alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1327 KA 12-00814 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANIEL J. BOYDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

WILLIAMS, HEINL, MOODY & BUSCHMAN, P.C., AUBURN (MARIO J. GUTIERREZ OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered March 20, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree (two counts) and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, two counts of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]) in connection with an altercation with deputies at the Cayuga County Jail and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, robbery in the first degree (§ 160.15 [3]) in connection with his robbery of a convenience store. Defendant pleaded guilty to all counts of the two indictments in exchange for a sentence promise of concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision. By failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction in each appeal, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention in each appeal that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered ( see People v Toxey
, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Theall
, 109 AD3d 1107, 1107). In any event, defendant’s contention is belied by the record of the plea proceeding in each appeal ( see People v Weakfall , 108 AD3d 1115, 1115, lv denied 21 NY3d 1078). The bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh and severe.

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS 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 E Com Ventures, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 3, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Katz, Chief Executive Officer and President 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, to my 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Michael W. KatzMichael W. KatzPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 26, 2007
# C_2011340EN.01001602.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Representation of a loudspeaker)

(Case T-508/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Representation of a loudspeaker - Compliance by OHIM with a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Article 63(6) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(6) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods - Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2011/C 340/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bang & Olufsen A/S (Struer, Denmark) (represented: initially by K. Wallberg and subsequently by J. Glaesel, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and G. Schneider, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2008 (Case R 497/2005-1), concerning an application to register a three-dimensional sign representing a loudspeaker as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bang & Olufsen A/S to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bang & Olufsen A/S to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

1

---
**Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 – Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission**

**(Case T-481/07)**

State aid – System of aid granted by the Belgian authorities in support of inter-modal transport by inland waterways – Decision of the Commission not to object – Action for annulment brought by associations representing the interests of undertakings established in the port area of Rotterdam
– Absence of any significant effect on a competitive position – Manifest inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market – Action brought by an association of undertakings – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 32-33, 36-39, 42-43, 48-49)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2007) 1939 final of 10 May 2007 not to object, following the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 88(3) EC, to the system of aid envisaged by the Vlaams Gewest (Flemish Region, Belgium) in support of inter-modal transport via inland waterways (State aid N 682/2006 – Belgium). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Deltaqings and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereninging Rotterdam are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Vlaams Gewest and Waterwegen en Zeekanaal NV are ordered to bear their own costs. |
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  Lord, You have given us a world full of rich resources. Make us 
responsible stewards of Your generous gifts. Help us to remember that 
to whom much is given, much is expected.
  May our accountability to You guide the choices our lawmakers make as 
they seek to serve You and country today. Lord, fill their minds with 
wisdom and their hearts with hope so they will believe all things are 
possible with You. Open their minds to the inflow of Your spirit to 
prepare them for the decisions they must make this day.
  We pray in Your great Name. Amen.

                          ____________________
```
Appendix B

 

February 11, 2015

Dave Akers

AviTronics Integrated Solutions, LLC

P.O. Box 1644

Rockwall, TX 75087

Re: Orange, Texas Landfill Orthorectified Imaging

Dear Mr. Akers,

As previously discussed, Technical Applications and Consulting, LLC has been retained to provide 

airborne data acquisition in support of Orange Landfill’s future planning in Orange, Texas. Orange 

Landfill’s planning initiative is an effort to minimize an environmental impact to surrounding 

communities and water sources during landfill expansion. The data acquisition we can collect will be 

instrumental to a safe and efficient expansion by providing critical information for engineers such as 

topographical analytics, watershed modeling, and georectified images. This imagery is time sensitive as 

it must be collected in leaf-off conditions within the next 45 days to acquire usable data that meets 

engineering requirements. 

We explored several appropriate resources for this collection such as fixed winged and rotary winged 

survey aircraft, emerging UAS technology and ground surveying to determine the most optimal way to

satisfy the planning requirements. In review of these resources we believe that a light UAS would be a 

safe and effective alternative for this location. Considering it’s a relatively small area of approximately 

780 acres it is cost prohibitive to use fixed or rotary winged survey aircraft. Furthermore the UAS will 

allow for lower operational altitudes that increases the image quality and clarity. Leveraging its 

capabilities and efficiency, the UAS can also provide a level of quality and precision that traditional 

ground surveying cannot. The high quality imagery collected in a short period of time by this resource

will provide the most ideal data to assist in engineering efforts in a timely manner.

All in all, the quality and accuracy of this data collection is extremely important due to the fact that the 

expansion of this landfill, if not done correctly, could adversely affect the environment and surrounding 

communities. Ultimately the UAS is the best option considering its ability to collect the level of data 

needed for a project of this caliber in the time given to retrieve it. It can provide a service to the Orange 

Landfill expansion project that no other technology is capable of providing. 

Please contact me if you need any additional information, I can be reached at 785.806.9542 or 

tblocker@tac-av.com. 

Respectfully,

Tracy Blocker

Technical Applications & Consulting, LLC
Appendix B

 

Orange Landfill Overview 30’ 17’14.70”N 93’34’ 24.40” W
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Report of Voyager One, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
John Lichter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Sebastien C, DuFort,
Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company up to 9/1/06, 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

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


                               By /s/ John Lichter
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  John Lichter, Chief Executive Officer
                                  Date: 11/16/06


                               By /s/ Sebastien C. DuFort
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Sebastien C. DuFort
                                    President
                                  Acting Chief Financial Officer up to 9/1/06
                                  Date: 11/16/06
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, Ralph Peterson, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (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:





This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 25, 2010 , 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





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





Date: August 9, 2010





/s/ Ralph PetersonRalph PetersonChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2





                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002



This certification is provided pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K
(the "Form 10-K")for the year ended June 30, 2003 of Craftmade International,
Inc. (the "Company").

I, Kathleen B. Oher, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company certify that, to my knowledge:

         1.       the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of
                  1934; and

         3.       the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
                  presented in the Form 10-K


September 29, 2003                                   /s/ Kathleen B. Oher
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Kathleen B. Oher
                                                     Vice President and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K
pursuant to Item 601(b) (32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-K.











                                      -27-
# C_2010024EN.01005202.xml

| 30.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/52

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — EREF v Commission

(Case T-40/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 24/92

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Kahn and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2007) 4323 final of 25 September 2007 concerning the measure C 45/2006 implemented by France in the context of the construction by Areva NP of a nuclear power plant for Teollisuuden Voima Oy.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission of the European Communities;

| 3. | It is not necessary to decide on the applications for leave to intervene brought by the French Republic, the Republic of Finland, Greenpeace France and Greenpeace Nordic. |
| --- | --- |

3.

It is not necessary to decide on the applications for leave to intervene brought by the French Republic, the Republic of Finland, Greenpeace France and Greenpeace Nordic.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2640
KATHRYN M. WEHUNT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-7-H) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kathryn M. Wehunt, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Jeffrey Magid, MarkChristopher Kopec, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's adverse order granting summary judgment in her action filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12117 (West 1995). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Ennis v. National Ass'n of Bus. & Educ. Radio, 53 F.3d 55, 58 (4th Cir. 1995). Moreover, we find that the district court's assessment against Appellant of the reasonablecost of the preparation of the employer's successful summary judgment motion was not an abuse of the court's discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (1994); Oak Hall Cap and Gown Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. , 899 F.2d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 1990). 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7185
CHARLES FREDERICK CRAWLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-326-AM) Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: April 19, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Frederick Crawley, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Crawley v. Angelone , No. CA-95-326-AM (E.D. Va. July 12, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2008064EN.01006801.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/68

---

Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

(Case F-1/08)

(2008/C 64/111)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bart Nijs (Béreldange, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Defendant:

The subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Firstly, annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee not to promote the applicant to Grade A*11 in the 2005 promotion year and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the applicant's 2005/06 evaluation report, including Decision No 1/2007 of the Appeals Committee to confirm that report, received by the applicant on 2 March 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicant's 2005/06 evaluation report, including Decision No 1/2007 of the Appeals Committee to confirm that report, received by the applicant on 2 March 2007;

| — | annul the connected and subsequent decisions, in particular the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the connected and subsequent decisions, in particular the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in 2007;

| — | annul the decision of the restrictive meeting of the Court of Auditors of 8 March 2007 to renew the term of office of Mr Michel Hervé from 1 July 2007 for a period of six years; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the restrictive meeting of the Court of Auditors of 8 March 2007 to renew the term of office of Mr Michel Hervé from 1 July 2007 for a period of six years;

| — | order the Court of Auditors to make good the non-material damage suffered of EUR 10 000 and to make good the material damage, consisting of the difference between the salary received by the applicant since the effective date of the last promotion decisions, announced on 3 April 2007, and that to which he would have been entitled had he been promoted on the effective date of those decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Auditors to make good the non-material damage suffered of EUR 10 000 and to make good the material damage, consisting of the difference between the salary received by the applicant since the effective date of the last promotion decisions, announced on 3 April 2007, and that to which he would have been entitled had he been promoted on the effective date of those decisions;

| — | order the European Court of Auditors to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

---
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

JULY 21, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b). 

1. Case No. SD33521 

 Re: BILLIEJO CHRISTY, 

 Claimant-Appellant, 

 vs. 

 MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY, 

 Employer-Respondent.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-0354

_____________________________

JOSEPH W. ATKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

August 22, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Joseph W. Atkins, pro se, Petitioner.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

09/04

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Sep 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.50 N 76.81 W Meters AGL