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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ivan Warner, J.), rendered May 1, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, three counts of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, one count of assault in the third degree and four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of from 15 years to life on the possession count, 1 to 4 years on the unlawful imprisonment counts and definite 1 year terms on the remaining counts, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, given evidence at trial that defendant possessed the drugs and placed them on a kitchen table in the apartment in which he lived, and over which he exercised dominion and control. *(People v Robertson,*48 NY2d 993.)

The Court properly precluded defense counsel from taking the witness stand and withdrawing as trial counsel. On direct examination, the complaining witness acknowledged that she had given a prior inconsistent statement during a taped interview at defense counsel’s office. She explained the inconsistency as the result of conversations with defendant, whom *278she married while in jail prior to trial, in an effort to assist him. On cross-examination, counsel pressed the witness by repeatedly asking whether he had encouraged her to lie before the taped interview. Finally, she admitted that counsel had encouraged her to lie. The record shows that it was counsel himself who injected his integrity into the proceedings. It is well established that a party may not call witnesses to contradict a witness’ answer concerning collateral matters solely for the purpose of impeaching that witness’ credibility *(People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 288-289). The complaining witness’ motive to fabricate during the taped interview was a collateral matter, with no independent relevance and no bearing upon any material aspect of her direct testimony. *(See, People v Johnson,*114 AD2d 210.) Under these circumstances, defendant’s reliance upon DR 5-102 (A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility is misplaced since there was no obligation that counsel *must*testify on behalf of defendant. *(People v Paperno,*54 NY2d 294, 300.)

We reject defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair trial because of testimony elicited from the complaining witness that he had been involved in prior drug sales. Given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, any such error was harmless. The record belies defendant’s claim that counsel was improperly precluded from adequate cross-examination of the People’s witnesses. Last, defendant did not preserve for review challenges to the prosecutor’s summation. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JOHN DRISCOLL, * No. 13-110V

*

Petitioner, * Special Master Moran

*

v. * Filed: February 11, 2015

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

* respondent does not object.

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Danielle Strait, Maglio, Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner;

Heather Pearlman, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On February 10, l2015, petitioner filed a stipulation of fact concerning final 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the above-captioned matter. Previously, petitioner 

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent 

for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections 

to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended his 

application to request $25,000.00, an amount to which respondent does not object. 

The Court awards this amount.

On February 7, 2013, John Driscoll filed a petition for compensation

alleging that the influenza vaccine, which he received on September 22, 2011, 

caused him to suffer severe sensory motor polyneuropathy. Petitioner received 

compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision, filed Nov. 10, 2014. 

 

1

The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Because petitioner received compensation, he is entitled to an award of attorneys’ 

fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

Petitioner seeks a total of $25,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for his

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states 

that he incurred no out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. 

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $25,000.00 in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Danielle Strait, for attorneys’ fees 

and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (202) 357-

6353.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
STATE OF TEXAS 

## vs. ARRON TRACE McLAREY NO . 12·15·00084-CR § INTHE § § TWELFTH COURT § § OF APPEALS
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Now comes Arron Trace McLarey, Appe llan t in the above styled and numbered case, before the. deci sion in this Court has been d elivered, and respectfully moves this Court to withdraw appellant's notic e of appea l and dismiss thi s appeal , pursuant to Rule 42.2 of the T exas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Respe ctfully s ubmitted , Law Office of James Huggl e r 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805 Tyler, Texas 75702 Tel: (903) 593·2400 Fax : (903) 593 · 3830

By: 7H- ----=-=-......,..------------ 

### J mes Huggler

tate Bar No. 00795437 Attorney for Arron Trace McLarey ACCEPTED 12-15-00084-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 6/22/2015 1:36:01 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK

### STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF SMITH § § 

### §
AFFIDAVIT BEFORE ME , t h e u nders i g n ed authority, on t hi s day personally appeared Jame s H uggl er, who after being duly swo rn state d:

" l am t h e attorney for the ap p e ll ant in the above numb ered and entitled cau se . I h a ve re a d**~** fo r egoi n g Mo ti on t o D is mi ss Ap p ea l a nd s w ea r t h at a ll of t h e allegations of fact contained there in a rc tr ue and correct."



### SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME o n J u n e 

## l- 

## L , 2015, to ce r t ify wh ic h witness my han d and sea l of office.



### , ..**~: tm•,,_**  AMI E JANE GONZA l EZ**l~ o.** **~** Notary Public. S t a t e of T e x

as 

### U

. . J'1>E My C o m mission Ex p i res**\~1,·;,;·; ~:~**  Ju ly 19. 2018 ,, ,,

### .. ,,,,,

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thi s i s to certify that on Jun e 1,.. 

### L , 2 015, a t ru e a nd correct copy of t h e above
a nd f orego ing document w as se r ved on t he Di strict Attorney's Offi ce, S mith County , 100 N. Broadway, 4th Fl oor, Tyler , Te x as 7 5702, by hand delivery.
Exhibit 32.1

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

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 AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Joseph B. Leonard, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, 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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |     |  |                                     
|-------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|August 9, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Joseph B. Leonard               
|               |  |     |  | Joseph B. Leonard                   
|               |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6215

DANNY LAMONT YARBOROUGH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KRISTIN PARKS; MICHAEL S. HAMDEN; NORTH

CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-96-31-5-H)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny Lamont Yarborough, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(d)

(West 1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find the appeal to be frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. Yarborough v. Parks, No.

CA-96-31-5-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lester Hines, Also Known as Lester Hinds, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, *209J., at suppression hearing, plea and sentence), rendered June 29, 1989, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a youthful offender to 5 years’ probation and 300 hours of community service, unanimously affirmed.

This court rejects defendant’s claim that his suppression motion was denied erroneously. The hearing court found the testimony of the arresting officer and his partner to be entirely credible, each corroborating the other’s testimony as to the material issues leading to defendant’s arrest. On the other hand, the hearing court found defendant’s testimony that he waited in line calmly for a bus and watched several police officers questioning and searching randomly selected prospective bus passengers standing just ahead of him, while defendant ate potato chips out of a bag in which he had placed over 4 ounces of cocaine, to be self-serving and inherently incredible. The experienced hearing court is in the best position to determine credibility of witnesses testifying before it, and the record amply supports the hearing court’s credibility and fact determinations *(People v Rivera,*121 AD2d 166, *affd,*68 NY2d 786).

The credited testimony was that experienced officers on duty at the Port Authority Bus Terminal observed defendant’s youthful appearance and nervous behavior while waiting to board an out-of-town bus. This triggered the officers’ right to inquire, and the subsequent inability or reluctance of defendant to supply identification provided ample basis for the officers to detain defendant as a suspected runaway *(Matter of Terrence G.,*109 AD2d 440). Two glassine envelopes of cocaine inadvertently discovered by the investigating officer as his glance fell over an open potato chip bag placed by defendant on the ground as he answered reasonable questions regarding his age, residence and destination, were properly seized under the plain view doctrine *(see, e.g., People v Roth,*66 NY2d 688). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Smith, JJ.
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 

          - [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0085] 

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Cooperative Manufacturing Arrangements for Licensed Biologics” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        AIla S. Mizrachi, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7726,                         *ila.mizrachi@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On August 10, 2011, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Cooperative Manufacturing Arrangements for Licensed Biologics” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0629. The approval expires on February 28, 2015. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated: March 6, 2012. 

Leslie Kux, 

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-6021 Filed 3-12-12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2090 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2090

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain perfluorocarbon morpholines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Ms. Klobuchar introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain perfluorocarbon morpholines.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN PERFLUOROCARBON MORPHOLINES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      C1-C3               Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        Perfluoroalkyl                                                     31/2011.......
                        perfluoromorpholi
                        ne (CAS No. 86058-
                        42-1) (provided
                        for in subheading
                        2934.99.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-

OXLEY ACT OF 2002







I, John E. Mack, Chief Financial Officer of International Power Group, Ltd. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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:  November 3, 2006





|                              | 
|----------------------------- | 
|                             
|/s/Jonh E. Mack               | 
|John E. Mack                  | 
|(Principal Financial Officer) |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BEACH FIRST NATIONAL BANCSHARES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,416,143
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         100,383
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  9,283,159
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     32,537,992
<ALLOWANCE>                                    408,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,155,395
<DEPOSITS>                                  36,836,020
<SHORT-TERM>                                   920,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            186,062
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,900,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       735,868
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,577,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              46,155,395
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,469,213
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              628,112
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                43,459
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,140,784
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,458,633
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,682,151
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  154,168
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (32,702)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,595,993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,921
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      86,921
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,921
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.36
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    29,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               263,215
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    8,505
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              408,878
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           408,878
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 21.1**

**LISTOF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY**

| Entity Name                                   | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | **State of Organization** |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------|------------|------------|---------------------------|
| HEARST-ARGYLE STATIONS,  INC.                 |       | NEVADA     |
| WAPT HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| KHBS HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| KMBC HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| WBAL HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| WCVB HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| WISN HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| WTAE HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| OHIO/OKLAHOMA HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC. |       | NEVADA     |
| JACKSON HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.       |       | DELAWARE   |
| ARKANSAS HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.      |       | DELAWARE   |
| HEARST-ARGYLE SPORTS,  INC.                   |       | DELAWARE   |
| HEARST-ARGYLE  PROPERTIES, INC.               |       | DELAWARE   |
| HATV INVESTMENTS, INC.                        |       | DELAWARE   |
| DES MOINES HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.    |       | DELAWARE   |
| ORLANDO HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.       |       | DELAWARE   |
| NEW ORLEANS  HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.   |       | DELAWARE   |
| WYFF HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| WXII HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| KOAT HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| WLKY HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| KETV HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| WGAL HEARST-ARGYLE  TELEVISION, INC.          |       | CALIFORNIA |
| HEARST-ARGYLE CAPITAL TRUST                   |       | DELAWARE   |

 

----