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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered January 31, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an indeterminate term of from 4 Vi to 9 years in prison, unanimously affirmed.

The complainant was accosted and robbed by four men at a bus stop on Third Avenue between 39th and 40th Streets in Manhattan on September 3, 1988 at approximately 3:00 a.m. Immediately after the incident, the complainant located a marked patrol car and was driven through the area in search of the perpetrators. He recognized the four men, including the defendant, as the patrol car approached Second Avenue from the west on 42nd Street. The suspects were stopped, frisked and identified.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, and giving due deference to the jury’s resolution of issues regarding credibility *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932), it is clear that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. The victim’s identification testimony alone was sufficient to support the conviction *(People v Arroyo,*54 NY2d 567, 578, *cert denied*456 US 979). The fact that the victim’s description of the defendant did not refer to defendant’s mutilated ear does not make his identifi*321cation unreliable as a matter of law. *(People v Mosley,*112 AD2d 812, *affd*67 NY2d 985.) Likewise, the failure to recover the proceeds of the crime does not render the victim’s identification testimony incredible *(People v Williams,*155 AD2d 394, 395, *lv denied*75 NY2d 819).

The circumstances of the street showup did not render the identification procedure unduly suggestive. Showup identifications, although inherently suggestive, are permissible when held in close temporal and spacial proximity to that of the crime *(People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023, 1024). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the officers were justified in frisking the defendant and his companions; no particularized independent source for their belief of danger was required. *(See, People v Paige,*154 AD2d 318, 319, *lv denied*75 NY2d 816.)

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant about five of defendant’s eleven prior criminal convictions (three convictions for theft of services, one conviction for attempted petit larceny, and one conviction for attempted robbery) without inquiry into the facts underlying these convictions, was not an abuse of discretion. *(Compare, People v Brown,*161 AD2d 458, *lv denied*76 NY2d 938.)

The remaining issues raised by the defendant have been considered and found to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2037 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2037

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain sensitizing dyes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

 Mr. Menendez 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 certain sensitizing dyes.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SENSITIZING DYES.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.37 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain sensitizing dyes) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect 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>
```
From: Bart Brashers <bbrashers@environcorp.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:47 PM

To: Krivo, Stan

Cc: Shepherd, Lorinda; Michael Carbon

Subject: Statoil: More information requested on ANNUAL modeling

Stan,

In response to your phone call today, here’s more information on the Statoil modeling. This is “for the 

record”.

Annual Modeling and Permit Limits

Regardless of how the annual emission were calculated, the bottom line is that Statoil must emit less 

per year than the emission rates used in the CALPUFF modeling. The sum of the various sources’ NOx

emissions in the annual modeling demonstration is 15.9 g/s, or 554 TPY. The main engines on the 

drilling rig total 416 TPY of NOx.

Permit condition numbers 6.22.1.4, 6.22.2.5, and 6.22.3.6 require Statoil to determine the main engine 

emission rate of NOx CO2, CO, VOC, and PM/PM10/PM2.5 in g/kW-hr for each engine from the hourly 

emission rate results in each rolling 24-hour period and total annual emission in TPY on a 12 month 

rolling basis. Other permit conditions in Section 6.20-22 require that we track the OSV/Crew fuel use 

and hours of operation within 25 nm. 

These permit conditions are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the annual emission rate of 554 

TPY of NOx, and specifically the annual emission limit from the main drilling rig engines of 416 TPY. No 

further permit conditions based on the 12 Operating Scenarios are required to demonstrate compliance.

The fact that we used real operational data to revise (downward) our estimate of annual emissions 

should not be confused with any need to “match” that real operational data in terms of hours spent at 

various loads.

The original 2013 permit did not have a condition requiring Statoil to operate at less than our initial 

estimate of 60% load (annual average). There’s no reason for the 2014 permit revision to require we 

meet specific load conditions based on the 12 Operating Scenarios – they were simply used to calculate 

annual emission and corresponding fuel usage.

I suggest you, Lori, and Michael have a conference call early next week to address any remaining 

concerns you may have.

Bart

Bart Brashers | Atmospheric Scientist

Senior Manager, ENVIRON International Corporation

19020 33rd Ave W Ste 310 | Lynnwood WA 98036

T: +1 425-412-1812 | F: +1 425-412-1840 | M: +1 206-550-2606

bbrashers@environcorp.com
This message contains information that may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected by 

law from disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use of the Addressee(s). Unless you are the 

addressee or authorized agent of the addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclose 

to anyone the message or any information contained within. If you have received this message in 

error, please contact the sender by electronic reply to email@environcorp.com and immediately 

delete all copies of the message.
## Faulk, Scott

# (osn

From: 

### Sent: To: Subject: Jim & Sue Schelinski <molokaibluegoose@hawaii.rr.com> Thursday, November 

### 28, 2013 1:35 AM EAS(OSD Keep on flying, Mokulele! -,

Justa note to offeroursupportforyour continued service to our island. As B&B operators, we have many customers who use your service. We have found as the rates became more affordable, our business experienced a boost both in increased international travelers and with local travelers aswell. Ofgreatest importance to us here on Molokai is to have available and dependable service to tend to medical needs. That is probably the issue that causes ourfamily to purchase more tickets to Oahu. Wewould also love to be able to fly directlyto the Big Island to attend the LDS temple in Kana without having tofly to Oahu or Maui first. I'm sure there are many others in our congregation of 

### 1200 people thatwould usethatservice more if itwere available at a reasonable price. Right now it is almost easierfor us to fly to Nevada or Seattle ratherthan fly to Kana. On an island, good air service and scheduling is everything! Our bestto you in your efforts to run a successful businessthat includes Moldkai. Jim and Sue Schelinski Molokai Blue Goose 

# 10f This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

1
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132719(23) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132719 COA: 272715 Saginaw CC: 01-019510-FC TIMOTHY DUANE BERG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s May 30, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0830 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2007

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11534

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFREDO MALDONADO-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CR-43-ALL 

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

June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Maldonado-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Maldonado-Hernandez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the

aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased

sentence is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2)

that should have been alleged in his indictment. MaldonadoHernandez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which
No. 01-11534 

-2-

charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues

that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Maldonado-Hernandez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in

the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s

judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The

motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need

not file an appellee’s brief. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY

AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

EDDIE RAY GRAY,

Petitioner

v.

JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

BERNADETTE MASON, FACILITY 

MANAGER OF SCI MAHANOY, JOSHUA 

SHAPIRO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

PENNSYLVANIA, WARREN COUNTY 

COMMON PLEAS JUDGMENTS OF 

SENTENCES AT: CP-62-CR-0000264-2012 

AND CP-62-CR-0000080-2013,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 47 WM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2020, the “Emergency Motion Seeking Release 

from Respondent[’]s Custody” and the “Motion to Expedite King’s Bench Proceedings” 

are DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CALVIN JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (3:93-cr-0007-RLW-6)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 5, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Neil H. MacBride, United 

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Johnson appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion in which he challenged a prior order denying 

relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Johnson, No. 3:93-cr-0007-RLW-6 (E.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2009). 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

      In connection with the Annual Report of Central Parking Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
Monroe J. Carell, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                           /s/ MONROE J. CARELL, JR.
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Monroe J. Carell, Jr.
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

      A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS
BEEN PROVIDED TO CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CENTRAL
PARKING CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR
ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in
such filing. This certification is executed as of December 14, 2004.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Kam Shah, Chief Accounting Officer of WebTradex International Corporation (the "Company"), 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) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.







/s/ Kam Shah


Kam Shah


Chief Accounting Officer


Date: August 16, 2010








This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


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 required by Section 906, 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.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6021]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

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


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Cooperative Manufacturing 
Arrangements for Licensed Biologics

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f49d9895da999d8e8695979c9db4929095da9c9c87da939b82"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="335a5f521d5e5a494152505b5a735557521d5b5b401d545c45">[email protected]</span></a>.

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
09/12/2012 14:46 9072765291 HOZUBIN&MOBERLY 

LAWOFl'lCEOF 

HOZUBIN 

&MOBERLY 

310 K STRJ:m', SUITE 4.05 

ANOIORACF. AK 9MOI 

TEL• (11(17) 2'1'U297 

l'AX: (.\107) 27~>-S2tH 

u.s. 

In the Matter of: 

'I'GI FREXGHT 

PAGE 02 

. ::;i~~~;;.~3-1}1ENT OF 

.· . , , :ls~l:uBfA TION 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT!dN\i~: I OPERATIONS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC ll 2: Qq 

) 

) 

)FAA Pocket No. CP10NM0012 

)DMS NO. FAA-2010-1079 _____________________________ )Judge RICHARD C. GOODWIN 

NOTICE OF fNTENT RE EVIDENCE RULE 404(b) (2) 

TGI Freight, through counsel, the Law Office of Hozubin & 

Moberly, hereby notifies the Court that it intends to elicit 

testimony from one of the FAA's proposed witnesses, Kathy 

Poitras, a representative of Unitex, who may be subject to 

Evidence Rule 404. While Evidence Rule 404(b) (2) requires that 

application be made in a criminal matter, and this is not a 

criminal proceeding, TGI is filing this notice as a cautionary 

measure. 

. r· 

DATED this ~day of September 2012. 

By: 

LAW OFFICE OF HOZUBIN & MOBERLY 

Attorneys for TGI Freight 
~~/12/2012 14:45 9072755291 HOZUBIN&MOBERLY 

I..A.WOfl'ICEOI? 

HOZUBIN 

&MOBERLY 

3W I( S'O.t,F.ET1 5UirE 40$ 

ANO.ORAGE, AK 99501 

TE.L: (D07) %7$.'1;297 

fAX: QJ07) :27~291 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certi!y that on the 

~day of September, 2012, a true 

and correct copy of the foregoing 

was served on the following: 

Oriqinal Plus 1 Copy-VIA Facsimile Only 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, OC 20591 

Attn; Hearin9 Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 

(202) 493-5123 - fax 

.1 Copx=ViA Facsimi~e 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

u.s. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

(202) 366-7536 - fax 

One Copy-VIA Facsimile 

Howard L. Martin, Jr. 

Regional Counsel, Office of Reg~onal Counsel, AAL-7 

Alaska Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West 7th Avenue #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

(907) 271-2800 ~fax 

.one Copy:-VIA. Facsi:w..il.a 

Cheryl M. Jones, Sr. Attorney 

Office o£ Regional Counsel 

Alaska Re9ion 

federal Aviation Administration 

222 West 7t'll Avenue # 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

(907)271-2800- fax 

9A00/242/trial/Notice of ~n~ent re 404(b) (2) 

NOTICE 

In the Matter of TGI Freight 

OoQket No. CP10NM0012 

Page 2 

PAGE 03
## RECORD OF CONVERSTION

**JACKSONVILLE UNIVERSITY EXEMPTION REQUEST**

**FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0064**

**From:** Lundgren, Douglas (FAA) **Sent:** Thursday, July 30, 2015 2:48 PM **To:** 'mwillet@ju.edu' **Subject:** Request for additional information regarding Jacksonville University petition for exemption FAA 2014 - 0064 Dear Captain Willett: I am a technical specialist assigned to perform part of the analysis for the Jacksonville University (JU) exemption request for the 14CFR 61.160 requirement for an institution of higher education that desires to hold a Letter of Authorization to hold its own Part 141 pilot school certificate. Let me apologize on behalf of the agency for the time it has taken to process JU’s petition. We would like to request the following additional information which would help us in our deliberations: 1) A copy of the most current JU

-Aeros im training agreement. (The one on file uses the names Comair Academy and Delta Connection Academy) 2) Any available details as to how JU controls the content and curriculum of what is taught in the Part 141 ground school classes. (The training agreement ha s some information on this) 3) A description of the JU operational safety program, how it oversees the part 141 school, and the safety record for Aerosim at Craig Field, if available. 4) An update on how many graduates would benefit from the issuance of an exemp tion to 14CFR section 61.160. We understand that JU has applied for a Part 141 pilot school certificate with the Orlando FSDO in January 2015. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this request. Sincerely, Douglas J. Lundgren Aviation Safety Insp ector Airman Certification and Training Branch AFS

- 810 Federal Aviation Administration HQ 800 Independence Avenue Washington, DC 20591 Douglas.lundgren@faa.gov Wash FSDO office: 703

- 230
- 7664 ext 274 (rolls to telework number) Telework: 240

- 422
- 7007