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

[52 NYS3d 674]

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), imposed August 20, 2012, upon his convictions of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, the resen-tence being a period of postrelease supervision in addition to the determinate term of imprisonment previously imposed on March 4, 2004. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the motion of Stephen L. Drummond for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted, and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Randall D. Unger, Esq., 42-40 Bell Boulevard, Suite 302, Bayside, New York, 11361-2861, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the appellant’s new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant within 90 days of this decision and order on motion, and the respondent shall serve and file its brief within 30 days after the brief on behalf of the appellant is served and filed. By prior decision and order on motion of this Court dated July 1, 2013, the appellant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers, including a certified transcript of the proceedings, and on the briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

The brief submitted by the appellant’s counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]) is deficient because it fails to contain an adequate statement of facts, fails to adequately analyze potential appellate issues, and fails to *1142highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal *(see People v Watson,*144 AD3d 713, 714 [2016]; *People v Bennett,*135 AD3d 869, 870 [2016]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252, 256 [2011]). Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel has fulfilled his obligations under *Anders v California,*we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant *(see People v Watson,*144 AD3d at 714; *People v Bennett,*135 AD3d at 870; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d at 256).

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Morgan’sFoods, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended May 21,2006, (the “Report”), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated:  July 12, 2006 /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir   Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board and   Chief Executive Officer
#### Com. v. Thomas

08/30/2016

159 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 585
#### Jose Cruz, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 359]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered August 17, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the branch of defendant City of New York’s motion that sought dismissal of plaintiff’s 42 USC § 1983 cause of action, and denied plaintiff’s request for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The three-year limitations period on a section 1983 claim based on false arrest begins to run “when the alleged false imprisonment ends” — that is, when the arrestee becomes subject to the legal process such as being “bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges” *(Wallace v Kato,*549 US 384, 389 [2007]). Here, because plaintiff was arraigned on July 16, 2011, the limitations period on his section 1983 claim based *618on false arrest ended on July 16, 2014, approximately three months before plaintiff filed this action. Accordingly, the claim is time-barred.

To the extent plaintiff’s complaint alleges a section 1983 cause of action based on malicious prosecution, the claim is insufficient because it fails to state nonconclusory allegations of malice and lack of probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest *(see Savino v City of New York,*331 F3d 63, 72 [2d Cir 2003]). Nor does it allege that the individual defendants acted pursuant to a municipal policy or custom *(see Monell v New York City Dept. of Social Servs.,*436 US 668, 691 [1978]).

We have considered the remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Nicaragua (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Nicaragua (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2020                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0  
|2021                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 1   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0  
|2022                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0  
|2023                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0   | 0  
|2024                                                                                                                              | 0   | 0   | 0   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
Exhibit 15-1

May 11, 2000

Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company for the periods ended March
31, 2000 and 1999, as indicated in our report dated May 11, 2000; because we
did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-56333 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Detroit, Michigan
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Tom W. Olofson, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of EPIQ Systems, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)    designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b)   Reserved.

(c)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation; and

(d)   disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)    allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

**Date:**                  March 9, 2004
|   /s/ Tom W. Olofson |   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Tom W. Olofson                 |
| *Chairman of the Board*        |
| *Chief  Executive Officer*     |

 

 

----
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44147

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

FRANK LAMBERTUS

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 201 7 Unpublished Opinion No. 302

Filed: January 4, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Elmore County. Hon. Jonathan Medema , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for rape, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ , Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Frank Lambertus was found guilty of rape , Idaho Code § 18

- 6101(4) . The district court

imposed a unified sentence of twenty year s, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years

.

Lambertus appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and h aving reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Lambertus ’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.01**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

I, Gerald Corcoran, ChiefExecutive Officer of R. J. O’Brien Fund Management, Inc.. (“RJOFM”), ManagingOwner of JWH Global Trust (the “Trust”), certify that (i) the attached 10-Kfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) the information containedin the attached Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| By:                                     | /s/ Gerald Corcoran |   |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
| Gerald Corcoran                         |
| Chief Executive Officer                 |
| R.J. O’Brien Fund Management, Inc. |
| March 27, 2007                          |

 

----
No. 12-8061.

No. 12-8072.

#### Boyd *v.*United States; and Boyd *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied. Reported below: 481 Fed. Appx. 914.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         385,132
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  481,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     72,258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               938,936
<PP&E>                                       2,782,027
<DEPRECIATION>                                 720,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,000,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          610,647
<BONDS>                                        870,742
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    681,630
<COMMON>                                     2,263,521
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,426,358)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,000,182
<SALES>                                        449,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               449,143
<CGS>                                          507,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  507,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,697,063
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,491
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,799,857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,799,857)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,799,857)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Mercantile Bankshares
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Edward J. Kelly, III, the Chief Executive Officer, certify,
pursuant to and for purposes of 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/ Edward J. Kelly, III
------------------------
Edward J. Kelly, III
Chief Executive Officer

Date:  August 8, 2002
2017-0442.

#### State ex rel. Mars Urban Solutions, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer.

In Mandamus. On relators’ notice of partial dismissal of claims. Claims for relief III and V dismissed. This cause remains pending on all other claims.
#### Thomas Knauer, Respondent, v Diane L. Anderson, as Executrix of William F. Anderson, Sr., Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. Diane L. Anderson, as Executrix of William F. Anderson, Sr, Deceased, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v Ronald A. Knauer, Jr, Doing Business as Knauer Electric, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Intervenor-Respondent; New York State Insurance Fund, Intervenor-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[768 NYS2d 913]

— Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Howe, J.), entered April 26, 2002, *1314that denied the motion of intervenor New York State New Insurance Fund to vacate a judgment entered March 15, 2002.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Knauer v Anderson*([appeal No. 2] 2 AD3d 1312 [2003]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Gorski, JJ.
# CCS deputy superintendent to speak at DSCC Black History Month observance

/ Published Feb. 14, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
John Stanford, Ph.D., deputy superintendent of Columbus City Schools, will be the keynote speaker for the Defense Federal Community’s Black History Month observance Feb. 19 at the Defense Supply Center Columbus. Established in 1845, Columbus City Schools is Ohio’s largest school district and serves more than 51,000 students.

The program begins at 10 a.m. in the Operations Center Auditorium and will feature the 30th annual Carter G. Woodson Awards honoring two individuals who’ve made significant contributions to the African American community. The first award goes to a military or civilian member of the Defense Federal Community and the second award honors an individual from the Central Ohio community at large.

Media interested in attending should contact the DSCC and DLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs Office at 614-692-2328 or dla.land.and.maritime.public.affairs@dla.mil for additional details. RSVPs are required no later than 24 hours prior to the event due to enhanced security screening procedures. Plan to arrive at the Yearling Road Visitor’s Center no later than 45 minutes prior to the event.

-###-

For more than 100 years, the Defense Supply Center Columbus has been a vital logistics center in Central Ohio, providing weapons system and platform support to U.S. forces and other federal agencies across the globe. As DSCC’s largest tenant, Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime maintains command oversight of the installation. DLA Land and Maritime has annual sales exceeding $3 billion and manages more than 2 million unique inventory parts to support several thousand multiservice weapons systems and the Warfighters who rely on them. Find more news and information at www.dla.mil/landandmaritime
#### Janelle M., an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Brenda M., Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Lincoln Hospital), Respondent.

[48 NYS3d 590]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered March 16, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 16, 2015, which, in effect, granted plaintiff’s motion for reargument and, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

In opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing that it did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice in its diagnosis and treatment of the infant plaintiff’s mother, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her expert affirmation opining that the failure to order and perform a cervical cerclage at the start of the mother’s prenatal care was a departure from the applicable standard of care included significant factual errors misconstruing the record, failed to address the detailed affirmation by defendant’s expert explaining why the mother was not a candidate for cerclage, and made conclusory and speculative assertions *(see Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp.,*99 NY2d 542 [2002]; *Mignoli v Oyugi,*82 AD3d 443 [1st Dept 2011]). Further, defendant established that the mother’s pre-term delivery was most likely caused by pre-term labor brought on by an infection, rather than an incompetent cervix, and therefore that any alleged failure to perform a cerclage was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and *520find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Acosta, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kahn, JJ.