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

[946 NYS2d 393]

Appeal from a judgment of the Jefferson County Court (Kim H. Martusewicz, J.), rendered February 14, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts) and perjury in the first degree.

*1602It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree (§ 221.25). At the outset, we note our concern with defendant’s contention that the People withheld disclosure of a cooperation agreement of one of their witnesses and subsequently countenanced the perjury of that witness with respect to the existence of the cooperation agreement. That contention, however, involves “matters outside the record on appeal and thus may properly be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL article 440” *(People v Johnson,*88 AD3d 1293, 1294 [2011]; *see People v Ellis,*73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 851 [2010]).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in admitting certain testimony of several police detectives with respect to their investigation of this case. Defendant failed to object to parts of that testimony he now challenges (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and otherwise made only a general objection *(see People v Mobley,*49 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 791 [2008]) or premised his objection on a theory not advanced on appeal *(see generally People v Coapman,*90 AD3d 1681, 1683 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 956 [2012]; *People v Smith,*24 AD3d 1253, 1253 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 818 [2006]). In any event, that contention lacks merit inasmuch as the admission of the testimony did not violate an exclusionary rule *(see People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 241 [1987]).

The further contention of defendant that the court erred in failing to submit to the jury the issue whether a certain witness was an accomplice as a matter of law is not preserved for our review *(see People v Blume,*92 AD3d 1025, 1027 [2012]; *People v Freeman,*78 AD3d 1505, 1506 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 952 [2010]), and we decline to exercise our power to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial based on cumulative error and “the inattention of defense counsel to those errors.” Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful representation *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
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
 Meat Safety and Quality: Clay Center, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USMARC Home
                    USMARC Research Units
                        Genetics and Animal Breeding
                                    Livestock Bio Systems
                                    Nutrition, Growth and Physiology
                                    Animal Health GenomicsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Clay Center, Nebraska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Meat Safety and Quality People & Locations







Dee Ann Kucera
                        Meat Safety and Quality

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone: (402) 762-4349
                        
                        
                        Fax: (402) 762-4149(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


August 6, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2083


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2083 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined the Registration
Statement File No. 333-256192 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  249,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               251,297
<PP&E>                                      16,620,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                 230,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,641,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,641,335
<SALES>                                        358,496
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               358,496
<CGS>                                           51,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  284,044
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,452
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             74,452
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    74,452
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

Statement of Chief Financial 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, I, Dale G. Rettinger, the Chief Financial Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation, the managing general partner of PDC 1996-D Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"),  hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 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 Partnership.

 

 

__ /s/ Dale G. Rettinger                  

Name: Dale G. Rettinger

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: ___August 7, 2003_________
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 19

- 00398

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J .E.J.H. , a Child
From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas Trial Court No. 17

- 06

- 0564

- CVA Honorable Melissa De G erolami, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 13, 2019

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights to his child, J.E.J.H

. Appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief conclud ing there are no arguable grounds to be

raised on appeal and that the appeal is wholly frivolous

. See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 2 7 n.10
(Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). 1

This court issued an order setting a deadline for appellant to file a pro se brief; however, appellant

did not request the record or file a pro se brief. Having review ed the record and counsel ’ s brief,
we agree there are no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. W e therefore affirm the trial court ’ s

order.

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

1 Counsel did not file a motion to withdraw in this court, but file d a letter that was determined to be sufficient to comply with counsel’s obligations under Anders

.
#### Irene Tornesi, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated August 23, 1984, which, after a nonjury trial in which the court found that the plaintiff’s damages amounted to the principal sum of $150,000, and apportioned fault at 75% against the defendant and 25% against the plaintiff, awarded the plaintiff the principal sum of $112,500.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The trial court’s finding that the defendant was 75% at fault in causing the injuries sustained by the plaintiff was not against the weight of the evidence. The plaintiff testified that she became caught in the closing doors of a subway car and fell to the concrete station platform, and her doctor testified that the plaintiff’s displaced subcapital fracture of the femur was caused by that fall. The trial court was free to credit this testimony, and there was little evidence tending to contradict it. The defendant’s contention that the plaintiff sustained her injuries in a second accident unrelated to the fall in the subway station is based on nothing in the record, and amounts to the sheerest speculation. Under the circumstances of the instant case, we find that the award of damages was not excessive. Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### McClellan *v.*Rawling.

June 25, 1915.

Beceivership. Before, Judge Bell. Fulton superior court. October *3,*1914.

*Lavender B. Bay,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bryan & Middlebrooks,*contra.

Beck, J.

Under the evidence, the court did not err in granting the prayer for receiver at the hearing of this ease.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1198

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 22, 1997

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide

permanent authority for entry into the United States

of certain religious workers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Religious Workers Act

5 of 1997’’.
2

S 1198 RFH

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR ENTRY INTO UNITED

2 STATES OF CERTAIN RELIGIOUS WORKERS.

3 Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and

4 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) is amended

5 by striking ‘‘before October 1, 1997,’’ each of the two

6 places it appears.

7 SEC. 3. WAIVER OF NONIMMIGRANT VISA FEES FOR CER8 TAIN CHARITABLE PURPOSES.

9 Section 281 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

10 (8 U.S.C. 1351) is amended by adding at the end the fol11 lowing new sentence: ‘‘Subject to such criteria as the Sec12 retary of State may prescribe, including the duration of

13 stay of the alien and the financial burden upon the chari14 table organization, the Secretary of State shall waive or

15 reduce the fee for application and issuance of a non16 immigrant visa for any alien coming to the United States

17 primarily for, or in activities related to, a charitable pur18 pose involving health or nursing care, the provision of food

19 or housing, job training, or any other similar direct service

20 or assistance to poor or otherwise needy individuals in the

21 United States.’’.

Passed the Senate September 18, 1997.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                        OFFICER'S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE


I, Andrew J. Cederoth, a duly authorized representative of Navistar Financial
Corporation, the Servicer, certify:

1.    I have reviewed the annual report and other reports containing
      distribution information for the period covered by the annual report;

2.    The absence in these reports, to the best of my knowledge, of any untrue
      statement of material fact or omission of a material fact necessary to
      make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
      statements were made, not misleading;

3.    The inclusion in these reports, to the best of my knowledge, of the
      financial information required to be provided to the trustee under the
      governing documents of the issuer; and

4.    Compliance by the servicer with its servicing obligations and minimum
      servicing standards.

5.    That no default in performance of any obligations has occurred.




                                            By: /s/ ANDREW J. CEDEROTH
                                                    Andrew J. Cederoth
                                                    Vice President and Treasurer


                                                    January 31, 2005
#### Daniel F. Hayes, Appellant, v Biedermann, Reif, Hoenig & Ruff, P.C., et al., Respondents.

[942 NYS2d 541]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered August 2, 2011, which, in this action alleging age discrimination, granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

The record shows that the parties entered into an employment agreement that contained a broad arbitration clause. The agreement also provided that it could not be extended except by a writing signed by both parties. At the time of plaintiffs termination, the employment agreement had expired by its own terms, and no written agreement signed by both parties had extended it. Although plaintiff continued to work for defendant law firm after the expiration of the agreement, evincing an agreement to extend some of the provisions of the contract, that was insufficient to extend the arbitration provision without a clearly expressed intention to do so. Accordingly, since no agreement to arbitrate existed at the time of plaintiffs termination, the court improperly stayed the proceedings and directed arbitration *(see Matter of Waldron [Goddess],*61 NY2d 181, 185 [1984]; *Donnkenny Apparel v Lee,*291 AD2d 224 [2002]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 32186(U).]
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:30
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 2 of 26 PageID #:31
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 3 of 26 PageID #:32
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 4 of 26 PageID #:33
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 5 of 26 PageID #:34
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 6 of 26 PageID #:35
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 7 of 26 PageID #:36
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 8 of 26 PageID #:37
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 9 of 26 PageID #:38
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 10 of 26 PageID #:39
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 11 of 26 PageID #:40
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 12 of 26 PageID #:41
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 13 of 26 PageID #:42
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 14 of 26 PageID #:43
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 15 of 26 PageID #:44
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 16 of 26 PageID #:45
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 17 of 26 PageID #:46
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 18 of 26 PageID #:47
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 19 of 26 PageID #:48
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 20 of 26 PageID #:49
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 21 of 26 PageID #:50
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 22 of 26 PageID #:51
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 23 of 26 PageID #:52
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 24 of 26 PageID #:53
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 25 of 26 PageID #:54
Case: 1:03-cv-02750 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/14/04 Page 26 of 26 PageID #:55
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Tim Paterson-Brown, Chief Executive Officer ofMGT Capital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1)    the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007, and 2006 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)    the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
|                  | By:                     | /s/ TIM PATERSON-BROWN |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|
|                  | Tim Paterson-Brown      |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer |
|                  |                    |
| November 5, 2008 |                    |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Robert L. Miller, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of CVF TechnologiesCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)for the registrantand have:
a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fiscal fourth quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: November 15, 2004              /s/ Robert L. Miller   Robert L. Miller,   Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Russell, Appellant.

Judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.), all rendered September 25, 1981, affirmed *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:03-cv-00287 Document #: 590 Filed: 07/31/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:11364

Case: 1:03-cv-00287 Document #: 590 Filed: 07/31/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:11364

Case: 1:03-cv-00287 Document #: 590 Filed: 07/31/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:11364