alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Dzahiah W., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 159]—

Appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Alan Beckoff, J.), dated May 16, 2016. The order of disposition adjudicated Dzahiah W. a juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months. The appeal brings up for review an order of fact-finding of that court dated February 23, 2016, which, after a hearing, found that Dzahiah W. had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

*613The appeal from so much of the order of disposition as placed the appellant on probation for a period of 12 months has been rendered academic, as the period of probation has expired (see *Matter of Jonathan E.,*119 AD3d 943, 943 [2014]). However, the appeal from so much of the order of disposition as adjudicated the appellant a juvenile delinquent has not been rendered academic, as there may be collateral consequences resulting from the adjudication of delinquency *(see Matter of Nigel H.,*136 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2016]; *Matter of Tafari M.,*90 AD3d 1052, 1052 [2011]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellant’s identity as the person who committed the acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of assault in the third degree and menacing in the third degree *(see Matter of Jarett W.,*137 AD3d 1154, 1154-1155 [2016]; *Matter of Jamal*G., 127 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2015]; *Matter of Anthony A.,*121 AD3d 885, 886 [2014]). Moreover, upon our independent review of the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence (see *Matter of Jarett*W., 137 AD3d at 1155; *Matter of Jamal G.,*127 AD3d at 1082; *Matter of Anthony A.,*121 AD3d at 886).

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in adjudicating her a juvenile delinquent and placing her on probation instead of directing an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (see Family Ct Act §§ 315.3, 352.1, 352.2; *Matter of Damien S.,*124 AD3d 667, 669 [2015]; *Matter of Tyriwali B.,*106 AD3d 1082, 1082-1083 [2013]). This disposition was appropriate in light of, among other factors, the seriousness of the offenses, the probation department’s recommendation, the appellant’s poor school record and disciplinary issues at school, and the appellant’s refusal to take any responsibility for her actions (see *Matter of Antoine H.,*81 AD3d 646, 646 [2011]; *Matter of Uriah D.,*74 AD3d 1194, 1195 [2010]).

Balkin, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.
No. 09-1489.

#### Food Movers International, Inc., Petitioner v. Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 836, 131 S. Ct. 158,

178 L. Ed. 2d 39,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5846.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 593 F.3d 1249.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1415

_____________________________

PAUL WILLIAM HURST,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

December 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

LEWIS, RAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, 

Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
#### James Frederickson, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Verizon New York, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[53 NYS3d 539]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered December 23, 2015, which denied defendants Verizon New York, Inc. and Empire City Subway Company Ltd.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and any and all cross claims against them, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to Verizon, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Verizon dismissing the complaint as against it.

The IAS court properly determined in this trip and fall action that issues of fact exist concerning whether an unevenness in the roadway surface caused by the defendants’ work in the area caused plaintiff’s accident *(see e.g. Hutchinson v Sheridan Hill House Corp.,*26 NY3d 66 [2015]; *Glickman v City of New York,*297 AD2d 220 [1st Dept 2002]). However, Verizon made an unrebutted prima facie showing that it has no potential li*498ability in this matter inasmuch as the plate in question was put in place by its subsidiary, Empire, without the direction or supervision of the parent company. While plaintiff argued in opposition that further discovery was required to determine whether grounds for Verizon’s liability might exist, the order should be modified to dismiss the complaint as against Verizon in view of plaintiff’s having filed a note of issue before taking Verizon’s deposition.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-526.

#### First Unum Life Insurance Co. *v.*Bilyeu et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# AFCENT Cargo mission unhindered: ‘Net’working services for Coalition aerial support

/ Published April 28, 2020
ALI AL SALEM AIR BASE, Kuwait, 
As the central HUB for AFCENT, Airmen here are responsible for supplying daily reports on what assets are being moved and which need to be replaced - some of which have been in rotation for quite some time and need to be evaluated. The number one resource used here: cargo nets and pallets. How else will everything stay put in the back of a banking C-17 Globemaster or C-130 Hercules?“My responsibilities include to fulfill the requests of nets, pallets, chains, devices, and straps to over 59 Forward Operating Bases,” said Staff Sgt. Drew Dillon, 386th Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron port dawg. “Our assets are distributed to several countries in the Area of Responsibility, which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Syria, Qatar, and many locations in Kuwait supporting [the Department of Defense] and allied forces.”Dillon and his team were recently given a heavy order after the closure of three FOBs. The items at those locations needed to be flown in, inspected, and redistributed to other locations in a short amount of time. For these ‘Port Dawgs,’ it’s too easy. Dillon assembled a team, and over just a few short hours, they hauled the largest order in recent history.“We processed and prepared 400 side nets, 325 top nets, and 192 straps,” Dillon added.This amount of effort will give DoD leadership the information and ability to redeploy assets and personnel that is applicable to the recent stop movement restriction and deployment operations. Using GART and the help from over two dozen volunteers, they provided the DoD the leverage to return to normal deployment operations as usual.“The three recent mass audits and reorganization accomplished with the 48 volunteers allowed us to support units to move their equipment and their personnel,” said Dillon. “Having the assets readily available and accounted for, can quickly and efficiently allow items to arrive at locations requested, to preventing redeployment delays for their movement.”Day in and day out, Airmen at Ali Al Salem Air Base find way to make it happen. Having restrictions and hinderances through adversaries either human or viral, the mission will always continue at the theater’s gateway to deliver unparalleled support.*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 386th Air Expeditionary Wing website.*
(July 11, 2017)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Sutherland, Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 307]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered May 19, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of six months, concurrent with five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. There was ample evidence that defendant made intentional false statements concerning a material fact when he attempted to sell counterfeit artwork to an undercover police officer. In particular, defendant affirmatively misrepresented that he had no reason to doubt the authenticity of a painting, when in fact defendant had been informed by Sotheby’s that the painting could not be accepted for consignment sale because experts had determined that it was not authentic.

The court’s supplemental instructions, including its rereading of the relevant portion of the main charge, made it clear to the jury that in this case defendant could only be convicted on the basis of affirmatively false statements, rather than omissions, and defendant’s argument to the contrary is unavailing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ELIZABETH MUNOZ

, Ap p ellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00072

- CR

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20140D02421 )



### O R D E R

The Court on its own motion ORDERS the Official Court Reporter for the 171st District

Court of El Paso County, Texas, to prepare a supplemental reporter’s record with State’s Exhibit

259 ( Video Recording of Appellant’s non

- custodial statement )

, including all video and audio

components of the exhibit as admitted in evidence at trial . The supplemental reporter’s record

is due in this Court on or before September 21, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
No. 09-10637.

#### Scott Wallis, Petitioner v. Alan Levine, et al.

562 U.S. 848, 131 S. Ct. 95,

178 L. Ed. 2d 59,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5880.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-10987.

#### Jeremy Bryan Jones, Petitioner v. Alabama.

562 U.S. 858, 131 S. Ct. 129,

178 L. Ed. 2d 77,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5900.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.

Same case below, 43 So. 3d 1258.
No. 09-1390.

#### Renee S. Hartz, Petitioner v. Victor R. Farrugia, et al.

562 U.S. 832, 131 S. Ct. 104,

178 L. Ed. 2d 30,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6615.

October 4, 2010.

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

*31Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 541.
#### Com. v. Demmitt

03/23/2016

901 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 479
2017-1284.

#### Nakharath v. Vathannh.

In Mandamus. On relator’s “motion for work place discrimination.” Motion denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
---

---

# EXHIBIT 13.1

# Section 906
Certification by Principal Executive  Officer

In connection with the Annual Report
of Elbit Imaging Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Shimon Yitzhaki, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: June 25, 2009

| | /s/ Shimon Yitzhaki
Shimon YitzhakiPresident and Chief Executive Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### In the Matter of Angelic W., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 857]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, J.), entered on or about November 3, 2016, which, upon appellant’s admission that she had violated the terms of her probation, revoked her probation and placed her with the Administration for Children’s Services Close to Home program for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in placing appellant in nonsecure detention rather than restoring her to probation (see *Matter of Katherine W.,*62 NY2d 947 [1984]), in light of appellant’s extensive and repeated violations of her probation conditions, and her failure to avail herself of opportunities for rehabilitation. The court considered, but was not obligated to accept, the reports and recommendations of the agencies involved with appellant.

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Oing, JJ.
DLA rapid deployment teams ready to provide emergency logistics support
 
  By Natalie Skelton, DLA Aviation Public Affairs
  Three Defense Logistics Agency Rapid Deployment Teams stand ready to help military and federal agencies supporting global emergencies like humanitarian assistance and pandemic response. Employees on the cross-functional, 13-member red, white and blue teams are trained to immediately deploy wherever they’re needed. The blue team deployed late February to support U.S. Army North as it determined requirements for medical and logistics units supporting the COVID-19 response. The red team is also on alert to provide additional support if requested, said Red Team Operations Officer Taylor Frazier III. Though it doesn’t seem likely his team will deploy in support of current efforts, members are working to ensure they have medical clearances, personal protective equipment and travel documentation ready. “This is really a first for the RDT and probably a first pandemic response for the federal government since 1918 [influenza pandemic caused by the H1N1 virus],” Frazier said. “We have to relook all of our assumptions about deploying and integrating with our customers.” Upon activating, team members immediately connect with the lead logistics and supply element on-site, he added. “Once engaged, our first goal is to identify any requirements that DLA may be able to provide, and any challenges and impediments that may need to be addressed,” Frazier continued. “We may start brainstorming solutions together with the DLA Agency Synchronization Operations Center and the major subordinate commands, primarily DLA Energy and DLA Troop Support.” Locations, impact and local preparedness levels differ by incident, he said, adding that RDTs tailored their response to hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria in 2017. As with all RDTs, red team members come from across DLA with various full-time duties. Frazier is a chief in DLA Aviation’s Engineering and Support Division. Air Force Col. James Wilkie, red team commander, is DLA Acquisition chief of staff, while the team’s deputy, Ron Joseph, is a DLA Human Resources advisor. Both work at DLA Headquarters in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The team’s two DLA Information Operations members support DLA expeditionary teams as their regular job, while the remaining members perform duties similar to their RDT roles at their respective major subordinate command. Red team members haven’t deployed together, but Frazier said most have deployment experience and half serve on other DLA support teams. The group is ready to provide support in response to the 2020 hurricane season, which begins June 1. “While we don’t hope to be called on, we do hope if there is a need, we will be asked to deliver on behalf of DLA,” he said.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0421

Directorate Identifier: 2012NM042AD

757-30-0019, R2 --- 4/19/10

757-30-0020, R2 --- 3/31/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 12.1 - COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES,
               RESTATED 



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 Year Ended December 31, 
                                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1997             1996             1995             1994              1993
                                                        ----             ----             ----             ----              ----
                                                       (000's)          (000's)          (000's)          (000's)           (000's)

<S>                                                   <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>
Income before provision for income taxes              $  39,763        $ 136,280        $  68,607        $ 159,216         $ 153,304

Add:

     Interest on term loans and notes                   100,192           16,411              --               --                --

     Amortization of debt costs                           4,741              661              --               --                --

     Portion of rents representative of interest            652              628            1,988            1,735             1,685
                                                      ---------        ---------        ---------        ---------         ---------
Income as adjusted                                    $ 145,348        $ 153,980        $  70,595        $ 160,951         $ 154,989


Fixed Charges:

     Interest on term loans and notes                 $ 100,192        $  16,411        $     --         $     --          $     --

     Amortization of debt costs                           4,741              661              --               --                --

     Portion of rents representative of interest            652              628            1,988            1,735             1,685
                                                      ---------        ---------        ---------        ---------         ---------
Total fixed charges                                   $ 105,585        $  17,700        $   1,988        $   1,735         $   1,685


Ratio of Consolidated Earnings to Fixed Charges            1.38             8.70             35.5             92.8              92.0
                                                      =========        =========        =========        =========         =========
</TABLE>
No. 09-10758.

#### Marcia Fields, Petitioner v. Ohio.

562 U.S. 851, 131 S. Ct. 106,

178 L. Ed. 2d 65,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5885,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Brown County, denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 29, 2010 

p0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139988 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139988 

 COA: 285138 

Kent CC: 07-008657-FC 

JEFFREY SCOTT VANVELS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
2017-1582.

#### Westerville City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Franklin App. No. 17AP-724 and Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2016-2173. On appellants’ petition to transfer jurisdiction. Petition denied pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.01(E)(3).

Appellees’ motion to stay petition to transfer jurisdiction denied as moot.

Kennedy and French, JJ., dissent and would grant the petition to transfer and hold the cause for the decision in 2015-1065, *MDM Holdings, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.*

O’Neill, J., not participating.
Exhibit 32

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Qwest on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Qwest. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-Q/A. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Qwest and will be retained by Qwest and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|Date: November 12, 2004 |  |     |                                                                                            
|----------------------- |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | By: | /s/RICHARD C. NOTEBAERTRichard C. Notebaert
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
|Date: November 12, 2004 |  |     |                                                                                            
|                        |  | By: | /s/OREN G. SHAFFEROren G. Shaffer
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer                

---



QuickLinks