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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), *580rendered January 25, 1990, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree (two counts), 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. 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.

On April 6, 1987, the defendant’s brother was murdered. At the time of his death, the deceased was involved in divorce proceedings with his wife and this caused some acrimony between the deceased’s family and his wife’s family. The two leading suspects in the murder of the defendant’s brother were the father and brother-in-law of the wife of the defendant’s brother, but there was not enough evidence to justify their arrests. Frustrated with the failure of the authorities to effect an arrest for the murder of his brother, the defendant in April 1988 conspired with his own brother-in-law, David Simon, to murder the father of the deceased’s wife. Later, in June 1988 the defendant and Simon added the brother-in-law of the deceased’s wife to the list of potential victims, agreeing that "if they [the victims] could both be taken down together then that would be good”. The most damning piece of evidence against the defendant was a tape-recorded conversation between him and Simon, who had previously been arrested and had agreed to wear a recording device. That conversation revealed the details of the plans which involved hiring two hitmen engaged by Simon. (The hitmen were, in fact, two undercover police officers.) Therefore, contrary to the defendant’s specific contention, there was ample evidence in the record of the defendant’s guilt, notwithstanding the defendant’s attack on Simon’s reputation as a thief and a "con artist”.

We also find that the defendant was properly charged with and convicted of two separate counts of conspiracy since the evidence revealed that the original conspiracy concerned only one victim, and there was a later criminal agreement which concerned a second intended victim *(cf., People v Okafore,*72 NY2d 81, 89-90).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.
Order entered September 1 5 , 2020

In t he 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00432 - CR No. 05 - 20 - 0043 4 - CR EDGAR FABIAN VASQUEZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee O n Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366 - 80176 - 2018

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s September 11, 2020 second motion for extension of time to file his brief . We GRANT the motion and ORDER appell ant’s brief in these causes due on October 12, 2020.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
World Air Holdings, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-115814, No. 333-33704, No. 333-33706 and No. 333-14457) on Form S-8 and
registration statements (No. 333-35054, No. 333-46406, No. 333-113135 and No.
333-114277) on Form S-3 of World Air Holdings, Inc. of our report dated February
16, 2005, except as to Note 5, which is as of March 22, 2005, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of World Air Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficiency), and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which report
appears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of World Air
Holdings, Inc.

KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 31, 2005
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1










                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 of ARV Assisted Living, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2002 relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of ARV Assisted Living, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears in the December
31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of ARV Assisted Living, Inc.


                                                         /s/ KPMG LLP




Orange County, California
March 29, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

JAMES EDWARD HILLIARD.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00179-CR

Appeal from the

210th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20190D00815 and 20220D02996)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2023.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
| Subsidiary                                                                  | Jurisdiction      of Organization     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Hartcourt      Capital, Inc.                                                     | British      Virgin Island            |
| Hartcourt      China, Inc.                                                       | British      Virgin Island            |
| Ai-Asia,      Inc.                                                               | British      Virgin Island            |
| Hartcourt      Hi-Tech Investment (Shanghai) Co., Ltd                            | People’s      Republic of China |
| Hartcourt      Education Investment Management Consulting (Shanghai) Co.,    Ltd | People’s      Republic of China |
| Hartcourt      Princely Education Technology Development (Beijing) Co.,    Ltd   | People’s      Republic of China |
| Shanghai      Jiumeng Information Technology Co., Ltd                            | People’s      Republic of China |
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  Quarterly  Report  of  Zandaria  Ventures  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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


Date:  February 11, 2008


/s/ Jason Smart
-----------------------------------
Jason Smart, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)




-------------------
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.
# American Red Cross Month, 2012 

After more than 130 years of providing humanitarian relief at home and abroad, the American Red Cross remains a reflection of the compassion and generosity central to our national identity. At moments of profound need, the actions of men and women across our country reflect our noblest ideals of service—from search-and-rescue teams that brave disaster zones to ordinary citizens who deliver not only lifesaving care and supplies, but also hope for a brighter tomorrow. During American Red Cross Month, we pay tribute to all those whose dedication to relieving human suffering illuminates even our darkest hours. 

A visionary humanitarian and unyielding advocate for those in need, Clara Barton founded the American Red Cross in 1881 after many years of tending to soldiers and families injured in war’s wake. In the generations that followed, the American Red Cross served as a force for peace and recovery during times of crisis. Presidents of the United States have called upon the American Red Cross time and again, beginning when President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed Red Cross Week during the First World War, and continuing into the 21st century. 

Today, emergency response organizations like the American Red Cross continue to play a vital role in responding to disasters that cast countless lives and communities into harm’s way. When devastating storms struck cities spanning the Midwest to the Eastern Seaboard this past year, the American Red Cross and other relief organizations were instrumental partners in preparedness, response, and recovery. And when a devastating earthquake shook Japan’s Pacific coast, they answered by extending support to the people of Japan and standing with them as they rebuild. 

We are reminded in times like these that the strength of our humanitarian response and the measure of our resilience are drawn not only from the committed action of relief organizations, but also from individuals who step forward, volunteer, or give what they can to help their neighbors in need. With generous spirits and can-do attitudes, Americans from every corner of our country have come together again and again to show the true character of our Nation. As we celebrate American Red Cross Month, let us resolve to preserve and renew that humanitarian impulse to save, to serve, and to build, and carry it forward in the year to come. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America and Honorary Chairman of the American Red Cross, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 2012 as American Red Cross Month. I encourage all Americans to observe this month with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities, and by supporting the work of service and relief organizations. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth. 

[FR Doc. 2012-5553

Billing code 3295-F2-P
# L_2006144EN.01000601.xml

| 31.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 144/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 144/6

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 799/2006

of 30 May 2006

amending Regulation (EC) No 1168/2005 as regards the quantity covered by the standing invitation to tender for the resale on the Community market of maize held by the Austrian intervention agency

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1168/2005 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the Community market of 121 525 tonnes of maize held by the Austrian intervention agency. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1168/2005 (2) opened a standing invitation to tender for the resale on the Community market of 121 525 tonnes of maize held by the Austrian intervention agency.

| (2) | Given the current market situation, the quantities of maize put up for sale by the Austrian intervention agency on the internal market should be increased, taking the permanent invitation to tender to 211 705 tonnes. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Given the current market situation, the quantities of maize put up for sale by the Austrian intervention agency on the internal market should be increased, taking the permanent invitation to tender to 211 705 tonnes.

| (3) | Regulation (EC) No 1168/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Regulation (EC) No 1168/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1168/2005 is hereby amended as follows:

| 1. | In Article 1, ‘121 525 tonnes’ is replaced by ‘211 705 tonnes’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

In Article 1, ‘121 525 tonnes’ is replaced by ‘211 705 tonnes’;

| 2. | In the title of the Annex, ‘121 525 tonnes’ is replaced by ‘211 705 tonnes’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the title of the Annex, ‘121 525 tonnes’ is replaced by ‘211 705 tonnes’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 May 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 188, 20.7.2005, p. 16. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2005 (OJ L 320, 18.12.2005, p. 25).

2

---
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 8
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 8
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 8
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 8
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 8
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSA SERRANO

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 190

- C R

Appeal from the

243 rd District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2017 0D0 0317 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’s third mot ion for extension of time within which to file

the brief until August 1 7 , 201 8

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE STATE ’S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza

, the State ’s attorney, prepare the

State ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before Augus t 1 7 , 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3 rd day of Ju ly , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 201 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the additional 

standard deduction for real property taxes for nonitemizers for 2010. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 12, 2009 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the additional standard deduction for real property taxes 

for nonitemizers for 2010. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ADDITIONAL STANDARD DE4 DUCTION FOR REAL PROPERTY TAXES FOR 

5 NONITEMIZERS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C) of section 

7 63(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘or 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2009, or 2010’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 201 IS

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

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Charles EWhite Jr 6818 - 

### 110th Street LubbockTexas 79424 August 6, 2015 U SDepartment ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Docket Management System 1200 NewJersey Ave SW Washington DC 20590 RE: Petition ofCharles Whitefor Exemption to Section 333 ofthe FAA Reform Act Gentlemen: Pursuantto Section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14CFR part 11, Charles White, an individual that intendsto preform aerial inspection and photography work in the agriculture, livestock, wildlife management and real estate promotions in Texas, Eastern New Mexico and Western Oklahoma area, herebyapplies for an exemption from FAR's to allow commercial operations ofsmall unmanned aerial vehicles "UAV". Charles White is proficient in both the flying and maintenance ofthe UAV in use and has completed over 

### 100flights in a safe manner. He also operates the UAV, A DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus, in strict accordance with all FAA guide line regarding No Fly zones and proper altitude limits. The UAV in use is less than 15 lbs. fully loaded, carries no pilot or passengers and is kept currentwith all updates as they are made available to insure safe flight and present no risk to the public. The UAV's battery operates for approximately 25 minutes and the UAV has an automatic return homefeature when the battery life reached 25%. The UAV carries nofuel or combustible material that would present ecological or human danger atall. The UAV has a top speed ofapproximately 25 mph and range of 1400 feet, and altitude limits of400 feet allowing a continuous line ofsight flight with the UAV. Atthis time a request and justification forthe exemption allowing commercial operation of a UAV is made. Should you require anyfurther information please contact;Charles White 6818 - 110th Street LubbockTexas79424 806-787-8811 cewjr59@att.net Sincerely,

Charles EWhiteJr
Exhibit 32.2

Section 906 Certification

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NCI, Inc. (the Company) for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, to the best of
her knowledge and belief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



|                  |  |                                                                              
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 9, 2006 |  | /s/ Judith L. Bjornaas                                                       
|                  |  | Judith L. Bjornaas                                                           
|                  |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NCI, Inc. and will be
retained by NCI, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

End of Filing



26
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Gervais, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered October 23, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant and his codefendant were charged with the forcible stealing of property from the two complaining witnesses. Both complainants had known the defendant for several years, and one complainant had in fact attended elementary school with the defendant. Both complainants testified that on December 6, 1983, the defendant produced a handgun, pointed it at them, and demanded that they remove their coats. This testimony was supported by that of a third eyewitness to the robbery. Both complainants surrendered their coats at gunpoint.

Shortly after the crime, both complainants notified the police that they had been robbed by the defendant, who was known to them as "Short Arm”. The record reflects that one of the defendant’s arm is, in fact, shorter than the other, thus explaining the derivation of his nickname. The defendant was also seen wearing one of the stolen coats after the incident; in fact, both complaining witnesses claim that several days after the crime, the defendant approached them and promised to return one of the complainant’s coats.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear a portion of a written statement which had been given by the complainant to the codefendant’s mother. The statement in question tends to exculpate the codefendant and to inculpate the defendant, and it was admitted into evidence on the motion of the codefendant’s attorney. The People concede that they had a copy of the statement, and failed to produce it prior to the prosecutor’s opening statement *(see,*CPL 240.45 [1]; *People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286, *cert denied*368 US 866). However, they correctly note that *729automatic reversal is not required for this reason, since the statement was in fact produced during the trial *(see, People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937).

The inculpatory portion of the statement constituted inadmissible hearsay. However, in light of the truly overwhelming quantity of evidence, the error in admitting this portion of the statement was harmless *(cf., People v Rice,*75 NY2d 929). This hearsay evidence may have bolstered the in-court identification of the complainant who authored the statement to some extent, but considering that both complainants knew the defendant, and were thus able to make iron-clad in-court identifications, which were confirmed by the in-court identification of a *third*eyewitness, we conclude that there was no significant probability that this error affected the verdict *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, to the extent that they are properly preserved for appellate review, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Lawrence, JJ., concur.