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

[57 NYS3d 411]

Appeals by the defendant from five judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chin-Brandt, J., at pleas; Armstrong, J., at sentences), all rendered January 22, 2016, each convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree (one count as to each Superior Court Information), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which she moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

*641Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeals. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
#### April C. Haga, Appellant, v Robert Pyke, M.D., et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 901]

*1414Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County (McGuire, J.), entered September 24, 2002, that denied plaintiffs cross motion seeking partial summary judgment on liability.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages arising from a pregnancy following an unsuccessful surgical sterilization procedure. Supreme Court properly denied that part of plaintiffs cross motion seeking partial summary judgment on liability based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Contrary to plaintiffs contention, a lay jury would not be able to draw an inference of negligence merely from the failure of the procedure, and plaintiff submitted no expert proof that the procedure is ordinarily successful absent negligence on the part of the surgeon *(see Quigley v Jabbur,*124 AD2d 398, 399-400 [1986]; *cf. Kambat v St. Francis Hosp.,*89 NY2d 489, 496-497 [1997]). Further, even if plaintiff had met her initial burden on the motion, defendants submitted proof in admissible form that the procedure involves a risk of failure that, “even with adherence to the appropriate standard of care, cannot be eliminated,” thereby raising a triable issue of fact *(Gushlaw v Roll,*290 AD2d 667, 668 [2002]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Ortiz, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 433]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Núñez, J.), rendered May 19, 2016, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v*California, 386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Kapnick, Webber and Oing, JJ.
2017-0306.

#### State v. Reece.

Montgomery App. No. 27081, 2017-Ohio-222.

Fischer, J., dissents.
Exhibit 31.2
I, Sean Callow, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofHarrington West Financial Group, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):
 (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controlsover financial reporting.
Date: May 11, 2004     /s/ Sean Callow   Sean Callow, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
1

The Hon. Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 01-2475NE

_____________

Kami Nichols, *

*

Appellee, * On Appeal from the United

* States District Court

v. * for the District of

* Nebraska.

*

Plum Creek Motors, Inc., * [Not To Be Published]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2002

Filed: April 17, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kami Nichols brought this action for sex discrimination under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The defendant is Ms. Nichols's

former employer, Plum Creek Motors, Inc. The jury returned a verdict for the

plaintiff. Later, judgment was entered on the jury verdict, and, in addition, the

District Court1

 awarded the plaintiff $45,000 in front pay. The propriety of this award
-2-

is the only question presented on appeal. We hold that the District Court did not

abuse its discretion, and therefore affirm.

The reasons for the District Court's decisions are well stated in its order of

May 14, 2001. We add a few brief observations. Defendant stresses the fact that, at

the time of the trial, the plaintiff was not actively seeking work. Ms. Nichols had,

however, actively sought work in the past, between the time of her discharge by

defendant and her testimony at trial. She had worked no fewer than four jobs, none

of which paid as well as the job with defendant that she had lost. In addition,

although not formally employed, she was, at the time of trial, working in her

boyfriend's business, and he was supporting her. The atmosphere at plaintiff's former

employer had become very difficult. Defendant does not suggest that reinstatement

should have been ordered. The amount of back pay awarded was relatively small,

especially when compared with the amount requested. It appears to represent about

one year's pay, and the District Court's judgment that plaintiff would have worked

another year had she not been unlawfully discharged seems reasonable.

We conclude, on the whole, that the District Court's award was not so far out

of bounds as to deserve being labeled an abuse of discretion. Front pay is a matter

of equitable relief, and the District Court is in the best position to determine whether

it is appropriate. The case is not of sufficient precedential significance to require a

fuller discussion.

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Mark H. Frunzi, Appellant, v Werner Sonn, Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 432]

In an action to recover damages pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Troia, J.), dated May 1, 2015, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a detective with the New York City Police Department, allegedly was injured while responding to an automobile accident caused by the intoxicated defendant. The plaintiff was about one-half block away from the accident when he slipped on an oily substance and injured his right knee. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages pursuant to General Municipal Law § 205-e.

A police officer injured in the line of duty seeking to recover under General Municipal Law § 205-e must, among other things, “set forth those facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant’s negligence directly or indirectly caused the harm” *(Zanghi v Niagara Frontier Transp. Commn.,*85 NY2d 423, 441 [1995]). To satisfy the requirement of direct or indirect causation, “a plaintiff need only establish a ‘practical or reasonable connection’ between the statutory or regulatory violation and the claimed injury” *(Giuffrida v Citibank Corp.,*100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003]). Here, the defendant established, prima facie, that there was no connection between the statutory violation at issue and the plaintiff’s injuries *(see Menard v Highbridge House, Inc.,*82 AD3d 532 [2011]; *Kenavan v City of New York,*267 AD2d 353 [1999]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Driscoll v Tower*Assoc., 16 AD3d 311 [2005]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# Logistics on Location: DLA Land and Maritime supports USS Nitze

/ Published Dec. 8, 2021
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
01:00VIDEO  | 01:00 |Logistics On Location: DLA Supports USS Nitze

The supply team on the Navy destroyer USS Nitze works closely with Defense Logistics Agency Maritime Norfolk to get the repair parts it needs to complete its mission while at sea. DLA also resupplies the kitchens with food along with other materiel needed to meet mission requirements around the globe. The USS Nitze (DDG-94) is the 16th Flight IIA Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer and is named after Paul H. Nitze. Nitze, who served as Secretary of the Navy under President Lyndon B. Johnson and as chief arms control adviser in the administration of President Ronald Reagan.  Watch this video to learn more about how DLA does its part to keep the supply chain open and get the USS Nitze the supplies they need to be mission ready.
No. 10-5251.

#### Ralph Hall, Petitioner v. Jacoby & Meyers Law Offices, Inc.

562 U.S. 911, 131 S. Ct. 266,

178 L. Ed. 2d 175,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6924.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.

Same case below, 14 N.Y.3d 757, 898 N.Y.S.2d 85, 925 N.E.2d 88.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32677-32678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15800]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force Advisory Panel, Aquatic 
Nuisance Species Dispersal Barrier for the Chicago Sanitary and Ship 
Canal

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Advisory Panel for the

[[Page 32678]]

Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barrier for the Chicago Sanitary and 
Ship Canal. Subjects to be discussed during the meeting include: the 
results to date and current status of ongoing laboratory and field 
tests; current round goby distribution in Chicago area waterways; new 
project cost estimates; barrier technologies; and, the draft interim 
project report for Congress.

DATES: The Advisory Panel will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on 
Tuesday, June 23, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The Advisory Panel meeting will be held at the Great Lakes 
Conference and Training Center, 12th Floor, 77 West Jackson, Chicago, 
IL 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Philip B. Moy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 111 N. Canal Street, 
Chicago, IL 60606-7206; telephone, 312-353-6400 ext. 2021.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a 
meeting of the Advisory Panel, Dispersal Barrier for the Chicago 
Sanitary and Ship Canal, established under the authority of the 
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 
101-646, 104 Stat. 4761, 16 U.S.C. 4701 et seq., November 29, 1990). 
Minutes of the meetings will be maintained by the Advisory Panel 
Chairperson, Dr. Philip B. Moy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 111 N. 
Canal Street, Chicago, IL 60606-7206, and will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours, Monday through Friday within 
30 days following the meeting.

    Dated: June 9, 1998.
William E. Knapp,
Acting Assistant Director, Fisheries, Co-Chair, Aquatic Nuisance 
Species Task Force.
[FR Doc. 98-15800 Filed 6-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6306

RONALD LEE TAYLOR HENDERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID A. BRAXTON, JR., Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-02-753-7)

Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: May 15, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Lee Taylor Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher

Galanides, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Lee Taylor Henderson, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken

from a final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court absent a “substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henderson has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and the motion for summary judgment and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Mid-StateBancshares (the “Company”) that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of suchperiod and the results of operations of the Company for such period.
| Date March 15, 2006 |   | /s/ JAMES W.  LOKEY                                                  |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   | James W. Lokey  President and Chief Executive Officer                |
| Date March 15, 2006 |   | /s/ JAMES G. STATHOS                                                 |
|                     |   | James G. Stathos  Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Jones, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 515]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Vil-legas, J.), rendered June 16, 2016, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.
# AANHPI Heritage Month Employee Spotlight: Royden Mokiao

/ Published May 23, 2022
BATTLE CREEK, Mich. , 
*Editor’s Note: During the month of May, the great achievements of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are highlighted to celebrate the contributions that generations of AANHPI have made to American history, society and culture.*

*In 1978, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter designated May as Asian Pacific Heritage Week. May was chosen to commemorate the immigration of the first Japanese to the U.S. on May 7, 1843, and to mark the anniversary of the completion of the transcontinental railroad on May 10, 1869.*

*Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Pacific Director and Special Emphasis Program Champion Faron Cordrey wanted to highlight select members of the DLA Disposition Services Pacific Region that have special ties with AANHPI Heritage Month.*

----

Royden Hanano’eau Low Mokiao was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is of Hawaiian, Chinese, Japanese and Portuguese decent.

Mokiao is happily married and a father of two boys and one girl. His kids keep him busy seven days a week at football and volleyball practice and games. When he is not                 Defense Logistics Agency employee Royden Hanano’eau Low Mokiao with his family.                            AANHPI Heritage Month                            Defense Logistics Agency employee Royden Hanano’eau Low Mokiao with his family.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Kelly BurellVIRIN: 220512-D-D0441-231at their activities, he’s on the field playing softball.

At a young age, he started playing sports and his passion for the game evolved into pursuing a professional career in football or baseball.

His career path changed in November 2001 when Mokiao joined the Hawaii Air National Guard as an F-22 Weapons Armament Systems Technician – he still serves today. When not in uniform, he works for DLA at J64 Indo-Pacific as an IT Specialist.

The most exciting detail about his job is being able to help others and meet new people, he said.

“Every day is different, and it’s a constant adventure,” Mokiao added. “Take any opportunity to get better, be a team player, and don’t be afraid to fail.”

Growing up Mokiao’s parents taught him the values of hard work, education, and most importantly, family.

Family is important to him because no matter what you’re going through, they will be there to support you, and without his family, he wouldn’t be who he is today, he reflected.

Like most families in Hawaii, his family always celebrates holidays and special occasions together.

“Every get-together is always a big event with lots of food, creating great memories with the people you love,” he said. “Asian American and Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Heritage Month is a time to acknowledge the contributions, extensive history, and diversity of each of these cultures and to celebrate our roots and where we came from.”
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2240

The Rape Victims’ Protection Act

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 24 (legislative day, JUNE 7) 1994

Mr. HATCH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

The Rape Victims’ Protection Act

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. This Act shall be called the ‘‘Rape Vic4 tims’ Protection Act’’.

5 SEC. 2. In any criminal or civil action for rape or

6 sexual assault, no court, State or Federal, shall order the

7 disclosure of the records of any rape counseling or bat8 tered women’s center, or shall compel testimony from the

9 agents or employees of such centers with respect to the

10 substance of their counseling, unless the moving party

11 demonstrates a compelling need for such records or testi12 mony.
2

S 2240 IS

Æ
Exhibit 15.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-9354 and 333-139512) of our report dated March 5, 2008 with respect to the balance sheet of Tadiran Electronic Systems Ltd. as of December 31, 2007
and the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the two years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2007, which report is included in this Annual Report of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008.



|    |  |                                          
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Brightman Almagor & Co.              
|    |  | Brightman Almagor & Co.                  
|    |  | A member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel-Aviv, Israel,

March 12, 2009