alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1) | This 10K/A 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 10K/A Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/  JOHN T. KILCOYNE      |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John T. Kilcoyne                     |   |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                                 |   |
|   |                                 |   |
| By:    | /s/  GORDON T. SANGSTER    |   |
|   | Gordon T. Sangster                   |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer              |   |

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60832 Conference Calendar

KOURTNEY DANTE BYNUM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BOLIVAR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; H. M. "MACK" GRIMMETT; CHARLES ANDERSON; WILLIE DISON, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:97-CV-103

- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kourtney Dante Bynum (Mississippi prisoner # 57301) appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Bynum argues that because his appointed counsel failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, he was required to have access to a law library while he was a pretrial detainee at the Bolivar County Jail. Given that Bynum was represented by appointed counsel and that an ineffective-No. 97-60832 - 2 - assistance-of-counsel claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994), the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bynum’s action as frivolous. Norton v. Dimazana , 122 F.3d 286, 291 (5th Cir. 1997); Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817, 830-31 (1977). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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 20-F of Elbit Systems Ltd.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Joseph Gaspar, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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, as amended; and
                 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
         of the Company.



Date: June 14, 2004

                                               /s/ Joseph Gaspar
                                               -----------------
                                               Joseph Gaspar
                                               Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rohan Manragh, Jr., Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 431]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Crecca, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim regarding the voluntariness of his plea survives a waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; *People v Espejo,*145 AD3d 1031 [2016]). The decision to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the court and generally will not be disturbed absent an improvident exercise of discretion *(see*CPL 220.60 [3]; *People v Espejo,*145 AD3d 1031 [2016]). Here, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, since the record demonstrates that his plea was entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently *(see People v Garcia,*92 NY2d 869, 870-871 [1998]; *People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; *People v Mack,*140 AD3d 791, 792 [2016]).

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his contention that his motion to dismiss the indictment should have been granted on the ground that the fact-finding process of the grand jury was impaired *(see People v Hansen,*95 NY2d 227, 232 [2000]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
No. 10-77.

#### Michael Williamson, Petitioner v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 892, 131 S. Ct. 284,

178 L. Ed. 2d 141,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6183.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 936.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 221 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 221

 To allow a prisoner under sentence of death to obtain judicial review 
   of newly discovered evidence showing that he is probably innocent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 27 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

Mr. Metzenbaum (for himself and Mr. Hatfield) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow a prisoner under sentence of death to obtain judicial review 
   of newly discovered evidence showing that he is probably innocent.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 1651 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(c)(1) At any time, and notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, a district court shall issue any appropriate writ or relief on 
behalf of an applicant under sentence of death, imposed either in 
Federal or in State court, who establishes that he is probably innocent 
of the offense for which the death sentence was imposed.
            ``(2) On receipt of an application filed pursuant to 
        paragraph (1), a district court shall promptly stay the 
        applicant's execution pending consideration of the application 
        and, upon an unfavorable disposition, until the court's action 
        is affirmed on direct review.
            ``(3) The court shall dismiss the application, unless it 
        alleges facts, supported by sworn affidavits or documentary 
        evidence, that--
                    ``(A) could not have been discovered through the 
                exercise of due diligence in time to be presented at 
                trial; and
                    ``(B) if proven, would establish that the applicant 
                is probably innocent.
            ``(4) If the court determines that the applicant is 
        currently entitled to pursue other available and effective 
        remedies in either State or Federal court, the court shall 
        suspend its consideration of the application under this section 
        until the applicant has exhausted those remedies. The stay 
        issued pursuant to paragraph (2) shall remain in effect during 
        such a suspension.''.

                                 <all>
```
2017-0559.

#### State ex rel. Cobb v. Adult Parole Auth.

Franklin App. No. 16AP-199, 2017-Ohio-1170. On appellant’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
No. 09-1491.

#### Leland C. Gautier, Petitioner v. Justin Jones, Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 836, 131 S. Ct. 159,

178 L. Ed. 2d 39,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5936.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 364 Fed. Appx. 422.
164 A.3d 399

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. KARON D. TOWNES (A/K/A PRINCE TOWNES, KARON TOWERS, DESHAWN TOWNES, AND KARON TOWNS), DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 16, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

*602It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
#### Com. v. Thomas

04/13/2016

7 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 654
Exhibit 15.18






CONSENT




We hereby consent to the reference to our “Valuation of Varcode Ltd." as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elbit Imaging Ltd. and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-172122) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820) filed by Elbit Imaging Ltd.




This consent is not to be construed as an admission that we are an expert or that we are a person whose consent is required to be filed under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.




/s/ De-Kalo Ben-Yehuda


De-Kalo Ben-Yehuda





Tel Aviv, Israel


November 26, 2013
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




The Board of Directors
American Dental Partners, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.:
333-50605, 333-59075, 333-59077 and 333-59079) on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 25, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of American
Dental Partners, Inc., as of December 31, 2001 and 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report
appears in the December 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Dental
Partners, Inc.




/s/ KPMG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 20, 2003
No. 12-7903.

#### Jackson *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 13.2

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 periodic report of Asia Pacific Wire & Cable Corporation Limited (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Samuel See, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

| |    |                                                                                                                                      
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, ‘‘filed’’ with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: June 26, 2008


/s/ Samuel SeeSamuel See
Interim Chief Financial Officer


---
#### Michelle N. Buffa, Respondent, v Ian James Carr et al., Appellants and Leo Castillo, Respondent.

[50 NYS3d 352]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered August 17, 2016, which denied defendants-appellants’ (the Carr defendants) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment only to the extent of finding no culpable conduct by plaintiff on the issue of liability, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a passenger in a car driven by defendant Ian James Carr, allegedly sustained injuries when Carr’s vehicle and the vehicle driven by defendant Leo Castillo collided in an intersection.

The motion court correctly denied the Carr defendants’ motion, as issues of fact exist as to which defendant driver had the right-of-way *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141; *Espinal v Volunteers of Am.-Greater N.Y., Inc.,*121 AD3d 558 [1st Dept 2014]). Given that issues of fact exist as to which vehicle was responsible for the accident, it is not appropriate to grant plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability as against any defendant, and we thus modify to the extent indicated *(see Oluwatayo v Dulinayan,*142 AD3d 113, 119 [1st Dept 2016]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anonymous, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 525]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. See-wald, J. at plea; Steven L. Barrett, J. at sentencing), rendered October 31, 2014, as amended, February 20, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender previously convicted of a violent felony, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s plea was not rendered invalid by the court’s erroneous advice that the term of postrelease supervision would *415be five years, when in fact it was actually three years, because “warning defendant of a *greater*term of postrelease supervision than he actually faced . . . [did not] deprive [ ] defendant of the information he needed to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action” *(People v Carter,*67 AD3d 603, 604 [1st Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks omitted], *lv denied*14 NY3d 886 [2010]; *see also People v Collier,*22 NY3d 429, 434 [2013]). Defendant’s related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.

The record fails to support defendant’s contention that the sentencing court misapprehended the extent of its discretion to impose a lower sentence than called for under the plea agreement. In any event, there is no reason to remand for resentenc-ing, because there is no indication that any such error resulted in harm to defendant *(see People v Barzge,*244 AD2d 213, 214 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 888 [1998]). Given the court’s lengthy admonishment of defendant for failing to take responsibility for his actions, “there is no indication in the record that the sentencing court expressed any inclination, desire or basis for imposing a lesser sentence but refrained from imposing such a sentence due to its mistaken belief” *(id.).*

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
|   | 1. | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Exchange Act; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Banco      Santander-Chile. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/      Oscar von Chrismar |                         |
|--------|-----------------------------|------------------------------|
|   | Name:                       | Oscar      von Chrismar      |   |
|   | Title:                      | Chief      Executive Officer |   |

| By:    | /s/      Gabriel Montoya |                         |
|--------|--------------------------|------------------------------|
|   | Name:                    | Gabriel      Montoya         |   |
|   | Title:                   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |

----
2017-1660.

#### Hill v. Eppinger.

In Habeas Corpus. Sua sponte, cause dismissed.

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

O’Neill, J., not participating.
#### John Hansen et al., Plaintiffs, v 510 Manhattan Affordable Housing, LP, et al., Defendants. 510 Manhattan Affordable Housing, LP, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Haron Plumbing & Heating Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[ 770 NYS2d 21 ]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered September 9, 2002, which, in an action for personal injuries by a worker, insofar as appealed from, denied third-party defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint of defendants building owner and building manager, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 3, 2003, which, insofar as appealable, denied the employer’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred in holding that plaintiffs allegation that part of his ear was cut off raises a jury question as to whether he suffered a grave injury within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Just as “[t]he term Toss of multiple fingers’ cannot sensibly be read to mean partial loss of multiple fingers” *(Castro v United Container Mach. Group,*96 NY2d 398, 401 [2001]), so too, the loss of part of an ear is distinguishable from the loss of an ear. Nevertheless, we affirm the denial of summary judgment in favor of the employer. An issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiffs injury arose out of the work called for in the purchase order pursuant to which the employer performed, and thus whether the employer is obligated to indemnify defendants under the purchase order *(see Ealem v Eurotech Constr. Corp.,*307 AD2d 217 [2003]). We have considered and rejected the employer’s other contentions. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger and Williams, JJ.
# DLA Disposition Services honors veterans with virtual program

/ Published Nov. 10, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Michigan, 
Many employees at DLA Disposition Services have donned a military uniform at one point in their life, and today, you continue to support the country by supporting the warfighter. Veterans Day, unlike Memorial Day, is not a somber day to remember those who have given their lives in defense of freedom but a day to honor and thank all who have served and still serve today, to keep our nation safe.This year’s Veterans Day Program is virtual and features keynote speaker Zaneta Adams, director of Michigan Veterans Affairs Agency. Both a veteran and military spouse, Adams has dedicated her work to assisting Michigan’s 567,000 veterans.Adams was recognized as one of the 2021 Women Veteran Trailblazers by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Women Veterans and consistently demonstrates leadership through service and board membership at a national and state level.Please take a moment to watch this year’s Veterans Day Program featuring DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon and MVAA Director Zaneta Adams.Lastly, to our veterans, thank you for your patriotism, love of country and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good.
No. 09-10626.

#### Lawrence Reed, Petitioner v. Burl Cain, Warden.

562 U.S. 848, 131 S. Ct. 94,

178 L. Ed. 2d 59,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5772.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# DLA Land and Maritime recruits at the Ohio Disabilities Career Fair

/ Published Oct. 25, 2019
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The purpose of the fair was to help employers connect with qualified and talented civilians as well as veterans with disabilities, and to provide the opportunity and strategy for employers to create a more diverse and inclusive workforce.

More than 150 jobseekers were in attendance and more than 70 federal and state government organizations, private-sector companies and local businesses attended the event.

Approximately 55 participants visited the DLA booth. Visitors learned about the Workforce Recruitment Program requirements, reasonable accommodations, accessibility, federal benefits, college internships, the Pathways to Career Excellence program, and entry-level positions to include part-time and full-time employment.
No. 09-10686.

#### Danny Westbrook, Petitioner v. Mississippi.

562 U.S. 849, 131 S. Ct. 98,

178 L. Ed. 2d 62,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5934.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi denied.

Same case below, 29 So. 3d 828.
No. 09-10657.

#### Reginald Meeks, Petitioner v. David R. McKune, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 848, 131 S. Ct. 96,

178 L. Ed. 2d 60,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6027.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 354 Fed. Appx. 348.
No. 09-11446.

#### Norman Medley, Petitioner v. Mark McClindon, et al.

562 U.S. 881, 131 S. Ct. 199,

178 L. Ed. 2d 120,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6749.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 355 Fed. Appx. 974.
#### Com. v. Payton

03/17/2016

544 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1134
**Exhibit 32.02**

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the Annual Report of Macrovision Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James Budge certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), that to the best of his knowledge: 

(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), and 

(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto signed this Certification as of February 28, 2008.