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

[771 NYS2d 155]

*536Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered May 29, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and possessing a sexual performance by a child, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (DiMango, J.), of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression of the physical evidence recovered from his possession and his statements to law enforcement officials. The findings and credibility determinations of the hearing court, which are entitled to great deference on appeal, are supported by the record and should not be disturbed *(see People v Jakins,*277 AD2d 328 [2000]). The hearing court properly concluded that the police officers’ initial encounter with the defendant was lawful in its inception and that the subsequent intrusion was reasonably limited in scope and intensity *(see People v Hollman,*79 NY2d 181 [1992]; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210 [1976]). The officers’ search of the defendant’s knapsack was justified by their reasonable suspicion that it contained a weapon *(see People v Coleman,*215 AD2d 576 [1995]). They then discovered the pictures of the victim which were in plain view *(see People v Crawford,*239 AD2d 515 [1997]). Given the legitimate concern of the police for the safety of the victim, the questioning of the defendant regarding the victim’s identity and whereabouts, without first advising him of his *Miranda*rights *(see Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]), was lawful *(see People v Molina,*248 AD2d 489, 490 [1998]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                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 Internet Capital Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Walter W. Buckley, III, 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:

(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/ Walter W. Buckley, III
---------------------------
Walter W. Buckley, III
Chief Executive Officer
March 15, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen D. SATCHER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6625

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Stephen D. Satcher, Appellant Pro Se. Odessa Palmer Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

*174Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen D. Satcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing Satcher’s motion challenging his guilty plea as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it as successive. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Satcher has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Walter TRIPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Connie S. BISBEE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15089

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Walter Tripp, NNCC-Northern Nevada Correctional Center, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Walter Tripp, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his equal protection rights in connection with parole hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Wilhelm v. Rotman,*680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tripp’s action because Tripp failed to al*456lege facts sufficient to show that he was “intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” *Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech,*528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000) (per curiam) (elements of “class of one” equal protection claim); *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

Tripp’s request that this court order parole and probation to make Tripp’s parole file available, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R03-OW-2009-0985; FRL - ]

Announcement to Extend the Recommended Determination Preparation Period for 

the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine, Logan County, West Virginia.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of Extension.

SUMMARY: EPA’s regulations require that the Regional Administrator either withdraw 

the Spruce No. 1 Proposed Determination or prepare a Recommended Determination 

within 30 days after the conclusion of the public hearing (40 CFR 231.5(a)). However, in 

order to allow full consideration of the extensive record, including over 4000 public 

comments we received, EPA finds there is good cause to extend the time period provided 

in 40 CFR 231.5(a) until September 24, 2010. This time extension was made under 

authority of 40 CFR 231.8, which allows for such extensions upon a showing of good 

cause.

Dated: ____________ ________/s/_______________

William C. Early

Acting Regional Administrator

Region III
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DECEMBER 31,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          38,872
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    257,494
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             709
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               728
<LOANS>                                      1,854,392
<ALLOWANCE>                                     25,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,765,855
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,706,562
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            790,931
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                     268,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,765,855
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                107,751
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               34,441
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               142,192
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              60,723
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,678
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           54,791
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,799
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 39,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,589
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.47
<LOANS-NON>                                     15,613
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                14,684
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                27,721
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,629
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               25,891
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            25,891
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1



                            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 accompanying Quarterly Report of AUG CORP. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence S. Isaacson, 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By: /s/Laurence S. Isaacson
    ------------------------
    Laurence S. Isaacson

    August 18, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6395 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6395

    To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to require the Secretary of the 
   Interior to include the Secretary of Health and Human Services in 
 consultations regarding designations of critical minerals, elements, 
                       substances, and materials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2023

Mr. Curtis (for himself and Ms. DeGette) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to require the Secretary of the 
   Interior to include the Secretary of Health and Human Services in 
 consultations regarding designations of critical minerals, elements, 
                       substances, and materials.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Recognizing the Importance of 
Critical Minerals in Healthcare Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRED CONSULTATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
              SERVICES.

    Paragraphs (4)(C) and (5)(A) of section 7002(c) of the Energy Act 
of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 1606(c)(4)(C) and (5)(A)) are each amended by 
inserting ``Health and Human Services,'' after ``Agriculture,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnold Troy CRAYTON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11240 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 18, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, Douglas Allen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, for Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Arnold Troy Crayton, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

*358PER CURIAM: *

Arnold Troy Crayton, federal prisoner # 29082-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for an extension of time to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In his motion, Crayton requested that the district court grant him an additional 60 days to file his § 2255 motion.

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). The order denying Cray-ton’s request for an extension of time to file his § 2255 motion was not a final order of dismissal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1291; *Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc.,*981 F.2d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 1993). The order also does not fall within any jurisprudential exception, such as the collateral-order doctrine, that would render it a final, appealable order. *See Louisiana Ice Cream Distribs., Inc. v. Carvel Corp.,*821 F.2d 1031, 1033 (5th Cir. 1987). The order also does not fall into the classes of interlocutory decisions listed in § 1292 over which courts of appeal have jurisdiction. Finally, the order was not certified for appeal by the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Thus, this court does not have jurisdiction over the order. See *Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co.,*849 F.2d 955, 957-59 (5th Cir. 1988); *Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army,*639 F.2d 1100, 1102-03 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1981).

We DISMISS Crayton’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of MDU Communications International, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 29, 2006 (the “Report”), I,
      Carmen Ragusa, Jr., Vice President of Finance of the Company, hereby certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1) the Report fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.








/s/  CARMEN
                RAGUSA, JR.Carmen
                Ragusa, Jr.*Vice
                President of Finance*MDU
                Communications International, Inc.December
                29, 2006Totowa,
                New Jersey








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The Inhabitants of Minot *versus*The Inhabitants of Bridgewater.

A deposition cannot be used, in the trial of an action, unless the name of the deponent is contained in the notification of the magistrate to the opposite party. The certificate of the magistrate is not conclusive as to the notice.

In the trial of this action, the plaintiffs offered the deposition of one *B. Niles,*on which the magistrate had certified that notice had been given to the attorney of' record of the defendants, to attend the taking thereof. The defendants denied the fact of notice, and produced the original notification of the magistrate to the said attorney ; by * which he was notified to attend the taking of divers depositions, at the time and place when and where it appeared that *Niles’s*deposition was taken, the names of several witnesses being inserted, but that of. *Niles*was not mentioned therein. The defendants objected to the admission of the deposition ; but the judge overruled the objection ; and a verdict being returned for the plaintiffs, a new trial was granted; *the Court*being of opinion that the notice required by statute was not suffi *439cient, unless it contained the name of the person whose deposition was to be taken. It was good as to those named, but not as to any that were omitted; for it might be that the party to be affected, from his knowledge of his case, would not think it necessary to cross-examine the witnesses named in the notification; but it might be otherwise as to a witness not named, and that he would have thought it necessary to have attended the examination, had he been named. The certificate of the justice is not conclusive as to the notice, *(a)*

*Fessenden*for the plaintiff.

*Greenleaf*for the defendants.

(a)

**Vide *Bryant & Al.*vs. *The Commonwealth Ins.*Company, 9 *Pick. 485.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K
OF TRIARC BEVERAGE HOLDINGS CORP. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 2, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001086093
<NAME>                        TRIARC BEVERAGE HOLDINGS CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                   US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          22,108
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,082
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,503
<INVENTORY>                                     55,848
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,627
<PP&E>                                          33,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,213
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 570,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,406
<BONDS>                                        646,009
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           96,320
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           850
<OTHER-SE>                                    (384,632)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   570,905
<SALES>                                        651,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               651,076
<CGS>                                          380,831
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  380,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   929
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,030
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,128
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (12,675)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,453
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (4,876)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,577
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Prime Air, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report").  I, Blaine Haug,
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  result of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  April  30,  2004             /s/  Blaine  Haug
                                     -----------------
                                     Blaine  Haug
                                     Chief  Executive  Officer  and
                                     Chief  Financial  Officer
                                     (Principal  Executive  Officer  and
                                     Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


                                       15
<PAGE>