alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

386 

KA 14-00931 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHAD M. JOHNSTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

NORMAN P. EFFMAN, PUBLIC DEFENDER, WARSAW, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

DONALD G. O’GEEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WARSAW (VINCENT A. HEMMING OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Wyoming County Court (Michael M.

Mohun, J.), rendered April 24, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault on a peace

officer, police officer, fireman or emergency medical services

professional. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of attempted assault on a peace officer, police

officer, fireman or emergency medical services professional (Penal Law

§§ 110.00, 120.08), defendant contends that he was denied due process

at sentencing when County Court imposed a sentence based on

defendant’s postplea arrest without determining that the information

upon which it was basing the sentence was reliable and accurate. As a

preliminary matter, we note that defendant’s contention is not

encompassed by the waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Kolata,

119 AD3d 1376, 1377; see generally People v Peck, 90 AD3d 1500, 1501). 

However, defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review

because he “failed to object to the sufficiency of the court’s inquiry

or to request a hearing, and he did not move to withdraw his plea on

that ground” (People v Hassett, 119 AD3d 1443, 1444, lv denied 24 NY3d

961). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s

contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see

CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
No. 5971.

#### SUCCESSION OF MRS. ELLEN McLAUGHLIN, WIDOW OF GEORGE W. GAREY.

Syllabus.

A judgment against appellant rejecting his demand apparently upon the merits thereof, when in fact it is based solely upon the maintenance of an exception levelled against the form of his proceeding, should be amended so that it will not prejudice but on the contrary will reserve his right to renew his demand in the proper form or manner.

Appeal from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, Division “D,” No. 102,242. Hon. Porter Parker, Judge.

M. S. Mahoney, A. J. ’Cahill, A. J. Eossi, A. Guilbault, attorneys.

D. J. Murphy, for appellant.

W. J. & P. F. Hennessey, Eobert O’Connor, attorneys.

*104Opinion and decree, February 9, 1914.

His Honor, EMILE GODCHAUX,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Conrt, as follows:

The only complaint of the appellant with respect to the judgment of the trial Court dismissing his rule, is that the judgment .apparently pronounces upon the merits and would operate as a bar to .another proceeding, when as a matter of fact, the ¡cause was submitted and the judgment was based solely upon an exception directed against the form of the proceeding, the effect of maintaining which exception would be simply to relegate him to some other form of proceeding to. enforce his demand.

The judgment as written and entered below was evidently the result of a clerical error and appellant is entitled to the relief sought. The only return to the rule below was the exception, and both the minute entries and the trial Judge’s written reasons in support of his judgment show that he intended to' simply maintain the objection to the form of the proceeding .and not to pass upon the merits of appellant’s demand.

It is accordingly ordered that the judgment be amended so as to reserve to appellant the right to renew his demand in a proper form iof proceeding and as thus amended and without prejudice to said right, the judg-. ment appealed from be affirmed, appellant to pay the costs of the trial Court and the succession those of the appeal.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00372

- CV
Rudy Hernandez v. Krystle Guerra
On Appeal from the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 2718

- 21

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cau se on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We fu rther order this decision certified below for observance. August 30, 2022
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Director visits MacDill commands, DLA activities  

By Eric GardnerDLA Central

                MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Florida  –              Air Force Lt. Gen. Andy BuschU.S. Central CommandU.S. Special Operations CommandDLA Central

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Strategic EngagementWarfighter FirstUSCENTCOMUSSOCOMDLA Director
No. 96-6052.

#### Roston *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 00-6730.

#### Stanley *v.*Pennsylvania.

Super. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21552]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one 
portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.

    Name of Committee: Hematology and Pathology Devices Panel of the 
Medical Devices Advisory Committee.

    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA regulatory issues.

    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on September 5, 1997, 10 
a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Location: Corporate Bldg., conference room 020B, 9200 Corporate 
Blvd., Rockville, MD.

    Contact Person: Veronica J. Calvin, Center for Devices and 
Radiological Health (HFZ-440), Food and Drug Administration, 2098 
Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-1243, or FDA Advisory 
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the 
Washington, DC area), code 12515. Please call the Information Line for 
up-to-date information on this meeting.

    Agenda: The committee will discuss quality control issues for home-
use prothrombin time devices.

    Procedure: On September 5, 1997, from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., the 
meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present data, 
information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before 
the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person by 
August 22, 1997. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled 
between approximately 11 a.m. and 12:15 p.m. Time allotted for each 
presentation may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral 
presentations should notify the contact person before August 22, 1997, 
and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or 
arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed 
participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to 
make their presentation.

    Closed committee deliberations. On September 5, 1997, from 10 a.m. 
to 10:30 a.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion and 
review of trade secret and/or confidential information. (5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(4)). FDA staff will present trade secret and/or confidential 
commercial information regarding present or future issues.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 11, 1997.
Michael A. Friedman,
Deputy Commissioner for Operations.
[FR Doc. 97-21552 Filed 8-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 23

- 00272

- CV

__________________ OILFIELD STEEL SUPPLY, LLC , Appellant

V. HUMBERTO FRANCISCO LENIEK, GARETH NICHOLAS JONES, ALEJANDRO GARCIA VILLAMIL, LS JOHN INVESTMENTS, LLC, NJMAP, LP, AND MOAF, LP , Appellee s

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 457th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23

- 07

- 09844

- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Oilfield Steel Supply, LLC (the a ppellant ) and Humberto Francisco Leniek, Gareth Nicholas Jones, Alejandro Garcia Villamil, LS John Investments, LLC, NJMAP, LP, and MOA F, LP , w h o are the appellees, filed an agre ed motion to
dismiss this accelerated appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The parties agree that when
the a ppellees filed a notice of nonsuit in the trial court , the temporary injunction that is the subject of this accelerated appeal became moot

.2 We grant the motion and dismiss the accelerated appeal. See id . 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISM I SSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 8, 2023 Opinion Delivered November 9, 2023
Before Horton , Johnson and Wright, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Jagged Peak, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended June 29, 2007, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 8,
2007



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/Andrew J. Norstrud  
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32.1





**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Winston Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd.
      (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March
      31,
      2005, to which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




March
                22, 2006
              
              /S/
                Winston JohnsonWinston
                Johnson, Chief Executive Officer


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 required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. and
      will
      be retained by Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Annual Report of Planar Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ended September 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott Hildebrandt, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                                             
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    SCOTT
HILDEBRANDT                                    
|    |  | Scott Hildebrandt Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: December 12, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43353-43354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21395]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,050; TA-W-33,050F; TA-W-33,050G]


Ithaca Industries, Incorporated, Thomasville, Georgia, Meigs, 
Georgia, and Women's Division Management Center, Cairo, Georgia; 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on February 14, 1997, applicable 
to all workers of Ithaca Industries, Inc., Thomasville, Georgia. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 1997 (62 
23273).
    At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows 
that worker separations will occur at the subject firms' Meigs and 
Cairo, Georgia locations when they close in August and October 1997, 
respectively. Workers at the Meigs, Georgia location are engaged in the 
production of women's and men's undergarments. Workers at the Women's 
Division Management Center, Cairo, Georgia provide administrative and 
support function services to the production facilities of Ithaca 
Industries, Incorporated. Based on these new findings, the Department 
is amending the certification to cover workers at the Meigs and Cairo, 
Georgia locations.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Ithaca Industries, Inc. adversely affected by increased 
imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-33,050 is hereby issued as 
follows:


[[Page 43354]]


    All workers of Ithaca Industries, Inc., Thomasville, Georgia 
(TA-W-33,050), Meigs, Georgia (TA-W-33,050F), and Women's Division 
Management Center, Cairo, Georgia (TA-W-33,050G) who became totally 
or partially separated from employment on or after December 4, 1995 
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of 
the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 31st day of July, 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-21395 Filed 8-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Jason Forte

VP Operations

Sky-Futures USA Inc.

1001 S. Diary Ashford Rd. Suite 100

Houston, Texas 77077

EIN 47-1646673

August 7, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 11208 Issued to Sky-Futures USA Inc.

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act (Docket No. FAA-2014-0641)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Sky-Futures USA Inc. (“Sky-Futures”) was issued Exemption No. 11208 on March 13, 2015 (hereinafter 

“the Exemption”), allowing commercial operation of the AscTec Falcon 8 UAS to conduct on and off 

shore oil and gas platform inspections. 

Sky-Futures requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow the commercial use of two additional UAS 

so long as such operations are conducted within and under the conditions outlined by the Exemption. 

The Operator’s Manual and Checklists can be accessed via the below links.

1. DJI S1000+

http://www.dji.com/product/spreading-wings-s1000-plus

2. DJI Matrice 100

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying-platforms/matrice-100

These UASs have been approved in previous exemptions. Due to this fact, Sky-Futures feels that this 

amendment petition is non-controversial and we respectfully request that this amendment be handled 

summarily.

Sincerely,

Jason T. Forte

Jason Forte

VP Operations

Sky-Futures USA Inc.

jforte@sky-futures.com
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00022

- CR

Travis Leslie NORTON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR3975

Honorable Frank J. Castro , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED October 19, 2022.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
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 International Development Corp.,
a  Nevada  corporation  (the  "Company")  and Subsidiary, on Form 10-QSB for the
period  ended  February  28,  2005,  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange
Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"), I, D. Brian Robertson, Chief
Financial  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 consolidated financial condition and result of operations
of  the  Company.

Dated: April 19, 2005.

                                    By /s/  D. Brian Robertson
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       D. Brian Robertson,
                                       Chief Financial Officer of
                                       International Development Corp.


<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7689

ROBERT LEE FOSTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(9:14-cv-03853-TMC)

Submitted: March 10, 2016 Decided: April 4, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Foster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny his pending motion, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED