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

[945 NYS2d 563]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered February 10, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the convictions of assault in *1137the second degree and robbery in the first degree are not supported by legally sufficient evidence is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of assault in the second degree and robbery in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was sufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator and to establish the element of “ ‘[pjhysical injury,’ ” defined as “ ‘substantial pain’ ” *(People v Chiddick,*8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007], quoting Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; *see People v Monserrate,*90 AD3d 785, 787-788 [2011]; *People v Rojas,*61 NY2d 726, 727-728 [1984]; *People v Krotoszynski,*43 AD3d 450, 452-453 [2007]).

The defendant’s contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of his right to a fair trial is without merit. Most of the challenged comments constituted fair comment on the evidence, were permissible rhetorical comment, or were responsive to defense counsel’s summation *(see People v Gillespie,*36 AD3d 626, 627 [2007]; *People v McHarris,*297 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]). To the extent any of the comments were improper, they were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial and, thus, reversal is not warranted *(see People v Rogers,*92 AD3d 903 [2012]; *People v Banyan,*60 AD3d 861 [2009]). Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

BULE S. AHMED, 

No. 3:14-cv-1231-ST

Plaintiff, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

 Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., 

On November 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and 

Recommendation [24], recommending Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [15] be DENIED. No 

objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01231-ST Document 35 Filed 11/25/14 Page 1 of 2
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 244] 

as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2014.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman ___ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01231-ST Document 35 Filed 11/25/14 Page 2 of 2
#### Bryan *v.*Morris.

Lumpkin, J.

1. A deed executed by one as executor of a deceased testator is not admissible in evidence as conveying title, without proving the appointment of the grantor as such executor. ,

2. In order to authorize the issuance and execution of a warrant to dispossess one as a tenant holding over and beyond his term, the relation of landlord and tenant must have existed, and the tenant must have held in subordination to the alleged landlord, or at least to one under whom the latter acquired title, if possession was obtained by the tenant as such under a predecessor in title of the landlord. In the present case *71there was no evidence showing such relation, and there was no error in granting a nonsuit.

January 18, 1915.

Eviction. Before Judge Brand. Banks superior court. September 18, 1913. -

*Thomas J. Shackelford,*for plaintiff.

*W.*4. *Charters*and *IT. H. Perry,*for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
#### The People ex rel. John Lake, as Collector, etc., Respondent, *v.*Elbert Hegeman, as County Treasurer, etc., Appellant.

(Argued October 7, 1890;

decided October 21, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 11, 1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon an order of Special Term directing the issuing of a writ of peremptory mandamus.

*Benjamin W. Downing*for appellant.

*M. D. Gould*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Bryon K. Russ, Sr., Appellant, v Brian Fischer, Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 914]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Thomas G. Leone, A.J.), entered December 17, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment denied and dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1



BEA SYSTEMS, INC.



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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Alfred S. Chuang, Chief Executive 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.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: December 12, 2003 |  | /s/    ALFRED S. CHUANG
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | Alfred S. Chuang       
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1559

AN ACT

To provide for the design, construction, furnishing, and

equipping of a Center for Historically Black Heritage

within Florida A&M University.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1559 ES

1 SECTION 1. CONSTRUCTION OF A CENTER FOR REGIONAL

2 BLACK CULTURE.

3 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find4 ings:

5 (1) Currently 500,000 historically important ar6 tifacts of the Civil War era and the early days of the

7 civil rights movement in the Southeast region of the

8 United States are housed at Florida A&M Univer9 sity.

10 (2) To preserve this large repository of African11 American history and artifacts it is appropriate that

12 the Federal Government share in the cost of con13 struction of this national repository for culture and

14 history.

15 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section:

16 (1) CENTER.—The term ‘‘Center’’ means the

17 Center for Historically Black Heritage at Florida

18 A&M University.

19 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means

20 the Secretary of Interior acting through the Director

21 of the National Park Service.

22 (c) CONSTRUCTION OF CENTER.—The Secretary may

23 award a grant to the State of Florida to pay for the Fed24 eral share of the cost, design, construction, furnishing,

25 and equipping of the Center at Florida A&M University.

26 (d) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.—
3

S 1559 ES

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—In order to receive a grant

2 awarded under subsection (c), Florida A&M Univer3 sity, shall submit to the Secretary a proposal.

4 (2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share de5 scribed in subsection (c) shall be 50 percent.

6 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION.—There is

7 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Interior

8 to carry out this section a total of $3,800,000 for fiscal

9 year 1998 and any succeeding fiscal years. Funds appro10 priated pursuant to the authority of the preceding sen11 tence shall remain available until expanded.

Passed the Senate November 13, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1559

AN ACT

To provide for the design, construction, furnishing,

Heritage within Florida A&M University.and equipping of a Center for Historically Black
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1544

To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on 4-[[5-[[[4-(Aminocarbonyl)

phenyl] amino] carbonyl]-2-methoxyphenyl]azo]-N-(5-chloro-2,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-3-hydroxynaphthalene-2-carboxamide

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Mr. CHAFEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend until December 31, 2002, the duty on

4-[[5-[[[4-(Aminocarbonyl) phenyl] amino] carbonyl]-2-

methoxyphenyl]azo]-N-(5-chloro-2,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-3-

hydroxynaphthalene-2-carboxamide

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1544 IS

1 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON

2 4-[[5-[[[4-(AMINOCARBONYL)PHENYL]AMINO]

3 CARBONYL]-2-METHOXYPHENYL]AZO]-N-(5-

4 CHLORO-2,4-DIMETHOXYPHENYL)-3-

5 HYDROXYNAPHTHALENE-2-CARBOXAMIDE.

6 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar7 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

8 in numerical sequence the following subheading:

‘‘ 9902.32.XX 4-[[5-[[[4-

(Aminocarbonyl)

phenyl]

amino]carbonyl]-2-

methoxyphenyl]azo]-N-(5-chloro2,4-

dimethoxyphenyl)-

3-

hydroxynaphthalene-2-carboxamide

provided for in

subheading

3204.17.60 ............ Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.

9 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

10 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re11 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

12 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

13 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of The Tirex Corporation on
Form 10K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael Ash, CFO,  of the Company certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                    
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.

/s/ Michael Ash
Michael Ash, CFO

March 1, 2011

---
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 Quarterly Report of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stacy M. Riffe, 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 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Stacy M. Riffe     
|Stacy M. Riffe         
|Chief Financial Officer
|May 10, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

JAMES HAROLD ROSSI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HONORABLE RANDOLPH LEE GARRISON, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, District Judge: 

1:14-cv-01642-CL 

ORDER 

Defendants have moved to dismiss (## 28, 36, 40). Magistrate 

Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation (#73), and 

the matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b) (1) (B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff filed objections 

(#79) and Defendant Von Ter Stegge has responded to Plaintiff's 

objections (#80). I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. 

1 - ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01642-CL Document 81 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 2
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). 

I have given this matter de novo review. I find no error. 

In his Objections, Plaintiff requests that this case be stayed 

pending resolution of his state court cases. I decline to do so. 

I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation (#73) . 

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this df day of May, 2016. 

ANN 

U.S. 

AIKEN 

DISTRICT 

~ 

JUDGE 

2 - ORDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01642-CL Document 81 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00569-CR

Christopher Swilley

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1329409R)

June 11, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Anne Gardner__________

 Justice Anne Gardner
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 Certification**
I, Gino Chouinard, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of HearUSA, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and we have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluations; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 28, 2005
/s/Gino ChouinardGino ChouinardChief Financial Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of OmniComm Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, being, Cornelis F. Wit, Chief Executive Officer 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 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/ Cornelis F. Wit                                            
|Cornelis F. Wit                                                
|President, Chief Executive Office (principal executive officer)

August 14, 2009
# C_2005331EN.01002201.xml

| 28.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/22

---

Notice inviting applications for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block F18 of the Dutch continental shelf

(2005/C 331/17)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block F18 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and the publication required by Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit an application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block F18.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to the Minister for Economic Affairs, for the attention of the Director of Energy Production, Prinses Beatrixlaan 5, The Hague, Netherlands, and marked ‘personal’. Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than 12 months after the period has expired.

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 66 94.

---