alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sylvester Davis, Appellant. The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sylvester Davis, Appellant, v Warden of Arthur Kill Correctional Facility et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 888]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered March 8, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 18 years, unanimously modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the conviction to robbery in the second degree, vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed. Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J.), entered December 17, 2001, which dismissed defendant’s habeas corpus petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On this record, there was sufficient question as to the nature of the unseen object so that the court should have granted defendant’s request to charge the jury on the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). “A defendant is entitled to a charge on the affirmative defense to robbery in the first degree when there is presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the elements of the defense are satisfied, i.e., that the object displayed was not a loaded weapon capable of producing death or other serious physical injury” *(People v Gilliard,*72 NY2d 877, 878 [1988]). Under the circumstances of the case, reduction of the conviction to robbery in the second degree with a remand for resentencing would provide an appropriate remedy for the charging error (see *e.g. People v Jones,*305 AD2d 264, 266 [2003]). There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the conviction should be reduced to robbery in the third degree.

The record fails to support defendant’s claim that he was absent during discussions concerning jurors during delibera*340tions *(see People v Velasquez,*1 NY3d 44 [2003]). In any event, the discussions were merely ministerial, and thus defendant’s presence was not required *(see People v Hameed,*88 NY2d 232, 240-242 [1996]). Nothing in the court’s colloquy amounted to a legal instruction of any kind.

In view of our affirmance of defendant’s conviction as modified, there is no basis for reversal of the order denying habeas corpus relief. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.
### Copyrighted page/s removed. Copyrighted ma terial is not available in Regulations.gov since it may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder.

Contact the EPA Docket Center’s P ublic Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document.

Requests for copies may be made as follows:

In person/writing: Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004

Telephone:

202-566-1744

Fax:

202-566- 9744

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.govRe: *Confidential: Fw: OAR-2003-0065-DRAFT-0287...

Joe Sopata to

: docket

Thank you for your email note.

This is not "confidential" information. The contra ctor labs that prepare these draft reports for API

sometimes mark them "confidential" instead of "draft".

I have informed my contact at API to please make sure the word "confidential" does not appear on any reports. Hopefully, they will catch it for future reports.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards, Joe Sopata

Chemist
USEPA/OAR/OTAQ/CISD/FPSG 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 6406J Washington, D.C. 20460

Ph# 202-343-9034
#### Lou TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C.; Deutsche Bank, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-11291

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 30, 2017

Lou Tyler, Pro Se

Thomas F. Loose, Esq., Arthur Elex Anthony, Esq., Locke Lord, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lou Tyler moves for leave to proceed *in forma pawperis*(“IFP”) in her appeal of the dismissal of her civil action against Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., and Deutsche Bank. Tyler’s motion is a challenge to the district court’s determination that her appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Before this court, Tyler reasserts her claims that foreclosure on her property would be improper because the defendants are barred from enforcing their interest by the statute of limitations and that they have engaged in a variety of wrongdoings, including harassment, unfair and misleading representations, deceptive practices, illegal attempts to foreclose, non-validation of debt, deliberate mishandling of her mortgage and financial documents, and breach of contract. By merely reasserting her claims, Tyler fails to address the district court’s certification that her appeal was not taken in good faith and the district court’s reasons for its certification decision. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202. In particular, she does not factually or legally challenge the district court’s determination that Tyler’s civil action is barred by res judicata.

*Pro se*briefs are afforded liberal construction. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error by the district court, it is the same as though the appellant had not appealed that issue. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty.*
      *424
      *Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Tyler has failed to challenge the certification that her appeal is not taken in good faith and the reasons for such a certification, she has abandoned the issues in the appeal. *Id.*

The appeal lacks arguable merit and is frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Tyler’s motions to proceed IFP and a temporary restraining order are DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

**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.
#### Charlotte S. Wilder et al., Respondents, *v.*John G. Stearns, impleaded, etc., Appellant.

(Argued May 15, 1871;

decided September term, 1871.)

*657B. G. Wilder, the owner of a patent for improvement in safes, transferred the same to defendants upon their agreement to pay three-fourths of a cent per pound on weights of all safes sold by them during the term of the contract. Also, that in case of renewal they should have the same right upon the same terms. Before the expiration of the original patent, defendant Roff assigned to Stearns. The patent was renewed for seven years. After the renewal the safes were manufactured by Stearns ,& Marvin. On the 1st November, 1860, Stearns sold out to Marvin, and delivered possession of the stock of safes on hand, amounting to 837,148 pounds. Upon this amount plaintiffs, as assignees of Wilder, claimed the royalty. *Heldy*that as Marvin was not, as far as the patentee was concerned, a partner in the manufacture of the safes, the manufacture and sale by the firm of Stearns & Marvin being only protected by the license to Stearns; whenever the safes manufactured passed from the authority and control of Stearns, the license was at an end, and the rights of the patentee terminated. The transfer was, therefore, a sale within the meaning of the contract, and defendant Stearns liable for the royalty.

*Wm. M. Eoarts*for the appellant.

*J. M. Van Gott*for the respondents.

Hurt, C., reads for affirmance.

All concur, except Earl, C., dissenting. Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
      99




**AGREEMENT
      TO FURNISH DEBT INSTRUMENTS**




Pursuant
      to Instruction 3(b)(4)(iii) to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the Company has
      not
      included as an Exhibit any instrument with respect to long-term debt if the
      total amount of debt authorized by such instrument does not exceed 10% of the
      consolidated assets of the Company and its subsidiaries. The Company agrees,
      pursuant to this Instruction, to furnish a copy of any such instrument to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission upon request of the Commission.








Pennsylvania
                Commerce Bancorp, Inc./s/
                Mark A. ZodyMark
                A. Zody,Chief
                Financial Officer
#### Frank J. Maguire, as Executor of Gertrude B. Zulauf, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Nathan E. Blodgett, Defendant, and Puget Sound Company, Inc., Respondent.

Argued May 18, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*908
      *Edward N. Mills, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Frank Gibbons*for respondent appearing specially.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. Earl BRITT; James C. Fox; James C. Dever, III; Louise W. Flanagan; Terrence Boyle; Malcolm J. Howard; James C. Gates; Rebecca Beach Smith, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1439

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 26, 2017

William Scott Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions in a closed civil ease. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Davis v. Britt,*No. 5:16-ct-03211-BA (E.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2017). We deny Davis’ motion to remand. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certificate Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Catalina Marketing Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L.
Dick Buell, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 result of operations of the Company. /s/ L. Dick Buell  
 29
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
September 29, 1996 Form 10-Q 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>               DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                          1,254
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,105
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     3,919
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                33,512<F1>
<PP&E>                          26,523
<DEPRECIATION>                  3,779
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  75,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           19,902<F2>
<BONDS>                         27,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        64
<OTHER-SE>                      22,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    75,469
<SALES>                         140,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                140,804
<CGS>                           47,112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   120,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                13,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 4,557
<INCOME-TAX>                    1,140
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             3,417
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    3,417
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.50

<FN>
<F1> 15) Current assets include $21,205 of Assets Held for Sale.
<F2> 19) Current liabilities include $9,902 of Liabilities Related to Assets 
Held for Sale.
</FN>

        


</TABLE>
FTIR Analysis of PMN Substance
#### George Riley ALTMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden HOLLENBAEK, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6213

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

*99George Riley Altman, Appellant Pro Se. Genna Danelle Petre, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Riley Altman, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Altman v. Hollenbaek,*No. 5:15-hc-02256-D, 2017 WL 396669 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 30, 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*
14261

#### HINSON v. McLAURIN, PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND JUDGE OF PROBATE, *ET AL.*

(185 S. E., 42)

May, 1935.

*40
      *Messrs. J. W. LeGrand*and J. *E. Dudley,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Rogers & Ellerbe,*for respondent,

March 27, 1936.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Stabler.

This appeal is from an order of his Honor, Judge Dennis, who “confirmed in all particulars” the report of the Special Referee and gave judgment for the defendants.

We think the order should be affirmed. The appellant raises by her exceptions a number of questions, but we find no substantial merit in any of them. A careful study of the record discloses that the Referee, as held by the trial Judge, was correct in his findings and conclusions, and we approve his report and adopt it as the opinion of the Court. Let it be reported.

All exceptions are overruled, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Carter, Bonham, Baker, and FishburnE concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001085720
<NAME>                        SD PRODUCTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         13,200
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,200
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          952
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       280
<OTHER-SE>                                     22,930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,200
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (5,023)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,419)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,419)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
# n ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0281 SADDLEBROOK INVESTMENTS, LLC, asAssignee ofSTUART M. SIMONSEN,

Plaintiffand Appellee, 

# FILED JUL 2 

## 7 2023 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana v. ORDER KROHNE FUND. L.P., SEAN WRIGHT, and ANTHONY BIRBILIS,

Defendants and Appellants. Appellant Anthony Birbilis has filed a motion for extension of time to file his openingbrief. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until August 25, 2023, to file his opening brief. DATED this 

# a ?day ofJuly, 2023. For the Court,

hiefJustice 07/27/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0281
## **CNO Press Briefings**

Chief of Naval Operations transcriptions of press briefings.

 

----

## **CNO Press Releases**

Chief of Naval Operations official press releases.

 

----

## **CNO Testimony**

Official transcripts of testimony by U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations.

 

----

## **CNO Speeches**

 

Speeches by U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations.

 

----

## **CNO Statements**

Statements by U.S. Navy Chief of Naval Operations.

 

----

## **CNO News Stories**

Chief of Naval Operations official stories.

 

----

-   Mission  The Department of the Navy will recruit, train, equip, and organize to deliver combat ready Naval forces to win conflicts and wars.  
-   Our Core Values  From the early days of naval service, certain bedrock principles or core values have carried on to today. 
-   Our Heritage  As Sailors, forged by the sea, we will continue to be the Navy this nation needs. 
-   All Hands  All Hands Magazine highlights the Navy's culture and heritage, while striving to be the number one source of information for Sailors about their Navy today. 
-   Fact Files  A collection of "Fact Sheets" of U.S. Navy vessels, platforms and equipment. 

Google Translation Disclaimer
#### WEIDONG SUN Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 17-1285

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Filed: October 4, 2017

Weidong Sun, Pro Se

Carl H, McIntyre, OIL, Rebecca Hoff-berg Phillips, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Chinese citizen Weidong Sun petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming, without opinion, an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) June 2016 decision denying his second motion seeking to rescind a removal order entered in absentia, and to reopen proceedings (motion to rescind/reopen). See Hashmi v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 700, 703 (8th Cir. 2008) (where BIA affirms IJ’s decision without opinion, this court reviews IJ’s decision as final agency action). Sun’s second motion to rescind/reopen was based on his claim that his second attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. In his brief to this court, Sun has not presented any argument as to why the rejection of his ineffective-assistance claim was error. Thus, he has waived the issue. See Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476, 479 n.2 (8th Cir. 2017) (waiver).'

Sun’s brief seeks to challenge only the basis for the IJ’s November 2015 order denying his first motion to rescind/reopen. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the November 2015 order, however, because Sun did not appeal the denial to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (alien must exhaust all available administrative remedies before court may review final order of removal); Baltti v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 718, *315722-23 (8th Cir. 2017) (alien must pursue all stages of administrative review, and also raise all issues before agency); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 (except when certified to BIA, IJ’s decision becomes final upon expiration of time to appeal if no appeal is taken). The petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
**Exhibit 24****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     Each of the undersigned officers and/or directors of Too, Inc., a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), hereby appoints Michael W. Rayden and Poe A. Timmons as his or her true and lawfulattorneys-in-fact, or either of them individually with power to act without the other, as his orher true and lawful attorney-in-fact, in his or her name and on his or her behalf, and in any andall capacities stated below, to sign and to cause to be filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2006, andany and all amendments thereto, hereby granting unto said attorneys, and to each of them, fullpower and authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any and allsuch capacities, every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about the premises asfully as each of the undersigned could or might do in person, hereby granting to each such attorneyfull power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any such attorney or hissubstitute may do by virtue hereof.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of Attorney in counterpartsif necessary, effective as of March 23, 2006.   *Signature* *Title* /s/ Michael W. Rayden Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Michael W. Rayden Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION § § No. 385, 2023 § § Court Below—Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware § § Consol. C.A. No. 2023-0215 Submitted: May 8, 2024 Decided: May 22, 2024

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and GRIFFITHS , Justices.

ORDER

This 22 nd day of May 2024, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, and following oral argument, we find it evident that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 11, 2023. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice