alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Rashad Scott, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 584]

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cahill, J.), entered May 12, 2010 in Ulster County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, filed a grievance contending that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision is improperly deducting restitution payments from funds he *1111receives from outside sources, as his 1999 restitution order directs that restitution payments be deducted “from prison wages.” The grievance was ultimately denied by the Central Office Review Committee (hereinafter CORC), and petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition finding that the grievance was untimely commenced. This appeal ensued.

As CORC did not address the issue of timeliness, and the determination only became final and binding upon petitioner following CORC’s denial, the inquiry as to timeliness is limited to the CPLR article 78 proceeding. This proceeding was timely commenced within four months after CORC’s determination *(see*CPLR 217; *Walton v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*8 NY3d 186, 194-195 [2007]; *Matter of Harvey v Bradt,*91 AD3d 1222 [2012]). Turning to the merits, we have previously held that respondent is empowered to encumber inmate accounts for the purpose of satisfying court ordered restitution payments, as this “manifestly serves a legitimate penological goal, and is consonant with [respondent’s] broad power[s]” *(Matter of Nardi v LeFevre,*235 AD2d 602, 603 [1997], *lv denied*89 NY2d 817 [1997]). Here, respondent has been collecting funds from petitioner’s account in accord with the provisions of Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 2788, i.e., 20% of his payroll receipts and 50% of his outside receipts.

Petitioner essentially argues that the terms of the court order should be narrowly construed, such that the provision directing restitution “to be ded. [sic] from prison wages” would restrict collection from any other sources, and thus prohibit the collection from outside receipts. This interpretation is inconsistent with the established policy encouraging restitution to crime victims “to the extent that the defendant is reasonably able to do so” (L 1983, ch 397, § 1; *see generally*Penal Law § 60.27; *see also People v Marone,*68 AD3d 1443, 1445 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 711 [2010]). Respondent’s interpretation of the terms of the order is not unreasonable, and we do not find the “determination [to be] irrational, arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law” *(Matter of Abreu v Fischer,*87 AD3d 1213, 1213 [2011]). Finally, we note that petitioner is not without remedy if he is unable to pay *(see*CPL 420.10 [5]).

Rose, J.P., Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-3012EA

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Willard Gene Thomas, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: April 16, 1997 Filed: April 24, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. After pleading guilty to one count o f being a felon in possession of a firearm, two counts of carjacking, and two counts of using a firear m during a felony offense, Willard Gene Thomas appeals his guideline s sentence. Thomas’s contention that the district court improperly crossreferenced the felon in possession of a firearm conviction to the guidelin e provision that covered criminal sexual abuse based on Thomas’s uncharged rape of a carjacking victim is foreclosed by this court’s contrar y holdings. See UnitedStates v. Miner , No. 96-1300, 1997 WL 120211, at *2 (8th Cir. Mar. 19, 1997); United States v. Smith , 997 F.2d 396, 397 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). We thus affirm.

### -2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  This schedule contains summary financial
information extracted from Balance Sheets and Statements
of Operations for the year ended December 31, 1996 Form
10K of Cinema Plus, L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      176,000
<SECURITIES>                           2,275,000
<RECEIVABLES>                          23,638,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                                 316,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         26,405,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                             20,900,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           26,405,000
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,382,000
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               612,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            283,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          169,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,318,000
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      1,318,000
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,318,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               30.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Docucorp International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended October 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John H. Gray, Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 and 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




/s/ John H. Gray
---------------------------------------

John H. Gray
Senior Vice President, Finance and
Administration
(Principal Financial Officer)
December 16, 2002
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
 Crop Genetics Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Crop Genetics Research People & Locations







Royesia  Gray
                        Crop Genetics Research

                        




                        
                        Biology Technician
                        Phone: (662) 686-3756
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1354

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for the designation

of common carriers not subject to the jurisdiction of a State commission

as eligible telecommunications carriers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 31, 1997

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. DASCHLE, and

Mr. DORGAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for

the designation of common carriers not subject to the

jurisdiction of a State commission as eligible telecommunications carriers.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF

4 1934.

5 Section 214(e) of the Communications Act of 1934

6 (47 U.S.C. 214(e)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘(2) or (3)’’ in paragraph (1)

8 and inserting ‘‘(2), (3), or (6)’’;
2

S 1354 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘interstate services,’’ in para2 graph (3) and inserting ‘‘interstate services or an

3 area served by a common carrier to which paragraph

4 (6) applies,’’;

5 (3) by inserting ‘‘(or the Commission in the

6 case of a common carrier designated under para7 graph (6))’’ in paragraph (4) after ‘‘State commis8 sion’’ each place such term appears;

9 (4) by inserting ‘‘(or the Commission under

10 paragraph (6))’’ in paragraph (5) after ‘‘State com11 mission’’; and

12 (5) by inserting after paragraph (5) the follow13 ing:

14 ‘‘(6) COMMON CARRIERS NOT SUBJECT TO

15 STATE COMMISSION JURISDICTION.—In the case of a

16 common carrier providing telephone exchange service

17 and exchange access that is not subject to the juris18 diction of a State commission, the Commission shall

19 upon request designate such a common carrier that

20 meets the requirements of paragraph (1) as an eligi21 ble telecommunications carrier for a service area

22 designated by the Commission consistent with appli23 cable federal and State law. Upon request and con24 sistent with the public interest, convenience and ne25 cessity, the Commission may, with respect to an area
3

S 1354 IS

1 served by a rural telephone company, and shall, in

2 the case of all other areas, designate more than one

3 common carrier as an eligible telecommunications

4 carrier for a service area designated under this para5 graph, so long as each additional requesting carrier

6 meets the requirements of paragraph (1). Before

7 designating an additional eligible telecommunications

8 carrier for an area served by a rural telephone com9 pany, the Commission shall find that the designation

10 is in the public interest.’’.

Æ
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Howard Thomson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Terrace Ventures Inc. (the Company), hereby certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                        

|By:    | /s/ Howard Thomson         
|------ | ---------------------------
|Name:  | HOWARD THOMSON             
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
|       | Chief Financial Officer    
|Date:  | August 10, 2006            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
EXHIBIT
32.2





PERICOM
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED




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




In
connection with this annual report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended July 3, 2010 (the “Report”),
I, Aaron Tachibana, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of
the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of
the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.


August
31, 2010




By:
                /s/ Aaron TachibanaAaron
      TachibanaChief
      Financial OfficerPericom
      Semiconductor Corporation
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
 Livestock Arthropod Pest Research Unit: Kerrville, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Kerrville, Texas Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory Livestock Arthropod Pest Research Unit People & Locations







Lazaro Ramos Camarillo

(Larry)
                        Livestock Arthropod Pest Research Unit

                        




                        
                        Animal Caretaker
                        Phone: (830) 223-2709
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
#### In the Matter of Barney M. Mathewson, Jr., Respondent, v Elizabeth S. Sessler, Appellant.

[948 NYS2d 841]

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Centra, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DIANE BOND, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 04 C 2617 

v. )

) JUDGE LEFKOW

EDWIN UTRERAS, et al, )

)

Defendants. ) 

NOTICE OF FILING

LAURA RAMIREZ, JAMES RAMIREZ and ANTHONY RAMIREZ (Plaintiffs

in Ramirez, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al., 05 C 317) through their attorneys, LOEVY &

LOEVY, tender the attached Declaration of Steven Whitman as per this Court’s Order of

February 6, 2009. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

/S/Mark Reyes

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Arthur Loevy

Jon Loevy

Mark Reyes

LOEVY & LOEVY 

312 N. May St.

Suite 100

Chicago, IL 60607

(312) 243-5900

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 312 Filed: 02/17/09 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:3282
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mark Reyes, an attorney, certify that on February 17, 2009, I served this

document by ECF electronic filing as to each party who is represented by counsel who

uses electronic filing.

S/Mark Reyes

Case: 1:04-cv-02617 Document #: 312 Filed: 02/17/09 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:3283
#### PALMER et al. v. VAN DEUSEN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third. Department

November 13, 1907.)

Pleading—Motion.

The complaint in án action to enjoin obstruction of a right of way appurtenant to plaintiffs’ land, showing that it came up to and bordered on plaintiffs’ “Palmer one hundred acre lot,” and that it was a convenient and necessary means of communication between and across the lands of plaintiffs in that town, and for that reason was a suitable *708appurtenance to said lands, sufficiently describes the land to which the way is appurtenant, as against objection first raised at the trial; in«definiténess and uncertainty of a complaint not justifying its dismissal, but the remedy being, under Code Civ. Proe. § 546, by motion to make definite and certain.

[Ed. Note.—Eor cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol, 39, Pleading, § 1174.]

Appeal from Special Term, Saratoga County.

Action by Nicholas Palmer and another against George W. Van Deusen. From a judgment dismissing the complaint on a trial before ithe court, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued before SMITH, P. J., and CHESTER, KELLOGG, COCH-RANE, and SEWELL, JJ.

James H. Bain, for appellants.

Edgar T. Brackett (William S. Ostrander, of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. KELLOGG, J.

In this action to enjoin defendant from obstructing a right of way across his premises upon the trial the plaintiffs stated that they “did not claim any public right of way nor any personal right of way on behalf of the plaintiffs, but only for a right of way appurtenant to the plaintiffs’ land.” Thereupon the court held the complaint insufficient, for the reason that it did not describe the lands to which it was claimed the right of way was appurtenant. In all other respects thie complaint is concededly sufficient.

The complaint showed that the right of way described came up to and bordered upon the plaintiffs’ “Palmer one hundred acre lot,” and that it was a convenient and necessary means of communication between and across the lands of the plaintiffs in said town, and for that reason was a suitable appurtenance to said lands. The naming of the plaintiffs’ Palmer 100-acre lot, and their other lands in said town, is a sufficient description of the lands to which said way is appurtenant to enable the plaintiffs to maintain their action when the objection is raised for the first time upon the trial. The fact that a complaint is indefinite and uncertain do-es not justify its dismissal. The Code of Civil Procedure (section 546) has provided a remedy to cure such a defect.

The judgment should therefore tie reversed and a'new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.