alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Berkley Resources
      Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report").  I, Matt Wayrynen, Chief Executive Officer 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 the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





(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.











Dated:
      November 13,
      2007                                                  */s/
      Matt Wayrynen*


Matt
      Wayrynen, Chief Executive
      Officer
#### Carmen Gonzalez, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated April 3, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability and dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

At trial, the plaintiff proffered evidence that she sustained injuries when she fell on a snow-covered Brooklyn sidewalk on February 8, 1985. She further proffered evidence that there had been two snowstorms during the week preceding her fall. Although the plaintiff asserted that she fell as a result of the defendant’s negligence in failing to clear the sidewalk after the first snowfall, we agree with the trial court’s determination that there was no evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that the plaintiff’s injuries were due to the defendant’s failure to act within a reasonable time after the first snowstorm *(see, Bernstein v City of New York,*69 NY2d 1020). Indeed, based upon the evidence adduced at trial, any such finding by the jury would have rested upon pure speculation *(Bernstein v City of New York, supra; Foley v City of New York,*95 App Div 374). Furthermore, there was insufficient time between the end of the second snowstorm and the plaintiff’s fall for the defendant to be held liable for its failure to clear the sidewalk *(see, Valentine v City of New York,*86 AD2d 381, *affd*57 NY2d 932). Accordingly, the jury verdict finding the defendant 100% at fault in the happening of the accident was erroneous as a matter of law and the complaint was properly dismissed. Lawrence, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1428

To rescind funds appropriated for the Select Committee on Aging, the Select

Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, the Select Committee on

Hunger, and the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control,

effective April 1, 1993.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 18, 1993

Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Ms. SNOWE, Mr.

ARMEY, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BUYER, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. EWING, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GOSS, Mr. GUNDERSON, Mr.

HANCOCK, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. LEWIS of

Florida, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. MACHTLEY, Mr. MCCANDLESS, Mr. MINGE,

Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SMITH

of Oregon, Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming, Mr. TORKILDSEN, and Mr. WALSH)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

A BILL

To rescind funds appropriated for the Select Committee on

Aging, the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and

Families, the Select Committee on Hunger, and the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, effective

April 1, 1993.

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

3 That, effective April 1, 1993, of the funds appropriated

4 in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1993, under
2

•HR 1428 IH

1 the heading ‘‘SALARIES AND EXPENSES’’, there is re2 scinded all funds available at the close of March 31, 1993,

3 under the heading ‘‘STANDING COMMITTEES, SPECIAL AND

4 SELECT’’ for the Select Committee on Aging, the Select

5 Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, the Select

6 Committee on Hunger, and the Select Committee on Nar7 cotics Abuse and Control.

Æ
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 8 -00685-CV
Se r gio P as qual e M ag gi, M .D . a nd Se r gio P as qual e M ag gi, M .D ., P .A . d/b/a

Austin Plastic Surgery Cente r , Appellan ts

v. Steven Mc Millon, in divid ually an d as d ependent administrat or of the estat e of Mary Eliz abe th M c M ill on, de c e as e d; and A le xa nde rRa nkin M c M ill on; Ja so n Ry an M c M ill on; and L ind say M. Browne, Appellees
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-08- 0016 18 , HO NORAB LE GUS J. STRAUSS JR. , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO PI N I O N Th e a pp e lla nts ’ b ri e f w a s due on

De c e mbe r 2 2, 20 08 . O n Jan ua ry 21 , 2 00 9, thi s Court n o t i fied a

ppellants that their brie f wa s overdue and that a f ailure to file a

proper motion for extension of tim e by

Februar y 2, 2009, wo u l d re s u l t in the dismiss al of this appea l for wa nt of prosec ution. To date, the a ppellants have not filed a brie f or a motion for extensi o n o f t ime. Acc ording ly , we dismiss this appeal for w ant of prose cution.

___________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Puryear and He nson Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Mar ch 5, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000870541
<NAME>                 PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XX, INC.        
<MULTIPLIER>                                                1
<CURRENCY>                                                 US
       
<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                    Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                      Dec-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
<CASH>                                                881,000
<SECURITIES>                                          310,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                          86,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    1,277,000
<PP&E>                                             17,619,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (3,170,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     15,726,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               1,178,000
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                               12,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         14,536,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       15,726,000
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    3,226,000
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       1,683,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      102,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      2,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     1,439,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 1,439,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                        1,439,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            1.18
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

RAMZI BIN AL-SHIBH, : 

Petitioner, : 

v. : Civil Action No. 06-1725 (EGS) 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al., : 

Respondents. : 

ORDER 

The motion of the Federal Public Defender for the District of New Jersey to 

withdraw as counsel is GRANTED, and the Federal Public Defender for the Western 

District of North Carolina is hereby appointed as counsel for the petitioner. Counsel 

from that office should enter an appearance forthwith. 

Dated: July _______, 2022 ___________________________________

EMMET G. SULLIVAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

20
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Latham, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of County Court, Orange County (Pano Patsalos, J.), rendered April 19, 1988, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (four counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged and convicted of raping, sodomizing and sexually abusing a 7-year-old girl and her 10-year-old sister. At the time of the incidents, the girls were 5 and 8 years old, respectively. The defendant claims that it was error to take the testimony of the 7-year-old complaining witness under oath. He further contends that the unsworn testimony of the then 10-year-old complaining witness was not sufficiently corroborated. We disagree.

CPL 60.20 (2) provides that a child less than 12 years old may not testify under oath unless the court is satisfied that he or she understands the nature of the oath. The ability to understand the nature of an oath is individualistic and is to be determined by the infant’s capacity and intelligence, his or her appreciation of the difference between truth and falsehood, and his or her duty to tell the former *(see, People v Nisoff,*36 NY2d 560, 566). The court’s preliminary examination of the witness revealed that she was alert and understood the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie. She also understood what an oath was and the seriousness of *636telling the truth under oath. Thus, the trial court’s decision to permit her to testify under oath was not an improvident exercise of discretion and should not be disturbed *(see, People v Fernandez,*138 AD2d 733). We further find that the unsworn testimony of the 10-year-old complainant was sufficiently corroborated by the sworn testimony of her sister and the People’s medical expert who examined both complainants *(see, People v Curtis,*76 Misc 2d 128, 130; *cf., People v St. John,*74 AD2d 85).

We find the defendant’s remaining contention to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
13**
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Berkley Resources Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Matt Wayrynen, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (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.
 
 
 
 Dated:
June 29,
2005                                                           
*/s/ Matt
Wayrynen*
 Matt
Wayrynen, Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
Executive and Financial Officer)
H. R. 1345

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To designate the Federal building located at 280 South First Street in San Jose,

California, as the ‘‘Robert F. Peckham United States Courthouse and Federal

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at 280 South First Street in San

Jose, California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert

F. Peckham United States Courthouse and Federal Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert

F. Peckham United States Courthouse and Federal Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1550

To provide that no Federal funds may be obligated for any purpose with

respect to the Berz-Macomb Airport in Macomb County, Michigan, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 31, 1993

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

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To provide that no Federal funds may be obligated for any

purpose with respect to the Berz-Macomb Airport in

Macomb County, Michigan, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.

4 No Federal funds appropriated or made available

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act may be obli6 gated for any purpose with respect to the Berz-Macomb

7 Airport in Macomb County, Michigan.
2

•HR 1550 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOISE REDUCTION.

2 (a) FEASIBILITY STUDY.—The Administrator of the

3 Federal Aviation Administration shall conduct a study to

4 determine the feasibility of reducing the noise impact from

5 aircraft taking off and landing at the Berz-Macomb Air6 port in Macomb County, Michigan, on residential neigh7 borhoods in the vicinity of the airport. In conducting the

8 study, the Administrator shall consider changing aircraft

9 takeoff and landing patterns and heights.

10 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date

11 of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the

12 Federal Aviation Administration shall transmit to Con13 gress a report on the results of the study conducted under

14 subsection (a), together with any recommendations (in15 cluding legislative recommendations) necessary to reduce

16 the noise impact of aircraft taking off and landing at the

17 Berz-Macomb Airport.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Harris, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered on February 1, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentencing defendant, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

On September 13, 1988, the defendant was observed taking a one dollar bill out of the sidepocket of a knapsack by one of three officers in a decoy unit. At trial, the officers made minor inconsistent statements as to which shoulder the knapsack was on. Credibility issues are reviewable where there are such major inconsistencies by which the weight of the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490.) This is not the situation here and the jury verdict should be affirmed. Concur—Carro, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
LATISSHA M. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0255

Opinion filed April 12, 2016.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

LaTissha M. Johnson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition seeking a belated appeal of the judgment and sentence rendered on 

July 2, 2014, in Duval County Circuit Court case number 2012-CF-006828, is granted. 

Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the 

lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal. If petitioner qualifies for the 
2

appointment of counsel at public expense, the lower tribunal is directed to appoint 

counsel to represent her in the appeal authorized by this opinion. 

WOLF, WINOKUR, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1513 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1513

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 10th and Main 
  Streets in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
                          States Courthouse''.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1513

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 10th and Main 
  Streets in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF LEWIS F. POWELL, JR. UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse located at 10th and Main Streets in 
Richmond, Virginia, is designated as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any references in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the courthouse referred to in 
section 1 is deemed to be a reference to the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,272
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                       602
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,725
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,436
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,477
<SALES>                                         40,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,461
<CGS>                                           20,720
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   127
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  66
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    963
<INCOME-TAX>                                       393
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2356

G. MARK SEALS, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
CITY OF WHEELING, West Virginia, as a municipal corporation; JOSEPH PETRI, former Wheeling Police Chief, individually and in official capacity; THOMAS MILLER, Wheeling Police Officer, individually and in official capacity; JOHN DANIEL, Wheeling Police Sergeant, individually and in official capacity; TARIS FARABEE, Wheeling Police Officer, individually and in official capacity; JOHN DOE, One or more un-named, individually and for officially sanctioned actions; LAW ENFORCEMENT, any unidentified law enforcement personnel, individually and in official capacities; MANUFACTURER/SUPPLIER OF PEPPER SPRAY, identity of corporation to be determined and for officially sanctioned actions; ODGEN NEWSPAPERS, INCORPORATED, a West Virginia Corporation and for officially sanctioned actions; OHIO COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA, a West Virginia political subdivision for declaratory and injunctive relief only; SCOTT SMITH, The Honorable, Ohio County Prosecuting Attorney, for declaratory and injunctive relief only; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-68-5)- 2 - Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 13, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
G. Mark Seals, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: G. Mark Seals appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Seals v. City of Wheeling , No. CA-02-68-5 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 9, 2003). 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