alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ralph Brewster, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and the County of Nassau, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for battery and false imprisonment, the defendant County of Nassau appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.), entered April 26, 1984, *893which, after a directed verdict on liability and a trial on damages, was in favor of plaintiff and against appellant in the principal sum of $17,500.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Two Nassau County police officers on routine patrol, in civilian clothes in an unmarked police car, received a radio communication that a purse snatch had occurred in Nassau County and that the perpetrator was last seen running along the railroad tracks towards Far Rockaway in Queens County. They entered Queens County to look for the perpetrator and saw plaintiff, who apparently fit the description given over the radio, walking along the street on his way to his girlfriend’s house. The officers claimed that plaintiff assaulted them when they tried to stop and question him. Plaintiff claimed that he did not know they were police officers because they never identified themselves as such and that they assaulted him when he declined to stop and answer their questions. Mace was used on plaintiff, and he spent 10 hours in jail before being released by an arraignment court. The charges by the police officers that plaintiff assaulted them and resisted arrest were reduced to harassment by the District Attorney, and later dismissed.

At the trial of plaintiff’s civil action for battery and false imprisonment, the court directed a verdict in his favor on the issue of liability on the ground that defendant Nassau County’s employees had no jurisdiction to stop plaintiff in order to question him in Queens County pursuant to CPL 1.20 (34) (a), (b) and 140.50 (1). Although CPL 140.10 (3) grants law enforcement officers the power to arrest a person without a warrant anywhere in the State for a crime they have probable cause to believe he committed *(see, Alifieris v American Airlines,*63 NY2d 370), the power to stop and question a person on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is specifically limited by statute to the geographical area of the officer’s employment (CPL 140.50 [1]) and any purported extension of that power by local law is illegally inconsistent with the limitation imposed by the Legislature. Appellant’s employees herein were operating outside of their geographical and legal jurisdiction when they stopped plaintiff, concededly without probable cause to arrest him (CPL 1.20 [34] [a], [b]; 140.50 [1]). The directed verdict was, therefore, correct, and is hereby affirmed.

The verdict on the issue of damages, as modified by the trial court, was appropriate and reasonable. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Brown, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stanley E. Smith, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[944 NYS2d 712]

Appeal from a *judgment of the Ontario*County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), rendered September 12, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Smith, J.P, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
**Exhibit 13.02**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Genetic Technologies Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin Fischer, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/   Kevin Fischer    |                    |
|------------------------|-------------------------|
| Name:                  | Kevin Fischer           |   |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                   |                    |
|                   |                    |
| November 13, 2015 |                    |

 

----
[No. 10131.

Department One.

August 20, 1912.]

#### Falls City Machinery and Supply Company, Respondent, v. David Goodstein *et al., Appellants.*
      *1*

Appeal—Review—Findings. Findings upon conflicting evidence will not be disturbed if sustained by any evidence.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county, Kennan, J., entered May 20, 1911, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, in an action on contract.

Affirmed.

*L. L. Westfall,*for appellants.

*Campbell Goodwin*and *J. B. Campbell,*for respondent.

Reported in 125 Pac. 786.

Per Curiam.

The only question involved is one of fact. Action was brought by plaintiff to recover the reasonable value of certain work done by it at the special instance and request of the defendants. The defense was that the parties had made an express contract, and that the demand was in *550excess of the contract price. The amount admitted to be due, less the amount of a counterclaim, was tendered. From findings and a judgment in favor of plaintiff, appeal is taken.

We are asked, because of certain testimony which is set out in the brief, to ignore the rule of practice, so often announced, that we will not disturb the findings of the trial judge if there be any testimony to sustain it. But, taking the testimony relied on at its full worth, a careful reading of the record convinces us that there is still such conflict as to call for the application of the rule. It may be true that the minds of the parties never met. Certain it is that, whatever the decision of the lower court might have been, or that of this court may be, the losing party will still be unconvinced; for we are impressed with the good faith of all parties to this piece of litigation. It is just this result that makes the rule suggested almost imperative, and the court below having found for the respondent and there being some evidence to sustain the judgment, we do, upon the principle announced, affirm the judgment of the lower court.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A No. 1 of Americare
Health Scan, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

Date: October 10, 2008       /s/  Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo
      ----------------      ---------------------------
                            Dr. Joseph P. D'Angelo, President, Chief
                            Executive Officer

      October 10, 2008       /s/  Robert Cano
      ----------------      --------------------
                            Robert Cano, Chief Financial Officer
# C_2019246EN.01000302.xml

| 22.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 26 February 2019 — Flightright GmbH v Eurowings GmbH

(Case C-180/19)

(2019/C 246/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Flightright GmbH

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Questions referred

Must Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the relevant distance for the payment of compensation is to be calculated by reference to the entire journey?

Must (assuming that the regulation is applicable to the section of the journey concerned) the concept of ‘flight’ then be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of reservations where air passengers reach their final destination only with an intermediate stop and possibly a transfer to another aircraft, it is only the section on which the delay has actually occurred that is meant, or is ‘flight’ to be interpreted in such a case as meaning that the entire journey from the first point of departure to the final destination is relevant for the distance?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14959]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will 
meet on July 28 and 29, 2021, at 1:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. The 
meetings will be available via teleconference. The Committee advises 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on 
technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable 
to information systems equipment and technology.

Wednesday, July 28

Open Session

1. Welcome and Announcements
2. Working Group Reports
3. New Business

Thursday, July 29:

Closed Session

4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions 
relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec.  
10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

    The open session will be accessible via teleconference. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89d0ffecfdfdeca7daf9fbe0e7eeecfbc9ebe0faa7ede6eaa7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b1e8c7d4c5c5d49fe2c1c3d8dfd6d4c3f1d3d8c29fd5ded29fd6dec7">[email protected]</span></a>, no later than July 21, 2021.
    To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral 
statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements 
at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate 
distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the 
Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be 
forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
    For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-2813.

Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-14959 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FILED AS PART OF
THE COMPANY'S 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                             715
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      634
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,923
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,925
<PP&E>                                          12,044
<DEPRECIATION>                                    5500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   40113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            28159
<BONDS>                                            847
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                        9646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     40113
<SALES>                                          62289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 62289
<CGS>                                            32388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    27536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1199
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (249)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1448
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### HEIDELBERG, Appellant, v. MONROE BANK, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Herman Heidelberg against the Monroe Bank. P. M. Herzog, for appellant. W. M. Seabury, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
#### Paul Rozewicz, Respondent, v Albert L. Ciminelli et al., Respondents. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Intervenor-Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Memorandum: In the absence of a timely motion made in accordance with CPLR 2214 and accompanied by a proposed pleading as required by CPLR 1014, it was error for Special Term even to entertain the request of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company to intervene in this action *(Matter of Colonial Sand & Stone Co. v Flacke, 75*AD2d 894, 895; *Mohawk Maintenance Co. v Drake,*29 AD2d 689; *Matter of Carriage Hill v Lane,*20 AD2d 914; *cf. Ryder v Travelers Ins. Co.,*37 AD2d 797; *Sterling Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v Ambassador Factors Corp.,*86 AD2d 547, 548; *see,*Siegel, NY Prac § 183, at 222-223). Although we affirm, we address no other issue. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.
#### Gilberto CARRANZA-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73018.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

*427Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender & Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey Lawrence Menkin, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gilberto Carranza-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Carranza-Pineda’s motion to reopen because he failed to comply with the requirements set forth in *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. *&*N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the face of the record. *See Reyes v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir.2004).

Carranza-Pineda’s request under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(b)(3)(iii) is unavailing because Carranza-Pineda’s voluntary departure period had expired before that regulation took effect. *See*73 Fed.Reg. 76,927, 76,936 (Dec. 18, 2008) (regulation terminating a voluntary departure order upon filing of a motion to reopen took effect on January 20, 2009, and does not apply retroactively).

We have no authority to reinstate voluntary departure. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(f).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 460 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 460

 To prohibit the Secretary of Education from promulgating or enforcing 
         regulations or guidance regarding gainful employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2011

   Mr. Risch (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Lee, and Mr. 
  Johnson of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of Education from promulgating or enforcing 
         regulations or guidance regarding gainful employment.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Education for All Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Education may not use any Federal funds to--
            (1) implement, administer, or enforce the final regulations 
        on ``Program Integrity: Gainful Employment--New Programs'' 
        published by the Department of Education in the Federal 
        Register on October 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66665 et seq.);
            (2) issue a final rule or otherwise implement the proposed 
        rule on ``Program Integrity: Gainful Employment'' published by 
        the Department of Education on July 26, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 
        43616 et seq.);
            (3) implement, administer, or enforce section 668.6 of 
        title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, (relating to gainful 
        employment), as amended by the final regulations published by 
        the Department of Education in the Federal Register on October 
        29, 2010 (75 Fed Reg. 66832 et seq.); or
            (4) promulgate or enforce any new regulation or rule with 
        respect to the definition or application of the term ``gainful 
        employment'' under the Higher Education Act of 1965 on or after 
        the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Annual Report of Hewitt
Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the
Company hereby certifies, 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 Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 10, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Russell P. Fradin  
|                        |  |     |  | Russell P. Fradin      
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Hewitt Associates, Inc. and will be retained by
Hewitt Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification
is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2333 

To redesignate the Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Northwest in the District of Columbia as the ‘‘Federal Bureau of Investigation Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2005 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. 

DELAHUNT, Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia as 

the ‘‘Federal Bureau of Investigation Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania 

5 Avenue Northwest in the District of Columbia, commonly 

6 known as the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Building, shall be 

7 known and designated as the ‘‘Federal Bureau of Inves8 tigation Building’’. 
2 

•HR 2333 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

5 a reference to the ‘‘Federal Bureau of Investigation Build6 ing’’. 

Æ
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IPA TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1438, 2021-1439

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-

00733, IPR2019-00734.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MIEKE K. MALMBERG, Skiermont Derby LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

STEVEN WAYNE HARTSELL, JAIME OLIN, PAUL SKIERMONT,

SARAH ELIZABETH SPIRES, Dallas, TX. 

 NAVEEN MODI, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for appellee. Also represented by ARVIND JAIRAM,

STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, JOSEPH PALYS, DANIEL 

ZEILBERGER; MICHAEL C. HENDERSHOT, Jones Day, Palo 

Alto, CA 

Case: 21-1438 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2022
 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, SCHALL, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

March 11, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1438 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2022