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

[612 NYS2d 203]

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered May 7, 1992, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Buchter, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under Indictment No. 12500/91, upon his plea of guilty, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Rosenzweig, J.), also rendered May 7, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under Indictment No. 13173/91, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment and the judgment are affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his plea of guilty under Indictment No. 12500/91 is defective because he raised an agency defense during the allocution is not before this Court, since the defendant did not appeal from the original judgment which resulted from the plea of guilty (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Correa,*118 AD2d 651; *People v Mackey,*77 NY2d 846; *People v King,*195 AD2d 290; *People v Prescott,*180 AD2d 654). In any event, the defendant’s plea allocution did not raise the possibility of an agency defense but rather, indicated that the defendant was a seller of cocaine *(see, People v Ramirez,*159 AD2d 375).

With respect to the proceedings under Indictment No. 13173/91, we find that the trial court properly ordered the closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer after holding a *Hinton*hearing *(see, People v Hinton,*31 NY2d 71, 76, *cert denied*410 US 911). The undercover officer testified that he was working on five pending investigations involving long-term buys in the same vicinity where the defendant was arrested and where the undercover officer previously worked, and that disclosure of the undercover officer’s identity would endanger his safety and jeopardize those operations *(see, People v Martinez,*82 NY2d 436; *People v Glover, 57*NY2d 61, 65; *People v Thompson,*202 AD2d 456; *People v Brown,*172 AD2d 844, 845; *People v Weaver,*162 AD2d 486, 487).

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d *659620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt and to disprove his agency defense beyond a reasonable doubt *(see,*Penal Law § 20.00; *People v Herring,*83 NY2d 780; *People v Flayhart,*72 NY2d 737, 741; *People v Williams,*172 AD2d 448, *affd*79 NY2d 803; *People v Overton,*168 AD2d 575). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, Lawrence and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
# C_2015205EN.01000501.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten

(Case C-424/13) (1)

1

((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Protection of animals during transport - Long journey between Member States and third countries - Article 14(1) - Check to be carried out related to the journey log by the competent authority at the place of departure prior to long journeys - Applicability of that provision in regards to the stages of the journey taking place outside the territory of the European Union - Applicability of the standards fixed by that regulation to that part of the journey))

(2015/C 205/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Stadt Kempten

Defendant:

intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

intervening party:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for transport involving a long journey for animals concerned which commences on the territory of the European Union and continues outside that territory to be authorised by the competent authority of the place of departure, the organiser of the journey must submit a journey log which, in the light of the arrangements for the journey as planned, is realistic and indicates that the provisions of that regulation will be complied with, including for the stages of the journey which are to take place in the territory of third countries, that authority being empowered, should that not be the case, to require changes to those arrangements to ensure compliance with those provisions throughout the journey.

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.

1

---
#### Alltransport Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6614.

Entry No. 727283, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, January 1945, etc.

Certified January 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 9, 1945, etc.

(Decided December 12, 1946)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs. *Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law' of *480the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts show export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar cases.
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 American Oil & Gas, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-QSB"), I,
Patrick D. O'Brien, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: May 14, 2004

/s/  Patrick D. O'Brien
----------------------------
     Patrick D. O'Brien
     Chief Executive Officer
No. 42174.

#### Protests 645818-G, etc., of Otto Roth & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the • authority of Abstract 40880 and *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49389) the protests were sustained.
# C_2014431EN.01000601.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/6

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 — Think Schuhwerk GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-521/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - No distinctive character - Red aglets on shoe laces - Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2014/C 431/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Think Schuhwerk GmbH is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Think Schuhwerk GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
January 30, 1940

No. 43198.

#### Protest 996360-G of R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.

Abstract 42928. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 210 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 210

   To amend title 44, United States Code, to eliminate the mandatory 
printing of bills and resolutions for the use of offices of Members of 
                               Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2011

Mr. Coburn (for himself and Mr. Warner) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 44, United States Code, to eliminate the mandatory 
printing of bills and resolutions for the use of offices of Members of 
                               Congress.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop the OverPrinting (STOP) Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MANDATORY PRINTING OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS FOR 
              USE OF OFFICES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

    (a) Elimination of Mandatory Printing.--Chapter 7 of title 44, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 706 the 
following:
``Sec. 706A. Prohibiting printing of bills and resolutions for use of 
              offices of Members of Congress
    ``(a) No Printing Permitted.--The Public Printer shall make bills 
and resolutions available for the use of offices of Members of Congress 
only in an electronic format which is accessible through the Internet.
    ``(b) Member of Congress Defined.--In this section, a `Member of 
Congress' means a Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or 
Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 706 of such title is amended--
            (1) by striking ``There shall be printed'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``Subject to section 706A, there shall be 
        printed''; and
            (2) by striking ``Of concurrent and simple resolutions'' 
        and inserting ``Subject to section 706A, of concurrent and 
        simple resolutions''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 7 of such 
title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 706 
the following:

``706A. Prohibiting printing of bills and resolutions for use of 
                            offices of Members of Congress.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon the 
expiration of the 3-month period which begins on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2014261EN.01000902.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/9

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Delphi Technologies, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-448/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD - Advertising slogan - Refusal of registration - No distinctive character))

2014/C 261/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (represented by: C. Albrecht and J. Heumann, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2) | Delphi Technologies, Inc. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Delphi Technologies, Inc. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

1

---
August 18, 1938

No. 39259.

#### Protest 861253-G of Associated Merchandising Corp.

Abstract 38791. Application by plaintiff for rehearing denied.
----

----

| Dated: |  November      12, 2009 |   | /s/Sean      C. Cutting                    |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                         |   | Sean      C. Cutting                       |
|   |                         |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                         |   | (Principal      Executive Officer)         |

|   |                         |   |                                                                         |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                         |   |                                                                         |
| Dated: |  November      12, 2009 |   | /s/Mary      Dieter Smith                                               |
|   |                         |   | Mary      Dieter Smith                                                       |
|   |                         |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                    |
|   |                         |   | (Principal Financial Officer      and Principal AccountingOfficer) |
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant
<PAGE>
 
                                  Exhibit 21

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant



Parent
------

PCB Holding Company
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                            Percentage           Jurisdiction or
Subsidiaries (a)                           of Ownership       State of Incorporation
---------------                           -------------       ----------------------
<S>                                        <C>                <C>

Peoples Community Bank                          100%              United States

Peoples Building and Loan Association
 Service Corporation(b)                         100%              Indiana

</TABLE>
-------------------------
(a)   The operations of the Company's subsidiaries are included in the Company's
      consolidated financial statements.
(b)   This is an inactive company owned directly by Peoples Community Bank.
#### Jacob B. Littlehale *versus*Nathaniel Maberry.

A demand of payment, of an endorser of a promissory note, must convey information of its dishonor, and should be made before the fourth day after the last day of grace.

Reported by Goodenow, J.

Assumpsit against defendant as endorser of a promissory note, dated Boston, November 1, 1854, payable to his order in twenty months, and by him endorsed.

The plaintiff proved that a messenger went to Boston with the note, where plaintiff was informed by the defendant the maker resided, for the purpose of making a demand upon the maker, and on the third day of July, 1856, made diligent search in the city of Boston, for Charles Carter, the maker of said note, and that then and there he ascertained that said Carter had removed from Boston, and then resided at Reading, in the state of Massachusetts, and not at Boston aforesaid ; that immediately on receiving that information he proceeded to said Reading, but was unable to reach that town until the fourth day of the same July, not having ascertained his residence in season to go on the third, where he found the said Carter, at his residence in said Reading, and then *265and there demanded of said Carter payment of said note, which he then had, and exhibited to said Carter, and .that said Carter then ,and there refused to pay said note, or any part of the same *\*that on the eighth day of the same July payment of said note was duly demanded of said endorser, in the town of Woodstock, in the county of Oxford.

*Baioson de Lndden,*counsel for plaintiff.

*G. W. Walton,*counsel for defendant.

Tenney, C. J.

The note in suit was made in Massachusetts, and to hold the endorser thereof, the law of Massachusetts must have been complied with,, in relation to demand and notice.

It is well understood, that in that commonwealth, on all promissory notes, which are negotiable, payable at a future day, grace shall be allowed. R. S. of Mass., of 1836, chap. 33, sec. 5. But whether the note in this case was presented on the day required by the laws of Massachusetts, and payment demanded, is quite immaterial, as it is very certain that the notice to the defendant was defective, in not containing information that the note had been dishonored; and it being given the fourth day after the last day of grace, it was clearly too late; and the endorser was discharged of his liability. Gilbert v. Dennis, 3 Met., 495.

*Plaintiff*nonsuit.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ixia Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) under the Exchange Act and 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 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 23, 2007
    
    /s/ Errol GinsbergErrol GinsbergPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 23, 2007
    
    /s/ Thomas B. MillerThomas B. MillerChief Financial Officer
 37
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, As Amended I, Jong S. Whang, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. By /s/ Jong S. Whang
Jong S. Whang
President and Chief Executive Officer
Amtech Systems, Inc.
Date: January 28, 2008