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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), rendered February 23, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested on August 18, 1988, in connection with the sale of cocaine to an undercover police officer on July 1, 1988, and July 5, 1988. On July 7, 1988, the undercover officer viewed six photographs of men of similar appearance and identified the defendant as the seller of the cocaine.

We find that the County Court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress this identification testimony. It is clear that the identification was made by a trained police officer who had observed the defendant face to face for several minutes during each of the two drug transactions. Thus, the photographic identification by the undercover officer was merely confirmatory, and could not have tainted the in-court identification *(see, People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921; *People v Morales,*37 NY2d 262; *People v Kearn,*118 AD2d 871; *cf., People v Gordon,*76 NY2d 595).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly denied his request to charge the jury on the defense of agency. At the trial, it was established that on July 1, 1988, *735the defendant initiated contact with the undercover officer. The officer then asked the defendant if he was "working”, i.e., dealing drugs. The defendant responded by asking the officer how much he wanted. The officer responded "two dimes”. The defendant then left the officer for a short time and returned with the drugs, which he gave to the officer in exchange for money. The defendant then told the officer that he was a "good chemist”, identified himself as "Abdullah”, told the officer his address, and invited him to come and see him whenever he wanted anything. Four days later on July 5, the undercover officer went to the defendant’s apartment and knocked on the door. The defendant answered the door and asked the officer what he wanted. The officer again asked for "two dimes” which the defendant obtained and gave to. the officer in return for $20.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant we find that under no reasonable view of the evidence could a jury have found the defendant to be merely an agent of the undercover police officer *(see, People v Ortiz,*76 NY2d 446, 448, 449, *remittitur amended*77 NY2d 821; *People v Argibay,*45 NY2d 45, *cert denied*439 US 930). Kooper, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to
18 U.S. C. Section 1350
as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  Date: November 10, 2008
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Frank C. SpencerName:
    
    Frank C. SpencerTitle:
    
    Chief Executive Officer
 
 Date: November 10, 2008
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Charles M. HandyName:
    
    Charles M. HandyTitle:
    
    Chief 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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - 21 CFR Part 172
          - [Docket No. FDA-2012-F-0138]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of petition.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that Abbott Laboratories has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the expanded safe use of vitamin D3                         as a nutrient supplement in food.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judith Kidwell, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1071.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5))), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2A4788) has been filed by Abbott Laboratories, 3300 Stelzer Rd., Columbus, OH 43219. The petition proposes to amend § 172.380 (21 CFR 172.380) to provide for the safe use of vitamin D3                     as a nutrient supplement in meal replacement beverages and meal replacement bars that are not intended for special dietary use in reducing or maintaining body weight and for use in foods that are sole sources of nutrition for enteral tube feeding.                

The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(k) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

Dated: February 29, 2012.

Dennis M. Keefe,

Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

[FR Doc. 2012-5314 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
Exhibit
32.1

Certification of Periodic Financial
Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned,
Charles E. Johnson, the chief executive officer of Transpro, Inc. (the
"issuer"), does hereby certify that the
report on Form 10-K accompanying this certification (the
"report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the issuer.

/s/ Charles E. Johnson
 Charles E.
Johnson

President and Chief Executive
Officer (chief executive officer) Transpro, Inc. March
24, 2004

---
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1872 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Phenylphenol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2- 

Phenylphenol. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 2-PHENYLPHENOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.29.25 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 2-Phenylphenol) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1872 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2308

In re: VICTOR B. PERKINS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina at Raleigh. (5:23-ct-03092-M-RJ)

Submitted: January 17, 2024 Decided: February 21, 2024

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Bernard Perkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2308 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Victor Bernard Perkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district 

court has unduly delayed in ruling on his civil rights complaint. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay 

in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2308 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1920 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain sports footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. ROBERTS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain sports footwear. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN SPORTS FOOTWEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Tennis shoes, basketball 

shoes, gym shoes, training 

shoes, and the like, the foregoing with outer soles of rubber or plastics (provided for 

in subheading 6402.99.31) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1920 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
From: Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>

To: Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/24/2010 03:31 PM

Subject: VI Status Update on PVC Resin Test Method Development Program

Dear Ms. Howard,

As you requested, a status update is attached from Environmental

Chemistry, Inc. along with the Vinyl Institute’s estimate of timing to

complete the PVC resin test method development program. Please do not

hesitate to contact me with any questions that may arise during your

review of the documents. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this

information for the PVC MACT rule development.

Regards,

Richard Krock

Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute

1737 King Street Suite 390

Alexandria, VA 22314

Direct: 571.970.3392

Mobile: 571.216.4474

Fax: 571.970.3271

Email: rkrock@vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylinfo.org

http://www.vinylindesign.com(See attached file: ECI Status letter

Richard Krock VI 09-22-2010.pdf)(See attached file: VI Cover Letter to

EPA for ECI Update on Resin Test Methods 09-24-10.pdf)
NO. 07-02-0101-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	MARCH 4, 2002

	______________________________

	CECIL R. TRIMBLE AKA CECIL R. MCcDONALD,

			Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2000-434,614; HON. BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

	Cecil R. Trimble aka Cecil R. “MccDonald [sic]”  (appellant) attempts to appeal pro se from his conviction for murder in the 364th District Court of Lubbock County, Texas.   For the reasons set out, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.     

	Although appellant states in his notice of appeal that the final judgment of the trial court was in June, 2001, we have received a certificate from the court clerk indicating that sentence was imposed in open court on July 18, 2001.  Furthermore, the clerk represents that a motion for new trial was filed.   Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until February 25, 2002.  A timely filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction.  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or within 90 days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).  An appellate court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, a party files in the trial court the notice of appeal and a motion seeking an extension of time with the appellate court.  Tex. R. App. P. 26. 3.  Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed until over seven months after the date his sentence was pronounced in open court, and no timely motion for extension of time was filed with this court.

	Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  Accordingly, we must and do hereby dismiss this appeal.1 

                                                                   Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNION
PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AT THE
END OF EACH PERIOD PRESENTED AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
FOR EACH PERIOD AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      271
<ALLOWANCES>                                        10
<INVENTORY>                                         65
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   441
<PP&E>                                          11,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,985
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,347
<BONDS>                                          3,745
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,642
<SALES>                                          1,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,841
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (605)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (883)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (16)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (899)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.63)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-734

In Re: CARMEN PEREZ-LOERA,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CR-95-112, CA-97-663-2)

Submitted: December 2, 1997 Decided: April 20, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carmen Perez-Loera, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carmen Perez-Loera petitions this court for a writ of mandamus

directing the district court to provide her, at government expense,

with a copy of the record and transcripts of her criminal proceedings. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary

circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402

(1976). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden

of showing that he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and

indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35

(1980). Indigent parties seeking collateral review are entitled to

transcripts at government expense only after a judge has certified

that the case presents a substantial question. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f)

(1988). Perez-Loera has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we

grant permission to proceed in forma pauperis and deny mandamus

relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 2308

In re: VICTOR B. PERKINS

,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. ( 5:23

- ct

- 03092

- M

- RJ )

Submitted : January 17, 2024 Decided: February 21, 2024

Before KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Victor Bernard Perkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2308 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Victor Bernard Perkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district

court has unduly delayed in ruling on his civil rights complaint. He seeks an order from

this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay

in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-2308 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: KENNY G ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Debtor.

______________________________

KENNETH GHARIB,

Appellant,

v.

THOMAS H. CASEY, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Appellee. No. 18

- 55181

D.C. No. 8:15

- cv

- 00551

- GW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018 **

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Kenneth Gharib appeals p ro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his appeal of the bankruptcy court’s initial contempt order . We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 55181

under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gharib’s appeal of the bankruptcy

court’s initial contempt order after remand from this court. The district court

addressed the bankruptcy court’s enforcement of monetary sanctions and detention

for Gharib’s contempt in separate appeals from th e bankruptcy court, and the

record reflects that no issues remained t hat required further action from the district

court.

We reject as without merit Gharib’s contention that the district court should

not have dismissed this appeal while his related appe als were still pending.

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court

. S ee United

States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

Gharib ’s motion to file a corrected opening brief (Docket Entry No. 14) is

granted

. The Clerk shall file the opening brief and exhibits submitted at Docket

Entry No. 15

, the answering brief and supplemental excerpts of record submitted at

Docket Entry No s

. 9 and 10, and the reply brief and exhibits submitted at Docket

Entry No. 13.

Gharib’s request for clarification of the briefing schedule (Docket Entry

No. 6) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
# L_2006015EN.01003401.xml

| 20.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 15/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 15/34

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 91/2006

of 19 January 2006

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 17th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 17th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 35,924 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 January 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 3.

2

---