. As to the items enumerated on said schedule “A,” the appeals, having been abandoned, are therefore dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Central Air Conditioner

Percentage Distribution by Efficiency (SEER) for Central A/C's in 1997

(1995-1997 set to be the same as 1994)

AGE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

9.7 2.5% 9.7 2.5% 9.7 2.5% 9.7 2.5% 9.7 3.3% 9.7 16.1% 7.3 0.1% 7.3 4.9% 7.3 0.2% 5.3 0.0% 5.3 0.0% 5.3 0.0% 5.3 0.0% 5.3 0.1% 5.3 0.0

10.2 76.7% 10.2 76.7% 10.2 76.7% 10.2 76.7% 10.2 77.3% 10.2 67.0% 7.7 0.1% 7.7 0.2% 7.7 0.1% 5.7 0.0% 5.7 0.0% 5.7 0.0% 5.7 0.1% 5.7 0.0% 5.7 0.1

10.7 1.0% 10.7 1.0% 10.7 1.0% 10.7 1.0% 10.7 1.6% 10.7 1.7% 8.2 19.7% 8.2 21.1% 8.2 26.4% 6.2 0.0% 6.2 0.0% 6.2 0.0% 6.2 0.0% 6.2 0.2% 6.2 0.5

11.2 5.0% 11.2 5.0% 11.2 5.0% 11.2 5.0% 11.2 6.0% 11.2 6.0% 8.7 6.9% 8.7 7.9% 8.7 5.9% 6.7 0.1% 6.7 1.2% 6.7 1.2% 6.7 2.0% 6.7 3.0% 6.7 6.5

11.7 0.6% 11.7 0.6% 11.7 0.6% 11.7 0.6% 11.7 0.7% 11.7 0.9% 9.2 34.2% 9.2 34.1% 9.2 39.3% 7.2 0.2% 7.2 0.3% 7.2 0.3% 7.2 2.5% 7.2 4.3% 7.2 7.9

12.2 10.6% 12.2 10.6% 12.2 10.6% 12.2 10.6% 12.2 8.3% 12.2 5.8% 9.7 11.0% 9.7 12.8% 9.7 8.9% 7.7 2.3% 7.7 4.0% 7.7 4.0% 7.7 1.3% 7.7 1.3% 7.7 4.8

12.7 2.0% 12.7 2.0% 12.7 2.0% 12.7 2.0% 12.7 1.8% 12.7 2.0% 10.2 17.5% 10.2 12.6% 10.2 13.0% 8.2 24.8% 8.2 24.4% 8.2 24.4% 8.2 28.3% 8.2 35.9% 8.2 38.8

13.2 1.3% 13.2 1.3% 13.2 1.3% 13.2 1.3% 13.2 0.7% 13.2 0.5% 10.7 2.5% 10.7 1.3% 10.7 1.6% 8.7 18.9% 8.7 24.6% 8.7 24.6% 8.7 28.0% 8.7 24.5% 8.7 22.6

13.7 0.0% 13.7 0.0% 13.7 0.0% 13.7 0.0% 13.7 0.0% 13.7 0.0% 11.2 2.8% 11.2 2.6% 11.2 3.6% 9.2 29.2% 9.2 26.4% 9.2 26.4% 9.2 26.6% 9.2 22.7% 9.2 12.7

14.2 0.1% 14.2 0.1% 14.2 0.1% 14.2 0.1% 14.2 0.1% 14.2 0.0% 11.7 0.2% 11.7 0.2% 11.7 0.8% 9.7 9.4% 9.7 7.7% 9.7 7.7% 9.7 3.2% 9.7 1.4% 9.7 1.7

14.7 0.0% 14.7 0.0% 14.7 0.0% 14.7 0.0% 14.7 0.0% 14.7 0.0% 12.2 5.1% 12.2 2.3% 12.2 0.1% 10.2 10.7% 10.2 7.6% 10.2 7.6% 10.2 5.0% 10.2 4.6% 10.2 3.1

15.2 0.1% 15.2 0.1% 15.2 0.1% 15.2 0.1% 15.2 0.1% 15.2 0.1% 10.7 1.8% 10.7 1.5% 10.7 1.5% 10.7 2.0% 10.7 1.4% 10.7 0.8

11.2 2.5% 11.2 1.9% 11.2 1.9% 11.2 0.3% 11.2 0.1% 11.2 0.1

11.7 0.1% 11.7 0.3% 11.7 0.3% 11.7 0.5% 11.7 0.4% 11.7 0.4

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100

SWEF 10.57 10.57 10.57 10.57 10.51 10.39 9.45 9.19 9.20 9.05 8.92 8.92 8.77 8.61 8.3

% Incr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 9.9% 2.8% -0.1% 1.6% 1.5% 0.0% 1.8% 1.8% 3.1% 1.1

CB Dist. 10.57 10.57 10.57 10.57 10.51 10.39 9.45 9.19 9.20 9.05 8.92 8.92 8.77 8.61 8.3
# C_2015089EN.01001702.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission

(Case T-345/12) (1)

1

((Competition - Administrative proceedings - European market for hydrogen peroxide and perborate - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information provided to the Commission pursuant to its Leniency Notice - Obligation to state reasons - Confidentiality - Professional secrecy - Legitimate expectations))

(2015/C 089/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Akzo Chemicals Holding AB, established in (Bohus, Sweden); Eka Chemicals AB (Farjevagen, Sweden) (represented by: C. Swaak and R. Wesseling, Agents)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, M. Kellerbauer and G. Meessen, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: CDC Hydrogene Peroxide Cartel Damage Claims (CDC Hydrogene Peroxide) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Funke, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 3533 final of 24 May 2012 rejecting a request for confidential treatment submitted by Akzo Nobel, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Holding and Eka Chemicals pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and perborate).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Chemicals Holding AB and Eka Chemicals AB to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Chemicals Holding AB and Eka Chemicals AB to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.

1

---
No. 45315.

#### Protest 29638-K of General Dyestuff Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the commodity in question was held dutiable at only 3 cents per pound as claimed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BroadwindEnergy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, J. Cameron Drecoll, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

| /s/ J. Cameron Drecoll    |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| J. Cameron Drecoll        |   |
| Chief Executive Officer   |   |
|                      |   |
|                      |   |
| Date: August 9, 2010 |   |

 

----
Exhibit 4.2


 


[Sample Legend for Seed Units]


 


For Value Received,                            
hereby sell,  assign and transfer unto
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Units
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably  constitute
and appoint                               ,
Attorney, to  transfer
the said Units on the books of the within named Company, with full power of
substitution in the premises.  


 


Dated                                           , 20           



 


In presence of


 


 


THE UNITS REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE WERE
ORIGINALLY ISSUED IN THE COMPANY’S SEED CAPITAL ROUND IN CONSIDERATION OF A
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) PER UNIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE UNITS
HAVE DIFFERING ECONOMIC ENTITLEMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS OF TAXABLE GAIN AS
COMPARED TO UNITS ISSUED IN CONSIDERATION OF TWO DOLLARS ($2.00) PER UNIT. EACH
UNIT IS SUBJECT TO THE SPECIAL ALLOCATION OF UP TO ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) OF GAIN
UNDER SECTION 3.3(J)(II) OF THE COMPANY’S MEMBER
CONTROL AGREEMENT, AND IF THE GAIN AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION IS LESS THAN ONE
DOLLAR ($ 1.00) PER UNIT, THE LIQUIDATING DISTRIBUTION ENTITLEMENT OF THE
HOLDER OF THESE UNITS WILL BE LESS THAN THE ENTITLEMENTS OF THOSE UNITS THAT
WERE ORIGINALLY ISSUED IN CONSIDERATION OF A CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OF TWO
DOLLARS ($2.00) PER UNIT. 


 


THE UNITS REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”) OR ANY
STATE SECURITIES LAWS OTHER THAN MINNESOTA. THE UNITS MAY NOT BE SOLD,
OFFERED FOR SALE, OR TRANSFERRED IN THE ABSENCE OF EITHER AN EFFECTIVE
REGISTRATION UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT AND UNDER THE APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES
LAWS, OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT SUCH
TRANSACTION IS EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT AND APPLICABLE
STATE SECURITIES LAWS.  


 


THE UNITS REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE ARE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS
AS TO THEIR SALE, TRANSFER, HYPOTHECATION, OR ASSIGNMENT AS SET FORTH IN THE
COMPANY’S OPERATING AND MEMBER CONTROL AGREEMENT. SAID
RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT NO VENDEE, TRANSFEREE, ASSIGNEE,
OR ENDORSEE OF A MEMBER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BECOME A MEMBER WITHOUT THE
CONSENT OF THE COMPANY’S BOARD, WHICH CONSENT MAY BE GIVEN OR WITHHELD IN
THE SOLE AND ABSOLUTE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.
(Reap. Dec. 9089)

#### Canimpex *v.*United States

Entry No. 19049.

(Decided February 27, 1958)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel. .

*George Cochran Boub,*Assistant Attorney General *(William J. Vitale,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

When tbe above-enumerated appeal for a reap-praisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, and the case was ordered submitted.

In conformity with the requirements of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2631), I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[Note added: Red text is underlined.]

Controls	and	Operating	Mechanisms

Operable part. A component of a device or system used to insert or withdraw objects, or to activate, 

deactivate, adjust, or connect to the device or system. Operable parts include, but are not limited to, 

buttons, levers, knobs, smart card targets, coin and card slots, pull-cords, jacks, data ports, electrical 

outlets, and touch screens.

Scoping: the technical requirements apply to operable parts at wheelchair and transfer seating 

locations, restrooms, sleeping compartments, and dining and lounge car seating locations. If operable 

parts are provided for the public at any seating location, equivalent operable parts shall be provided 

at wheelchair and transfer seating locations. On intercity (Amtrak) train cars, call buttons to summon

train personnel shall be provided at wheelchair and transfer seating locations, within sleeping 

compartments and within restrooms. In sleeping compartments, controls for all lights and HVAC shall 

meet the technical requirements.

Technical requirements:

 location. 

o The height of operable parts shall be 610 mm (24 inches) minimum and 1220 mm (48 

inches) maximum above the vehicle floor (see figure).

o The lateral position shall be a maximum of six inches in front of, or behind, the 

centerline of the wheelchair seating space and clear floor space in sleeping 

compartments.

o Operable parts shall be 10 inches maximum from the vertical plane adjacent to the side 

of the wheelchair or mobility aid closest to the operable part.

o controls 12” minimum from inside corner (does not apply to manual door handle/latch 

for use when power fails)

o Redundant controls are permitted (e.g., on a tethered or wireless remote).
 Operable parts shall be operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or 

twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate operable parts shall be 22.2 N (5 lb) 

maximum.

 Power door buttons shall be 2 inches across minimum.

 Controls shall meet section 508 standards

 Controls shall be tactilely discernable without activation (e.g., raised buttons or have 

surrounding border raised 1/32 inch minimum)

 Two-state controls (e.g., on/off, hi/low, etc.) shall provide visual and tactilely discernable 

indication of their state (e.g., toggle, pushbutton which remains depressed when activated).

 Call button shall have audible and visual indication that call has been received/responded to.

o Note: some buttons light up and buzz when activated, then flash and have intermittent 

tone or voice message when personnel answer.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damien Edwards, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 306]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), rendered November 21, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by denying the defendant’s oral request, in the midst of the trial, for a material witness order to secure the appearance at trial of a proposed defense witness *(see, People v Reid,*156 AD2d 488).

The sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J. P., Mc-Ginity, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.