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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. He contends on appeal that the police had no probable cause to stop the car that he was operating because the stop was based upon a "questionable” search of the hotel rooms occupied by *981another occupant of the car and not, as found by the suppression court, upon police knowledge of an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest. From our review of the testimony at the suppression hearing, we conclude that there is support in the record for the court’s determination that the police had probable cause to stop the vehicle and that the defendant was lawfully searched incident to his arrest on the outstanding bench warrant *(see,*CPL 120.80; *People v Erwin,*42 NY2d 1064, 1065; *People v Alexander,*156 AD2d 968). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — attempted criminal possession of controlled substance, fifth degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,438
<SECURITIES>                                     1,107
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                       688
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,642
<PP&E>                                           3,464
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,760
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,658
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,299
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,760
<SALES>                                          1,359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,667
<CGS>                                               96
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,587
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,959)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,959)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,959)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,149]

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on October 2, 2000 in response to a worker petition which was filed by the company on behalf of workers at Plum Creek Timber, Pablo, Montana.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 2nd day of November, 2000.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-30625  Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### BRUCE v. STATE.

No. 20195.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 22, 1939.

H. F. Grindstaff, of Rotan, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for simple assault. Punishment assessed is a fine of $25.

*305An examination of the record fails to show that notice of appeal was given as required by law. Such is necessary to give this court jurisdiction. See Branch’s Ann. P.C., Sec. 588, p. 302, and the many cases there cited.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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.,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001011701
<NAME> RIFKIN ACQUISITION CAPITAL CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,694
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                       283
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         172,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 310,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        225,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   286,218
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,584
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,715
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   471
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,324)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,239)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,085)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   112
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,197)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The amount shown for current assets and current liabilities is
zero due to an unclassified balance sheet in the financial
statements.
</FN>



</TABLE>
#### Janet E. Meliani, Respondent, v Jeffrey Meliani, Also Known as Aziz Meliani, Appellant. Jeffrey Meliani, Also Known as Aziz Meliani, Petitioner, v Janet E. Meliani, Respondent.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered February 7, 1989, which granted plaintiff’s motion to remove and consolidate a custody proceeding pending in Family Court with an action for divorce, pending in Supreme Court, and which awarded plaintiff temporary custody of the parties’ infant child, interim child support, interim maintenance, arrears and interim counsel fees, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

Defendant commenced a custody proceeding in Family Court after plaintiff had taken the parties’ child to live with *370her parents in Texas. Plaintiff subsequently commenced an action for divorce and other relief in Supreme Court. The two actions were later consolidated. Final judgment of divorce incorporating the terms of the stipulation was entered on July 11, 1990. No appeal was taken from the judgment. Because the judgment was not appealed, the issues raised in this appeal are moot and the appeal must be dismissed *(see, Newton-Abbott Volunteer Fire Co. v American Empire Ins. Co.,*84 AD2d 942, *lv denied*57 NY2d 602; *Matter of Sacco v Profit,*133 AD2d 535). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Rosenberger, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Services Administration 

# AGENCY:

Health Resources and Services Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice; withdrawal. 

# SUMMARY:

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         notice of Friday, July 7, 2000, in Part III “Availability of Funds Announced in the HRSA Preview” of FR Doc. 00-16874, on page 42223, the grant category beginning in the second column under the heading “The Perinatal Systems and Women's Health National Resource Center (CFDA #93.926D),” is withdrawn from competition while the Agency is considering its options regarding the activities proposed for support. After a decision is made, another announcement will be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

Prospective applicants who have submitted letters of intent or requested application materials from the HRSA Grants Application Center have been notified directly of this withdrawal. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Wright, Division of Perinatal Systems and Women's Health, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 11A-05, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone 1-301-443-8427. 

Dated: November 29, 2000.

Claude Earl Fox, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 00-30826 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Knoll, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barry L.
McCabe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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:



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



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|November 9, 2009       
|                       
|/s/ Barry L. McCabe    
|Barry L. McCabe        
|Chief Financial Officer
#### Concetta Masciandaro, Appellant, v Alfonzo Masciandaro, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 24, 1975, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated May 12, 1989, as amended May 22, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion, inter *alia,*to modify the judgment of divorce by vacating the provision thereof awarding her and the parties’ two children exclusive occupancy of the marital residence.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, we find that the defendant’s request to modify the parties’ judgment of divorce to vacate the provision which granted the plaintiff and the parties’ children exclusive occupancy of the marital residence was properly granted for reasons stated by Justice Kitson *(see, Sherman v Sherman,*168 AD2d 550 [decided herewith]).

The plaintiff’s other contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Enrique Feliciano, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dennis Edwards, J., at hearing, plea and sentence), rendered November 23, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of attempted robbery in the second degree and sentencing him, as a second violent predicate felon, to an indeterminate prison term of 2 Vi to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant and two accomplices stole complainant’s wallet and fled. In response to a police call, defendant’s accomplices were apprehended. Both men implicated defendant as their accomplice and identified him from photographs. The police went to defendant’s home and arrested him. After putting on a shirt and a blue jacket, defendant was brought to the precinct, placed in a lineup and identified by complainant as the third robber.

Defendant claims that since the suppression hearing court denied his request to call the complainant in to testify, he was denied due process because the police had "engaged in suggestive and unfair conduct.” As this claim was never raised before, it is unpreserved for appellate review and we thus do not address it. (CPL 470.05 [2].) However, if we were to address this issue in the interest of justice, we would, nonetheless, find it to be of no merit. Not only did defendant not have an unqualified right to have the identifying witness produced at the *Wade*hearing *(see, People v Peterkin,*75 NY2d 985), the record demonstrates that the pretrial identification procedure was, in all respects, proper. *(See, People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                   1000
                                                    
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                       79,376
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               260,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                                (25,923)
<INVENTORY>                                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            321,176
<PP&E>                                                       74,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (25,562)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              420,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       184,271
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                        144
<OTHER-SE>                                                  167,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                420,654
<SALES>                                                   1,001,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          1,001,559
<CGS>                                                       841,315
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               964,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              7,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           (1,656)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              31,334
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 13,659
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          17,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 17,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  1.20
        


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report of Cygnus, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Craig W. Carlson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Craig W. CarlsonCraig W. CarlsonChief Financial OfficerMarch 26, 2004
 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 Cygnus, Inc. and will
be retained by Cygnus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BWAY
CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                           1,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                       708
<INVENTORY>                                     56,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,811
<PP&E>                                         124,244
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,446
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 323,573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,532
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   323,573
<SALES>                                         92,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                92,114
<CGS>                                           76,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (62)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   128
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,722
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,526
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,196
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       (1,161)
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,035
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
*OPINION ISSUED JANUARY 18, 2008*

#### POMEROY IT SOLUTIONS SALES COMPANY INC. VS. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(CC-08-011)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Richard E. Hitt, General Counsel, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

*93This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant seeks $373.30 for technological consulting services that it provided to respondent. Claimant stated that the original invoice was lost in the mail; therefore, claimant has not been paid. Since the documentation for these services was not processed for payment within the appropriate fiscal year, claimant has not been paid.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim as well as the amount, and states that there were sufficient funds expired in the appropriate fiscal year from which the invoice could have been paid.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $373.30.

Award of $373.30.