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

[49 NYS3d 471]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harrington, J.), rendered August 12, 2014, convicting him of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; *People v Atta,*126 AD3d 713, 716 [2015]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt *(see*Penal Law § 130.67 [1] [a]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon our independent review of the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the crime of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree, including the “physical injury” element, was not against the weight of the evidence.

The defendant’s contention that defense counsel’s failure to preserve certain claims for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]; *People v Bedford,*95 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2012]; *People v*
      *734
      *Erskine,*90 AD3d 674, 675 [2011]; *People v Greenlee,*70 AD3d 966, 967 [2010]).

Rivera, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
No. 09-1338.

#### Marcine Palkovic, Petitioner v. Michael J. Johnson, et al.

562 U.S. 830, 131 S. Ct. 86,

178 L. Ed. 2d 28,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6468.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 355 Fed. Appx. 513.
#### Com. v. Burton

11/17/2015

439 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 439
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sergio Salinas, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 583]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.H.O., at suppression hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J., at suppression decision; Ronald A. Zweibel, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered October 3, 2013, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Defendant does not dispute that the police lawfully recovered envelopes containing checks that were stolen during the robbery. However, he claims that the People failed to satisfy their burden of going forward at the suppression hearing to show how stolen cash was also recovered. This claim is unpreserved because counsel did not raise it at the hearing, and the record does not support defendant’s claim that “in re[s]ponse to a protest by a party,” the issue was “expressly decided” (CPL 470.05 [2]; *see People v Turriago,*90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]; *People v Colon,*46 AD3d 260, 263-264 [1st Dept 2007]). We decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Although the principal police witness could not recall precisely when, how, and by whom the cash was recovered from defendant, the record makes clear that a search was constitutionally *660authorized at each possible juncture. Thus, the People adequately went forward to show that whether the cash was obtained as part of the initial seizure of the envelopes as the result of a frisk on the scene, or pursuant to a search incident to arrest at the precinct, the search was justified.

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
# San Joaquin’s Slater Receives Safety Professional of the Year Top Honor

/ Published Dec. 20, 2019
SAN JOAQUIN, Calif., 
Carlton Slater, supervisor of Defense Logistic Agency Distribution San Joaquin, California’s Occupational Safety and Health program was awarded Safety Professional of the Year top honors at the DLA’s 52nd Annual Employee Recognition Program ceremony Dec. 6 held at the Andrew T. McNamara Complex, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

His extensive safety expertise in concert with management, employees and DLA Distribution San Joaquin’s union partners ensuring safe working conditions for more than 1,400 employees led to his selection. 

“Mr. Slater is a remarkable safety advocate and his direct involvement throughout the year contributed to San Joaquin’s many safety accolades and he was the driving force behind a safety program worthy of benchmarking across DLA,” commented Marine Col. Tiffany Harris, distribution center commander.  

Under his management, Slater’s team completed 541 safety inspections to include 41 annual facility inspections and 248 spot inspections. His team identified and recommended technically sound corrective actions for more than 497 hazards and deficiencies. 

The distribution center has been designated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as a Voluntary Protection Program Star Site for the past eight years. As an advocate for employee involvement, Slater ensured the workforce remained focused on the VPP program. He served as a mentor and subject matter expert to five VPP Sub-committees consisting of over 60 volunteer employees.

Another highlight during his tenure was evaluating the needs of his staff to prepare for future challenges by developing his team for future leadership roles in the safety profession. He advocated for professional safety development training by doubling the number of OSHA authorized instructors from two to four. This resulted in more training opportunities, providing 760 hours of hazard control and mishap prevention instruction.  

Further, Slater was the driving force of the Division’s Safety Representative and Collateral Duty Safety Coordinator programs. These programs fortified the distribution center’s safety culture by providing opportunities for direct employee involvement in the day-to-day safety efforts. These programs were responsible for completing 1,872 self-inspections and played a major role in hazard identification and mishap prevention. 

A highlight of Slater’s leadership in the safety arena was the distribution center being awarded the 2018 Department of Defense VPP Achievement Award, the first DLA site to achieve this recognition since the award’s inception. It was his technical expertise and trained safety specialists on proper OSHA reporting requirements that led to this achievement. 

Slater’s strong alliance with management, employees and union partners helped cement the distribution center’s “One Site, One Flag” motto and was key to the installation’s reputation of safety excellence. He is very deserving to be named the DLA Safety Professional of the Year.
No. 09-11470.

#### Anthony Cross, Petitioner v. Nevada.

562 U.S. 882, 131 S. Ct. 205,

178 L. Ed. 2d 123,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6974.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 126 Nev. 703.
No. 12-7978.

#### Molyneaux *v.*Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 09-11406.

#### Dwayne Brown, Petitioner v. James McGrady, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Retreat, et al.

562 U.S. 878, 131 S. Ct. 193,

178 L. Ed. 2d 116,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6554.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 27, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00715-CV ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant V. PANDA EXPRESS INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18346 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck , Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Reichek Isabelle Edwards appeals the trial court’s June 6, 2019 order g ranting defendant’s motion to compel responses to disclosure and discovery requests. Afte r the clerk’s record was filed, we notified the parties we had concerns regarding our jurisdiction . We asked for jurisdictional letter briefs, and cautioned appellant that the failure to respond cou ld result in our dismissing the case. To date, no responses have been filed. A necessary prerequisite to invoki ng the jurisdiction of the co urt of appeals is that, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the appeal must be from a final, appealable judgment. See
T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Discovery orders are inte rlocutory in nature and theref ore not appealable until after a final judgment is entered. See Pelt v. State Bd. of Ins ., 802 S.W.2d 822, 827 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990,–2– no writ) (“It has long been held that a discovery order is inte rlocutory in nature and therefore nonappealable, in the absence of e xpress statutory authority, unti l after final judgment may be rendered on the merits of the primary dispute.”); Liu v. Stull , No. 05-16-00024-CV, 2016 WL 1213382, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 29, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (conclu ding court lacked jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of di scovery granting motion to compe l discovery); see also In re Nat’l Lloyds Ins. Co. , 449 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curia m) (discovery order is reviewable for abuse of discre tion for which mandamus is app ropriate remedy). Edwards is challenging the trial court’s order on a discovery m atter. However, she filed a notice of appeal, not a petition for writ of mandamus. Because the discovery order Edwards challenges is not an appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

190715F.P05 /Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ISABELLE EDWARDS, Appellant
No. 05-19-00715-CV V. PANDA EXPRESS INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 95th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-18346. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek, Justices Schenck and Os borne participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered August 27, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VERIDIEN CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         334,704
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  530,278
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,564
<INVENTORY>                                    353,309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,296,521
<PP&E>                                         755,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                 694,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,490,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,723,810
<BONDS>                                      2,212,497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,194
<COMMON>                                       129,522
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,593,144)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,490,868
<SALES>                                        840,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               873,261
<CGS>                                          712,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,131,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              80,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (347,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (347,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (347,915)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.026)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.026)
<FN>
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# Distribution Red River building projects ahead of schedule

/ Published Jan. 12, 2023
RED RIVER, Texas, 
The COVID-19 pandemic did not halt work on Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas’, new building projects. Since 2020, not one, but two new warehouses were built, the newest general-purpose warehouse opening in November 2022 - one year ahead of schedule.                  Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas’, newest warehouse building undergoes an inspection with the Army Corps of Engineers, DDRT Support Services Division and DDRT Commander, Army Lt. Col. Sonia Huertas. Photo submitted.                            Distribution Red River building projects ahead of schedule                            Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas’, newest warehouse building undergoes an inspection with the Army Corps of Engineers, DDRT Support Services Division and DDRT Commander, Army Lt. Col. Sonia Huertas. Photo submitted.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DDRTVIRIN: 221101-D-D0441-0131

“Infrastructure of this magnitude positions DDRT to better support the warfighter while reinforcing DDRT's value and importance in the distribution network and within Texarkana community”, DDRT Deputy Commander Fred Hildrich, said.   

Last March, DDRT opened a new 240,000-square-foot general purpose warehouse with a clear stacking height of 26 feet. These two warehouses, totaling nearly 1 million square feet, are one of many improvements taking place at DDRT to ensure that the warfighter receives world-class service.

"Because the demand for indoor storage far exceeds our current space infrastructure, finding indoor space will not be a problem once these two warehouses are operational,” DDRT Commander, Army Lt. Col. Sonia Huertas, said.                  Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas’, newest warehouse general-purpose building undergoes an inspection with the Army Corps of Engineers. Photo submitted.                            Distribution Red River building projects ahead of schedule                            Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Red River, Texas’, newest warehouse general-purpose building undergoes an inspection with the Army Corps of Engineers. Photo submitted.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DDRTVIRIN: 221101-D-D0441-0126

“New technology will also reshape how we keep track of the material under our custody, especially with the introduction of the new Warehouse Management System scheduled to launch at DDRT this July." 

DDRT is a vital supply network strategically located in northeast Texas for global distribution. DLA Distribution Red River, Texas, has been in operation since 1998 and has a large army vehicle distribution mission. They provide direct support to Red River Army Depot while focusing on the warfighter. DDRT has $9.3 billion items in storage and over 2,000 material request orders that are picked, packed and shipped daily to customers as soon as the next day.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         779,945
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  907,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,843,630
<PP&E>                                       1,618,807
<DEPRECIATION>                                 303,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,830,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          908,216
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,641
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,626,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,830,182
<SALES>                                      2,862,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,862,208
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,582,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,426,035
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                25,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              72,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,173,089)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,173,089)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,173,089)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)



</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

December 27, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00302

- CR

Robert Len WHITE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas

, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR10291 Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 17 , 2017, we granted Appellant’s motion to abate the appeal for the trial court to file written findings of fact on the voluntariness of Appellant’s statements, and we suspended all other appellate deadlines. On December 21, 2017, the trial court clerk file d in this court the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Our November 17, 2017 order is satisfied. We REINSTATE this appeal and the appellate timetable. Appellant’s brief is due on January 22, 2018. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a).

Any m otion for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief will be strongly disfavored.

_____ ____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 27th day of December, 2017

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle
Clerk of Court
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 08

- 00795

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.B., III , et al., Children, Appellant

From the 131st Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2007

- PA

- 02231 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice Sitting: Rebecca S immons , Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 15, 2009
AFFIRMED After the trial court terminated her parental rights, Monica C. appealed the trial co urt’s
fi n ding that an appeal of the termination order would be frivolous. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 263.405(g) (Vernon 2002). Monica C’s court

- appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating t hat there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re R.R ., No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 21, 2003, no04

- 08

- 00795

- CV

- 2

- pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights) (mem. op.); In re
K.M ., 98 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2003, order) (same). Counsel certified that a copy of his brief was delivered to Monica C who was advised of her right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is , therefore, affirmed and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Rebecca Simmons, Justice
No. 09-1562.

#### Michael S. Kimm, Petitioner v. New Jersey.

562 U.S. 840, 131 S. Ct. 211,

178 L. Ed. 2d 46,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5960.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied.
----

EXHIBIT 13.1  CERTIFICATION OF  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 I, Ronald W. Thiessen, Chief Executive Officer of Anooraq  Resources Corporation (the "Company"), hereby 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:

|   | (i)    | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for        the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Annual Report")        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the        *Securities Exchange Act of 1934*, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | (ii)   | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results        of operations of the Company.                                                                                               |

 Date: July 15, 2005

*/s/ Ronald W. Thiessen*

 By: Ronald W. Thiessen  Title: Chief Executive Officer

*This written statement is being furnished to the Securities  and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form  20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and  will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form  20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for  purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the  "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated  by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or  the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates  it by reference.*

----