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

[54 NYS3d 292]

*613Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), rendered May 3, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of eight years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the admission of hearsay at trial is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, any error in admitting the hearsay statement was harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by a summation comment by the prosecutor that invited the jury to speculate about matters not in evidence, because the court’s extensive curative instructions, which were given at defendant’s request, and which the jury is presumed to have followed, were sufficient to prevent any prejudice. Moreover, given the overwhelming evidence, any error was harmless.

Defendant’s request, made after the trial prosecutor had already made his sentencing recommendation, to have the prosecutor recused from sentencing for alleged personal bias, was untimely and without merit. In any event, the only remedy sought by defendant on appeal is a reduction of sentence in the interest of justice. However, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASIDNGTON,DC 

National Business Aircraft Association, Krueger Aviation, 

Inc., Harrison Ford, Justice Aviation, Kim Davidson 

Aviation, Inc., Aero Film, Youri Bujko, James Ross, 

Paramount Citrus LLC and Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association 

Complainants 

v. 

City of Santa Monica, California 

Respondent 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

Docket No. 16-14-04 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, 

the date by which the Director~s Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby 

extended to October 15, 2015. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

~ed· 'J.. ( 2ol') 

Date 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September J,.( ~r 2015, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of 

Time to October 15, 2015, for FAA Docket 16-14-04 addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Richard K. Simon, Esq. 

1700 Decker School lane 

Malibu, CA 90265 

rsimon3@verizon.net 

Counsel for Respondent 

Rick Cole 

City Manager 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 209 

Santa Monica, CA 9040 I 

manager@smgov .net 

Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney 

Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney 

Via U.S. Mail 

Via U.S. Mail 

Lance Gams, Deputy City Attorney Ivan Campbell, Deputy City Attorney 

City of Santa Monica 

1685 Main Street, Room 31 0 

Santa Monica, CA 90401 

marsha.moutrie@smgov .net 

jose ph .Ia wrence@sm gov. net 

lance. gams@sm gov .net 

ivan.campbell@smgov .net 

Stelios Makrides, Airport Manager 

City of Santa Monica 

Airport Administration Building 

3223 Donald Douglas Loop South 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

stelios.makrides@smgov.net 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airports Compliance Division, AC0-1 00 

r!kA~ Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis
# MLK legacy celebrated at National Cathedral

/ Published Jan. 29, 2020
Richmond, Va., 
The Washington National Cathedral welcomed the family and supporters of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Jan. 19 to commemorate his legacy and remind the nation of the struggles that continue as individuals and communities fight for equality under the law.

The service featured excerpts from Dr. King’s letter written while he was jailed in Birmingham, Alabama, as well as performances from the Cathedral Band and the Washington Performing Arts Children of the Gospel Choir.

Wife to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., known as the “first lady of civil rights,” Coretta Scott King and their eldest son, Martin Luther King III, spoke at the occasion. King III reminded the audience to continue striving to honor his father’s legacy of fighting racism, hate, inequality and xenophobia.

At Sunday’s ceremony, the son of Dr. King petitioned his audience. “Enough of the hatred. Enough of the misdirection, of the half-truths and whole lies.”

The national cathedral is the site of Dr. King’s final sermon before his assassination on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee. Despite the solemnity of the event, King III expressed his optimism for the future.

“The good news,” he said, “is that we’ve always been able to make a way out of no way. We’ve always known that a good day is on the horizon.”

*Editor’s note: Richard “Rick” Sanford is an application support consultant (contractor) assigned to Defense Logistics Agency Information Operations in the Account Management and Provisioning System Application Support Team.*
Exhibit 10.5

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Elbit Systems
Ltd. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-9354) of our report dated January 13, 2006, with respect to
the financial statements of Microwave Networks Solutions, Inc., which report appears in
this December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 20-F of Elbit Systems Ltd.

/s/ Hoberman, Miller, Goldstein & Lesser, CPA's, P.C.
Hoberman, Miller, Goldstein & Lesser, CPA's, P.C.

June 27, 2006
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 on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust I and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding I, L.P. (the "Partnership")
for the period ended December 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kathleen Skero,
Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING I, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: March 24, 2006
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JANUARY 31, 1999 AND FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,169
<SECURITIES>                                     1,339
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                       901
<INVENTORY>                                     16,475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,642
<PP&E>                                         212,349
<DEPRECIATION>                                 110,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,163
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,421
<SALES>                                        660,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               662,292
<CGS>                                          624,182
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  640,109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   119
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,052
<INCOME-TAX>                                       486
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                566
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       566
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5221.

#### Teresa Zerilli-Edelglass, Petitioner v. New York City Transit, et al.

562 U.S. 824, 131 S. Ct. 385,

178 L. Ed. 2d 19,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6235.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis *20denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

Same case below, 353 Fed. Appx. 621.
# Spring brings in many new faces

/ Published June 4, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The months of April and May brought in 38 new employees beginning their careers at Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime. The New Employee Orientations were April 24-25 and May 22-23 in Building 20.

The diverse class consisted of student interns, supply specialists, purchasing agents, engineers and police officers. 

“Welcome to ‘the land of milk and honey’,” said DLA Land and Maritime Director of Operations Griffin Warren.  Warren’s welcome included a brief history of the Defense Supply Center Columbus Installation. 

Presenters from the Equal Employment Office, DLA Installation and Support, Human Resources, Office of Counsel and DLA Intelligence briefed on their respective organizations.  Their presentations answered many of the questions for the new employees. 

Morale, Welfare and Recreation highlighted the fitness center, child development center and the upcoming MWR Fit Fest, as well as the perks MWR offers.

Processing in as a new associate, but not new to DLA Land and Maritime was Yee Hang, known to many of us as retired Col. Hang. Hang stepped out to receive the 2019 Shoong Yin Award of Excellence at the Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Event. 

The People and Culture Directorate congratulates and welcomes back Hang and welcomes all new employees.

Be sure to welcome these new employees if you happen to see them around.
No. 09-1496.

#### Delano Farms Company, et al., Petitioners v. California Table Grape Commission.

562 U.S. 837, 131 S. Ct. 159,

178 L. Ed. 2d 39,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5805.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 586 F.3d 1219.
Exhibit 8.1







Subsidiaries



The following table sets forth our significant
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2016, including the ownership interest and, if different, percentage of voting power held by us.
All of our significant subsidiaries are incorporated in Chile.



|                                                    |                                                      | Percent
        ownership share
        As
        of December 31,
|--------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                    |                                                      | 2016                                                              
|Name
        of the Subsidiary                      | Main
        activity                                | Direct                                                            
|                                                    |                                                      | %                                                                 
|Santander Corredora de Seguros Limitada             | Insurance brokerage                                  | 99.75                                                             
|Santander Corredores de Bolsa Limitada              | Financial instruments brokerage                      | 50.59                                                             
|Santander Agente de Valores Limitada                | Securities brokerage                                 | 99.03                                                             
|Santander S.A. Sociedad Securitizadora              | Purchase of credits and issuance of debt instruments | 99.64                                                             
|Santander Servicios de Recaudación y Pagos Limitada | Support business, making and receiving payments      | —
2017-0335.

#### State v. Connally.

Franklin App. No. 16AP-53.
No. 09-10819.

#### Hung Ha, Petitioner v. Kenneth Mark Burr, et al.

562 U.S. 803, 131 S. Ct. 112,

178 L. Ed. 2d 4,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7734.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
# Employees set new high in fight against hunger

/ Published Sept. 18, 2019
PHILADELPHIA, 
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support employees donated a record-high amount of pasta, soup and other foods during the Feds Feed Families food drive to help fight hunger in Philadelphia.

Employees provided 4,279 pounds of food according to the Sept. 13 official weigh-in, exceeding the organization’s goal of 3,000 pounds, to Philabundance, a non-profit organization providing hunger relief to local counties in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

“Participating in the Feds Feed Families food drive supporting Philabundance is important to us as members of the Philadelphia community,” Army Brig. Gen. Gavin Lawrence, DLA Troop Support commander, said. “Most of our employees, myself included, are Philadelphia-area natives. We take a lot of pride in helping those in need from the same community that we work and live in.”

The Feds Feed Families food drive is a U.S. Department of Agriculture-led campaign that helps food banks and pantries stay stocked during summer months when they traditionally see a decrease in donations and an increase in need, according to the USDA.

In the Philadelphia region, federal agencies contribute their donations to Philabundance, which provides food to 90,000 individuals each week through its own food distributions and a network of approximately 350 social service agencies, according to its website.

This year’s food drive marked the second year in a row DLA Troop Support set a new all-time high donation size, breaking 2018’s previous record-high 3,931 pounds.

“We’re seeing a trend of our employees challenging themselves and exceeding our goal more and more each year,” Lawrence said. “Whether it’s providing assistance to Warfighters around the globe, or in this case, helping to fight hunger in our backyard, I’m proud to lead a workforce that continuously pushes each other to make a difference.”

The Philabundance team also appreciates the efforts and generosity of the DLA Troop Support workforce.

“Without consistent support from our community partners, like DLA Troop Support and the Feds Feed Families food drive, Philabundance would not have the same level of impact on those facing food insecurity in the Delaware Valley,” Olivia Edwards, the Philabundance community fundraising coordinator, said. “Food and fund contributions enable us to provide more food for those in need, and in 2018 helped us distribute over 26 million pounds of food. We are so grateful for the generous support of DLA Troop Support!”

The annual food drive has collected nearly 80 million pounds of food since the campaign began in 2009.

Visit the Feds Feed Families website for more information on the campaign and the USDA.
#### Patricia Fried, Appellant, v 20 Sutton Place South, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 813]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), entered December 5, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff condominium unit owner’s fifth cause of action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that defendant condominium’s board of managers violated the proprietary lease by unreasonably withholding approval of plaintiffs application to structurally alter her apartment, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare in defen*352dants’ favor that the approval sought by plaintiff was not unreasonably withheld, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant condominium’s board of managers did not, by conditioning its approval of plaintiffs plans to erect a greenhouse on her penthouse premises upon the consent of a potentially adversely affected neighbor and upon the submission of plaintiffs final plans to the board’s architect for review and comment, unreasonably withhold its approval of the proposed structural alterations *(see Seven Park Ave. Corp. v Green,*277 AD2d 123 [2000], *lv dismissed*96 NY2d 853 [2001]).

We have examined plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

We modify only to declare in defendants’ favor *(see Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], *appeal dismissed*371 US 74 [1962], *cert denied*371 US 901 [1962]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Brevard, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 514]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered November 27, 2012, as amended January 28, 2013, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of assault in the second degree, attempted assault in the first degree, three counts of burglary in the first degree, two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements. Although defendant’s right to counsel had attached on unrelated drug charges, he absconded after being released on bail, and was lawfully questioned on the present charges when he was returned on a bench warrant (see *People v Lopez,*16 NY3d 375, 385-386, 385 n 6 [2011]; *People v Garcia,*40 AD3d 541 [1st Dept 2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 961 [2007]; *People v Clarke,*298 AD2d 259 [1st Dept 2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 613 [2003]). We see no reason to abandon our line of cases stating this principle, especially since these precedents are entirely consistent with the Court of Appeals’ subsequent discussion of the issue in *Lopez (see also People v Bing,*76 NY2d 331 [1990]).

We reject defendant’s arguments concerning the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting the unlawful entry element of burglary. Although the victim permitted defendant to enter the building where the crime occurred, the evidence established that the victim was not a resident, and was present for the purpose of selling marijuana in the lobby. Therefore, the victim was not authorized to grant anyone a license to enter *(see*Penal Law § 140.00 [5]), and was in any event not authorized to grant entry “to conduct illegal activity” *(People v Williams,*174 Misc 2d 868, 871 [Sup Ct, Queens County 1997]). The evidence also supports a reasonable inference that defendant knew he was entering unlawfully. Furthermore, defendant’s entry was unlawful for the separate reason that he entered by means of a ruse *(see e.g. People v Mitchell,*254 AD2d 830 [4th Dept 1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 984 [1998] [posing as *547utility worker]). The evidence supports the conclusion that defendant entered the building, not merely with the secret intent to rob the victim, but by misrepresenting himself to be part of the line of people waiting to buy marijuana.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.