alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S91A0740.

#### CURRY v. THE STATE.

(406 SE2d 481)

Decided June 20, 1991.

*Copeland & Thomas, Valerie T. Bryant,*for appellant.

*H. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, J. David Miller, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, C. A. Benjamin Woolf,*for appellee.

Smith, Presiding Justice.

Appellant Adron Curry was charged with one count of malice murder, one count of felony murder, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with the shooting death of Robert Lance Hall.1 We affirm.

This Court in *Booker v. State,*257 Ga. 37 (354 SE2d 425) (1987), held that an appellate court' does not weigh the evidence on appeal or resolve conflicts in trial testimony. Instead it examines the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as mandated by *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307, 319 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

The only enumeration of error was an insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict of guilty. We find the evidence sufficient to satisfy *Jackson v. Virginia,*supra, and affirm the appellant’s conviction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crime was committed on January 20, 1990. The appellant was indicted on March 20, 1990. The Lowndes County jury returned its verdict of guilty on May 9, 1990. A motion for new trial was filed on May 23, 1990 and denied on February 13, 1991. Notice of Appeal was filed in the Court of Appeals on February 1, 1991 and subsequently transferred to this Court by order on February 28, 1991. The appeal was docketed in this Court on March 4, 1991 and submitted for decision on April 19, 1991.
#### In the Matter of Alberto Baudo, Appellant, v New York State Industrial Board of Appeals et al., Respondents.

[61 NYS3d 887]

Determination of respondent Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA), dated September 14, 2016, which, after a hearing, directed respondent Commissioner of Labor to recalculate a wage order, dated November 14, 2014, and issue an amended wage order, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Barbara Jaffe, J.], entered January 9, 2017), dismissed, without costs.

*536Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to annul a determination of the IBA, which affirmed an order of the Commissioner of Labor insofar as it directed him to pay unpaid wages, interest, and liquidated damages in regard to four former employees of a restaurant in which he formerly held an ownership interest. Petitioner bore the burden of proof to demonstrate error before the IBA *(see*12 NYCRR 65.30; *Matter of Yick Wing Chan v New York Indus. Bd. of Appeals,*120 AD3d 1120, 1121 [1st Dept 2014]). Where an employer fails to keep contemporaneous records of employees’, inter alia, hours worked, rate of pay, and wages earned or to provide employees with wage statements showing such information with each payment of wages, the employer bears the burden of proving paid wages (Labor Law §§ 195 [3], [4]; 196-a [a]). Here, where petitioner failed to do so, the IBA is entitled to rely on other evidence, even though the results may be an approximation (see *Matter of Alphonse Hotel Corp. v Sweeney,*251 AD2d 169 [1st Dept 1998]).

The conflict in the evidence here, including the hours worked by the claimants, presented a question of credibility, which, once resolved against petitioner, provided substantial evidence to support the IBA’s findings *(see Matter of Mid Hudson Pam Corp. v Hartnett,*156 AD2d 818, 819 [3d Dept 1989]). Other than setting forth flawed calculations based on his own testimony regarding the hours claimants worked, which fails to account for overtime and spread pay, petitioner does not identify any alleged error made by the IBA in its calculation of underpayments to claimants. Furthermore, as petitioner bore the evidentiary burden before the IBA, we reject his contention that because claimant Garcia did not testify at the hearing, his claim should have been dismissed. In this regard, we note that “[hjearsay evidence can be the basis of an administrative determination and, if sufficiently probative, it alone may constitute substantial evidence” *(Matter of Café La China Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*43 AD3d 280, 281 [1st Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Aldeen v Industrial Appeals Bd.,*82 AD3d 1220 [2d Dept 2011]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Rodriguez, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 878]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered April 13, 2016, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Sweeny, Gische, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
# Yokosuka distribution center welcomes new commander

/ Published Oct. 14, 2016
YOKOSUKA, Japan, 
Navy Cmdr. Nolasco Villanueva assumed command of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Yokosuka, Japan, in a ceremony on October 14.  The ceremony was officiated by DLA Distribution commanding general Army Brig. Gen. John Laskodi.

Villanueva previously served as executive officer at Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Pearl Harbor.

Villanueva is a graduate of the University of Maryland University College with a Bachelor of Science degree in Management and the Naval Post Graduate School with a master’s degree in Business Administration – Supply Chain Management. In addition, he completed University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler LOGTECH course in Advanced Program in Logistics and Technology.

Villanueva enlisted in Navy in 1987 at Recruiting Station, Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines.  His enlisted tours include: USS Roanoke (AOR 7), USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19), Navy Brig Yokosuka, Japan, and Recruit Training Center Great Lakes, Ill.

Villanueva was commissioned in 1998 through Officer Candidate School, Pensacola, Fla. His afloat tours include the USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19), USS Antietam (CG 54), and USS Boxer (LHD 4).

Villanueva’s shore assignments included duties as Navy Petroleum Management intern at Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; Force Supply staff, Commander, Naval Surface Force Pacific; and International Programs manager, headquarters, U.S. Central Command, CCJ5.

Villanueva’s personal decoration includes the Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal and Navy Good Conduct Medal. He is a member of the Defense Acquisition Corps and is a Joint Qualified Officer.
#### In the Matter of Kelly A. Goulding, Respondent, v Michael Goulding, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 560]

Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Bernard Cheng, J.), dated October 17, 2016. The order denied the father’s objections to an order of that court (Aletha V. Fields, S.M.), dated February 11, 2016, which, after a hearing, found that he was in willful violation of a prior order of that court directing payment of child support.

Ordered that the order dated October 17, 2016, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4 against the father, alleging that he was in willful violation of a child support order. Following a hearing, the Support Magistrate issued an order, dated February 11, 2016, inter alia, finding that the father was in willful violation of the order of support. The Support Magistrate referred the matter to a Judge of the Family Court for confirmation pursuant to Family Court Act § 439 (a), and recommended that the *635father serve a period of incarceration. On that same date, the Family Court confirmed the determination of willfulness, and issued an order of commitment, dated February 11, 2016, which committed the father to the custody of the Suffolk County Correctional Facility unless he paid a purge amount of $4,658.10. The father filed objections to the Support Magistrate’s order, and in an order dated October 17, 2016, the court denied his objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. The father now appeals from the order dated October 17, 2016.

The father failed to pursue his sole remedy, which was an appeal from the order of commitment dated February 11, 2016, entered upon confirmation of the Support Magistrate’s determination *(see Matter of Flanagan v Flanagan,*109 AD3d 470, 471 [2013]; *Matter of Dakin v Dakin,*75 AD3d 639, 640 [2010]; *Matter of Roth v Bowman,*245 AD2d 521, 522 [1997]). Since the father improperly filed objections to the nonfinal order of the Support Magistrate, the Family Court correctly denied his objections (see *Matter of Ceballos v Castillo,*85 AD3d 1161, 1163-1164 [2011]; *Matter of Dakin v Dakin,*75 AD3d at 640).

Rivera, J.R, Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Parent or Subsidiary Organization*                             State or Other Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------                             ---------------------------
<S>                                                                    <C>
Dynatech Corporation - Parent                                          Massachusetts
Dynatech U.S.A., Inc.                                                  Nevada
AIRSHOW, Incorporated                                                  California
ComCoTec, Inc.                                                         Illinois
DataViews Corporation                                                  Massachusetts
DaVinci Systems, Inc.                                                  Florida
Dynatech Leasing Corporation                                           Nevada
Dynatech Precision Sampling Corporation                                Louisiana
Industrial Computer Source, Inc.                                       California
Itronix Corporation                                                    Washington
Parallax Graphics, Inc.                                                California
Synergistic Solutions, Inc.                                            Georgia
Telecommunications Techniques Corporation                              Maryland
Dynatech Corporation Ltd.                                              England
Dynatech GmbH                                                          Germany
Dynatech Holdings Ltd.                                                 Guernsey, Channel Islands
Dynatech Holdings S.A.R.L.                                             France
Dynatech Hong Kong, Ltd.                                               Hong Kong
Dynatech Investments, Ltd.                                             Guernsey, Channel Islands
Industrial Computer Source Europe                                      France
TTC Canada Ltd.                                                        Canada
TTC Telecommunications Techniques GmbH                                 Germany
TTC Telecommunications Techniques France, SA                           France
Telecommunications Techniques Company (Ireland) Ltd.                   Ireland
</TABLE>

* Excludes nonmaterial subsidiaries.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000030831
<NAME> DYNASIL CORPORATION OF AMERICA

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         140,253
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  381,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,883
<INVENTORY>                                    958,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,515,714
<PP&E>                                       5,542,919
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,478,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,602,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          387,974
<BONDS>                                      1,739,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,493
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,473,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,602,272
<SALES>                                      2,807,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,807,309
<CGS>                                        2,294,115
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,928,427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             194,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (315,555)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (315,555)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (315,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                    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, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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/ COREY M. HOROWITZ
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN
                                            MAY 13, 2005
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). H L/I nvent o ry NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN T ON I O L OP E Z - GA R C I A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73915 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 911- 472 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A nt oni o L ope z - G a r c i a , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of a B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s orderdi sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ' s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of



# FI LED MA R 04 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSH L/I nvent o ry

r e m ova l a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( C A T ) . W e ha ve j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew fa ctual fi nd i ng s f or subst ant i al e v id e n c e , Sa ntos-L em us v. Mukasey , 542 F . 3d 738, 742 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , a nd de ny th e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T he re cord do es no tcom pel re vers alof the IJ ' s c on clusi on thatpet i t i on er f a ile dto e s tab lis h th a t th e h a rm h e s u f f e r e da t th e h an d s o f

g an g m e m b e r s in G u a te m a law a s o n a c c o u n t o f ap r o te c te dg r o u n d . See R am os-L op ezv. H older , 563 F . 3d 855, 858- 62 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( c onc l udi ng tha tr e s i s t anc e t o gang a c t i vi tyi s not a part i cul arsoci algrou p for the pu rpose of e st abl i shi ng nexu s t o a prot ec t ed g r o u n d ) ; Mo l i n a -Mo ra les v . I NS , 23 7 F . 3d 10 48 , 10 51 -52 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( pers on al retri b u t i o n i s n o tp ersecu t i o n o n acco u n to f a p ro t ect edg ro u n d ). A cco rd i n g l y, p e titio n e r 's a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l, an dC A T c la im s f a il. C on traryt o p et i t i on er ' s a l l egat i on , the B IA di d n oti ss ue a s tre am l i ned de c i s i on, a nd the B I A ' s de c i s i on di d notc ons t i tut e adue pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on. See Fa lc o n - Ca r ic h e v . A s h c r o ft , 35 0 F . 3d 84 5, 84 9 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. David Lawrence, Petitioner, v Susan T. Kluewer et al., Respondents.

[48 NYS3d 616]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to release the petitioner in connection with Nassau County Docket No. CR-006525-16NA, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application is granted to the extent that the filing fee is waived and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Habeas corpus relief does not lie as the petitioner is not being detained *(see People ex rel. Wilder v Markley,*26 NY2d 648 [1970]).

Hall, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>
                              EAC INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X

The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  financial  statements  for the year ended  January 31, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.


</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               jan-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    jan-31-2000
<CASH>                                  552,096
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           179,666
<ALLOWANCES>                            20,000
<INVENTORY>                             74,746
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        919,180
<PP&E>                                  457,254
<DEPRECIATION>                          196,586
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,393,265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   497,451
<BONDS>                                 319,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                289,282
<OTHER-SE>                              287,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,393,265
<SALES>                                 1,510,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,510,608
<CGS>                                   985,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,646,118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      5,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (85,198)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (85,198)
<DISCONTINUED>                          182,716
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            97,518
<EPS-BASIC>                             0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.03



</TABLE>
No. 10-5946.

#### Barbara Robinson, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 1058, 131 S. Ct. 685,

178 L. Ed. 2d 474,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9141.

November 29, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2556 

To provide for an extension of the authority of the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide for the conduct of medical disability examinations 

by contract physicians. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2019 

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for an extension of the authority of the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs to provide for the conduct of medical 

disability examinations by contract physicians. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disabled Veterans Red 

5 Tape Reduction Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2556 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS TO PROVIDE FOR THE 

3 CONDUCT OF MEDICAL DISABILITY EXAMINA4 TIONS BY CONTRACT PHYSICIANS. 

5 Section 704(c) of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 

6 (Public Law 108–183; 38 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘December 31, 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘Decem8 ber 31, 2020’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS