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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J., at suppression hearing, jury *284trial and sentence), rendered June 1, 1989, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of *2Vi*to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was found guilty after trial of breaking into a flower shop and removing some dolls, after the shop had been burglarized earlier in the evening. The area was known for its high incidence of storefront burglaries. At the suppression hearing Officer Eiden testified that when he accosted defendant in the deserted commercial district in the early morning hours, defendant was carrying an open cardboard box which, after inquiry, defendant replied contained items he had found in the garbage. With defendant’s permission, Eiden looked inside and found new merchandise bearing price tags, one of which was still attached to a display stand. Eiden then asked defendant to lead him back to where the merchandise had been found. When defendant said that he could not, Eiden placed him under arrest.

Defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence was properly denied. The officer was justified in approaching defendant to make inquiry. *(People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 213.) The subsequent examination of the box was based on defendant’s voluntary consent. The exchange between the officer and defendant, as noted by the hearing court, was marked by cooperation, and we find no suggestion of intimidation or forceful detention on the record.

The trial court’s error to give a CJI charge on circumstantial evidence was harmless, although the CJI charge is preferable. Under the circumstances presented, the jury could not have mistakenly believed that there was direct evidence of the burglary. The point is clear from the evidence, and defense counsel emphasized it in his summation. By the same token, the court’s charge made clear the rule that defendant could not be found guilty unless the inference of his guilt was "inevitable”. Moreover, defendant, on appeal, has abandoned the claim, pressed at trial, that the court was required to charge the jury that to convict, the evidence must exclude innocence to a "moral certainty”.

We have considered defendant’s remaining claim and find it to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
|                                                                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                                     
|U.S. Federal Offshore Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                                                     
|U.S. Federal Offshore Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 71     | 34     | 13     | 135   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 2      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
UNDER SECTION 906




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Fortress International Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:




The
Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-K”) of the
Company 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 Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Dated: March
      31, 2009
                /s/ Thomas P. RosatoThomas
      P. RosatoChief
      Executive Officer[Principal
      Executive Officer]Dated:
      March 31, 2009
                /s/ Timothy C. DecTimothy
      C. DecChief
      Financial Officer[Principal
      Financial Officer]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4613 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Fluthiacet-methyl technical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Mr. SCHOCK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Fluthiacet-methyl 

technical. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLUTHIACET-METHYL TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4613 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Methyl[[2-chloro-4-fluoro5[(tetrahydro-3-oxo1H,3H- 

[1,3,4]thiadiazolo[3,4- 

a]pyridazin-1- 

ylidene)amino]phenyl]- 

thio]acetate (Fluthiacetmethyl technical) (CAS 

No. 117337–19–6) (provided for in subheading 

2934.99.15). ...................... 1.8% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (the Company) for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Emanuel Chirico, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(i)

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



(ii)

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



Dated:  June 9, 2009



|By:   | /s/ Emanuel Chirico                                  | 
|----- | ---------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: | Emanuel Chirico
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer | 



A signed original 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0660

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JOSHUA DUANE WOLFBLACK, 

Defendant and Appellant, 

ORDER

Following entry of this Court’s August 6, 2024 Opinion vacating 

the Appellant revocation sentence, Joshua Wolfblack has moved for 

immediate remittitur. Mr. Wolfblack’s attorney Pete Wood represents 

that the State of Montana does not oppose this motion. Good cause 

appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that remittitur shall issue immediately.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 8 2024

08/08/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0660
#### Ansonia Associates, Appellant, v Mary Costa, Respondent.

Motion for renewal of this court’s order (163 AD2d 103) entered on July 10, 1990 granted and, upon renewal, the memorandum decision accompanying said order is recalled and vacated, and the following memorandum substituted therefor:

Order and memorandum decision of this court, entered July 10, 1990 (163 AD2d 103, *supra), inter alia,*affirming an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, Jr., J.), upon the ground that plaintiff-appellant Ansonia Associates had failed to provide notice pursuant to New York City Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2523.5 (a); § 2524.2 (a), (b), (c) (2) vacated and the order of the Supreme Court is unanimously affirmed, with costs.

When on March 2, 1987 Ansonia Associates commenced this action in Supreme Court for, *inter alia,*a declaratory judg*135ment as to defendant-respondent’s primary tenancy, there were pending in the Civil Court three summary proceedings relating to that tenancy.

The order dismissing the complaint is affirmed for the reasons set forth in our memorandum decisions in *Ansonia Assocs. v Consiglio*(163 AD2d 98) and *Ansonia Assocs. v Rosenberg*(163 AD2d 101). In these cases we held that the action for declaratory judgment was not a legally ripe controversy due to the pendency of Civil Court proceedings which could be dispositive of the issue. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
#### ROBERSON v. STATE.

No. 24083.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1948.

No attorney for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is burglary. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for life.

The indictment in this case charged appellant with the offense of burglary and in addition thereto charged two prior convictions of like offenses, to-wit: burglary.

The record is before us without any bills of exception or any objections to the court’s charge. The evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction of the primary offense and also as to the two prior convictions for like offenses.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
| **GENERAL Warehousing and Distribution (Details) - USD ($) $ in Millions** | 3 Months Ended | 6 Months Ended |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------|
||
| **Warehousing and Distribution [Line Items]**                              |           |           |   |   |
| Warehousing and Distribution Expense                                       | $ 53.2         | $ 61.8         | $ 110.7 | $ 126.4 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Warehousing and Distribution Expense
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**pvh_WarehousingandDistributionExpense**Namespace Prefix:**pvh_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
[Line Items] for Warehousing and Distribution [Table]
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**pvh_WarehousingandDistributionLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**pvh_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)               
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History: Annual                                         
|View History:                                                
|                                                             
|Wyoming Shale Proved Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                             
|                                                             
|Wyoming Shale Proved Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 219    | 106    | 246    | 94     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
**EXHIBIT
      10.1**














**Auditor’s
      Consent**





**Statement
      by Experts**






1






**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**







We
      consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” and to the use
      of our report dated April 19, 2007, in the Form 20-F: Annual Report dated June
      20, 2007, Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act
      of
      1934, of Poly-Pacific International Inc. for the registration of 25,237,740
      shares of its common stock.







“Collins Barrow Edmonton
              LLP” Edmonton,
                Alberta
            Signed


June
                28, 2007
            Chartered
                Accountants






2
| Subsidiary                                   | Country      of Incorporation |
|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Ailuk      Shipping Company Inc.             | Marshall      Islands         |
| Bikini      Shipping Company Inc.            | Marshall      Islands         |
| Eniwetok      Shipping Company Inc.          | Marshall      Islands         |
| Jaluit      Shipping Company Inc.            | Marshall      Islands         |
| Kili      Shipping Company Inc.              | Marshall      Islands         |
| Knox      Shipping Company Inc.              | Marshall      Islands         |
| Lib      Shipping Company Inc.               | Marshall      Islands         |
| Majuro      Shipping Company Inc.            | Marshall      Islands         |
| Taka      Shipping Company Inc.              | Marshall      Islands         |
| Husky      Trading, S.A.                     | Panama                        |
| Buenos      Aires Compania Armadora S.A.     | Panama                        |
| Cerada      International S.A.               | Panama                        |
| Changame      Compania Armadora S.A.         | Panama                        |
| Chorrera      Compania Armadora S.A.         | Panama                        |
| Cypres      Enterprises Corp.                | Panama                        |
| Darien      Compania Armadora S.A.           | Panama                        |
| Diana      Shipping Services S.A.            | Panama                        |
| Eaton      Marine S.A.                       | Panama                        |
| Panama      Compania Armadora S.A.           | Panama                        |
| Skyvan      Shipping Company S.A.            | Panama                        |
| Texford      Maritime S.A.                   | Panama                        |
| Urbina      Bay Trading, S.A.                | Panama                        |
| Vesta      Commercial, S.A.                  | Panama                        |
| Marfort      Navigation Company Limited      | Cyprus                        |
| Silver      Chandra Shipping Company Limited | Cyprus                        |
| Bulk      Carriers (USA) LLC                 | United      States (Delaware) |
#### FINNEY v. DEWEESE et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 17, 1952.

Hubert Meredith, Owensboro, for appellant.

William H. Natcher, Bowling Green, for appellees.

CAMMACK; Chief Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment holding that Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Deweese had a prescriptive right tO' a roadway across the land of Miss Bessie Finney. It is Miss Finney’s contention that the Deweeses are entitled only to a permissive use of the roadway. The evidence established that the roadway has been used by the appel-lees and their predecessors in title for over 50 years. In support of her contention that the use of the roadway was permissive, Miss Finney and her sister testified that, about 1926, their mother had given members of the Deweese family permission to use it. The appellees denied that any permission had been given to use the way.

As said in Haynes v. Dennis, 308 Ky. 483, 214 S.W.2d 1005, there is a presumption of a grant of a right of way by prescription following an uninterrupted, unexplained, adverse use of the way, and it is incumbent on the landowner to show that the use was merely permissive. Under such circumstances the party claiming *7the prescriptive right may sustain his claim by the introduction of only slight evidence. In the case before us there was sharp contradiction in the testimony as to the permissive use of the way, even after 1926. Under the circumstances, we think the case falls clearly within the rule expressed in the Haynes case.

Judgment affirmed.
#### RESTMEYER v. STATE.

No. 26966.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 28, 1954.

*423No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This purports to be an appeal from a conviction for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated upon a public highway, with punishment assessed at a fine of $50 and ten days in jail. .

The record before us does not reflect that a notice of appeal was given and entered of record, as required by Art. 827, C.C.P.

In the absence of a notice of appeal the jurisdiction of this court does not attach.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24714]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Contract Audit Agency


Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records

AGENCY: Defense Contract Audit Agency

ACTION: Notice to Delete a Record System

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Contract Audit Agency is deleteing a system of 
records notice in its inventory of record systems subject to the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: The actions will be effective on October 27, 2000 unless 
comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Defense Contract Audit Agency, Information 
and Privacy Advisor, CMR, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2135, Fort 
Belvoir, VA 22060-6219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dave Henshall at (703) 767-1005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Contract Audit Agency notices 
for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address above.
    The proposed action is not within the purview of subsection (r) of 
the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which would require the 
submission of a new or altered system report for each system.
RDCAA 160.5

System name:
    Travel Orders (August 3, 2000, 65 FR 48221).
    Reason: These records are now being maintained under the 
government-wide Privacy Act system of records notice GSA/Govt-4, 
Contracted Travel Services Program.

    Dated: September 20, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-24714 Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-F