alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Amelia Gregory, Resp’t, *v.*August Fichtner, Ex’r, App’lt.1

*(City Court of New York, General Term,*

*Filed March 10, 1891.)*

Conversion—Proof of.

In an action for conversion plaintiff testified as to her ownership of the jewelry in question and its value, and a witness testified to a demand for the property and refusal. Defendant did not cross-examine plaintiff as to her knowledge of the value or offer any evidence. *Held,*that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on verdict, and from order denying motion for a new trial.

*Hiram*Ketcham, for resp’t; Straley, *Hasbrouch & Schloeder,*for app’lt.

1

 Reversed, *ante,*192.

McGown, J.

We do not find, after a careful examination of the appeal book herein, any sufficient reason why we should disturb the judgment entered herein on the verdict of the jury. The action was for conversion of several articles of jewelry alleged to be owned by the plaintiff. The action was commenced on or about March 17, 1885. The plaintiff testified as to her ownership of the property and as to its value. Defendant declined to cross-examine the plaintiff as to her knowledge of its value, and offered no evidence to contradict her testimony on that point. Plaintiff’s witness, Minna Walters, testified that she called upon the defendant with the plaintiff, in the latter part of February or the early part of March, 1885, and plaintiff then said, “ Herman, will you please give me the five diamond rings and all my jewelry,” etc. The defendant “ refused to give it to her,” and that he (defendant) said “ that whatever he had he would keep, and that she should go.away from there.”

The cause of action accrued when the demand was made and the return and delivery of the property refused. After the plaintiff had rested and the motion to dismiss had been denied, defendant's counsel stated that he had no testimony to offer. The trial justice fairly and fully, in his charge, submitted all the evidence and the issues of fact to the jury, who rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $952. The rulings of the trial justice, to which exceptions were taken by defendant’s counsel, were correct, and the exceptions thereto are without merit. The jury passed on the questions of fact submitted, namely, as to the plaintiff’s ownership of the property, as to the demand and as to its value, and there was sufficient evidence to sustain their verdict.

The judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial appealed from, must be affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

Ehrlich, Ch. J., concurs.
#### William D. Briggs, App’lt, *v.*Casper Lawson, Resp’t.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of Dutchess county court, granted on counterclaim by defendant.

*C.*Morschauser, for app’lt; *Hackett & Williams,*for resp’t.

Dykman, J.

This action was based upon a contract between the plaintiff and defendant for the occupation of the farm of the latter by the former, and its object was to recover the value of certain grain.

The defendant overcame the plaintiff's claim by a counterclaim, and recovered a judgment in his favor for a balance.

The trial was in the county court, where the action was commenced, and the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The question presented by this appeal is whether the defendant was compelled under the agreement to furnish feed for the stock on the farm during the continuance of the agreement, and our examination satisfies us that the agreement received the proper construction at the trial and that the cause was properly decided.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J.,.and Pratt, J., concur.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R. Dale McKinney ,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| November 6, 2002 |                    |
|------------------|-------------------------|
|             |                    |
|             |                    |
|             | /s/ R. Dale McKinney    |
|             | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### GEORGE R. FLONNES *v.*NORWICH SAVINGS SOCIETY

*George R. Flonnes,*pro se, in support of the petition.

Decided September 18, 1997

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court (AC 17002) is denied.
#### Hector LAPORTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Correction Sergeant FISHER, Defendant-Appellee, Correction Officer Banks, Defendant.

15-3218-pr

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 21, 2017

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Hector LaPorte, pro se, Clinton Correctional Facility, Dannemora, New York.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Andrew W. Amend, Senior Assistant Solicitor General, Mark H. Shawhan, Assistant Solicitor General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, New York.

PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Hector LaPorte, *pro se,*appeals from the district court’s September 22, 2015 judgment dismissing his complaint, entered after a jury verdict in favor of defendant-appellee Corrections Sergeant Fisher on LaPorte’s excessive force claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

LaPorte’s only argument on appeal is that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce certain evidence at trial. Because this is a civil case in which LaPorte does not face the prospect of imprisonment, however, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply, and LaPorte’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not cognizable. *See Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. Birnbaum,*722 F.3d 444, 453 (2d Cir. 2013); *United States v. Coven,*662 F.2d 162, 176 (2d Cir. 1981).

We have considered LaPorte’s remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
Filed June 16, 1891.

#### The People *ex rel.*N. Y. Phonograph Co., App’lt, *v.*Frank Rice, Sec’y of State, Resp’t.

*Noah Davis*and *A. L. Pincoffs,*for app’lt; *Chas. F. Tabor,*attorney-general, for resp’t.

Order affirmed on opinion of general term, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 33 N. Y. State Rep., 34.
#### In the Matter of Angel Rivera, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 911]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting extortion, exchange of controlled substances and solicitation. The charges stemmed from an inmate complaint filed against petitioner, accusing him of extorting food packages and money that had been sent to the facility by the inmate’s family, which petitioner then used to satisfy debts that he owed *635for drugs. The complaint further alleged that the inmate’s grandmother had been contacted at her residence by a third party who directed her to send him money at the correctional facility to pay petitioner’s drug debts.

Substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt was presented at his disciplinary hearing in the form of the detailed misbehavior report and the written statement and hearing testimony of the inmate complainant *(see Matter of Tosca v Selsky,*298 AD2d 738, 739 [2002]). Petitioner’s testimony and that of his inmate witness raised issues of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of James v Goord,*306 AD2d 714 [2003]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JESUS M AR IA FELIX-ENR IQUEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10617

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00744-SR B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Linda R . R e a de , Distric t Judge , Pre siding ** Subm itte d Nove m

be r 18, 2014 * ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Je sus M a ria Fe lix-Enrique z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for posse ssion with inte nt to distribute 

# FIL ED DEC 1 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Linda R . R e a de , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the N orthe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa tion. *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c oc a ine , in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1) and (b)(1)(C ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm . The gove rnm e nt c onte nds tha t this a p pe a l is ba

rre d by an a

ppe a l wa ive r. B e c a use the distric t c ourt a dvise d Fe lix-Enrique z tha t he c ould a

ppe a l, we de c line to e n forc e the wa ive r. Se e Unite d State s v . Buc hanan , 59 F.3d 914, 917-18 (9th C ir. 1995). Fe lix-Enrique z c onte nds tha t his guilty

ple a wa s inva lid be c a

use the distric t c ourt viola

te d Fe de ra l R

u le of C rim ina l Proc e dure 11(b)(1)(H) by a dvising him that he fa c e d “ a

te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e of at le a st thre e y e ars,” rathe r tha n a dvising him

tha t he fa c e d a

m a xim um life te rm of supe rvise d re le a se . B e c a use Fe lix-Enrique z did not obje c t to thea de qua c y of the ple a c olloquy be fore the distric t c o urt, we re vie w only for pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Domingue

z Be nite z , 542 U.S. 74, 76 (2004). Fe lix-Enrique z ha s fa ile d to show a re a sona ble proba b ility tha t, but for theR

ule 11 e rror, he would not ha ve ple a de d guilty . Se e id. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 0 6 1 7 2
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 Farmers & Merchants Bancorp (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
we, Kent A. Steinwert, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen W.
Haley, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange act of 1934 and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. 1350), that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








March 9,
2009








/s/ Kent A. SteinwertKent
      A. SteinwertPresident
      & Chief Executive Officer/s/ Stephen W. HaleyStephen
      W. HaleyExecutive
      Vice President & Chief Financial
Officer











A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, William J. Loughman, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AirGate PCS, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
Date: December 14, 2004 /s/ William J. LoughmanWilliam J. LoughmanChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
Internet Capital Group, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-34736, 333-76870, 333-76872 and 333-126808) on Form S-8 and the registration
statement (no. 333-115702) on Form S-3 of Internet Capital Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries of our reports dated March 15, 2006, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Internet Capital Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), comprehensive income (loss) and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005,
and related financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annual report
on Form 10-K of Internet Capital Group, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 15, 2006
**Exhibit
      23.1**













**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED** **PUBLIC
      ACCOUNTING FIRM**











We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
      Statement No. 333-128488 on Form S-8 of our report dated July 24, 2007,
      relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
      schedule of  WPCS International Incorporated and Subsidiaries, which
      report expressed an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
      relating to the adoption of the provisions of FASB Statement No. 123R,
*Share-Based Payments,* appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
      of WPCS International Incorporated and Subsidiaries for the year ended April
      30,
      2007.













/*s*/
      J.H. Cohn LLP





Roseland,
      New Jersey


July
      27,
      2007
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6619 

To prohibit the Department of Justice from bringing a civil action against 

a State under section 9 or 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899, for certain 

border security measures, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 6, 2023 

Mr. CLOUD (for himself, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BABIN, Mr. BRECHEEN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. DUNCAN, 

Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mr. LAMALFA, Mrs. 

LESKO, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. 

ROY, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mrs. MCCLAIN, Ms. 

GREENE of Georgia, Mr. OGLES, Mr. DAVIDSON, and Mr. FRY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the 

Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Department of Justice from bringing a civil 

action against a State under section 9 or 10 of the 

Act of March 3, 1899, for certain border security measures, 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, 

2 

•HR 6619 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing Aliens 

3 Through Rivers Or Land Act’’ or the ‘‘PATROL Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CIVIL ACTION FOR CERTAIN BOR5 DER SECURITY MEASURES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may not 

7 bring or maintain a civil action (including an action that 

8 is pending on the date of enactment of this Act) under 

9 section 9 or 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 

10 401; 403), against a State for any measure undertaken 

11 by the State to build, construct, erect, or otherwise install 

12 a barrier along the international border of the State for 

13 the purpose of— 

14 (1) preventing aliens from entering the State in 

15 violation of the immigration laws; or 

16 (2) protecting the territory of the State. 

17 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

18 (1) ALIEN.—The term ‘‘alien’’ has the meaning 

19 given such term in section 101 of the Immigration 

20 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101). 

21 (2) BARRIER.—The term ‘‘barrier’’ means any 

22 physical structure intended to secure the border, in23 cluding a wall, fence, or floating buoy. 

24 (3) IMMIGRATION LAWS.—The term ‘‘immigra25 tion laws’’ has the meaning given such term in secVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:22 Jan 09, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6619.IH H6619
3 

•HR 6619 IH

1 tion 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

2 U.S.C. 1101). 

Æ
# Supreme Court of Kentucky

2023

- SC

- 0167

- T

DAVID ARMSTRONG , ET AL MOVANTS

V. ON MOTION TO TRANSFER

COURT OF APPEALS NO. 2023

- CA

- 0409

CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT NO. 22

- CI

- 00457

CAMPBELL COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL

PLANNING AND ZONING

COMMISSION AND ITS MEMBERS , ET

AL RESPONDENTS

ORDE R DENYING TRANSFER

The Motion to Transfer filed by David Armstrong, Jenelle Armstrong,

Christina and Pete Neises , Kathleen Vickers, Michael Metzger, Anna Zinkhon

Margaret Coomer, Sandy Snell, Noel Roberts, Terese and Henry Meeks, Michael

Heringer, and Margaret Heringer is DENIED.

All sitting. All concur.

ENTERED: August 24 , 202 3

.

_ _ ______________________ _______________ CHIEF JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of New York State Labor Relations Board, Respondent, against M. P. H., Inc., Owner and Operator of Madison Park Hospital, Appellant.

Submitted October 7, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*711
      *Benjamin Lewis, Daniel A. Lynch, John A. King*and *Stanley Lieberman*for appellant.

*Daniel Kornblum*and *William J. Kridel*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thaoheb, JJ.
11-i

CHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 11-1

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH.................................................................................................. 11-1
11-1

CHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

The life-cycle cost (LCC) subgroup analysis evaluates impacts of standards on 

identifiable groups, such as different consumer populations or business types that may be 

disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation standard level. In the notice of 

proposed rulemaking, the U.S Department of Energy (DOE) will analyze the LCCs and payback 

periods (PBPs) for consumers that fall into such groups. The analysis will determine whether any 

particular group of consumers would be adversely affected by any of the candidate standard 

levels (CSLs). 

Using the LCC spreadsheet model, DOE plans to examine variations in energy prices and 

energy use that might affect the net present value of a standard for consumer sub-populations. As 

described in chapter 8 of the preliminary technical support document, the preliminary LCC 

analysis includes various consumer types who use metal halide lamp fixtures. This analysis 

includes consumers purchasing systems in different sectors and for different building types.

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

For metal halide lamp fixtures, DOE will estimate LCC savings and PBPs for consumers 

in the commercial, industrial, and outdoor stationary sectors. DOE will also analyze the LCC 

effects on consumers living in or operating different buildings in the commercial and industrial 

sectors. In addition, DOE will analyze effects on consumers in different regions of the country. 

In the LCC subgroup analysis, DOE will examine a variety of consumer sub-populations. 

This analysis will determine whether any particular group of consumers would be adversely 

affected by any of the CSLs.
##### 



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 Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Bank. This 30th day of March, 2004. /s/ Monty G. WatsonChief Executive Officer/Principal Executive Officer
 /s/ Kelly J. JohnsonChief Financial Officer/Principal Financial and Accounting Officer