alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 July 8, 2019Instructor duty: Times are changing
        Thick skin. Selfless perspective. Fearless leadership. When asked what I wanted my officer trainees to leave Officer Training School with, these three concepts defined my expectations.  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Wade, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered April 18, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not err in admitting the tape of the drug transaction between the defendant and a confidential informant. Audibility of tape recordings is a preliminary question to be decided in the trial court’s discretion *(see, People v Lubow,*29 NY2d 58, 68; *People v Robinson,*158 AD2d 628). Even though certain portions of the tape were unclear, the audible portions demonstrated that the defendant sold the drugs to the informant, and, therefore, it was not an improvident exercise of the trial court’s discretion to admit the tape *(see, People v Maderic,*142 AD2d 892, 894; *People v Godley,*130 AD2d 791, 793).

Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(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 of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contentions raised in his *pro se*supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      35**











Servicer
      Compliance Statement





The
      undersigned, the duly appointed Controller and Treasurer, respectively, of
      Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation, as servicer, are delivering this
      Servicer Compliance Statement pursuant to Section 4.10(a) of the Sale and
      Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2006, (the “Sale and Servicing
      Agreement”) among Caterpillar Financial Asset Trust 2006-A, Caterpillar
      Financial Funding Corporation and Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation
      (the “Servicer”), and hereby certify that: (i) a review of the activities
      of the Servicer during the period from the Closing Date to December 31,
      2006, and of the Servicer’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement
      has been made under our supervision; and (ii) to the best of our knowledge,
      based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under
      the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such
      period.











Dated:
                March 29, 2007
            */s/
                Steven R. Elsesser*Steven
                R. ElsesserController*/s/
                James A. Duensing*James
                A. DuensingTreasurer
#### Paul Steven PENROD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Scott CARTER, Frank Wall, Ronald W. Corbett, and Dixie Ann Brunson, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 21058.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 22, 1987.

Dallas H. Young, Jr., Provo, for plaintiff and appellant.

Gary D. Stott, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment on a unanimous jury verdict dismissing his action for false imprisonment brought under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. We affirm.

Plaintiff raises three issues on appeal: (1) the arresting officers’ lack of probable cause to arrest him; (2) plaintiff’s rights to possess the vehicle he removed to an undisclosed location and to demand evidence of ownership from the arresting officers before disclosing its whereabouts, and (3) the trial court’s refusal to grant his motion for a directed verdict and a judgment N.O.Y. and to give one of his requested jury instructions.

Plaintiff does not dispute that the jury was properly instructed on the meaning of “probable cause.” The jury was also instructed on the element of the offense of theft. Plaintiff has not supported by statute or case law his argument that the arresting officers had a duty to present evidence of ownership in the vehicle to him. Instead, the officers’ reliance on evidence *200and information given to them by the true owner was sufficient to constitute probable cause. Within the constraints of their instructions, the jury assessed the evidence before them and found that the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff. Thus stated, the question becomes one of sufficiency of the evidence to uphold the jury verdict. Although the issues are the subject of conflicting testimony at trial, this Court does not overturn a jury’s verdict so long as there is ample record evidence to support the jury’s finding. *Morgan v. Quailbrook Condominium Co.,*704 P.2d 573 (Utah 1985).

Plaintiff’s motions for directed verdict and for judgment N.O.V. were based upon his argument that there was no substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding of probable cause for arrest. A motion for a directed verdict requires the trial court to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom it is directed. The case should not be taken from the jury where there is substantial dispute in the evidence. *Cerritos Trucking Co. v. Utah Venture No. 1,*645 P.2d 608 (Utah 1982). On appeal, this Court applies the same rules. *Id.*at 611; *accord Price-Orem Investment Co. v. Rollins, Brown & Gunnell,*713 P.2d 55 (Utah 1986). The trial court’s denial of the motions under the facts of this case was correct.

Plaintiff's requested jury instruction was refused, but no objection appears of record. Our rules of civil procedure require that to preserve an objection for appeal, a party must object with specificity at trial. Utah R. Civ. P. 51; *Morgan v. Quailbrook Condominium Co.,*704 P.2d at 579. Failure to object waives review by this Court. *Jensen v. Eakins,*575 P.2d 179 (Utah 1978).

Affirmed.

STEWART, Associate C.J., concurs in the result.
#### The People of the State of New York, by Robert Abrams, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent, v Westchester County S.P.C.C. et al., Defendants, and A, Appellant.

In an action by the plaintiff Attorney-General seeking, *inter alia,*the dissolution of the defendant Westchester County S.P.C.C. and the removal of the defendant "A” from the position of officer, director or agent of that corporation, the defendant "A” appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered January 10, 1990, which, after an in camera inspection by the court of sealed records pertaining to treatment for mental illness suffered by the defendant "A”, granted the motion by the Attorney-General for an order unsealing those records for inspection by him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

.We disagree with the contention of the defendant "A” that the court’s order was in error. Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13 (c) (1) provides that records regarding treatment for mental disorder shall not be released except, *inter alia,*"pursuant to an order of a court of record requiring disclosure upon a finding by the court that the interests of justice significantly outweigh the need for confidentiality”. Further, Mental Hygiene Law § 33.14 (b) (2) provides that sealed records may only *688be unsealed, *inter alia,*"by order of a court upon a demonstration by the party seeking to have the records unsealed that such unsealing is essential to the interests of justice” *(see also, Heard v Cuomo,*142 AD2d 537, *after remand*160 AD2d 590). In the case at bar, the defendant "A”, as an officer of the Westchester S.P.C.C., possessed wide powers as a peace officer pursuant to CPL 2.10 (7-a); 2.20, and 140.25, permitting him to carry handguns and to make arrests. There was, however, much evidence on the record, most of which remained undenied by the defendant "A”, that he abused these powers. Apart from defying an order of the court to register six unregistered handguns in his possession, this defendant also in his "best judgment” sent a 15-year-old boy to an illegal gun seller to purchase a gun, as a method of obtaining evidence against the gun dealer. The boy was subsequently assaulted and threatened by the dealer. Finally, the defendant, on an application to register a handgun, denied that he had ever been treated for mental illness and, after the commencement of this action, obtained an order sealing his hospital records. In these circumstances, the court’s order was proper.

We have examined the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Fiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
*********************************************
Household Finance Corporation
Household Consumer Loan Corporation
Household Consumer Loan Trust 1995-1
*********************************************
                                                   Sum of 1/16/96 - 12/16
                                                     Distribution Dates




Ending Pool Principal Balance                           3,384,560,372.07
Series 1995-1 Participation Invested Amount               761,248,368.97
Seller Amount                                             938,413,608.19
Remittances on the Participation                          244,607,907.96
Optimum Monthly Principal                                 185,399,631.03
Accelerated Principal Payment                               2,145,829.06

Ending Class A Note Security Balance                      508,693,373.24
Ending Class B Note Security Balance                      172,196,000.00
Ending Certificate Security Balance                        30,304,000.00
Ending Overcollateralization Amount                        50,054,995.73

Ending Class A Adjusted Balance                           508,693,373.24
Ending Class B Adjusted Balance                           172,196,000.00
Ending Certficate  Adjusted Balance                        30,304,000.00
Ending Overcollateralization Amount                        50,054,995.73

Class A Interest Paid                                      35,493,374.91
Class B Interest Paid                                      10,732,915.65
Certificate Yield Paid                                      2,013,955.22

Class A Unpaid Interest                                             0.00
Class B Unpaid Interest                                             0.00
Cetificate Unpaid Yield                                             0.00

Class A Principal Paid                                    187,545,460.10
Class B Principal Paid                                              0.00
Certificate  Principal Paid                                         0.00
OC Principal Paid                                                   0.00

 Total Charge-Offs:                                                 0.00

Interest paid per $1,000 Class A                                   47.32
Principal paid per $1,000 Class A                                 250.06
Interest paid per $1,000 Class B                                   62.33
Interest paid per $1,000 Class B                                    0.00
Yield Paid per $1000 Certificate                                   66.46
Principal Paid per $1000 Certificate                                0.00
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section906 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.

Date: March 30, 2004                      /s/ Edward F. McKernan
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Edward F. McKernan
                                          Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350,


Chapter
      63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
      (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
      undersigned officer of Smart Balance, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:




The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the “Form
      10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in
      the
      Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Company.





Date:
                August 8, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Alan S. GeverAlan
                S. GeverExecutive
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                financial officer of
                Registrant)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eldred Leitzsey, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered September 1, 1989, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, resisting arrest, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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]).

We reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion by permitting the complainant to testify that the defendant threatened him in an attempt to induce him to drop the charges and that the defendant stated that he had previously "[done something] to the people where they dropped the charges”. This evidence was probative of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt *(see, People v Whaley,*144 AD2d 510; *People v Griffin,*126 AD2d 743). While the defendant argues that the trial court should have issued a limiting instruction to the jury that it should only consider the evidence on the issue of the defendant’s *489consciousness of guilt, his failure to request such an instruction renders his argument unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Bowen,*50 NY2d 915, 917; *People v Hentley,*155 AD2d 392, 394; *People v Singleton,*121 AD2d 752, 752-753).

Although the trial court erred in permitting the complainant to testify as to his conversation with the defendant’s attorney *(see,*Richardson, Evidence § 200 [Prince 10th ed]), in view of the isolated nature of this hearsay evidence, as well as the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, the error was harmless *(see, People v Polizzi,*150 AD2d 616, 617).

In light of the defendant’s criminal history, the seriousness of the crime, the defendant’s attempt to hide his culpability, and the Probation Department’s determination that there was little likelihood for rehabilitation, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### GRADY COBB *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*David B. Rozwaski,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

The petitioner Grady Cobb’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 39 Conn. App. 914 (AC 14206), is denied.

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal.

KATZ, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

*904
      *Richard F. Jacobson,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 5, 1998
Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Worst - Total Extinction Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

MOZI1 NIA 2001 24 28.61 MOZI1 NIA 2001 24 6.77

MOZI1 NIA 2002 21 40.12 MOZI1 NIA 2002 21 4.9

MOZI1 NIA 2003 23 32.27 MOZI1 NIA 2003 23 4.74

MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 24.03 MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 4.58

125.03 Total 20.99 Total

31.2575 Average 5.2475 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 17%

Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Best - Total Extinction Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

MOZI1 NIA 2001 23 13.19 MOZI1 NIA 2001 23 2.31

MOZI1 NIA 2002 20 11.58 MOZI1 NIA 2002 20 1.33

MOZI1 NIA 2003 22 11.34 MOZI1 NIA 2003 22 1.21

MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 11.23 MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 1.27

47.34 Total 6.12 Total

11.835 Average 1.53 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 13%

Rocky Mountain - Worst - Total Extinction Rocky Mountain - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

ROMO1 NIA 2000 22 41.91 ROMO1 NIA 2000 22 6.37

ROMO1 NIA 2001 25 39.03 ROMO1 NIA 2001 25 9.67

ROMO1 NIA 2002 24 53.44 ROMO1 NIA 2002 24 9.41

ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 39.98 ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 6.81

ROMO1 NIA 2004 25 33.25 ROMO1 NIA 2004 25 7.28

207.61 Total 39.54 Total

41.522 Average 7.908 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 19%

Rocky Mountain - Best - Total Extinction Rocky Mountain - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N

Total

Extinction Site Method Year N

SO4

Extinction

ROMO1 NIA 2000 21 12.97 ROMO1 NIA 2000 21 1.66

ROMO1 NIA 2001 24 12.76 ROMO1 NIA 2001 24 1.52

ROMO1 NIA 2002 23 12.03 ROMO1 NIA 2002 23 0.93

ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 12.95 ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 1.35

ROMO1 NIA 2004 24 12.4 ROMO1 NIA 2004 24 1.18

63.11 Total 6.64 Total

12.622 Average 1.328 Average

2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 11%
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francisco Veloz, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, *360New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered on October 27, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.) Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



To the Stockholders of Xpedite Systems, Inc.

     We have audited the consolidated  financial  statements of Xpedite Systems,
Inc.  as of December  31, 1996 and 1995,  and for each of the three years in the
period  ended  December  31,  1996,  and have  issued our report  thereon  dated
February  27,  1997  (included  elsewhere  in this Form  10-K).  Our audits also
included  the  financial  statement  schedule  listed in Item 14(a) of this Form
10-K.  This  schedule is the  responsibility  of the Company's  management.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.

     In our opinion,  the financial  statement  schedule referred to above, when
considered  in  relation  to the basic  financial  statements  taken as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth herein.


                                                               Ernst & Young LLP


MetroPark, New Jersey
February 27, 1997