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

[769 NYS2d 570]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County *654Court, Westchester County (Angiolillo, J.), rendered February 14, 2002, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On January 11, 2001, the defendant was arraigned under Westchester County Indictment No. 00-01280 for certain conduct against his former spouse, and a temporary order of protection was issued against him. The order of protection was in effect until January 11, 2002. On May 10, 2001, the defendant pleaded guilty under that indictment to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

While the defendant was incarcerated and awaiting sentence, he violated the order of protection by sending three separate mailings to his former spouse between May 18, 2001, and May 30, 2001. Thereafter, the defendant was charged under Westchester County Indictment No. 01-00859 with four counts of criminal contempt in the first degree in connection with those mailings. On January 4, 2002, the defendant appeared in the County Court with his attorney and pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree.

The defendant contends that his indictment for criminal contempt in the first degree is defective since the temporary order of protection expired upon the entry of his plea of guilty under Indictment No. 00-01280, and was, thus, a nullity. This contention, raised for the first time on appeal, is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, this contention is also without merit since the defendant violated the terms of the temporary order of protection while the prior criminal action was still pending and prior to the imposition of sentence under that action *(cf. People v Bleau,*276 AD2d 131 [2001]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]), and, in any event, are without merit. Smith, J.P., Townes, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
# First RAB meeting of 2016 held

/ Published Jan. 22, 2016
RICHMOND, Virginia, 
Community members attended the Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond’s environmental cleanup program quarterly Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting January 11 at the Bensley Community Center in Chesterfield County.

DLA Installation Support at Richmond's environmental office conducted the quarterly RAB meeting and provided program updates on groundwater testing results and remediation activities for operable units on center.

DLA Aviation Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Allan Day attended and met with community members to listen to and discuss the evaluation and cleanup updates given by the environmental office. At the RAB meeting held in April, 2015, Brig. Gen. Day said we will continue to be transparent and keep communications open. “We are all here to do the right thing,” he said.

Approximately 23 people attended the one-and- a half hour meeting in January. David Hufford, an environmental engineer with DLA Installation Support at Richmond’s Environmental Office co-chairs the RAB with community member Janet Moe. Hufford welcomed everyone and began with Defense Supply Center Richmond Cleanup Program update, followed by a technical presentation on OU8 Fall results by AECOM contractor, Jim Spencer, project manager and Ethan Weikel, senior geologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore district.

The meeting began with project updates on groundwater sampling at DSCR which included OU’s 6, 7 and 8. Hufford reported scheduled sampling of OUs 6 and 7 will be conducted in March/April timeframe and a quarterly sampling of OU8 will be conduct late in January. 

Other topics included: update on OU6 site status of the groundwater impacted from the open storage area, land-fill area, and the National Guard area. Hufford reported there will be a vapor intrusion evaluation in NG area in January, supplemental injections are planned for some time in the Spring of 2016, and quarterly remedy performance evaluations are ongoing. In the OU7 site additional injections are currently ongoing in plume 1 of the groundwater impacted from the fire training area.

Spencer continued with a presentation of the new groundwater sampling reports from the October sampling.

Spencer said the change in the results were not significant. “The well testing results along Strathmore Road and the Northern fence line remain at low-levels,” he said. He continued by showing aerial comparison maps of the areas of concern and pointed out the treatment areas which show progress in elimination in several areas.

Weikel presented information, to the community, on the OU8 bioremediation treatment locations. He said the intent is to treat the higher concentration areas where they are, meaning to not move them around by disturbance of any kind. He said low concentration areas will be treated by recirculating with water cleaning processes. Weikel said around March they will make injections and sampling will be conducted in June.
No. 10-6205.

#### Job Thykkuttathil, et ux., Petitioners v. United States.

562 U.S. 980, 131 S. Ct. 443,

178 L. Ed. 2d 321,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8134.

October 18, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 8, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1of the Rules of this Court.
2017-0241.

#### In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 12-426-EL-SSO, 12-427-EL-ATA, 12-428-EL-AAM, 12-429-L-WVR, and 12-672-EL-RDR. On joint motion to consolidate 2017-0205 and 2017-0241 for purposes of briefing and oral argument and request for expedited treatment. Motion denied.
No. 10-6605.

#### Jose Fausto Guzman-Soto, Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1068, 131 S. Ct. 652,

178 L. Ed. 2d 490,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9359.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 328.
# C_2013291EN.01000201.xml

| 5.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre v Minister Skarbu Państwa

(Case C-370/13)

2013/C 291/02

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Henryk Teisseyre, Jan Teisseyre

Applicants:

Defendant: Minister Skarbu Państwa

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality, be interpreted as prohibiting the exclusion — as in Article 3(2) read in conjunction with Article 2(2) of the Law of 8 July 2005 on the right to compensation for property left beyond the present borders of the Republic of Poland (Dz. U. No 169, item 1418; Dz. U. 2006 No 195, item 1437; Dz. U. 2008 No 197, item 1223 and Dz. U. 2010 No 257, item 1726) — from the group of persons entitled to receive compensation of an heir of the owner of property left beyond the present borders of the Polish State who does not hold Polish citizenship?

---
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATIONS I, Michael Feinsod, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ameritrans Capital Corporation;2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd)Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 16, 2011/s/ Michael R. Feinsod
Michael R. Feinsod
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1



                  EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We have issued our reports dated December 6, 1995 accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule incorporated by reference or
included in the Annual Report of Duplex Products Inc. on Form 10-K for the year
ended October 28, 1995.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of
said reports in the Registration Statements of Duplex Products Inc. on Form S-8
(File No. 2-64363, File No. 2-64362, File No. 2-89910, and File No. 33-53507).









                                                          /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

                                                              GRANT THORNTON LLP
                                                              Chicago, Illinois
                                                              January 24, 1996
Exhibit 32.1

                    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


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Quarterly
report of Cedric Kushner Promotions, Inc. & Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the six months ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "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 this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of June 30,
2004.





/s/Cedric Kushner
------------------
Name: Cedric Kushner
Title: Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



Date: September 10, 2004
No. 09-11424.

#### Sabrina D. Davis, Petitioner v. Kia Motors America, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1037, 131 S. Ct. 589,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8797.

178 L. Ed. 2d 429,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 879, 131 S. Ct. 196, 178 L. Ed. 2d 118, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6998.
No. 10-318.

#### Kevin H. McKenna, Petitioner v. Nestle Purina PetCare Company.

562 U.S. 1037, 131 S. Ct. 568,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8701.

178 L. Ed. 2d 427,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of *428Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 10.2
------------



                              DECLARATION OF TRUST
                              --------------------




                                  Paul D. Brock
                             321 - 255 Newport Drive
                          Port Moody, British Columbia
                                     V3H 5H1


November 29, 2004

Fortune Partners, Inc.
1100-1050 West Pender Street
Vancouver, British Columbia
V6E 3S7

I, Paul D. Brock, hold in trust for Fortune Partners, Inc., a 100% undivided and
legal,  beneficial  and  registerable  interest in and to mineral  claims  named
Tetrahedrite 1 (Tenure Number  409103),  Tetrahedrite 2 (Tenure Number  409104),
Tetrahedrite 3 (Tenure Number 409105) and  Tetrahedrite 4 (Tenure Number 409106)
(collectively,  the  "Claims")  located in the  Skeena  Mining  Division  of the
Province of British Columbia.

I will deliver full title on demand to Fortune Partners,  Inc. to the Claims for
as  long as the  Claims  are in good  standing  with  the  Province  of  British
Columbia.


/s/ Paul D. Brock
-------------------------------
Paul D. Brock
No. 10-7046.

#### Antonio Maurice Bing, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1052, 131 S. Ct. 619,

178 L. Ed. 2d 450,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8810.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 387 Fed. Appx. 896.
# DLA Distribution Commander delivers Juneteenth message

/ Published June 20, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
We join the nation in celebrating the Juneteenth National Independence Day, also known as “Freedom Day,” a holiday commemorating the end of slavery in the United States. The theme for this year’s celebration is “celebrating freedom.”

On June 19th, 1865, Army Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and proclaimed freedom for all enslaved individuals, over two years after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous occasion signifies not only the end of one of the darkest chapters in our history but also a crucial step toward achieving equality and justice for all.

In celebration of Juneteenth, I encourage each and every one of you to reflect on the principles of freedom, equality, and respect that our great nation stands for. This is a time to recognize the immense contributions of African Americans throughout history, and to educate ourselves about the struggles they have faced and the victories they have achieved in their fight for equality. To deepen your understanding of the significance of this day, please take a moment to read the attached newsletter, created by DLA Distribution EEO.

As one team, we need to reaffirm our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. I would like to express my gratitude to each of you for your dedication, hard work, and unwavering commitment to our mission. Together, let us celebrate the spirit of freedom on this Juneteenth and continue striving for a future where equality and justice prevail. By honoring Juneteenth, we not only acknowledge our nation's history but also renew our commitment to equality, fairness, and unity.

I along with Mr. Knight, would like to thank each and every one of you for your continued support to our warfighters.
# Tube assembly contracts expand supplier base, provide inventory for Air Force

/ Published March 16, 2022
Richmond, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation recently awarded contracts to two suppliers that will more than double the number of TF33 tube assemblies available to meet demand from  Air Force engineering operations.

Long-term contracts for 52 additional TF33 tube assemblies were awarded to small business contractors Parts Life Incorporated and Tomco Machining Inc. Feb. 2022. The contract additions were added in stages; 38 were awarded at the beginning of January, and 52 were awarded in February. The total number of assemblies under long-term contracts brought the total to 90.

TF33 tubes are the consumable metal tubing and metal tube assemblies used in the aircraft engine for a number of purposes, including fuel delivery, fire suppression and drain lines.

The tubes project was established to develop additional sources and create competition for these tube assemblies. PLI will provide 13 items for a five-year contract value of $1.5 million, and Tomco will provide 77 items for a five-year contract value of $7.1 million. 

Jason Elliott, chief of the Contracting Division in the Strategic Acquisition Programs Directorate at DLA Aviation, said creating competition helps expand the supplier base, creating an avenue for better parts availability.

“Competition also leads to cost reduction over time. As more suppliers are qualified to produce these parts, they compete for the business, which leads to a better overall price for the government.” Elliott said.

As a timesaving measure, once the ‘heavy’ source approval requests, known as SARS, packages for the most complex parts are approved, the contractors will be able to submit modified SARs for subsequent, less complex items.

“SARs were required for all of the tubes as these were once restricted/sole-source.  The SAR is required to approve the new manufacturing source.  5 of the tubes (the most complex) required a Heavy SAR package,” said Elliot. “Once a manufacturer passes the heavy SAR for one of the five most complex parts, the company could be considered for award for any of the lesser complex parts.  After the parts were awarded, a light SAR is required for anything else that was awarded to the new manufacturer.”

The modified SAR offers a streamlined acquisition process that mitigates some of the administrative, cost, and time aspects of processing SARs.

“The main avenue of savings is with respect to administrative lead-time savings,” Elliott said. “Currently, administration-lead time is 75 days, on average.  By adding these items to long-term contracts, we reduce administrative-lead time to 15 days from 75.”
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------




                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350),
the undersigned, Richard Kosinski, Chief Executive Officer and President of
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 of
the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



                                        /s/ Richard Kosinski
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Richard Kosinski
                                        Chief Executive Officer and President
                                        November 19, 2002
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent.

v.

JACOB WILLIAM CARMAN,

Appellant.

No. 84730-9-I (consolidated with 

84731-7-I, 84732-5-I, 84733-3-I, 

84734-1-I, 84735-0-I, 84736-8-I, 

84737-6-I, 84738-4-I, 84739-2-I)

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PER CURIAM — In these consolidated appeals, Jacob William Carman filed 

notices of appeal challenging the imposition of $500 Victim Penalty Assessments

(VPAs) imposed in judgments and sentences entered in ten separate superior court 

causes. When Carman was sentenced on these matters in 2022, the VPA was a 

mandatory condition of all sentences. Former RCW 7.68.035 (2018). In 2023, the 

legislature added a subsection to RCW 7.68.035 that prohibits courts from imposing the 

VPA on indigent defendants as defined in RCW 10.01.160(3). State v. Ellis, ___ Wn.

App. 2d ___, 530 P.3d 1048, 1055 (2023). The State does not dispute that Carman is 

indigent and concedes that this matter should be remanded to strike the VPA from 

Carman’s judgments and sentences.

1

We accept the State’s concession and remand to the superior court to strike the 

 1 Carman also challenges language in each of the underlying judgments and sentences providing 

that interest will accrue on any restitution imposed. The legislature also amended RCW 10.82.090 after 

Carmen was sentenced to allow the sentencing court to waive interest on restitution upon consideration 

of several factors, including indigency. However, the sentencing court did not order restitution in 

connection with any of the underlying matters, therefore the interest provision has no effect and it is 

unnecessary to remand for reconsideration or amendment of that provision.
No. 84730-9-I/2

-2-

VPA provisions from the underlying judgments and sentences.

FOR THE COURT:
No. D-2577.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of John David Rothschild.

562 U.S. 1039, 131 S. Ct. 629,

178 L. Ed. 2d 457,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9010.

November 15, 2010.

John David Rothschild, of Sonoma, California, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### Com. v. T.S.N.

03/23/2016

917 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 477