alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
160 A.3d 701

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SELLERS INGRAM (A/K/A SELLERS INGRAM, III, AND INGRAM SELLERS), DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 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;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15617]



[[Page 32191]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Colorado Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Colorado Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1:00 
p.m. and adjourn at 3:00 p.m. on July 23, 1998, at 1700 Broadway, Suite 
490, Denver, Colorado 80290. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss 
followup to Fort Collins community forum and plans for public meeting 
in Pueblo, and to hold a roundtable discussion on civil rights issues 
in Colorado.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact John Dulles, Director of the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office, 303-866-1040 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, June 4, 1998.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 98-15617 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
2016-1263.

#### State v. Waddy.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-397, 2016-Ohio-4911.

O’Neill, J., dissents.
---

CONSENT OF EXPERT



Dr. David M. Stone MineFill Services, Inc.PO Box 725,
Bothell, Washington USA 98041



To:      US Securities and Exchange
Commission

Re:      Anooraq Resources Corporation
Form on 20F for the Fiscal year ended December 31, 2005

I, David Stone, P.Eng., hereby certify that I have read the
disclosure in connection with the Boikgantsho Joint Venture Property contained
in the subject 20F and hereby consent to the reference to myself as a named
expert in the written disclosure in the Form 20F of Anooraq Resources
Corporation.

Dated this 26 day of June, 2006.

---
**Exhibit 12.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Kenneth Fowler, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Zindart Limited;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theperiod covered by the annual report that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thecompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thecompany’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Kenneth Fowler
EX 10.01


                                  [Letterhead]
                                Carlton Parfitt





Golden Spirit Mining Ltd.
#806 - 1288 Alberni St.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6E 4N5


Attention: Board of Directors

Dear Sirs:

This letter is to serve as my consent to act as Secretary, Treasurer, Director
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

Yours truly,

/s/: Carlton Parfitt
_______________
Carlton Parfitt


Effective this 30th day of November, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
                                     OFFICER

I, Shimon Yitzhaki, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Elbit Medical Imaging
     Ltd. (the "Company");

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

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))

     (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this annual report is being prepared;

     (b)  (Reserved)

     (c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (d)  disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
     over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee
     of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
     functions):

     (a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: June 30, 2006


/s/ Shimon Yitzhaki
-------------------------------------
Shimon Yitzhaki
President & Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Demorest, ChiefExecutive Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of MOCON, Inc.

 

 

Date:  May 15, 2006

 
| /s/ Robert L. Demorest  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Robert L. Demorest      |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Castillo v Mount Sinai Hosp.

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 619

denied
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code(18 U.S.C. §1350), Dan W. Denney Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Genitope Corporation (the“Company”), and John M. Vuko, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:
**1.**  The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and **2.**  The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
**In Witness Whereof**, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 16th day of March, 2005.   /s/ Dan W. Denney Jr. /s/ John M. Vuko   Dan W. Denney Jr. John M. VukoChief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
     “This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof Genitope Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective ofany general incorporation language contained in such filing.”
No. 09-11171.

#### James W. Smith, Petitioner v. Wisconsin.

562 U.S. 865, 131 S. Ct. 153,

178 L. Ed. 2d 91,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6488.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied.

Same case below, 323 Wis. 2d 377, 780 N.W.2d 90.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arnold Moye, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 897]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), rendered November 10, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 11 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Viewed as a whole, including the supplemental instructions, we find that the court’s instructions conveyed the correct standard on the crime of first-degree robbery, including the element of the threatened use of a dangerous instrument *(see*Penal Law § 160.15 [3]; *People v Ladd,*89 NY2d 893, 895-896 [1996]; *see also People v Melendez,*242 AD2d 493, 494 [1st Dept 1997]). The court properly explained that display of an instrument alone is not enough, and that display of the instrument must be accompanied by circumstances that convey a threat of immediate use *(see People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400, 407 n 2 [1980], *cert denied*449 US 1087 [1981]; *People v Sharma,*112 AD3d 494, 495 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied*23 NY3d 1025 [2014]).

The positioning of a court officer behind defendant when he testified was minimally intrusive and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Gamble,*18 NY3d 386, 397 [2012]). In any event, if there was error involving the court’s decision on courtroom security, it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt *(see People v Clyde,*18 NY3d 145, 153-154 [2011], *cert denied*566 US 944 [2012]; *People v Lucas,*131 AD3d 875, 876 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 1090 [2015]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
# DLA Foundation scholarships awarded

/ Published June 15, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
The Defense Logistics Agency Foundation has awarded 31 scholarships to students with close family connections to current or past civilian or military employees. The scholarships are awarded annually based on merit and financial need.  

“The Foundation is able to provide these scholarships because of the generous donations from numerous individuals and businesses,” said Kevin Sampels, DLA Foundation board member. “Congratulations to all the scholarship recipients, and a heartfelt thanks to those family members and friends who support them in so many ways.”

Thirty of the scholarships are for $1,500. A $2,000 scholarship is also given in honor of Frank Lotts, a former DLA senior executive service member who inspired many and died in November 2007. That scholarship is awarded to a student pursuing a degree in science, technology, engineering or math. The 2022 recipient is Sarea White, family member of a DLA Disposition Services employee in Anniston, Alabama.

Recipients of the $1,500 scholarships and organization of their DLA family members are:

•    Olivia Archibald, DLA Land and Maritime•    Nyah Banks, DLA Distribution•    Samantha Baron, DLA Troop Support•    Elijah Beard, DLA Distribution•    Aunisty Belcher, DLA Aviation•    Zachary Brooks, DLA Disposition Services•    MarShae Cooksey-Webster, DLA Aviation•    Laylah Cooper, DLA Energy•    Hannah Crook, DLA Distribution•    Taylor Davis, DLA Aviation•    Kenneth Dearman, DLA Headquarters•    Grant Deaton, DLA Headquarters•    Isabella Hauser, DLA Headquarters•    Alexi Marin, DLA Troop Support•    Christopher Markus, DLA Land and Maritime•    Sofia Martinez, DLA Distribution•    Sydney Middleton, DLA Troop Support•    Sabastian Moreno, DLA Distribution•    Gabriella Oteri, DLA Troop Support•    Sydney Richardson, DLA Aviation•    Benjamin Ruvalcaba, DLA Distribution•    Julie Seay, DLA Energy•    Payton Simmons, DLA Headquarters•    Madison Suffal, DLA Headquarters•    Derrick Sutton, DLA Land and Maritime•    Ivelle Tailey, DLA Troop Support•    Meghan Thompson, DLA Aviation•    Emily Waldron, DLA Troop Support•    Emily Walker, DLA Distribution•    Wells Walker III, DLA Distribution

Children, stepchildren, grandchildren, and nieces or nephews of current or former employees are eligible for the scholarships. The foundation raises funds for them by hosting events throughout the year, through personal contributions and Combined Federal Campaign donations.

The DLA Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization not affiliated with the Defense Department.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Evans, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 119]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered March 7, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 24 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The record supports the court’s finding that a witness’s unavailability to testify at trial “was procured by misconduct on the part of . . . defendant” *(People v Geraci,*85 NY2d 359, 366 [1995]), and therefore that the witness’s grand jury testimony could be introduced at trial. Evidence that the witness, who testified at the grand jury proceeding related to another defendant, was very reluctant to testify “in public” even *434before defendant’s companions made attempts to intimidate her at defendant’s behest does not vitiate the court’s conclusion that defendant’s “misdeeds were a significant cause of the witness’s decision not to testify’ *(People v Smart,*23 NY3d 213, 220 [2014]). Accordingly, defendant forfeited his right to confront this witness. In any event, any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

By failing to object, by making generalized objections, or by failing to request further relief after the court took curative actions, defendant failed to preserve his challenges to the prosecutor’s summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the remarks at issue generally constituted reasonable comments on the evidence and fair responses to the arguments advanced in the defense summation *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]). To the extent any of the prosecutor’s comments, viewed in isolation, were inappropriate, they were not so egregious as to warrant reversal *(see People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]), particularly in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Richter, J.P., Tom, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2


                  [LETTERHEAD OF FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION]



                                                               November 22, 2004

Mr. Marshall W. Pagon, Chairman & CEO
Mr. Joseph Pooler, CFO
Howard E. Verlin, Executive VP of Business Affairs and Capital Markets
Pegasus Communications Corporation
c/o Pegasus Communications Management Company
225 City Line Avenue - Suite 200
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

c/o Mr. William Lisecky
Mr. Paul Conway
CIBC World Markets
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Gentlemen:

      Reference is made to the commitment letter (and term sheet attached
thereto) from Fortress Credit Corp. (the "Lender") to Pegasus Communications
Corporation ("PCC") dated October 22, 2004 (the "Commitment Letter"). Terms used
but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Commitment
Letter. This letter is the Exclusivity Extension Letter described therein.

      The Lender hereby confirms (i) that it has completed its business due
diligence, (ii) its commitment to provide the Credit Facility and Term Loan C on
terms and conditions the same in all material respects to those described in the
Commitment Letter, after giving effect to the elimination of the Conditions
Precedent referred to in clause (iv) below, (iii) that it has elected to invest
$0 of preferred equity in the transaction, and (iv) that it agrees to eliminate
paragraphs (c) and (d) and the first sentence of paragraph (e) (based on the
structure chart delivered by your counsel to us on November 16, 2004, and based
on the list of contracts and other matters disclosed to us and listed on Annex A
hereto) from the Conditions Precedent list set forth in the Commitment Letter,
provided that the Lender shall continue to have the right to approve the final
documentation and any modifications to the structure proposed after the delivery
of this Exclusivity Extension Letter.

<PAGE>

      This Exclusivity Extension Letter shall be governed by the laws of the
State of New York. As a reminder, and in accordance with the Commitment Letter,
PCC is now obligated to remit to the Lender an additional $25,000 expense
deposit to cover legal expenses.


                                           Very truly yours,
                                           FORTRESS CREDIT CORPORATION



                                           By: /s/ Kenneth Sands
                                               ---------------------------------
                                           Name:    Kenneth Sands
                                           Title:   Managing Director


                                      -2-
#### In the Matter of Robert Doar, Respondent, for the Appointment of a Guardian of the Personal Needs and Property Management of Barbara Guidotti, also known as Barbara Akines-Guidotti, an Alleged Incapacitated Person; John Korper, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 136]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), entered March 16, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from, ordered that the alleged incapacitated person (AIP) remain in a nursing facility permanently, that respondent be evicted from the premises owned by the AIP, that the AIP’s cooperative apartment be sold and the property contained in the apartment be disposed of, and that respondent’s contact with the AIP in the nursing facility be supervised, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate the decretal paragraphs that order the permanent placement of the AIP in a nursing facility, the sale of the apartment, and the disposal of the apartment’s contents, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly ordered respondent’s eviction from the AIP’s apartment, since the record shows that respondent violated the June 2014 so-ordered agreement that permitted him to reside there. Respondent admitted that he allowed the AIP to make her own medical appointments, took her to those *489appointments, hired and fired home health aides without consulting either of the AIP’s co-guardians, and failed to administer the AIP’s medication in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Moreover, respondent failed to rebut the testimony of one of the guardians that he denied her entry to the apartment.

Respondent contends that the agreement should be enforced based on his substantial performance of his obligations under it. However, the record does not support a finding of substantial performance. Respondent admitted that he violated numerous express terms of the agreement. In any event, the doctrine of substantial performance may not be used to excuse a party’s failure to perform an express condition *(Tak Ohio Cheong v Jinghong Zhu,*138 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2016]).

The court improperly ordered that the AIP remain in a nursing facility permanently (and that her apartment and possessions be disposed of), because no party requested this relief. Indeed, the AIP’s social worker and case manager both testified that the AIP could return to her home with 24-hour medical assistance.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.
#### Wigdor v SoulCycle, LLC

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 613

denied