alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-5077.

#### Anthony Honeycutt, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 902, 131 S. Ct. 238,

178 L. Ed. 2d 158,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6734.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.1





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 of Hyperview Ltd.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Ronald S. McIntyre, Chairman, President, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: April 15, 2011





/s/  Ronald S. McIntyre


Name: Ronald S. McIntyre


Title: Chairman, President, Chief Executive and


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
No. 10-6067.

#### Martin T. Williams, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 944, 131 S. Ct. 367,

178 L. Ed. 2d 237,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7359.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 612 F.3d 500.
No. 09-11423.

#### Santana Jade Cline, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 879, 131 S. Ct. 196,

178 L. Ed. 2d 118,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6559.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 526.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-76,617-02

EX P ARTE DIEDRIK IVA N CAVIL, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 06-10-10374-C R IN THE 284 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM MONTG OMERY COUNTY
Per curiam . Ke ller, P .J., Ke asler, J., and Hervey, J. dissent. O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenc ed to forty-five year s’ imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appea ls af fi rm ed his conviction. Cavil v. State , No. 09-08-00049- CR (Tex. App.–B eaumont August 2 6 , 2009). Applicant contends, inter alia , that he is actua lly innocent o f t h e crime for which he is convicted, posse ssion of more than one gram of coca ine. His claim i s not a true innoc ence claim,2

but rather a cla im that he is not eligible for the sentenc e he rec eived. State v. W ilson , 324 S.W .3d 595, 598 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). This case is one of many cas es aff ecte d by a fore nsic scientist who was found to have not follow acc epted standards when analyz i n g evidenc e. This Court addre ssed these case s in a rec ent published opi n i o n . Ex parte Coty , 418 S.W .3d 597 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In Coty , this Court established a two-prong test to deter mine whether a due proce ss violation occur red in a case handled by a for ensic scie ntist who has been f ound to have c ommitt ed misconduct in a diff ere nt case
. The trial court has made finding s pursuant to that t wo -p ar t t est and rec ommends that this Court grant relief

. Relief is g rante d. T h e j udg ment in Cause No. 06-10-10374- CR in the 284 t h District Court of Montgome ry County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Montgome ry County
. The trial c ourt shall issue any nece ssary

bench w arr ant within 10 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Crimin a l J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: May

7, 2014 Do Not Publish
#### In the Matter of Paul P., Respondent, v Tonisha J., Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 375]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about January 15, 2016, which, after a hearing, denied respondent mother’s request for custody, and granted petitioner father’s petition for modification of visitation to the extent of, among other things, modifying the mother’s visitation to one day a week, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother’s unsubstantiated claim that she completed drug treatment and received therapy for her depression was not a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a change in custody from the father to the mother (Family Ct Act § 652 [b] [ii]; *Matter of Leonard F v Jolanta J.,*162 AD2d 215, 216 [1st Dept 1990]). Nor was there any evidence that the father was an unfit father or that continued custody with him was not in the best interest of the parties’ child *(see Matter of Isaac C. v Veronica R.,*18 AD3d 327 [1st Dept 2005]).

Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the mother’s request for an in camera interview of the child. The court was aware of the child’s preferences, since the child’s counsel stated during the hearing that the child wanted to live with the father and visit the mother (see *Matter of Martin V. v Karen Beth G.,*305 AD2d 305, 306 [1st Dept 2003]).

Family Court’s finding that it is in the child’s best interest to change the mother’s visitation to once a week has a sound and substantial basis in the record. The evidence shows that the mother failed to supervise the child and did not adhere to the court’s prior order (see *Matter of Thomas v Osborne,*51 AD3d 1064, 1068 [3d Dept 2008]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
Exhibit 31.3**CERTIFICATION**I, Randy Underwood, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Dollar Financial Group, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: i) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  j) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];  k) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  l) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): m) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  n) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:September 20, 2005     /s/ *Randy Underwood*     Randy Underwood  Executive Vice President and
No. 10-117.

#### Michael Phillip Gentile, Petitioner v. S. K. Madan, et al.

562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 298,

178 L. Ed. 2d 143,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5977.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 125 Nev. 1038, 281 P.3d 1175.
#### In the Matter of Jennifer D., Respondent, v Artise C.J., Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 346]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Passidomo, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2015, which, upon finding that respondent father had willfully violated a court order mandating child support payments, sentenced him to incarceration for a term of six months, and set the purge amount at $5,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The father failed to rebut prima facie evidence of his willful violation of the order of support entered on or about February 25, 2014 *(see*Family Ct Act § 454 [3] [a]). The father failed to present credible evidence that his alleged medical condition rendered him unable to provide support for the parties’ children, or that he was financially unable to pay *(see e.g. Matter of April G. v Duane M.,*105 AD3d 491 [1st Dept 2013]). The father also failed to provide proof that he diligently sought gainful employment during the relevant time period *(see Matter of Maria T. v Kwame A.,*35 AD3d 239, 240 [1st Dept 2006]). Nor did he provide documentation in support of his uncorroborated testimony that he had only recently obtained employment as a sales representative, earning $200/week plus commission. The Support Magistrate found the father’s testimony to be not credible, and there is no basis to disturb that determination *(see Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P.,*61 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2009]). Evidence of the father’s online social media profile reflected travel and other activity that belied his claim that he was without funds to pay support *(see e.g. Matter of Powers v Horner,*12 AD3d 609, 609 [2d Dept 2004]).

The extent of civil contempt incarceration is broadly within Family Court’s discretion, and commitment for up to six months and a purge amount of $5,000 is not excessive under the circumstances *(see e.g. Matter of Columbia County Support Collection Unit v Risley,*27 NY3d 758 [2016]).

We have considered the father’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Richter, Andrias, Gische and Moulton, JJ.
### ROCWADKiNS STATE REPRESENTATIVE 99th Legislative District PO. Box 688 Sandy Clook, Kentucky41 171 Office: (606) 928-0407 Home: (606) 738-4242 

### C 

### 5 

### I-LOUSEOF 

### REPRESENTKrIVES

I-IIOUSEMAJORITY FL-OOR LEADER July 25, 2011 

### STATE CAPITOL Room304 Frankfort, Kentucky40601 (502) 564-7460 

### CAPITOLANNEX Room309 (502) 564-5565 Fax: (502) 564-1 687

The Honorable Lisa P.Jackson Administrator US Environmental Protection Agency 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., N.W. Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms.Jackson:
I am writing in responsetoyour agency's draft 3168 rules regarding cooling water intakes at power plants. I am writing as Majority Floor Leader of the Kentucky House of Representatives, and I want to reiterate the comments ofthe Governor of Kentucky, Steven L. Beshear, in his letter of February 7, 2011.
I speak tothis issue because 

### I have introduced numerous pieces of legislation dealing with energy independence. I am the past Cha~rman ofthe Southern States Energy Board, a board with a mission to enhance economlc development and the quality of life in the South through innovations in energy and environmental policies, programs, and technologies.
Your comments in previous letters state thatthe rules proposal would "reflect a common-sense approach that reasonably accommodates site-specific circumstances while minimizingadverse environmental impact." Therefore, I urge you to consider the costs of implementing these regulation changes for the affected industries and the rising cost of electricity tothe consumers against what environmental improvements may be gained.
For more than 30 years, the EPA and the states have worked together to meet requirements for cooling water intake structures at power plants and manufacturingfacilities to reflect the best available technology. I believe we can continue towork together to protect our industries, ourjobs, and our environment.
I urge you to keep these comrnents in mind in implementing 316B. I am always available for discussion about these concerns. Please contact me if I can provide additional informationtoyou. Sincerely,

Rocky Adkins Majority Floor Leader
160 A.3d 697

#### OCWEN LOAN SERVICES, LLC, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MARLA WUEBBENS QUINN AND THOMAS QUINN, DEFENDANTS, AND LOUISA WUEBBENS AND DAVID WUEBBENS, DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

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, with costs.
No. 09-11167.

#### Willie Christopher Johnson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 865, 131 S. Ct. 152,

178 L. Ed. 2d 91,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6692.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# DLA kicks off 2021 CFC campaign with $300,000 goal

/ Published Oct. 21, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
The 2021 Combined Federal Campaign is underway at Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters with a goal of $300,000 in monetary contributions. 

That’s $40,000 more than the 2020 goal, which employees exceeded by 17%.

DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic challenged employees during the Oct. 21 kickoff at the McNamara Headquarters Complex to become changemakers by giving a one-time or recurring donation. They can also support their favorite cause by donating volunteer hours. Federal employees gave over 86,000 hours of volunteer service last year. 

Charities receive most of their funding through individual gifts, corporate gifts and government grants, said Curtis Rumbaugh, CFC campaign manager for the national capital area and guest speaker at the event. 

“If we were a foundation or a corporation, federal employees would be the 5th largest giving body in the world,” he said. “That’s all the more impressive given the fact that none of us are getting wealthy through our civil service.”

In celebration of CFC’s 60th anniversary – DLA is also celebrating its 60th birthday – Rumbaugh asked employees to “do 60 or give 60” by donating $60 or 60 hours of time. Most of the 20,000-plus charities supported by CFC have volunteer opportunities, some of them virtual. 

“Consider volunteering as an office. You could spend a lunch hour visiting a veterans’ retirement home and providing them some company. You could be putting together care packages for the troops, or you could be making bedding for cats and dogs at animal shelters,” he said. “It’s a great way to give back and get to know each other.”

Skubic reminded employees that their compassion can make a powerful difference in others’ lives. 

CFC is the world’s largest, most successful workplace charity campaign. Donors can support causes ranging from homeless veterans and endangered species to cancer research. Since it began in 1961, federal employees have raised over $8.5 billion. 

Employees can donate by credit card or payroll deduction on a one-time or recurring basis at GiveCFC.org or the CFC Giving Mobile App on their cell phone. Both options are secure and allow users to search for specific charities or view a list of organizations that support specific categories by location. A hand icon appears next to charities needing volunteers.

Each week throughout the campaign will be dedicated to raising awareness for causes like ending hunger, environmental protection and human rights. For more information, go to GiveCFC.org or contact a keyworker in your directorate.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Rouse, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 547]

*556Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J. at suppression hearing; Anthony J. Ferrara, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered June 11, 2015, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. It is undisputed that the hearing evidence established probable cause for defendant’s arrest. Under the circumstances presented, the People did not receive sufficient notice that defendant would be arguing that, notwithstanding the presence of probable cause, the search might still have been conducted in a manner warranting suppression. In any event, there is no basis, other than speculation, to support defendant’s assertion that there may have been a strip search, a search of a closed container, or anything other than an ordinary search incident to arrest.

Defendant’s contention that certain testimony violated his right of confrontation is moot because the jury acquitted defendant of the charge to which that evidence pertained *(see People v Spallone,*150 AD3d 556 [1st Dept 2017], *lv denied 29*NY3d 1134 [2017]). To the extent that the evidence could be viewed as supporting the remaining charge, we find that any violation of the Confrontation Clause was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]), which included the recovery of prerecorded buy money from defendant.

The challenged portions of the People’s summation were fair responses to defense counsel’s own summation, or fair comment on the evidence, and there was nothing so egregious as to warrant a new trial *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 119 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 10-5327.

#### Ismael Morales, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 915, 131 S. Ct. 277,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6941.

178 L. Ed. 2d 183,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.
Letter Agreement




	



THIS LETTER AGREEMENT (the
“Agreement”), is made this 1 day of December, 2004, among Hudson United
Bancorp, a New Jersey corporation, Hudson United Bank, a New Jersey state chartered bank
(collectively, the “Company”), that maintain principal offices at 1000 MacArthur
Boulevard, Mahwah, New Jersey, and Thomas R. Nelson (the “Executive”). 



             1.       
          In consideration of a payment by the Company of $855,500.00, receipt of which
          is hereby acknowledged by the Executive, the Change in Control, Severance and
          Employment Agreement entered into between the Company and the Executive, as
          amended on September 17, 2003, is hereby terminated. The Company and the
          Executive agree that such payment relieves the Company of all obligations and
          terminates all rights of the Executive under such Change in Control, Severance
          and Employment Agreement. 



             2.       
          The only benefits payable by the Company to the Executive arising from the
          Company’s termination of employment of the Executive with the Company or
          its subsidiaries shall be those, if any, set forth in the new Company-wide
          severance plan, adopted by the Company on December 1, 2004. 



             3.       
          The terms of this Agreement shall be governed by, and interpreted and construed
          in accordance with, the laws of New Jersey. This Agreement supersedes all prior
          agreements and understandings with respect to the matters covered hereby. Any
          amendment of this Agreement may be made only in a writing executed by the
          Company and the Executive, and no amendment or termination of this Agreement
          shall be effective unless and until made in such a writing. This Agreement may
          be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
          original, and it shall not be necessary in making proof of this Agreement to
          produce or account for more than one such counterpart. 



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Letter Agreement to be signed by its duly
authorized representatives pursuant to the authority of its Board of Directors’
Compensation Committee, and the Executive has personally executed this Letter Agreement,
as his own act, all as of the day and year first above written. 













	ATTEST:




  /s/  Ann LaCarrubba
——————————————

Ann LaCarrubba, Assistant 
Corporate Secretary    
             		HUDSON UNITED BANCORP AND 
HUDSON UNITED BANK



By:  /s/ John H. Tatigian, Jr.
——————————————

        John H. Tatigian, Jr.,     
        Chairperson,
Compensation Committee






	WITNESS:



  /s/  Kenneth T. Neilson
——————————————

    Kenneth T. Neilson
              		EXECUTIVE



  /s/  Thomas Nelson
——————————————

    Thomas Nelson
No. 09-11431.

#### Rafael Angiano, Petitioner v. Raul Lopez, Warden.

562 U.S. 880, 131 S. Ct. 197,

178 L. Ed. 2d 119,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6742.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 366 Fed. Appx. 726.
# Fourth quarter employees of the quarter

/ Published Nov. 5, 2020

Defense Logistics Agency Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Jimmy Canlas announced Energy’s fourth quarter, fiscal year 2020 military and civilian employees of the quarter.

The DLA Energy service members, employees and strategic goals winners will move on to compete at the agency-wide level.

“Please help me in congratulating these awesome teammates for their amazing accomplishments,” Canlas said in an email to the workforce. “We all know that no one succeeds alone, so I offer my personal thanks to everyone who was part of the larger team that continues to make us successful day-in and day-out.”

**Field Grade Officer Category:**Air Force Maj. Lewis Benton III, DLA Energy Headquarters

**Company Grade Category:**Air Force Capt. Cody L. Gibson, DLA Energy East Pacific Region

**Senior NCO Category:**Army Sgt. 1st Class Billy A. Viljoen, DLA Energy Americas

**DLA Energy civilian winners are:**Jaron Tyner, DLA Energy Americas East, in the GS/WG/WL 7-12 category and Christopher Boeding, DLA Energy Japan, in the GS13-15/WS category 

**DLA Director's Strategic Goals Award nomination:**John Fitzsimmons, DLA Energy Okinawa, won the Individual Category for strategic goals for Warfighter First, Global Posture, Strong Partnerships, Whole of Government, Always Accountable, People and Culture

DLA Energy Americas East won the Small Team Category for the strategic goal areas of Warfighter First and Whole of Government. Team members are:
      - Army Lt. Col. Julian Perez 
      - Michael VanDongen
      - Gabriel Taranga
      - Air Force Maj. Charles Morton
      - Heather Huhn
      - Raul Garcia
      - Brian Reed
      - Air Force Tech Sgt. Zachary Beggin
      - Travis Streeter
      - Michael Alessandro
      - Army Reserve Chief Warrant Officer 3 Melissa Rodriguez

The DLA Energy winners are slated to compete at the J1 board held at DLA Headquarters.