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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), rendered July 27, 1982, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress identification testimony.

Judgment affirmed.

On May 31,1981, at 9:30 a.m., the complainant, while chasing two men down the street, yelled to a police officer on foot patrol that “the two guys running up the block have a gun, and they just attempted to stick me up”. The police officer immediately took chase, and quickly apprehended the two men, who had remained within his sight for the entire time. During the chase, the officer observed one of the men, the defendant, place a revolver down by the curb, near the rear wheel of a car. The officer recovered this gun and transported both suspects to the precinct house. Complainant was similarly brought to the precinct house by other officers, at which time he again identified both defendant and his cohort, who were alone in the holding pen. A total of about 15 minutes had elapsed between the time complainant first approached the officer on the street and the time that he viewed the suspects at the precinct house. After a *Wade*hearing, defendant’s motion to suppress the precinct house identification as unreasonably suggestive was denied. Defendant challenges that ruling on this appeal.

We conclude that nisi prius properly denied the suppression motion brought by defendant. The precinct house viewing of the suspect was not an independent identification procedure, but rather, was a prompt confirmation of the prior spontaneous identification made by complainant to the officer on the street (see, *People v Laguer,*58 AD2d 610). The confirmation procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, as the identification had *411already occurred. The close proximity in time between the initial identification and subsequent confirmation helped insure accuracy and reliability, and minimized the risk of a mistaken identification *(see, People v Adams,*53 NY2d 241). Because of the prompt identification of defendant, coupled with the fact that defendant remained in the officer’s line of vision from the moment of the spontaneous identification, there is virtually no realistic possibility that the confirmatory viewing at the precinct house resulted in a mistaken identification. Accordingly, defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied.

The other contentions raised by defendant have been examined and found to be either unpreserved for review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
# C_2020433EN.01004802.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO — Sakkari (SAKKATTACK)

(Case T-851/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark SAKKATTACK - Earlier international word marks ATTACK and Body Attack and earlier international figurative mark Body Attack SPORTS NUTRITION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 433/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Maria Sakkari (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: M. Nikolaraki, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 October 2019 (Case R 2560/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Body Attack Sports Nutrition and Ms Sakkari.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1096

In re: JONATHAN EUGENE BRUNSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (5:14-hc-02009-FL)

Submitted: June 29, 2021 Decided: July 1, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Eugene Brunson, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Eugene Brunson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district 

court has unduly delayed ruling on his postjudgment motion. He seeks an order from this 

court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals 

that the district court denied the motion on April 13, 2021. Accordingly, because the 

district court has recently decided Brunson’s motion, we deny the mandamus petition as 

moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 2955-011]

                    On July 12, 2021, the City of Watervliet, New York filed with the                           ( print page 40203)                        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification submitted to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6, we hereby notify the New York DEC of the following:                

*Date of Receipt of the Certification Request:*                     July 12, 2021.                

*Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request:*                     One year.                

*Date Waiver Occurs for Failure to Act:*                     July 12, 2022.                

If New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request by the above waiver date, then the agency's certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

Dated: July 21, 2021.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-15926 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 99.2

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of OVM International Holding
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Deng Xiao Qiong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Deng Xiao Qiong
----------------------
Deng Xiao Qiong
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jamal McFadden, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 811]

Appeal by the People from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), dated January 21, 2011, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) to set aside a jury verdict convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and to dismiss that count of the indictment.

Ordered that the amended order is affirmed.

In considering a motion to set aside or modify a jury verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1), a trial court may only consider questions of law, not fact *(see People v Ventura,*66 NY2d 693, 694-695 [1985]; *People v Carter,*63 NY2d 530, 536 [1984]; *People v Simmons,*74 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2010]; *People v Sadowski,*173 AD2d 873, 873-874 [1991]). Moreover, a court may only consider claims of error which are properly preserved for appellate review *(see People v Simmons,*74 AD3d at 1248; *People v Silas,*308 AD2d 465, 466 [2003]; *People v Sadowski,*173 AD2d at 874).

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence was preserved for *1151appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). Further, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03 (3). Penal Law § 265.03 (3) provides that a “person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when . . . such person possesses any loaded firearm” outside of his or her “home or place of business.” The Penal Law defines a “[l]oaded firearm” as “any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm” (Penal Law § 265.00 [15]). “In order to support a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, which requires a ‘loaded firearm,’ the People must prove that both the firearm and the ammunition were operable” *(People v Aguilar,*202 AD2d 512, 513 [1994] [citation omitted]; *see People v Covines,*70 NY2d 882 [1987]; *People v Shaffer,*66 NY2d 663, 664 [1985]; *People v Mathieu,*83 AD3d 735, 736 [2011]). Here, the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that the defendant possessed a “loaded firearm” *(cf. People v Harris,*305 AD2d 614, 615 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) to set aside the jury verdict and to dismiss that count of the indictment. Rivera, J.P., Hall, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
# C_2019295EN.01007601.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/76

---

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Podestà v Parliament

(Case T-464/19)

(2019/C 295/100)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Guido Podestà (Vila Real de Santo António, Portugal) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
#### In the Matter of Philip Genna, Appellant, v Commissioner of Education of the State of New York et al., Respondents.

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Connor, J.), entered November 15, 1984 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motions to dismiss the petition.

Judgment affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Justice John G. Connor at Special Term. Mahoney, P. J., Kane,

Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15936]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 29, 2021.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

    Dated: July 22, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15936 Filed 7-22-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
**EXHIBIT 10.2**
**STATEMENT REGARDING AUDITORS’ CONSENT**
The consolidated financial statements of SAP Aktiengesellschaft Systeme,Anwendungen, Produkte in der Datenverarbeitung (the “Company”) for the yearended 2001, included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F, have beenaudited by Arthur Andersen WirschaftsprüfungsgesellschaftSteuerberatungsgesellschaft mbH (“Arthur Andersen”). On May 3, 2002, theCompany dismissed Arthur Andersen as its independent public accountants andengaged KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft AktiengesellschaftWirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft to serve as the Company’s independent publicaccountants for the fiscal year 2002 and 2003. After reasonable efforts, theCompany has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen’s consent to theincorporation by reference into this registration statement on Form 20-F of itsaudit report with respect to the Company’s financial statements referencedabove.
Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits theCompany to file the Annual Report, which is incorporated by reference into theCompany’s previously filed registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-60399,333-65083, 333-30380, 333-41762, 333-63496, 333-63464 and 333-102564) without awritten consent from Arthur Andersen. However, because Arthur Andersen has notconsented to the inclusion of its report in this annual report on Form 20-F, asincorporated by reference into the above referenced registration statements,recovery by investors relying on any such registration statement thatincorporates this annual report on Form 20-F by reference may be limited oncertain claims. In particular, and without limitation, purchasers of securitiesunder each such registration statement may not be able to assert claims againstArthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untruestatements of a material fact contained in the financial statements referencedabove and incorporated therein or any omission of a material fact required tobe stated therein. In addition, the ability of Arthur Andersen to satisfy anyclaims (including claims arising from Arthur Andersen’s provision of auditingand other services to the Company) may be limited as a practical matter due torecent events regarding Arthur Andersen.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 Sentaida Tire Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hailan Xu, Chief        Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|                |   |   | /s/ Hailan Xu           |   |   |
|----------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|                |   |   | Hailan Xu               |   |   |
|                |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |
|           |        |        |                         |        |        |
|           |        |        |                         |        |        |
| March 30, 2009 |   |   |                         |   |   |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sentaida Tire Company Limited and will be retained by Sentaida Tire Company Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference        into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
# C_2020019EN.01005301.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/53

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2019 — Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate v Commission

(Case T-549/19 R)

(Application for interim measures - Orphan medicinal product - Application to suspend operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2020/C 19/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate mbH (Wedel, Germany) (represented by: P. von Czettritz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. F. Brakeland, L. Haasbeek and C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU to suspend the operation of Article 5 of Commission Implementing Decision C (2019) 4858 final of 20 June 2019 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Trecondi-treosulfan’, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

The Court orders:

| 1. | The application for interim measures is refused. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is refused.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---