alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT, v. MORRIS WESLER AND WILLIAM TOMASH, APPELLANTS.

Argued November 1, 1948

Decided November 8, 1948.

*Mr. Harry Coulomb*argued the cause for the appellants. *(Messrs. Coulomb, McAllister & Hunter,*attorneys).

*Mr. David R. Brone*argued the cause for the respondent *(Mr. Lewis P. Scott,*Prosecutor of Atlantic County, attorney).

Per Curiam.

The judgments will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Case in the court below.

*For affirmance:*Chief Justice Vanderbilt and , Justices. Oliphant, Wacheneeld and Ackerson—4.

*For reversal:*Justice ITeher—1.
### -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

37 38 39 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/30 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL 

## ★

■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ● ● ● ● 

## ★ ● ● ● ●
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. POMPEO:
        H.R. 6345.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                CFI PROSERVICES, INC.
                         CALCULATIONS OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                       (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Year Ended December 31,
                                               ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1996                     1995                     1994
                                               ----------------------   ----------------------   ----------------------
                                               Primary  Fully Diluted   Primary  Fully Diluted   Primary  Fully Diluted
                                               ----------------------   ----------------------   ----------------------
<S>                                            <C>             <C>      <C>             <C>      <C>             <C>
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding
  For The Period                                 4,763          4,763     4,369          4,369     3,922          3,922

Dilutive Common Stock Options Using The
  Treasury Stock Method                            349            351       508            524       884            886
                                                ----------------------  ----------------------   ----------------------

Total Shares Used For Per Share Calculations     5,112          5,114     4,877          4,893     4,806          4,808

Net Income Applicable to Common Stock               17             17       226            226     3,417          3,417
                                                ----------------------  ----------------------   ----------------------

Net Income Per Common Share                     $    -         $    -   $  0.05         $ 0.05   $  0.71         $ 0.71
                                                ----------------------  ----------------------   ----------------------
                                                ----------------------  ----------------------   ----------------------
</TABLE>
# Workforce Education and Training - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Kinsey Walker The post Kinsey Walker appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Megan Robinson The post Megan Robinson appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Emela Chaudhri Director.The post Emela Chaudhri appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 99.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF

                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                                   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 Temporary  Financial  Services,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly  period ended June 30, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, John R.  Coghlan,  Principal  Executive  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ John R. Coghlan
-------------------------------
John R. Coghlan
Principal Executive Officer
July 16, 2003
#### Melvin Rosenkrantz, Plaintiff, *v.*Salvo Realty Corp. et al, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

January 21, 1971.

*Joseph D. Stim*for Salvo Realty Corp. and another, defendants. *Kanter, Blodnick <& Haber*for plaintiff. *Garfunkel & Hyde*for Roosevelt Savings Bank of the City of New York, defendant. *Leonard Maneusi*for Bonwit Teller, defendant.

Mabio Pittoni, J.

Motion by defendants Salvo Realty Corp. and Midas Collections, Inc., to dismiss the complaint, is granted.

*468Section 489 of the Judiciary Law does not make illegal an assignment of a mortgage which has already been foreclpsed by the original holder of the mortgage; nor does it make illegal an assignment of the judgment; nor does it make illegal an assignment of a mortgage and its note then in foreclosure to a corporation intending to continue the foreclosure.
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 23
                                   -----------

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



      As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the use
of our report dated June 8, 2001, on the consolidated financial statements of
Lucille Farms, Inc. and subsidiaries as at March 31, 2001 and for the year then
ended included in, or incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-90420 on Form S-3 and the related Prospectus.

                                              /s/Citrin Cooperman & Company, LLP
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              CITRIN COOPERMAN & COMPANY, LLP

June 26, 2001
New York, New York
**EXHIBIT        12.3**

 

**1350        CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor        Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Mark E. Jones, III, the Chief        Executive Officer of Brazauro Resources Corporation (the “Company”) hereby        certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

The Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended January        31, 2008, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “Periodic        Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and the information contained in the        Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the        Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations        of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report

 

 

| Dated: May 29, 2008 | /s/ Mark E. Jones, III

Mark E. Jones, III

Chief Executive Officer |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ANTEC CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES IN ANTEC CORPORATION'S
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,824
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,174
<INVENTORY>                                    119,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               220,496
<PP&E>                                          37,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 449,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,598
<BONDS>                                         86,387
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           385
<OTHER-SE>                                     295,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   449,060
<SALES>                                        244,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               244,296
<CGS>                                          184,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                78,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,818)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,677)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.39)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1376-E1377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                HONORING BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT PIONEERS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. E. SCOTT RIGELL

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Speaker, I arise today to recognize an important 
milestone in my community. On August 20, 2012, the Virginia Beach 
Police Department is hosting an event to honor Black Law Enforcement 
Pioneers from our area. Robert E.W. Sparrow, Mondoza Holloway, Clyde I. 
Siler, Alexander H. Woodhouse, Russell H. Lawrence, Charles Pace, 
Johnny E. Parks III, Warfield M. Wood and as many as 22 auxiliary 
police officers who patrolled Virginia Beach prior to 1969, will be 
honored for serving during a time when bigotry and racism ran rampant 
throughout our country. I want to thank these fine men for standing 
bravely in the face of hatred, and doing their jobs honorably. Because 
of men like these, America remains the greatest country in the world, 
where the bastions of liberty and freedom stand over those who wish to 
harm it. We can all learn from their outstanding character and 
commitment to doing what is right.

[[Page E1377]]

                          ____________________
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRANDON CLEMONS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1902

[March 29, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ernest A. Kollra, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-003154CF10A.

Brandon Clemons, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Len McRae, Appellant.

— Application by the defendant *pro se*for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this court, dated November 9, 1987, which determined an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered August 16, 1983 *(see, People v McRae,*134 AD2d 374), on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Upon the papers filed in support of the application and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. Contrary to the defendant’s specific contention, his appellate counsel did not disparage any of the claims that the defendant wished to raise on his appeal *(cf., People v Vasquez,*70 NY2d 1). Further, the defendant has not identified any argument which counsel could have but unreasonably failed to raise on the direct appeal *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Kunzeman and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000031 15-FEB-2018 10:05 AM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edgar RAYON-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40232

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 28, 2017

Paula Camille Offenhauser, Amy Howell Alaniz, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

This case was remanded by the United States Supreme Court for further consideration in light of *Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1562, 198 L.Ed.2d 22 (2017). Edgar Rayon-Gonzalez filed opposed motions to summarily vacate the district court judgment, remand for resentencing, and issue the mandate forthwith. We subsequently allowed the Government to file a response out of time. Thereafter,. we denied Rayon-Gonzalez’s motions and called for supplemental briefing.

After due consideration, we VACATE Rayon-Gonzalez’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing. The district court may consider all relevant factors on resentencing.
### \ "\ "V'O


### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONS 9991STH 

### STREET- SUITE 200

DENVER, CO S0202-2466 Phone SOO-227-S917 http://www.epa.gov/regionOS
Ref: 8P-AR 

# AUG 3 02006 Kirsten King Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department ofPublic Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Dr., South Denver, CO 80246-1530 RE: June 16, 2006 letter on Proposed Revisions to Regulation 1regarding Air Curtain Incinerators Dear Ms. King: Your letter dated June 16, 2006 provided Colorado's reasoning for removing infeasible performance standards for air curtain incinerators (also known as air curtain destructors) from Colorado's Regulation No.1. The letter also provided the State's analysis ofwhy removing the performance standards will notresult in backsliding. The performance standard in question is a grain loading standard provided in RegulationNo.1, Section III.B.2. For the first time, Air Curtain Incinerators (ACIs) will be subjectto this standard because the State is adopting 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts CCCC and EEEE regarding incinerators. ACIs are defined as incinerators within these CFR Subparts
..Regulation 1 requires performance testing against the grain loading standard for most incinerators in the State. The performance testing is infeasible for ACIs because ACls have no stack. Your letter reflects thatthe State only intends to exemptfrom the Regulation 1standard, ACIs subjectto 40 CFR Part 60. Your letter also indicates that air curtain destructors were not previously defined as incinerators, and thus, the Division never regulated them as incinerators under Section IILB ofRegulation 1. Based on our preliminary analysis, we agree with your reasoning on the infeasibility ofthe Regulation 1grain loading standard for air curtain incinerators and that the proposed changes will not result in "backsliding." Your analysis indicates that the changes do not represent a relaxation ofthe existing SIP because previously Regulation 1did not define, and the State did nottreat, air curtain destructors as incinerators. We caution, however, that this is only our preliminary reaction. Any final EPA action on the proposed changes to Regulation 1will only occur through rulemaking, following notice and comment. Should you have questions, please feel free to contact Mark Komp ofmy staffat 303 3126022.

__**§i~rely,** / 

### ,.

# ~H;1"'" Richard R. Long, Jrectoy/.·/ Air and Radiation**Progr~** /

......**~"** .."'

cc: Margo Griffin (Colorado APCD) @printedon RecycledPaper
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Telfer, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, motion granted and indictment dismissed. Memorandum: On a prior appeal, we remitted this matter to County Court for a hearing to determine whether defendant had standing to contest the legality of a search of the apartment where the contraband was found *(People v Telfer,*151 AD2d 1042). Following that hearing, County Court determined that defendant had no reasonable or constitutionally cognizable expectation of privacy and, therefore, no standing to seek suppression of the evidence seized in the search. On this appeal defendant contends that the hearing court erred in its ruling that he failed to establish standing to challenge the search of 535 Brown Street on August 7, 1987. We agree.

The determinative test of whether a person has standing to challenge the legality of a search is whether such person has *639asserted a "legitimate expectation of privacy” in the invaded place *(Rakas v Illinois,*439 US 128, 143; *People v Wesley,*73 NY2d 351, 354-357; *People v Rodriguez,*69 NY2d 159, 161-163). In considering whether the defendant may claim a "legitimate” privacy interest, a court must determine whether a claim of privacy "is reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances” *(Rakas v Illinois, supra,*at 152 [Powell, J., concurring]). Here, despite defendant’s illegal motives for being at the premises, defendant otherwise established that he was a daily occupant of the apartment, that he spent between 20 to 24 hours per day therein, that he took naps and ate meals there, that he had a key to the apartment, admitted other people and was present when the search was made. In our view, these factors were sufficient to establish that defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the apartment, and, thus, had standing to contest the search of the premises *(see, Minnesota v Olson,*495 US 91; *People v Rice,*168 AD2d 901).

Since, on the prior appeal *(see, People v Telfer, supra),*the People filed a statement pursuant to CPL 450.50 asserting that they are unable to proceed without using the evidence ordered suppressed, the indictment is dismissed. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Lowery, JJ.
JOH N A . SPRIN G

MAYO R 

## OFFIC E O FTH E MAYO R CITYOFQUINC Y

February11 , 201 1 

# FPARTKeTO f FE B n P^- - 3 4

Mr . Kevi n Schlemme r Unite d State s Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenu e S.E . Washington , D

C 2059 0 Dea rMr . Schlemmer : Afte rtalkin g wit h al l member s o f th e Cit yo f Quinc yAeronautic s Committe e the yhav e vote d unanimousl yt o suppor t th e recommendatio n o f Cap e Ai ran d it s Essentia l Ai rServic e proposa l providin g fo rsi x(6 ) dajl yflight s ove ra fou r(4 ) yea rcontrac t ter m wit h th e Cit yo f Quincy , Illinois . Th e Cit yo f Quinc yan d ou rresident s ar e extremel ysatisfie d wit h servic e tha t Cap e Ai rha s provide d sinc e Novembe r2009 . Ove r14,00 0 passenger s hav e flow n Cap e Ai rou t o f Quinc yt o St . Loui s an d St . Loui s t o Quincy . W e ar e anticipatin g thi s passenge rnumbe rwil l gro wt o ove r20,00 0 i n 2011 . Afte rman yyear s o f poo rservic e w e finall yhav e a committe d provider .

W e ar e ver yplease d tha t Cap e Air' s proposa l include s th e establishmen t o f a loca l ticke t offic e an d th e wonderfu l decisio n t o provid e groun d shuttl e transportatio n fo rCap e Ai rpassenger s t o th e Eas t Termina l i n St . Louis . Bein g abl e t o mov e thes e passenger s tha t hav e alread ybee n throug h securit yt o th e othe rtermina l wil l prov e t o b e a n outstandin g service . I woul d recommen d tha t Cap e Air' s ne wcontrac t an d EA S subsid yreques t b e pu t int o effec t as soo n as possibl e s o thes e ne wservice s ca n b e starte d withou t delay .

Durin g th e pas t thirtee n month s tha t Cap e Ai rha s bee n servin g th e Quinc yRegiona l Airpor t w e hav e witnesse d a renewe d confidenc e wit h ou rbusines s an d travelin g community . Cap e Ai rha s brough t th e regio n a qualit yan d affordabl e servic e t o th e nationa l ai rtransportatio n system . Than k yo u fo rthi s opportunit yt o suppor t th e continuatio n o f Cap e Ai ras ou rregiona l carrier . Sincerely ,

^^^ ^ Joh n A . Sprin g Mayo r JAS : ji h

Printe d o n Recycle d Pape r
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT KENNETH LEE BROWN, JR.,

Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-911 March 27, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Stephen Mathew Whyte, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PEDRO LOPEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00239

- C R

Appeal from the

120 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20130D05658 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’s fourth motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until May 26 , 201 7

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE APPELLANT ’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Louis Elias Lopez, Jr.

, Appellant’ s attorney,

prepare the Appellant ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before May 26 , 201 7

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of April , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McCl ure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox , JJ.