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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered November 4, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant was properly convicted of felony murder, intentional murder, burglary and criminal possession of a weapon. He did not prove the elements of the affirmative defense available to felony murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]; *People v Santanella,*82 AD2d 869). The prosecutor’s summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Roopchand,*107 AD2d 35). The charge, as a whole, properly conveyed the law to the jury. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 22, 2019

No. 04-19-00334-CV

IN RE Jamie BRICE

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On May 21, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion 

to stay. Relator is ORDERED to file a copy of the reporter’s record from any hearing on the real 

party in interest’s Original Petition in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship and relator’s 

Plea to the Jurisdiction no later than June 3, 2019.

Relator’s emergency motion is ORDERED HELD IN ABEYANCE.

It is so ORDERED on May 22, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019-3513-DC, styled In the Interest of K.M.S. and B.D.S., Children, 

pending in the 38th Judicial District Court, Real County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Carr presiding.
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
 Healthy Processed Foods Research: Albany, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

Imaging, Detection, and Sorting Labheadline bar IDS Lab Mainpage
               IDS Lab Staff
               Projects and Resources
               Publications
               Collaborations/Partnering with our lab


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
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Anthony Jackson, Respondent.

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), dated January 28, 1985, which granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was for dismissal of an indictment charging the defendant with burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, upon the ground of legal insufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury.

Order reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the indictment denied, indictment reinstated, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

Police Officer Eugene O’Connor testified before the Grand Jury that on November 9, 1984, at approximately 10:30 p.m., he observed the defendant and another man looking into automobiles over the course of several blocks. The individuals would separate at certain points, each walking along a separate street, and then they would reappear together, apparently having a conversation with each other. Then they would continue on to another block.

After approximately half an hour, the officer observed the two individuals having a short conversation in front of 1862 Woodbine Street. He then observed one of the men going down the cellar stairs into the basement of an apartment house at that location. While that individual was in the basement, the defendant remained standing out front, looking around in several directions. When the other individual came out of the basement wheeling a tire, the defendant began to leave the scene. The officer then arrested the individual with the tire, and arrested the defendant a few blocks away. Upon his arrest, the defendant was found to be carrying a vinyl bag full of tools commonly used in burglaries. The People also presented evidence to the Grand Jury that the defendant’s companion entered the premises at 1862 Woodbine Street and took the tire without the owner’s permission.

The Grand Jury indicted the defendant for the crimes of *823burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools. However, on the defendant’s motion, the indictment was dismissed.

"Evidence before a Grand Jury is sufficient to sustain an indictment when the sum of the competent and admissible evidence, if unexplained and uncontradicted, would warrant a conviction after trial” *(People v Williams,*110 AD2d 798, 799).

We conclude that under the totality of the circumstances, there was sufficient evidence that the defendant was acting as a lookout, and was not just coincidentally present at the scene *(cf. People v Way,*59 NY2d 361). Hence, the indictment should be reinstated. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively,certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, andthe information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates and for the periods indicated.

| May 9, 2003 |   | /s/ ROBERT H. GILLIAM, JR.                                            |
|-------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|             |   |                                                                       |
| Date        |   | **Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer**     |
|        |   |                                                                  |
| May 9, 2003 |   | /s/ BRYAN M. LEMLEY                                                   |
|             |   |                                                                       |
| Date        |   | **Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer** |
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
 Agricultural Water Efficiency and Salinity Research Unit: Riverside, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    US Salinity Lab
                        FAQ about salinity
                                    Publications
                                    History
                                    Scientific ModelsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Aboutheadline bar History of the Salinity Lab
               Salinity Lab Renaming Ceremony
               George E. Brown, Jr.
               Frequently Asked Questions About Salinity


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
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Opportunities for Collaborative Research at the NIH Clinical 
Center (U01).
    Date: August 13, 2021.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Raj K. Krishnaraju, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6190, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
435-1047, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d46465f445e45434c6d4e5e5f03434445034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1873736a716b707679587b6b6a36767170367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 29, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-16537 Filed 8-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Waterford Gaming Finance Corp.
All amounts are unaudited.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                          90
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald C. Corley, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), both rendered March 16, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (five counts), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised upon appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606.) Titone, J. P., Lazer, Thompson and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### KEYSER et al., Appellants, v. PEGG et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by Jeremiah Key ser and others against Elizabeth F. Pegg and others. F. A. Butler, for appellants. C. C. Miller, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,632
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                       273
<INVENTORY>                                      5,140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,510
<PP&E>                                           8,488
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,899
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,197
<SALES>                                         18,152
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,152
<CGS>                                            9,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,923
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   225
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,274)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.22)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Annual Report of Asta Funding, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gary Stern, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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



|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gary Stern                                                                
|Gary Stern President and
Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: January 27, 2012

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the 10-K as a separate disclosure statement.
#### Manhattan Life Insurance Company, Appellant, v Francisco Fernandez et al., Defendants, and Edward Peterson, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered November 30, 1984, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike the answer of defendant Edward Peterson and for judgment in plaintiffs favor, is unanimously affirmed, without costs, with leave to plaintiff, if so advised, to make a proper motion for summary judgment.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, the plaintiff Manhattan Life Insurance Company moved "for an order striking the answer of the defendant Edward Peterson and granting judgment of the plaintiff for the relief demanded in the complaint”. None of the defendants responded to the motion. The affidavits and documents that were submitted in support of the motion would have been sufficient to grant summary judgment to the plaintiff if the motion had been made under CPLR 3212, but plaintiff neglected to specify the CPLR section it was moving under, or even to specify that it was moving for "summary judgment”. Special Term found the answer "adequate” and denied the motion to strike.

While it seems highly likely that plaintiff thought it was moving for summary judgment, Special Term did not treat the motion as such, and indeed it might well be construed essentially as a motion under CPLR 3211 (b) to dismiss the defenses raised in defendant Edward Peterson’s verified answer. Clearly, the court in these procedural circumstances had the option to treat the motion as one for summary judgment, but only after adequate notice had first been given to the parties as required by CPLR 3211 (c). *(See, Rich u Lefkovits,*56 NY2d *491276, 281-282.) Plaintiff's prayer for "judgment” in its favor in connection with a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss defenses, without more, did not constitute adequate notice to the parties that summary judgment was sought under CPLR 3212.

On this appeal plaintiff does not address the merits of the defenses raised in Peterson’s answer, but rather urges that it should have been awarded summary judgment through of the fundamental rule that a party seeking to defeat a motion for summary judgment must come forward with evidence demonstrating the presence of triable issues of fact. *(See, e.g., Holdridge v Town of Burlington, 32*AD2d 581.) However, as noted earlier, plaintiff has not established that its motion was brought for summary judgment under CPLR 3212. In view of the fact that the parties to this appeal have not addressed the merits of the defenses in the answer has not submitted a brief), we do not deem it appropriate to rule on those issues. The order is affirmed, with leave to plaintiff, if so advised, to make a proper motion for summary judgment. Concur&emdash;Sandler, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.

(Republished)
#### Leroy Donald NESBIT, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manika KEMP, Individually and in her official capacity, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-60275

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 4, 2011.

Richard Shane McLaughlin, McLaughlin Law Firm, Inc., Jim D. Waide, III, Esq., Waide & Associates, P.A., Tupelo, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard Jarrad Garner, Esq., Lindsey Nicole Oswalt, Esq., Adams & Reese, L.L.P., Ridgeland, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The district court denied dismissal of Leroy Nesbit’s complaint of discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in response to Manika Kemp’s qualified immunity defense. Because the record shows material fact issues, this court must dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The district court’s finding that fact issues are raised is supported by the testimony of the plaintiff. (Record pp. 331, 645). Dr. Kemp was the principal supervising Mr. Nesbit, a teacher. Nesbit testified that he was rudely interrupted in class, required to do more work, urged to resign, interfered with in his ability to teach, etc. — as other white teachers were treated but not the black teachers.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.