alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**6 KA 13-00410**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RYAN P. BRAHNEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

DAVID P. ELKOVITCH, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
RYAN P. BRAHNEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered October 25, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of murder in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and criminal contempt in the first degree (two counts).
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal from the judgment insofar as it imposed sentence is unanimously dismissed and the judgment is affirmed.

Same memorandum as in People v Brahney ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 20, 2015]).

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 13.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF****THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Wimm-Bill-Dann Foods OJSC (the “Company”)hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)        the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of theCompany for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

Date:June 18, 2009

 
|   | /s/ Dmitry  Ivanov       |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Dmitry Ivanov            |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, Barry J. Susson, Chief Financial Officer of Deb Shops, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

     (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: December 6, 2005


                                                       Barry J. Susson, CPA
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       Barry J. Susson, CPA
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1

CONSENT OF NATIONAL CINEMEDIA, LLC

Board
of Directors
Regal Entertainment Group
7132 Regal Lane
Knoxville, TN 37918

Members
of the Board:

We
hereby consent to the use by Regal Entertainment Group (the "Company") of the audited financial statements of National CineMedia, LLC as of and for the year ended
January 1, 2009 (and comparative periods) appearing in the Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2009 filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and any amendment thereto.

National CineMedia, LLC
By National CineMedia, Inc., its managing memberBy:

/s/ RALPH E. HARDY Ralph E. Hardy Executive Vice President, General Counsel and SecretaryMarch 11, 2009


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 11.1

      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

     The following table sets forth the computation of basic and
diluted earnings per share.  For the year ended December 31,
2002, per share data for earnings is based on one share of the
Bank's common stock.

<table>
<caption>
                                                               Year Ended December 31, 2002
                                                               ----------------------------
                                                                  (amounts in thousands)

                                                            <c>
NUMERATOR:

Income from continuing operations                                         $ 495
                                                                          -----
Net income                                                                $ 495
                                                                          =====
DENOMINATOR:

Denominator for basic earnings per share-
  Weighted-average shares outstanding                                     1,033
Effect of dilutive securities:  Dilutive potential shares
  From stock-based compensation                                               4
                                                                          -----
Denominator for dilutive earnings per share-adjusted
  Weighted-average shares outstanding                                     1,037

Basic earnings per share:
  Income from continuing operations                                       $0.48

Diluted earnings per share:
  Income from continuing operations                                       $0.48
</table>
# Den Europæiske Unions C 188/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0871 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 188 |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 65. årgang10. maj 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0871

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 188

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

65. årgang10. maj 2022

---

| Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- |
| | Berigtigelser |
| | Berigtigelse til oversigt over Europa-Kommissionens afgørelser om godkendelser af markedsføring med henblik på anvendelse og/eller om godkendelser af anvendelse af stoffer, der er opført i bilag XIV til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1907/2006 om registrering, vurdering og godkendelse af samt begrænsninger for kemikalier (REACH) (Offentliggjort i henhold til artikel 64, stk. 9, i forordning (EF) nr. 1907/2006) (2022/C 131/05) ( EUT C 131 af 24.3.2022 ) | 1 |

Indhold

Side

Berigtigelser

Berigtigelse til oversigt over Europa-Kommissionens afgørelser om godkendelser af markedsføring med henblik på anvendelse og/eller om godkendelser af anvendelse af stoffer, der er opført i bilag XIV til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1907/2006 om registrering, vurdering og godkendelse af samt begrænsninger for kemikalier (REACH) (Offentliggjort i henhold til artikel 64, stk. 9, i forordning (EF) nr. 1907/2006) (2022/C 131/05) ( EUT C 131 af 24.3.2022 )

( EUT C 131 af 24.3.2022 )

1

---

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

Berigtigelser

| 10.5.2022 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 188/1

---

Berigtigelse til oversigt over Europa-Kommissionens afgørelser om godkendelser af markedsføring med henblik på anvendelse og/eller om godkendelser af anvendelse af stoffer, der er opført i bilag XIV til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1907/2006 om registrering, vurdering og godkendelse af samt begrænsninger for kemikalier (REACH) (Offentliggjort i henhold til artikel 64, stk. 9, i forordning (EF) nr. 1907/2006) (2022/C 131/05)

(
  Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 131 af 24. marts 2022
  )

(2022/C 188/01)

På side 5, anden kolonne i tabellen »Dato for afgørelsen«:

I stedet for:

»27. marts 2022«

læses:

»17. marts 2022«.

---
#### SEGERITZ v. GRAND LODGE A. O. U. W. OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 15, 1912.)

Action by Anna Segeritz against the Grand Lodge Ancient Order of United Workmen of the State of New York. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1143.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20063

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALI REZA DADI, also known as Raymond Dadi,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-4099

USDC No. H-98-CR-419-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 12, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ali Reza Dadi, federal prisoner # 59270-079, appeals

from the summary denial of his motion for relief pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255. We granted a certificate of appealability

(COA) on Dadi’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for

misadvising him to reject the Government’s plea offer and undergo

trial and on whether the cause should be remanded for the

district court to file written findings of fact and conclusions
No. 02-20063

- 2 -

of law, and denied a COA on the remaining issues raised in Dadi’s

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

Dadi argues that he was denied effective assistance of

counsel regarding a plea offer when trial counsel misinformed him

of the sentence he faced if he proceeded to trial. He also

argues that the district court erred by denying his motion

without making written factual findings and legal conclusions.

The record does not show conclusively that Dadi is not

entitled to relief. First, the record does not refute Dadi’s

assertion that there was a plea offer. Indeed, in Dadi’s

objections to the presentence report, counsel mentioned a plea

offer and an understanding with the Government about the sentence

Dadi faced if he proceeded to trial. Second, we cannot say that

the record does not suggest a reasonable probability that Dadi

would have received a significantly less severe sentence had Dadi

accepted the Government’s plea offer. See Teague v. Scott, 60

F.3d 1167, 1172 (5th Cir. 1995). We express no opinion regarding

whether Dadi actually received ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Because the record does not show conclusively or plainly

that Dadi is entitled to no relief, the district court erred in

summarily denying his motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; see also

Rule 4(b), RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2255 PROCEEDINGS. We therefore

vacate the order denying relief on Dadi’s claim that counsel was

ineffective regarding his advice to reject the plea offer and

proceed to trial and remand that claim for further proceedings. 
No. 02-20063

- 3 -

On remand the district court ”shall cause notice [of Dadi’s

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion] to be served upon the United States

attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues

and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect

thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
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
 Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory Docs GRAPEX





GRAPEX-Bordenheadline bar  The interactive map below shows the locations of various continuous and episodic ground-based measurements made during intensive observation periods at the Borden vineyard sites. Click map icons or legend items for more information.  *Or click here for a static version.* black starFlux Tower
			yellow starMet Station
			green circleLAI
			blue circleLAI & Spectral Reflectance
			white circleProfile Soil Moisture
			yellow triangleSap Flow
			green triangleIRT Station
			plus signSurface Renewal Station
			green squarePassive Capillary Lysimeter
			green pentagonBelow-Canopy Turbulence & Radiation
			green dotted circleCamera


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 C
 Certifications Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 Canadian Pacific Railway Limited
  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:March 22, 2006
    

Signed
Robert J. RitchieRobert J. RitchieChief Executive Officer  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: March 22, 2006
    

Signed
Michael T. WaitesMichael T. WaitesExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer C-1




---



##### 



Canadian Pacific Railway Company
  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: March 22, 2006
    

Signed
Robert J. RitchieRobert J. RitchieChief Executive Officer  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: March 22, 2006
    

Signed
Michael T. WaitesMichael T. WaitesExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer C-2
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-14-00504- CV In re Ed Jaycox ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N We deny Ed J ay cox’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Filed: Aug ust 28, 2014
#### In re SILKMAN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

In the matter of the accounting of Theodore H. Silkman, James G. Shaw, and J. *1145Edward Young, Jr., as executors of the last will and testament of Adolph F. Braidich, deceased.

PER CURIAM.

Order resettled nunc pro tunc as of the date of July 23,_ 1907, to the extent of striking out the recital in parenthesis at folio 31: “A majority of this court concurring.” In other respects, motion to resettle denied, without costs, but this without prejudice to proceedings already had on the appeal from this court.
---

EXHIBIT 31

RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OF THE COMPANY

I, Earl W. Abbott, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Tornado
  Gold International Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and
I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and
I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 23, 2007

/s/ Earl W.
AbbottEarl
W. Abbott Chief Executive Officer

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 4430** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v. BERNARD EVERETT REESE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00337

- TDS

- 1 )

Submitted : December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOY D , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Everett Reese pleaded guilty , pursuant to a conditional plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm . Counsel has filed an Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) brief, stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but that Reese wished to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress a shotgun found during a search of his apartment. Ree se filed a pro se supplemental brief reiterating the arguments by counsel. The Government declined to file a brief. We affirm. In considering the denial of a suppression motion, we review the district court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Kelly , 592 F.3d 586, 589 (4th Cir. 2010). The court “view[s] the facts in the light most favorable to the Government, as the party prevailing below.” United States v. Black , 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th Cir. 2013). The court also “defer[s] to the district court’s credibility findings, as it is the role of the [trial] court to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a
pre - trial motion to suppress.” United States v. Griffin , 589 F.3d 148, 150

- 51 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the transcript of the motion to suppress hearing and the district court’s detailed ruling on the3 motion and find no clear error in the district court’s finding of facts or error in its legal conclusions. We defer to its credibility findings. Accordingly, there is no reason to reverse the ruling. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Reese ’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Reese , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Reese requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petiti on would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Reese . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### JOHN W. SCOBEY, Jr., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MARY ELIZABETH ROGERS SCOBEY, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs.*Minton> *Binsmore & BoMinger*for .the petitioner.

*Mr. John A. Eartpence*for the respondent.

May 4, 1960.

Denied.