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

[61 NYS3d 884]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George R. Vil-legas, J.), rendered March 28, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree as a hate crime, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s arguments concerning the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, in which he highlights discrepancies in the victim’s account of the crime, and defendant’s challenge to the admissibility of an alleged prior consistent statement, are substantially similar to arguments this Court rejected on a co-defendant’s appeal *(People v Coney,*146 AD3d 429 [1st Dept 2017]). We find no significant difference in the evidence against the two defendants, and no reason to reach a different result on this defendant’s appeal.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court failed to respond to a jury note requesting the readback of testimony *(see People v Mack,*27 NY3d 534 [2016]), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that, after the court advised the jury that it would begin the process of arranging for the readback, the jury instead reached a verdict, and thus “[b]y promptly reaching a verdict without any further inquiry, the jury implicitly indicated that it no longer needed the information requested” *(People v Cornado,*60 AD3d 450, 451 [1st Dept 2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 913 [2009]; *see also People v Fuentes,*246 AD2d 474, 475 [1st Dept 1998], *lv denied*91 NY2d 941 [1998]).

Defendant’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the court’s taking of the verdict without providing the readback is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters of strategy not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record *(see People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of this ineffectiveness claim may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v*
      *542
      *Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
From: Kurland, Susan (OST)

To: "agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com"; "Russell.Bailey@alpa.org"; "2dandhac@centurytel.net"; "CBethke@airlines.org";

"Daniel.Shurz@flyfrontier.com"; "dkirstein@yklaw.com"; "DPeterson@aci-na.org"; "efaberman@wrf.com";

"Eugene.Alford@trade.gov"; "John.Varley@virginamerica.com"; "Karen.erazo@suncountry.com";

"keith@washingtonairports.com"; "pdoell@naca.cc"; "pjackson@SWAPA.org"; "cohen@raa.org";

"rozhawk@verizon.net"; "David.Semanchik@alpa.org"; "salterman@cargoair.org"

Cc: Belford, Brandon (OST); Gretch, Paul (OST); "CristinaSA@State.gov"

Subject: US-EU meeting in Brussels on Monday

Date: Thursday, July 10, 2014 4:16:05 PM

We are writing to let you know that we have scheduled a U.S.-EU government-togovernment meeting next Monday, July 14, in Brussels. Representatives from both the

Transportation and State Departments will attend.

The Department of Transportation has requested this meeting at the behest of Secretary Foxx

to hear the EU’s views on the legal meaning and applicability of Article 17 bis of our Air

Transport Agreement as it applies to carriers seeking either U.S. or EU authorizations under

the ATA. The Department of Transportation intends to summarize the contents of the

meeting, place that summary in the docket of the pending proceeding dealing with

Norwegian Air International’s (NAI) application for economic authority to conduct

commercial operations to and from the U.S., and open that summary for comments and

replies from any interested party.

Sincerely,

Susan L. Kurland

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 21, 2015

NO. 03

- 13

- 00576

- CV

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant s

v.

Imperi al Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWIN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court July 17, 2013

, and the amended

judgment s signed by the tr i a l court August 6, 2013 , and August 9, 2013 . The parties h ave filed a

motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the motion

should be granted

. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal

. Each party

shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that part y , both in this Court and the court below.
#### People v Myhand

4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1616 (Monroe)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)
# DLA to help rid Army of excess equipment

/ Published May 3, 2016
No. 10-6767.

#### Louis Bonanno, Sr., Petitioner v. Gerald Thomas, et al.

562 U.S. 1071, 131 S. Ct. 663,

178 L. Ed. 2d 495,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9375,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### Irina Izhak et al., Respondents, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 859]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Garson, J), dated July 16, 2002, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there are triable issues of fact requiring the denial of summary judgment. Smith, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Troy Q. Casey, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 377]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lopez, J.), rendered December 22, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence. On a motion to suppress, the People bear the burden of going forward to establish the legality of police conduct in the first instance *(see People v Whitehurst,*25 NY2d 389, 391 [1969]; *People v Blinker,*80 AD3d 619, 620 [2011]; *People v James,*72 AD3d 844 [2010]). Once the People have met their initial burden, the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving the illegality of the search and seizure *(see People v Grant,*83 AD3d 862, 863 [2011]; *People v Clough,*70 AD3d 474 [2010]).

Here, the hearing evidence, including a police officer’s testimony that he observed a “bulge” in the defendant’s pocket that caused his pants to “sag” and that appeared to be an object that was larger than a cell phone, established grounds for the officer to ask the defendant whether he had a weapon *(see People v Moret,*240 AD2d 321 [1997]; *see also People v Harris,*122 AD3d 942, 944 [2014]). The officer testified that the defendant then admitted that he possessed a gun, giving rise to reasonable suspicion for the search of the defendant’s person *771
      *(see People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 233 [1976]; *see also People v Williams,*143 AD3d 847, 848 [2016]).

Furthermore, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in crediting the hearing testimony of the arresting officer. The credibility determinations of a hearing court, which saw and heard the witnesses at the hearing, are entitled to deference on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Wallace,*128 AD3d 866, 866 [2015]; *People v Davis,*103 AD3d 810, 811 [2013]). Here, the credibility determinations of the court were not clearly unsupported by the record.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to certain of the prosecutor’s summation remarks *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Paul,*82 AD3d 1267, 1268 [2011]). In any event, the summation, as a whole, was responsive to the defense summation, and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Morrow,*143 AD3d 919, 921 [2016]; *People v Ferraro,*49 AD3d 550, 551 [2008]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EUGENE M. PRATT,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 316 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of March, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

                  We have issued our report dated July 31, 2003, accompanying
the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report
of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended
June 30, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Registration Statements of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and
subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-19288, effective December 23, 1987; File
No. 33-26065, effective February 18, 1988; File No. 33-32984, effective January
12, 1990; File No. 33-38914, effective February 8, 1991; File No. 33-38914,
effective September 26, 1994 and File No. 333-18515, effective December 20,
1996) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-60987, effective August 21, 1998, File No.
333-32144, effective March 10, 2000, File No. 333-58506, effective April 23,
2001, File No. 333-65580, effective August 3, 2001 and File No. 333-73796,
effective November 20, 2001).

                                      /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 18, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7206

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES HUTSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CR-94-130-F, CA-96-274-F)

Submitted: September 30, 1996 Decided: October 15, 1996

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Hutson, Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Evenson, II, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Hutson appeals from the district court's order denying

his motion for relief filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994),

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hutson, Nos.

CR-94-130-F; CA-96-274-F (E.D.N.C. July 15, 1996). 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. Appellant`s motion for remand

is denied.

DISMISSED
No. 10-6885.

#### William Roker, Jr., Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1094, 131 S. Ct. 802,

178 L. Ed. 2d 536,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9582.

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, denied.

Same case below, 25 So. 3d 647.
2017-0299.

#### State v. Grogan.

Stark App. No. 2016CA00128, 2017-Ohio-205.
#### Willis, In re Estate of; Willis, In re 3

12/01/2015

284, 285 WAL (2015)

3

. Reconsideration Denied January 7, 2016.

Denied

Pa.Super., — A.3d -
# C_2015046EN.01005101.xml

| 9.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Wilo v OHIM (Pioneering for You)

(Case T-601/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Pioneering for You - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 046/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wilo SE (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: B. Scheniders, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 555/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Pioneering for You as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wilo SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wilo SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
No. 10-6336.

#### Melvin Tyrone Mearidy, Petitioner v. Georgia.

562 U.S. 987, 131 S. Ct. 427,

178 L. Ed. 2d 333,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8202.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 287 Ga. 312, 696 S.E.2d 61.
# C_2014175EN.01005301.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/53

---

Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Lesaffre et Compagnie v OHIM — Louis Baking Company (BAKING CENTER BY TECHNOLINE)

(Case T-575/13) (1)

1

2014/C 175/75

Language of the case: French

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1. 2. 2014.

1

---
Exhibit 32

                                CERTIFICATIONS OF
                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND TREASURER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of GPS Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Robert
C. Silzer, hereby certify in my capacity as President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, 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 and belief:

            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:  July 26, 2005             By:  /s/ Robert C. Silzer
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Robert C. Silzer
                                   Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


     In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of GPS Industries, Inc.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, George
Dorin, hereby certify in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
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 and belief:

            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.



Dated: April 15, 2005           By:      /s/ George G. Dorin
                                    -------------------------------------
                                       Name:  George G. Dorin
                                       Title: Chief Financial Officer
# DLA Energy donates toys to Toys for Tots Program

/ Published Dec. 22, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, area toy drop locationstoysfortots.org
First Amendment to the Amgen Inc. Executive Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 AMGEN INC. EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 Effective December 6, 2004, Section III of the Amgen Inc. Executive Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is amended and restated as follows: 
  
 “Eligibility to participate in the Plan is limited to senior executives of Amgen. Participants in the Plan
(“Participants”) shall be elected annually by the Compensation Committee from those eligible to participate in the Plan.” 
  
 To record this First Amendment to the Plan as set forth herein, the Company has caused its authorized officer to execute this document this 7th day of
December, 2004 
  

			
	 AMGEN INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/    BRIAN M. MCNAMEE


	 Title:
	 	 Senior Vice President, Human Resources
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of DirectPlacement, Inc.
(the " Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the " Report"),
the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, 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 and
belief:

     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.



Dated: August 14, 2002                 By: /s/ BRIAN M. OVERSTREET
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name: Brian M. Overstreet
                                           Title: Chief Executive Officer




In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of DirectPlacement, Inc.
(the " Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the " Report"),
the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, 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 and
belief:

     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.



Dated: August 14, 2002                 By: /s/ MICHAEL LORBER
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Michael Lorber
                                           Title: Chief Financial Officer


                                       23
No. 10M41.

#### Winston G. Morrison, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 979, 131 S. Ct. 442,

178 L. Ed. 2d 320,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8143.

October 18, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time is denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2429
In Re: SYED H. (NAYYAR) ZAIDI, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. (CA-97-467-A) Submitted: November 25, 1997 Decided: January 6, 1998 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Syed H. Zaidi, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* See Linda R. S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) ("[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another."). 2 PER CURIAM: Syed H. (Nayyar) Zaidi filed a petition for a writ to compel and to prohibit requesting that this court compel the United StatesAttorney to act on Zaidi's complaint that the Plaintiff in an ongoing civil suit involving Zaidi made improper service of process and committed perjury and prohibit the United States Attorney from using the excuse, "scarce prosecutorial resources." A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy; the writ should issue only where the petitioner's right to the remedy is clear and indisputable, see In re Vargas , 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983), and where the petitioner has not other adequate means of relief. See In re Banker's Trust Co. , 775 F.2d 545, 547 (3d Cir. 1985); see also In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). We deny Zaidi's petition for a writ to compel and to prohibit because he fails to show that his right to such relief is clear and indisputable * and that he has exhausted all available means of relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED