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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered June 23, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the statements the defendant made at the scene of the crime. The police officer’s *pre-Miranda*inquiries respecting the defendant’s address and whether he had keys to secure the apartment where the crime occurred were permissible threshold crime scene inquiries rather than questions intended to elicit an inculpatory statement from the defendant *(see, People v Huffman,*41 NY2d 29; *People v Pileggi,*141 AD2d 866). Therefore, the police officer was not obligated to provide the warnings required by *Miranda v Arizona*(384 US 436; *see, People v Huffman, supra)*and the statements were properly admissible.

When a defendant’s conviction is based, as in this case, entirely upon circumstantial evidence, the facts from which the inference of his guilt is drawn must be inconsistent with his innocence and must exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt *(see, People v Way,*59 NY2d 361). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s failure to charge criminal facilitation was not error since it is not a lesser included offense of any of the offenses charged in the indictment *(see, People v Luther,*61 NY2d 724; *People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61; *People v Fischer,*94 AD2d 706). We also find no improvident exercise of discretion in the prosecutor’s *626failure to confer full transactional immunity to one of the witnesses in this case *(see, People v Owens,*63 NY2d 824; *People v Adams,*53 NY2d 241).

The defendant’s allegation that the sentence imposed was excessive is without merit. The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### Terri A. Herman, Respondent-Appellant, v John M. Cullen, Appellant-Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for libel, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October 4, 1989, as (1) denied his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c), and (2) denied his motion for financial sanctions for the plaintiff’s conduct in commencing and continuing the action, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied her cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and substituting therefor a provision granting the defendant’s motion and dismissing the complaint; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs payable by the plaintiff.

The alleged defamatory words, which formed the basis for *494this action, were contained in a letter sent to the New York State Department of Health. The defendant sent additional letters to the medical administrators of two hospitals in which the plaintiff had privileges. The plaintiff’s contention on appeal is that the caption in each of the letters, which was in bold type and read "Complaint of Professional Misconduct”, was defamatory even though the bodies of the letters were admittedly not defamatory.

The plaintiff’s contention is without merit. Words must be construed in the context in which they appear *(see, First Natl. Bank v Winters,*225 NY 47). So construed, the words are referrable only to the conduct described in the bodies of the letters which description the plaintiff concedes is not defamatory. Under the circumstances, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

With respect to the defendant’s motion for costs and sanctions, there has been no showing that the action was commenced or continued in bad faith. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned, being a director or
officer of MPS Group, Inc., a Florida corporation (the Company), hereby constitutes and appoints Timothy D. Payne, Robert P. Crouch and Gregory D. Holland, and each of them, his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with
full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead in any and all capacities, to sign one or more Annual Reports for the Companys fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, on Form 10-K under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or such other form as any such attorney-in-fact may deem necessary or desirable, and any amendments thereto, each in such form as they or any one of them may approve, and to file the same with all
exhibits thereto and other documents or instruments in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act
and thing requisite and necessary to be done so that such Annual Report shall comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the applicable Rules and Regulations adopted or issued pursuant thereto, as fully and to all intents and
purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them or their substitute or resubstitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned have caused this Power of Attorney to be executed as of the date indicated below.



|                 |  |  |  |       |  | 
|---------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | Date: |  | 
|Derek E. Dewan   |  |  |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | Date: |  | 
|Michael D. Abney |  |  |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | Date: |  | 
|T. Wayne Davis   |  |  |  |       |  | 



---

|                 |  |  |  |       |  | 
|---------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | Date: |  | 
|Peter J. Tanous  |  |  |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | Date: |  | 
|John R. Kennedy  |  |  |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | Date: |  | 
|William M. Isaac |  |  |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | Date: |  | 
|Arthur B. Laffer |  |  |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | Date: |  | 
|Darla D. Moore   |  |  |  |       |  | 
|                 |  |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | Date: |  | 
|Timothy D. Payne |  |  |  |       |  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Michael King, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Charde, J.), rendered October 1, 1985, as amended October 24, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the in-court identification of the defendant by a witness who testified that he observed the defendant carrying a television set as the defendant left the complainant’s apartment. The witness also testified that he knew the defendant since 1962, when they lived on the same street, and further testified that he knew the defendant well enough to talk to him. Thus, the issue of suggestiveness was not relevant since the so-called photographic identification of the defendant by the witness was merely confirmatory *(see, People v Tas,*51 NY2d 915; *People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543; *People v Fleming,*109 AD2d 848).

Contrary to the defendant’s further contention, a special charge on circumstantial evidence was not required since the prosecutor presented direct evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Ruiz,*52 NY2d 929; *People v Gerard,*50 NY2d 392; *People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375; *People v Burgos,*170 AD2d 689).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review *563it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
# 2022 NAICS Structure
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000925054
<NAME>                        Spectrian Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            6,240
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    16,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                        365
<INVENTORY>                                      17,301
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,806
<PP&E>                                           42,246
<DEPRECIATION>                                   16,785
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   66,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            17,110
<BONDS>                                           7,057
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         53,395
<OTHER-SE>                                      (10,929)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     66,633
<SALES>                                          88,252
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 88,252
<CGS>                                            65,322
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    65,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 26,529
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3,991)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (3,991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3,991)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.49)
        





</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          67,536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,953
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               173,741
<PP&E>                                         222,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,542,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          171,934
<BONDS>                                        228,305
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          521,401
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                     247,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,542,786
<SALES>                                        134,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,196
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  269,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,214
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,906
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (126,859)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    37,389
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (89,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,182
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (137,955)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.29)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

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 Red Jade Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and 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, to the best of 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 result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  February 14, 2011
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         August 30, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 24, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 72 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-214, CP2018-296.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-18792 Filed 8-29-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19415]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Licensing 
Responsibilities and Enforcement

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security.
    Title: Licensing Responsibilities and Enforcement.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    OMB Control Number: 0694-0122.
    Type of Review: Regular submission.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 78,576.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,821,891.
    Estimated Time per Response: 5 seconds to 2 hours.
    Needs and Uses: This collection of information involves nine 
miscellaneous activities described in section 758 of the Export 
Administration Regulation (EAR) that are associated with the export of 
items controlled by the Department of Commerce. Most of these 
activities do not involve submission of documents to BIS but instead 
involve exchange of documents among parties in the export transaction 
to insure that each party understands its obligations under U.S. law. 
Others involve writing certain export control statements on shipping 
documents or reporting unforeseen changes in shipping and disposition 
of exported commodities. These activities are needed by the Office of 
Export Enforcement and the U.S. Customs Service to document export 
transactions, enforce the EAR and protect the National Security of the 
United States.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov 
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/ Follow the instructions to view 
Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bff0f6edfee0eccaddd2d6ccccd6d0d1ffd0d2dd91dad0cf91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6926203b28363a1c0b04001a1a0006072906040b470c0619470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>

Sheleen Dumas,
Department Lead PRA Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-19415 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

s0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

137570 & (18) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137570 

 COA: 285533 

Oakland CC: 2002-186193-FH 

BRIAN LEE MEEK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 5, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32





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





In connection with the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Evolution Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Rozelle, President 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, to the best of my knowledge that:





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.








Date: February 8, 2011





/s/ Joseph RozelleJoseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10-P-13







World Headquarters, Room 538     
One American Road
Dearborn, MI 48126-2798
       
[Date]


Dear [Name],


In recognition of Company and individual performance in [Year], and in anticipation of your continued leadership and ongoing efforts in [Year], the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has approved the following incentive compensation for you:


Your Performance-based Restricted Stock Unit grant was a maximum opportunity having a [one/two/three-year] performance period ending December 31, [Year].   The performance metrics for the [Year] grant were:
		
	•
	[Describe applicable metrics]




Based on performance against these metrics, the Compensation Committee has approved the following:


PB-RSU Opportunity:                [     ]
PB-RSU Payout:                [     ]    
RSU Final Award:                  ]     ] of the original grant


The final RSU award will be restricted for [one/two/three-] years.  As soon as practicable after the restriction lapses, you will be issued shares of Ford Motor Company Common Stock, less shares withheld to cover any tax liability on the value of the grant.  


All stock-based awards are subject to the terms of the [1998/2008] Long-Term Incentive Plan.  Additional information regarding all of your stock-based awards is available on HR ONLINE.  If you have further questions regarding your awards, please contact [Name] at [Phone Number].


Thank you for all your efforts and continued leadership.