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

[719 NYS2d 679]

Appeal by the defen*584dant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered September 8, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, kidnapping in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and grand larceny 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 modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the conviction for kidnapping in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Police responded to a radio transmission from a witness to an armed robbery which described the physical appearance of the robbers, their clothing, the location of the robbery, and the fact that they had seized a white truck with the word “Salem” on its sides. The hearing court properly found that there was probable cause for the police to arrest the defendant. The evidence established the reliability of the witness and the basis for his information, where the defendant fit the description of one of the robbers, and was in a white truck with the word “Salem” on its sides, in close temporal and geographic proximity to the information provided by the radio transmission *(see, People v Ketcham,*93 NY2d 416; *People v Parris,*83 NY2d 342; *People v Spencer,*257 AD2d 638; *People v Blanco,*253 AD2d 886).

The record further supports the court’s finding that the defendant forfeited his right to be present at his trial by absconding during the proceedings. The court weighed the different considerations, including the possibility that the defendant could be located at present or in the future, the difficulties involved in rescheduling the trial, the fact that his codefendant was ready for trial, and the chance that evidence would be lost or witnesses become unavailable if the trial were delayed, in determining that the defendant had waived his right to be present *(see, People v Parker,*47 NY2d 907; *People v Aponte,*204 AD2d 339). The defendant’s subsequent arrest did not nullify the court’s finding that the defendant had forfeited his right to be present *(see, People v Enoch,*221 AD2d 253; *People v Aponte, supra).*

However, the court should have dismissed the kidnapping count of the indictment prior to sentencing where the asportation and restraint of the truck’s driver was incidental to and inseparable from the robbery *(see, People v Cain,*76 NY2d 119, *585125). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.
----

----

III Informazioni

Commissione

----

Avviso di un posto vacante di 

DIRETTORE

dell'Agenzia europea per la sicurezza e la salute sul lavoro

(Grado A*14)

COM/2005/10001

(2005/C 163 A/01)

L'Agenzia europea per la sicurezza e la salute sul lavoro intende nominare un direttore.

I candidati devono essere cittadini di uno degli Stati membri dell'Unione europea.

Il direttore sarà nominato dal Consiglio d'amministrazione dell'Agenzia sulla base di un elenco di candidati selezionati e proposti dalla Commissione europea. La retribuzione e le condizioni d'impiego sono quelle previste dallo statuto per i funzionari di grado A*14 delle Comunità europee. L'Agenzia e la Commissione applicano una politica di pari opportunità.

La descrizione delle mansioni, i moduli per la presentazione delle candidature e le istruzioni per l'invio di tali moduli sono disponibili su Internet ai seguenti indirizzi:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_fr.htm

oppure

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2005/jul/bilbao_vacancy_en.html

Il termine per la presentazione delle candidature è fissato al 10 agosto 2005 (fa fede il timbro postale).

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 23, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30455

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIE B. PATRICK, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RAY CLARY; MATTHEWS, Nurse; 

WATSONS, Nurse; STEELMAN, Nurse,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:01-CV-1227

--------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie B. Patrick, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 128664, appeals

from the district court’s summary-judgment dismissal of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claim for failure to treat his glaucoma. 

Patrick has not proffered competent summary-judgment evidence

showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to his

civil rights claim. Based on the record before us, a reasonable

jury could not conclude that Ray Clary, Linda Matthews, Tonya
2

Watson, or Linda Steelman was deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs. See Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal

Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). Unsuccessful medical

treatment, acts of negligence, neglect, or medical malpractice are

insufficient to give rise to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action.

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). This court

AFFIRMS the judgment of the district court and DENIES Patrick’s

motions.
----

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission decision 2001/462/3C, ECSC of 23 may 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 134/06)

On 13 November 2001 the Commission received notification, under Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger Regulation’), of a transaction whereby a part of the assets of the French company Moulinex was to be acquired by another French company, SEB. On 8 January 2002 the Commission decided not to oppose to the transaction notified and to declare it compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with certain commitments which formed an integral part of the decision. This decision, adopted under Article 6(1)(b) and Article 6(2) of the Merger Regulation, authorised the transaction with respect to its effects outside France. The French authorities had requested that part of the case be referred to them, and by a decision likewise adopted on 8 January 2002, under Article 9 of the Merger Regulation, the Commission referred the French aspects of the case to the French authorities.

On 3 April 2003 the Court of First Instance annulled the Commission's authorising decision with respect to five countries where no remedies had been required (Spain, Finland, Italy, the United Kingdom and Ireland). The Commission then reopened the first phase of investigation.

In accordance with Article 10(5) of the Merger Regulation, the date on which the notification and the time limits which depend on it now took effect was 3 April 2003.

On 23 May 2003 the Commission concluded that the commitments offered by SEB did not overcome the serious doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the common market, and decided to initiate formal proceedings under Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

Those proceedings were suspended on 19 June 2003 by a decision under Article 11 of the Merger Regulation. SEB supplied a full reply, and the proceedings resumed on 1 August 2003. The time limit for a decision under Article 8 of the Merger Regulation is consequently 25 November 2003. The conclusion from the detailed market surveys now carried out is that no commitments other than those entered into in the earlier proceedings were needed in order to prevent the creation or strengthening of a dominant position. For this reason no statement of objections has been sent to the parties.

I consider that the undertakings' right to be heard has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 4 November 2003

Serge DURANDE

----
Texas Mineral Resources Corp. 10-K



Exhibit
32.1



Exhibit
32.1. Section 1350 Certification by Chief Executive Officer



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 Texas Mineral Resources Corp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended
August 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel
E Gorski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|/s/
    Daniel E Gorski                      |  | 
|-------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Daniel
    E Gorski, Chief Executive Officer

December
14, 2018



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED KE YSHAWN JAMAL D'ANDRE WRIGHT , App ellant ,
v. Cas e No

. 5D 21 -2 928 LT Cas e No. 2015 -C F

- 000 19 -A STAT E OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decisio n filed Jun e 21, 2022 3.850 A ppeal f rom the Circuit Court for Lake County , James R. Baxley , J udge. Key shawn Jamal D. Wright , Century, pro s e

. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, an d A lyssa M

. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, HARRIS and NARDELLA , JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63

of Title 18 of the United States Code

I, Stephen W. Golsby, Chief Executive Officer of Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, certify that (i) Mead Johnson Nutrition
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in Mead Johnson
Nutrition Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mead Johnson Nutrition Company.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 27, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    Stephen W. Golsby                               
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Stephen W. Golsby President and Chief Executive Officer
Mary J. LAWRENCE, Respondent, v. Ronald J. LAWRENCE, Appellant.

No. ED 106429

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: APRIL 2, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Byron Cohen, 225 South Meramec, Suite 320, Clayton, Missouri 63105-1877.

FOR RESPONDENT: Mark W. Hagemeister, 13321 North Outer Forty Road, Ste. 300, Town and Country, MO 63017.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*590*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Ronald J. Lawrence appeals from the trial court's judgment awarding Mary J. Lawrence maintenance of $1,035 a month.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Environmental Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:  1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 (the "Report") of the Company complies in all material respects 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.  /s/ A. Leon Blaser A. Leon Blaser, Chief Executive Officer  Date: November 21, 2007
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 on Form 10-K of Cornerstone
Financial Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2010
(the "Report"), I, George W. Matteo, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, to my knowledge certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

B. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 30, 2011 By:                   /s/ George W. Matteo, Jr.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           George W. Matteo, Jr.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Motion Granted; Abatement Order filed October 31, 2019. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00810-CV

____________

IN RE MICROWAVE NETWORKS INC., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

165th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-64733-A

ABATEMENT ORDER

On October 28, 2019, the parties notified this court that they have reached an 

agreement to settle the underlying action and requested that the mandamus 

proceeding be abated for execution of the final settlement documents. The motion 

is granted. Accordingly, we issue the following order.

This mandamus proceeding is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed 

from this court’s active docket until November 12, 2019. The mandamus 
proceeding will be reinstated on this court’s active docket at that time, or when the 

parties file a motion to dismiss the mandamus proceeding or other dispositive 

motion. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the 

mandamus proceeding filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the mandamus 

proceeding on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.
Jose LORIGA, Appellant. v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2493

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed October 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
520 W. Lake Mary Blvd, Suite 100, Sanford, FL 32773 Office: (407) 732-7710 Fax: (610) 728-7184

August 25, 2015

Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590-001

Re: Amendment to Exemption No. 11779

Docket FAA-2015-0911

Dear Sir or Madam:

We petition to add two (2) Inspire 1 UAVs, as well as the Century Neo 660 to the exemption issued

to RKC Media Solutions, Inc. (Exemption No. 11779; Docket ID: FAA-2015-0911) (the "Exemption").

The associated (required) manuals for the three UAVs are enclosed.

The other terms and conditions of the Exemption remain the same.

There have not been (nor will there be) any changes in the conditions and reasons relative to public

interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original Exemption.

Sincerely,

Randy C. Zachary, President

RKC Media Solutions, LLC

520 W Lake Mary Blvd., Suite 100

Sanford, FL 32773

Enclosures

01290961 8/25/2015
Regulations.gov - Your Receipt Page 1 of 2

Your comment was submitted successfully!

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Other: Instructions on Filing a Submission to FAA for

applications/petitions/exemptions and anv other items for which a Docket does not exist. 

For related information, Open Docket Folder 10

(2) Your Receipt

Your Comment Tracking

Number: ljz-8kr9-jav4

Your comment may be viewable on

Regulations.gov once the agency has

reviewed it. This process is dependent

on agency public submission

policies/procedures and processing

times. Use your tracking number to

find out the status of your comment.

of Your email receipt was sent successfully

Your comment:

Comment:

Randy C. Zachary, President

RKC Media Solutions, LLC

520 W. Lake Mary Boulevard, Suite 100

Sanford, FL 32773

(407) 732-7710

rzachary@RKCSolutions.com

Submitter's Legal Representative

Anna H. Long, Esq.

Dean, Mead, Egerton, Bloodworth, Capouano & Bozarth, P.A.

800 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1500

Orlando, FL 32803

(407) 841-1200, Ext. 6120

along@deanmead.com

Uploaded File(s) (Optional

http://www.regulations.gov/ 8/25/2015
Regulations.gov - Your Rec&-nt Page 2 of 2

• 01291601.PDF: success

• 01291595,PDF: success

• 01291596.PDF: success

This information will appear on

Regulations.gov:

First Name:

Randy

Last Name:

Zachary

Organization

Name:

Dean, Mead,

Egerton,

Bloodworth,

Capouano &

Bozarth, PA

This information will not appear on

Regulations.gov:

Submitter's All information will be displayed

Representative: on Regulations.gov

Anna H. Long,

Esq.

http://www.regulations.gov/ 8/25/2015
H. Res. 60 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 26, 2023. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Hoyer, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. 

McCollum, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. 

Cuellar, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Quigley, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Meng, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Lois Frankel 

of Florida, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mrs. Torres of California, 

Mr. Case, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Harder of California, Ms. 

Wexton, Mr. Trone, Ms. Underwood, Mrs. Lee of Nevada, 

Mr. Morelle. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 16722 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 7351

Mr. Kyle Thomas Downard

Kyle Thomas Downard dba Falcon Photographics Inc.

4292 Althea Way

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Dear Mr. Downard :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter posted to the public docket on July 22, 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Kyle Thomas Downard dba Falcon Photographics Inc.

(hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your current exemption . T hat

exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a),

91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a)

and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to conduct

UAS operations

. You requested an amendment to change the company name from Kyle

Thomas Downard to Kyle Thomas Downard dba Falcon Photographics Inc. 1

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the condi tions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amen dment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

.

1 The petitioner also requested to add aircraft. At this time, the FAA is unable to act on this request. When the

FAA is ready to act, we will proceed accordingly and no further action will be required by the petitioner.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 16722

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add th is amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, Kyle Thomas Downard dba Falcon Photographics Inc. is

hereafter referred to as the operator. All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption

No. 16722 remain in effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on June 30, 2018 , unless sooner sup erseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ David Woo                                                  |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  David Woo                                                            |
|  Title:    |  Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  September 28, 2010                                                   |
Jose FLORES, Appellant, v. GC CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC./GUARANTEE INSURANCE, Appellees.

CASE NO. 1D17-1585

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2017 Rehearing Denied January 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Brent ROBERTSON, Appellant, v. Lynn A. ROSS and Jessica Robertson, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-511

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.