alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rita Ebenhart, Appellant, v Robert Abrams, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of 52 Riverside Drive Associates, Respondent, v Robert Abrams, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent, and Rita Ebenhart, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Kenneth Shorter, J.), entered on November 14, 1990, which dismissed the petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging respondent’s determination that petitioner did not qualify as a "disabled” *239person in accordance with General Business Law § 352-eeee (1) (g) is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A review of the evidence herein demonstrates that respondent’s determination denying the claim of petitioner Rita Ebenhart that she is disabled was not arbitrary and capricious, but was rationally based *(Matter of Fanelli v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd.,*90 AD2d 756, *affd*58 NY2d 952). In that regard, the validity of her arguments was undermined by her inability to produce pertinent documentation, as well as by her failure to change the nature of her purported disability from physical to psychological so as to conform it to the available proof. Moreover, the record reflects that the Law Department considered the additional evidence presented by petitioner after remand notwithstanding that it was submitted in connection with what was in essence a different disability than the one originally asserted. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
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 Annual Report of Potomac Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert F. Baronner, Jr., President and Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Robert F. Baronner,
Jr.



Robert F. Baronner, Jr.

President and Chief Executive Officer

March 29, 2004
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 Intelligence AgencyCOMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION

Search
Search

Search
                    - Facilities Operating Status
                    - Employee Resources

-  Home		 
-  About    -  FAQs             
  -  Organization      -  Locations             
    -  Missile and Space Intelligence Center             
    -  Joint Military Attache School             
    -  Joint Military Intelligence Training Center 
  -  Office of the Inspector General             
  -  Equal Opportunity & Diversity             
  -  Military Integration Office             
  -  History      -  DIA Museum             
    -  George Washington Letters             
    -  Directors of DIA             
    -  The Historians 
  -  Patriots Memorial             
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response             
  -  Contact Us 
-  News & Features    -  Articles             
  -  Videos             
  -  DIA in the News             
  -  Threat Reports             
  -  Photo Gallery             
  -  No FEAR             
  -  Podcasts             
  -  DIA Comics 
-  Careers & Opportunities    -  Career Fields      -  Analysis             
    -  Counterintelligence             
    -  Finance & Acquisition             
    -  Human Intelligence             
    -  Human Services             
    -  Information Technology             
    -  Inspector General             
    -  Legal             
    -  Mission Management             
    -  Office Management & Infrastructure             
    -  Science & Technology             
    -  Security 
  -  Search Vacancies             
  -  Apply to DIA             
  -  Hiring Process             
  -  Internships             
  -  Veteran Programs 
-  Business    -  Contractor Personnel Security             
  -  SIA3             
  -  SITE III             
  -  Innovation             
  -  NeedipeDIA             
  -  Office of Small Business Programs             
  -  Small Business FAQs 

HOMENEWS & FEATURES

Search

Search

                            - All Images 
                            - Other 

                            - Upload Date
                            - Photo Date
                            - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.76 MB)

Tags:Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, DoDIIS19

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

M.H., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3294

[December 21, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carlos S. Rebollo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 06-2016-CJ001814-AXXX-CE.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. 

Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit No. 32.1


MCPI, Inc.
 File No. 333-173873
 Form 10-Q
 Quarter ended March 31, 2016
 
 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 MCPI, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R. Wayne Duke, 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.
  Date: August 1, 2016
By:
/s/ R. Wayne DukeR. Wayne DukeChief Executive Officerand Financial Officer
  
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MCPI, Inc. and will be retained by MCPI, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certificate is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Axim Biotechnologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation, (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2020 (the “Report”), I, Robert Malasek, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (1)the Report, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 Registrant.  Dated: November 20, 2020By:/s/ Robert MalasekRobert Malasek
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00301- CR
Darius Lee Wright, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 426 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 712 13, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Dar ius L ee Wright pled g uilty to a third-deg ree -fe lony char g e of unlawful possession of a firea

rm by a felon. See Tex. Penal Code § 46.04. There was no ag ree ment as to the punishment, and the trial cour t assessed a

punishment of eig ht y ear s in prison. Appellant’s cour t -a p p o inted attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by

a brief concluding that this appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by prese nting a p ro fe s sional evalua tion of the

rec ord demonstra ting why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See id .; see also Pe nson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); High v. S t a t e , 5 7 3 S.W .2d 807, 811-13 (Tex

. Crim. App. 1978). His appellate counsel cer tified that he sent a copy of the b ri ef to appellant and advised him of his rig ht to ex am i n e t h e appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant did not file a pr o se brief and did not reque st an extension of tim e to do so.We have revie wed the rec ord and find no reve rsible err or. See Garner v. State ,

300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We ag ree with counsel that this appea l is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted. The judgme nt of conviction is aff irmed.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Affir med Filed: Aug ust 27, 2014 Do Not Publish

2
#### Patrick James JEFFRIES, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Tana WOOD, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 95-99003.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 20, 1996.

Decided Dec. 20, 1996.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, FLETCHER, REINHARDT, BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

On August 29, 1996, the Court directed the parties to submit briefs on the question of whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (“Act”) applied to cases filed prior to the Act’s effective date. This issue has been fully briefed and was submitted on oral argument on November 20, 1996.

A number of Ninth Circuit panels have stayed decisions pending resolution of this question. Accordingly, we have elected to announce our decision prior to issuing an opinion.

We hold that the amendments to Chapter 153 of Title 28 of the United States Code contained in Title I of the Act do not apply to cases filed in the federal courts of this Circuit prior to the Act’s effective date of April 24, 1996. A full opinion detailing the rationale for our decision, along with a decision on the merits, will be forthcoming, together with any separate concurring or dissenting opinions which members of the en bane panel may wish to file.

Judges GOODWIN, BRUNETTI and HAWKINS dissent from the issuance of this order.
#### Vernon M. RAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. A-2639.

Court of Appeals of Alaska.

June 15, 1990.

*686Paul E. Malin, Asst. Public Defender, and John B. Salemi, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

David Mannheimer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Office of Sp. Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Douglas B. Baily, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before BRYNER, C.J., and COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.

OPINION

BRYNER, Chief Judge.

Vernon M. Ray was convicted by a jury of third-degree criminal mischief, driving while intoxicated, and driving while his license was suspended. He appeals, claiming a violation of his right to a speedy trial under Alaska Criminal Rule 45. We affirm.

Ray first moved to dismiss under Criminal Rule 45 on the eighth day of his trial, as his case was about to be submitted to the jury. During a discussion of proposed jury instructions, Ray moved for dismissal after the court indicated in a passing comment that it believed Ray might have been placed under arrest on the date of the alleged offenses. Ray noted that if he was placed under arrest at that time, more than 120 days had elapsed between the date of arrest and the date of trial. The court found Ray’s motion untimely and denied it.

Ray renews his speedy trial claim on appeal. In doing so, however, he overlooks Criminal Rule 45(f), which is disposi-tive:

> *Waiver.*Failure of a defendant represented by counsel to move for dismissal of the charges under these rules prior to ... trial shall constitute waiver of his rights under this rule.

Under this provision, once jury selection begins, the accused forfeits the right to assert a violation of the speedy trial rule. *James v. State,*567 P.2d 298, 300 (Alaska 1977); *Trudeau v. State,*714 P.2d 362, 365-66 (Alaska App.1986). Subsection (f) operates as a bar regardless of whether the failure to make a timely motion resulted from an informed decision. *See James,*567 P.2d at 300 (counsel did not realize date of arrest until after the beginning of *voir dire).*

The conviction is AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derek Sloane, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), both rendered May 22, 1990, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree under Indictment No. 89-00462-01, and burglary in the third degree under Indictment No. 89-00463-01, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631: *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
C^Z/ORLDVIEW^^/RAVEL 

i-1 u. 

International Execu-Travel 

101 West Fourth Street, Suite 400 

Santa Ana, California 92701 

r- ir- 0 v^HTATinM 800-627-8726 

March 10, 2010 , -.^ 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's application to 

provide new service from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and Los Angeles 

International Airport to Tokyo International Airport at Haneda. 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last December in reaching 

a landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from New York and Los 

Angeles to Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between three of the world's largest 

financial and commerce centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance membership, 

have underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific market. American is likewise 

committed to New York and Los Angeles - both vital focal points of business, trade, entertainment, 

technology and education - providing unsurpassed air service since the mid-1900s 

Both the New York and Los Angeles metro areas will gain significant economic benefits from these 

proposed new flights, as will American's customers and employees. However, we need your help to 

make the JFK/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly urge you to say yes to American Airlines and its request for slots to fly from 

Kennedy to Haneda! 

Sincerely, 

illiams '
|Section 4: EX-32.1
|------------------



Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012 (the “Report”) of GSV Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael T. Moe, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Registrant, hereby certify, 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, as amended; and



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



|      |  | /s/Michael T. Moe
|----- |  | -----------------
|Name: |  | Michael T. Moe   
|Date: |  | May 7, 2012
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7603-7604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3251]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period 
for Alaska

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility 
under the EB program for Alaska.
    The following changes have occurred since the publication of the 
last notice regarding the State's EB status:
     Alaska's 13-week insured unemployment rate (IUR) for the 
week ending January 7, 2012 rose to meet the 6% threshold to trigger 
``on'' to the EB program. Alaska's payable period in the Extended 
Benefits program began January 22, 2012.
    The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EB program 
can be found at: http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims_arch.asp.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State 
Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement 
to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and 
is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)).
    Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB, or who wish to 
inquire about their rights under the program, should contact their 
State Workforce Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment 
Insurance, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Frances Perkins Bldg. Room S-
4524, Washington, DC 20210, telephone

[[Page 7604]]

number (202)-693-3008 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email: 
[email protected].

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of February 2012.
Jane Oates,
Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-3251 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00045-CR

RICKY DARRELL LOVE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1492192D)

May 23, 2019

Opinion by Justice Pittman

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Mark T. Pittman_________________

 Justice Mark T. Pittman
EXHIBIT 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the quarterly report of BlueFlash Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Marissa Watson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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 result of operations of the Company.  September 12, 2012/s/ Marissa WatsonMarissa Watson, President, PrincipalExecutive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting 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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Robert Romano et al., Appellants, v Subaru of America, Inc., Respondent.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Jiudice, J.), entered April 12, 1990 in Dutchess County, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

The evidence presented by plaintiffs in support of their motion for partial summary judgment consisted of defendant’s offers to settle or compromise. These offers contained no admissions of fact and were therefore properly excluded as evidence since such offers may not be used against a party to prove liability *(see, Bigelow-Sanford v Specialized Commercial Floors, 77*AD2d 464; *cf., Bellino v Bellino Constr. Co.,*75 *935AD2d 630). On the basis of the evidence before it, Supreme Court properly concluded that there were issues of fact which warranted denying plaintiffs’ motion *(see, Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co.,*103 AD2d 252, 261). Plaintiffs’ remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

Order affirmed, with costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.