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

[719 NYS2d 600]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D. Friedman, J.), rendered June 18, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were improper is unpreserved for appellate review since he raised only general objections to the challenged remarks, did not request curative instructions when his objections were sustained, and did not move for a mistrial *(see, People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818; *People v Davis,*277 AD2d 248 [case No. 1]; *People v Feliciano,*254 AD2d 496; *People v Oreckinto,*253 AD2d 896; *People v Scotti,*220 AD2d 543). In any event, most of the challenged remarks either constituted fair comment, or were made in response to the defense counsel’s arguments on summation, and none was so prejudicial as to require reversal *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396; *People v Davis,*supra;*People v Jones,*255 AD2d 600; *People v Feliciano, supra).*Krausman, J. P., Luciano, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 22078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9714]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, April 14, 2011; 3:45 p.m.-4 p.m.

PLACE: Radio Free Asia Headquarters, 2025 M St., NW., Washington, DC 
20036.

SUBJECT: Notice of Closed Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors.
SUMMARY: At the time and location listed above, the Broadcasting Board 
of Governors (BBG) determined to conduct a meeting closed to the public 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6). The meeting was closed to protect 
privacy concerns during the consideration of potential appointees to 
serve as the Director of the Voice of America. Although discussion of 
the matter in an open setting was considered, the potential 
consequences of disclosing the identities and circumstances of 
individuals considered for appointment compelled the Board to close the 
meeting to public observation. The Board also determined that shorter 
than usual notice for a meeting was required by official agency 
business and the delayed availability of required information.
Members Vote To Close the Meeting
Walter Isaacson--Yes.
Victor Ashe--No.
Susan McCue--Yes.
Michael Meehan--Yes.
Dennis Mulhaupt--Yes.
Dana Perino--Yes.
S. Enders Wimbush--Yes.
Attendance
Walter Isaacson, BBG Chairman.
Victor Ashe, BBG Member.
Susan McCue, BBG Member.
Michael Meehan, BBG Member.
Dennis Mulhaupt, BBG Member.
Dana Perino, BBG Member.
S. Enders Wimbush, BBG Member.
Jeffrey Trimble, BBG Executive Director.
Richard Lobo, Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau.
Maryjean Buhler, BBG Chief Financial Officer.
Paul Kollmer-Dorsey, BBG Deputy General Counsel.
Lynne Weil, Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy 
and Public Affairs.
Oanh Tran, BBG Special Projects Officer.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-9714 Filed 4-18-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 553

To authorize certain States to prohibit the importation of solid waste from 

other States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2005

Mr. KANJORSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To authorize certain States to prohibit the importation of 

solid waste from other States, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Solid Waste Compact 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT IMPORTATION OF SOLID 

7 WASTE. 

8 (a) AMENDMENT.—Subtitle D of the Solid Waste 

9 Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.) is amended by add10 ing at the end the following new section: 
2

•HR 553 IH 

1 ‘‘AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT IMPORTATION OF SOLID

2 WASTE

3 ‘‘SEC. 4011. A State whose State plan has been ap4 proved under section 4007 may prohibit the importation 

5 into that State of solid waste from outside that State.’’. 

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 

7 such subtitle D is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing new item:

‘‘Sec. 4011. Authority to prohibit importation of solid waste.’’.

9 SEC. 3. ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS. 

10 (a) AMENDMENT.—Subtitle A of the Solid Waste 

11 Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) is amended by add12 ing at the end the following new section: 

13 ‘‘ALTERNATIVE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS

14 ‘‘SEC. 1009. The Administrator shall, in consultation 

15 with the States and other interested persons, identify in16 novative alternative solid waste disposal methods, and es17 tablish and publish technical guidance regarding the im18 plementation of such methods. Within one year after the 

19 date of the enactment of this section, and from time to 

20 time subsequently as warranted by changing cir21 cumstances, the Administrator shall transmit to the Con22 gress a report summarizing the Administrator’s activities 

23 under this section.’’. 
3

•HR 553 IH 

1 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for 

2 such subtitle A is amended by adding at the end the fol3 lowing new item:

‘‘Sec. 1009. Alternative solid waste disposal methods.’’.

Æ
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,519] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 9, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by the United Steelworkers of America, Local 878, on behalf of workers of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Union City, Tennessee. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of March 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-5897 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 99.1


                              PACIFIC STATE BANCORP

                            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 Quarterly Report of Pacific State Bancorp
         (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002,
         as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2002
         (the "Report'), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
         Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
         Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge, that:

               (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                      13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
                      1934; and

               (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                      in all material respects, the financial condition and
                      results of operations of the Company


                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


PACIFIC STATE BANCORP

BY: /s/ STEVEN A. ROSSO                              Date: November 4, 2002
    -------------------------------------
             Steven A. Rosso
    President and Chief Executive Officer


BY: /s/ CARMELA JOHNSON                              Date: November 4, 2002
    -------------------------------------
             Carmela Johnson
      Executive Vice President and
        Chief Financial Officer
CHARLESTON.

#### Elbon *v.*Hamrick.

Submitted January 27, 1904

Decided March 8, 1904.

1. Writ of *Error*— Appellate *Court*— Judgment.

When, pending a writ of error, without fault of a party, *237an event occurs rendering it impossible for the appellate court, if it should decide in favor of the plaintiff, to grant him substantial relief, the Court will not decide the merits and give formal judgment, but will dismiss the writ of error, without awarding costs, (p. 237).

2. Writ of *Error*— Office—Term,.

When a writ of error involves a contest as to an office, and while it is pending the term of the office ends, the writ of error will he dismissed without decision of the case, and ■ without judgment as to costs, (p. 238).

Error to Circuit Court, Webster County.

*Certiorari*by W. W. Elbon against Benjamin Hamrick and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

*Dismissed.*

LiNN & Byrne and W. T. Talbott-, for plaintiff in error.

MoetoN & WysoNG and II. C. Thurmond, for defendants in error.

BRANNON, J UDGE :

W. W. Elbon was elected councilman of the town of Addison, Webster County, but upon contest before the town council he was declaied ineligible because not a freeholder, and then he sued out a writ of *certiorari*to reverse that decision, but the *certiorari*was dismissed by the circuit court as improvidently granted. Elbon obtained a writ of error.

The case now presents to this Court for decision only a moot or useless question, for the reason that the term of'office has expired, and if Elbon were successful, he could not take the office. Our case of *State*v. *Lambert.*52 W. Va. 248, fully discusses this, holding that “if, pending a writ of error to a judgment awarding a *mandamus*commanding a town clerk to place a candidate’s name on an official ballot, the election has been held, the writ of error will be dismissed.” “When pending an appeal, without any fault of defendant, an event occurs which renders it impossible for the appellate court, if it should decide the case in favor of the plaintiff, to grant him any -effectual relief the Court will not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal.” *Mills*v. *Green,*159 U. S. 651. There a party sought a right to vote, but the election was over. *Taylor*v. *May*
      *238
      *nor, 46*W. Va. 588, is decisive of this case, holding that where a case involves right to town offices, and the term ends during pendency of a writ of error, .ihe .writ of error will be dismissed. Only a question of costs is left in the case. The subject is fully stated in 2 Cvc. 533. There we find that the court will not hear the case merely to adjudge costs. The principles above stated, and as to costs, will be found in *Fergerson*v. Millender, 32 W. Va. 30. Having no controversy on which to base a decision, how can we adjudicate costs? Costs depend on decision of the merits. We cannot award them in favor of plaintiff in error without determining that he has right, or against the defendant without finding him wrong.

Therefore, we dismiss the writ of error, without costs.

*Dismissed.*
----

**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**

| Date:                September 17, 2007 | By:    | /s/                Zeynep Hakimoglu                                                              |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |   | Zeynep                Hakimoglu                                                                  |
|                                    |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer(Principal                Executive Officer) |

**A      signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc.      and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request.**
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of East KansasAgri-Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, William Pracht, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   /s/ William Pracht             |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Dated: November 15, 2004              |

 

----
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Travis William RANDALL, Appellant.

WD 80820

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: August 28, 2018

Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia for appellant.

Evan J. Buchheim, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam

Travis Randall appeals the circuit court's judgment finding him guilty of one count of felony nonsupport. On appeal, Randall contends the court's denial of a continuance motion violated his rights to due process and to present a complete defense. Upon review of the record and the briefs, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction. Because a published opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision.

AFFIRMED. Rule 30.25(b)
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE 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, the
undersigned officer of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, to the knowledge of the undersigned, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: November 10, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian McLeod, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 557]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Williams, J., on preclusion order; Lawrence Tonetti, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 24, 1999, convicting defendant of attempted assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting certain uncharged crimes evidence notwithstanding the People’s failure to provide advance notice of their intent to offer this evidence. While it would have been the better practice had the People sought an advance ruling *(see, People v Ventimiglia,*52 NY2d 350, 356, 361-362), this evidence was plainly admissible pursuant to *People v Molineux*(168 NY 264), as defendant concedes on appeal, and defendant has not established that the lack of an advance ruling caused him any prejudice *(see, People v Sibadan,*240 AD2d 30, 37, *lv denied*92 NY2d 861). Unlike uncharged crimes offered to impeach a defendant’s credibility, neither CPL 240.43 nor any other statute provides for discovery of uncharged crimes offered under a *Molineux*theory *(see, People v Travis,*273 AD2d 544, 545-546).

Defendant, alleging that a prior Justice had prospectively precluded the People from introducing any undisclosed *Molineux*evidence, also argues that the uncharged crimes evidence was admitted in violation of the doctrine of “law of the case.” The trial court had discretion to make its own determination as to the admissibility of the challenged testimony *(see, People v Evans,*94 NY2d 499).

*373The court’s limiting instructions concerning the uncharged crimes evidence properly conveyed to the jury the purpose of this testimony, and the court was not obligated to instruct the jury in the language requested by defendant. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Tom, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**





**Pursuant
      to**


**18
      U.S.C. Section 1350,**


**As
      Adopted pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





I,
      Donald
      Frederick, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
      ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003,
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
      Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of ClearOne Communications, Inc.











Date:
                August 18, 2005
            /s/
                Donald FrederickDonald
                FrederickChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)




**A
          signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906
          of the
          Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications,
          Inc.
          and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to
          the
          Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
          request.**
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 Quarterly Report of Salomon Smith Barney Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci
Jerry Pascucci
Citigroup Managed Futures LLC
President and Director

November 14, 2007

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 24-0203

_________________

JOEY ZAHARA,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v. 

ADVANCED NEUROLOGY SPECIALISTS,

 Defendant and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

The parties jointly move this Court to stay the briefing deadlines in this matter, as 

they have reached a settlement agreement and need time to effectuate the agreement. Good 

cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion to stay is GRANTED. The parties have 

until November 18, 2024, to file either a stipulation for dismissal or a report on the status 

of the appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 24 2024

09/24/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0203
EX-34.7
(logo) Virchow Krause & company


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We have examined WestLake Settlement Services, LLC's compliance with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to
WestLake (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008:

1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or insurance
payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration dates, as
indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments, provided that
such support has been received by the servicer at least 30 calendar days prior
to these dates, or such other number of days specified in the transaction
agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to be
made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not charged
to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error or
omission.

Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with these servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, WestLake Settlement Services, LLC complied with, in all material
respects, the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008.


/s/ Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP
Virchow Krause & Company, LLP
February 25, 2009


Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP
Certified Public Accountants & Consultants
An Independent Member of Baker Tilly International