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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aiello, J.), rendered March 16, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court improperly permitted defense counsel to withdraw his motion to suppress *191the complaining witness’ identification of defendant as one of the robbers. However, the record indicates that two eyewitnesses to the robbery of the complaining witness apprehended the defendant immediately after the robbery, and one of the eyewitnesses brought the complaining witness over to identify the defendant. Since this showup was not a “police-arranged [confrontation] between [the] defendant and [the complainant] * * * for the purpose of establishing the identity of the criminal actor” *(People v Gissendanner,*48 NY2d 543, 552), there was no need for an identification hearing *(see, People v Dukes,*97 AD2d 445; *see also, People v Gissendanner, supra; Matter of Leo T.,*87 AD2d 297).

Moreover, we also note that the showup occurred near the scene of the robbery within minutes after the robbery. “[P]rompt on-the-scene showups are generally held to be proper because, based on fresh recollections of recent events, they insure reliable identifications of perpetrators and the prompt release of innocent suspects” *(People v Soto,*87 AD2d 618, 619; *see also, People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023; *People v Brnja,*70 AD2d 17, *affd*50 NY2d 366; *People v Digiosaffatte,*63 AD2d 703). We also note that, contrary to defendant’s claim, defendant’s guilt was overwhelmingly proven beyond a reasonable doubt inasmuch as, along with the complaining witness, two other eyewitnesses identified defendant as one of the robbers, defendant was apprehended immediately after the crime while fleeing from the scene, and some of the proceeds of the robbery were recovered at the scene.

We have considered defendant’s other claims, and we reject them as being either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Hal M.Krisbergh, the Chief Executive Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc.,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the Form 10-Q ofWorldGate Communications, Inc., for the quarterly period ended September 30,2003 (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and (2)the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGateCommunications, Inc.

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toWorldGate and will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated: | November 14, 2003 |             | /s/ HAL M.  KRISBERGH |   |
|--------|-------------------|------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|   |              |             |
|   |              | Hal M. Krisbergh |

 

----
Order entered April 19, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 00928 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 0092 9 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 009 30 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 009 31 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 009 32 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 009 33 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 009 34 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 009 35 - CR GABRIELLE R EGINA JACKSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F14 - 20157 - T , F14 - 5 5131 - T , F14 - 5 5132 - T , F14 - 5 5133 - T , F14 - 5 5134 - T , F14 - 7 5828 - T , F14 - 7 5829 - T , F14 - 75830 - T 

### O RDER The Court REIN S TATES the a pp ea ls. On April 1 , 201 6 , w e o r d e r e d the trial c ourt to make findin g s reg a r ding the accuracy of a portion of the r e port e r ’s r ec o r d. W e A D O P T the findin g s that: ( 1) t h e r e p o r t e r ’ s r e c o r d f i l e d i s i n a c c u r a t e ; (2) Official C ourt Reporter Mary Snider has been ordered to correct the passage at issue to read:– 2

–

In all of your cases, I accept your pleas and I find you guilty. In all but the state jail felony case, I assess your punishment at five years’ confinement in the Institu tional Division, and in the aggravated assault cases, I make affirmative findin g you used a deadly weapon, to

- wit: an automobile. In the state jail felony case, I assess your punishment at two years’ confinement in the state jail; (3) Snider has requeste d fourteen day to file a supplemental reporter’s record; and (4) the trial court recommends granting Snider fourteen days to file the supplemental reporter’s record. W e ORDER Official Court Reporter Mary Snider to file the supplemental reporter’s record w ithin FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order. In our order of April 1, 2016, we noted that the clerk’s record in cause no. 05

- 15

- 00931

- CR (trial court cause no. F14

- 55133

- T) filed on October 30, 2015 was a duplicate of the clerk’s record filed in cause no . 05

- 15

- 00930

- CR. We directed the Clerk to strike the clerk’s record filed in cause no. 05

- 15

- 00931

- CR and we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within fourteen days, a clerk’s record containing the correct clerk’s record for cause no. 05

- 1 5

- 00931

- CR. To date, the Dallas County District Clerk has not complied with the Court’s April 1, 2016 order. We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, the clerk’s record for cause no. 05

- 1 5

- 00931

- CR. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Rick Magnis, Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court; Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk; Official Court Reporter Mary Snider; and to counsel for all parties.

/s / LANA MYERS JUSTICE
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |   |   |   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                       |   |   |   |
| Dated: April 15, 2011 |   |   |   | By:    | /s/   Eddie Vakser |
|                       |   |   |   |   | Eddie VakserChief Executive Officer |

----
# C_2019164EN.01002201.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 20 February 2019 — B.M.O. v État belge

(Case C-137/19)

(2019/C 164/25)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B.M.O.

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Must Article 4(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, (1) read where appropriate with Article 16(1) of that directive, be interpreted as requiring that third country nationals, in order to be classified as ‘minor children’ within the meaning of that provision, must be ‘minors’ not only at the time of submitting the application for leave to reside but also at the time when the administration eventually determines that application?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

---
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 11, 2014 518777 

________________________________

In the Matter of SANTUNU RAFI,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

D. VENETTOZZI, as Acting 

Director of Special Housing 

and Inmate Disciplinary 

Programs, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: August 4, 2014

Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Santunu Rafi, Stormville, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mercure, J.),

entered August 27, 2013 in Albany County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of

Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty

of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

While waiting to enter the prison mess hall, petitioner

told a female cook that he loved her and that he was going to use

his "connections" to ensure that an inmate who had "disrespected

[her] pays for it." The cook found this conversation to be

threatening and, as such, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior

report with stalking, harassment and making threats. Following a

tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of
-2- 518777 

stalking and harassment. The harassment charge was upheld upon

administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding

ensued. Petitioner now appeals from the dismissal of the

petition by Supreme Court.

We affirm. Petitioner sought the testimony of a correction

captain solely to corroborate his claim of retaliation but,

inasmuch as the captain had no knowledge of the actual incident

and petitioner had already provided detailed testimony as to his

retaliation claim, the request was properly denied as redundant

(see Matter of Cahill v Prack, 106 AD3d 1310, 1311 [2013]; Matter

of Rosales v Pratt, 98 AD3d 764, 765 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d

816 [2012]). The further contention that petitioner was denied

the right to call certain inmate witnesses who executed witness

refusal forms is unpreserved given his "fail[ure] to object or

request that the Hearing Officer make further inquiry" (Matter of

Taylor v Fischer, 89 AD3d 1298, 1299 [2011]; see Matter of Toro v

Fischer, 104 AD3d 1036, 1037 [2013]). Petitioner was similarly

made aware that the cook no longer worked at the facility when he

sought to recall her for additional testimony, and did not

request that any effort be made to secure her testimony

(see Matter of Garcia v Coughlin, 194 AD2d 896, 897 [1993]). 

There is no support in the record for petitioner's remaining

argument that the Hearing Officer was biased against him (see

Matter of Fero v Prack, 110 AD3d 1128, 1129 [2013]).

Garry, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Robert W. Holley Center for Agriculture & Health: Ithaca, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Plant, Soil and Nutrition Research
                                    Emerging Pests and Pathogens ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Location Support Unitheadline bar PandP


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

 

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Real Estate Associates Limited VI (the"Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), StevenD. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership,and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
. . 

## T%~A~TORNEY GENERAL OP TEXAS AUBTXN.TEXAS a--w md, 

## 19s9a o a p o ue tioo o ft he

c o u o t y

t muum p 

## at s o yp at e n o tl x a eed l x & t b l au t o s) r e t 4

c o d m q níl u c e

m+ x imum

mum 

## to b a p e l d t c 

### lob8 thU3 Bktutorg au& U4d tht 

### the county doea not ow tbo **trbamrer t;ao**  **difienwo ktueea**  **the a6ly**  **fixed by**  **the** coxal& alomrm' **Court** sod **naximm provided**  **w Arttalc**  3943.



### Trustlog that the foruyolng ansuers your loql;lry, I remato

**A PPi-** **‘ OVA&**
#### Desda Reynolds, Respondent, *v.*The Equitable Accident Association of Binghamton, N. Y., Appellant.

(Submitted March 11, 1890;

decided April 15, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made the first Tuesday of June, 1888, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*David Murray*for appellant.

*H. Greenfield*for respondent.

Agree to affirm on opinion below.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Michael T. Kennedy, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
Radnor Holdings Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

         The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended June 28,
         2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated: August 9, 2002                             /s/ Michael T. Kennedy
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Michael T. Kennedy
                                                  Chairman of the Board
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________ 

BASILIO R. ANDIR,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-7137

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 10-2166, Judge William P. 

Greene, Jr.

______________________ 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

This court considers whether Basilio Andir’s notice of 

appeal is untimely.

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims (“Veterans Court”) received Andir’s notice of 

appeal on August 19, 2013. Judgment was entered by the 

Veterans Court on April 2, 2012. As such, a total of 503 

days had elapsed between judgment and receipt of the 

appeal.

Case: 13-7137 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 10/30/2013
2 ANDIR v. SHINSEKI

A notice of appeal of a decision of the Veterans Court 

must be filed within 60 days after that court’s entry of 

judgment. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2107. Thus, it 

appears that this appeal is untimely.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Andir is directed to show cause, within 30 days of 

the date of filing of this order, as to why his appeal should 

not be dismissed as untimely. The Secretary may also 

respond by that date.

(2) The briefing schedule is stayed.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk 

s25

Case: 13-7137 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 10/30/2013
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

Certificationof Chief Executive Officer

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

asAdopted Pursuant to

Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

----

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersignedcertifies that (1) this Annual Report of RFS Partnership, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”)on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in thisReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe Operating Partnership as of December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002 and itsresults of operations for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 
|                 | /s/ Thomas J. Hutchison,  III                     |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 30, 2004 |   Name: Thomas J. Hutchison, III        |
|                 |   Title:   Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Thomas L. Mitchell, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Noble Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:February 28, 2007   /s/ THOMAS L. MITCHELL   Thomas L. Mitchell  Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer