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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Finnegan, J.), rendered June 14, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record discloses that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Although the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence by attacking the credibility of the prosecution’s principal witness, it is axiomatic that "issues of credibility are primarily for the jury, which has the 'advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses’ ” *(People v Martin,*108 AD2d 928, quoting from *People v Kidd,*76 AD2d 665, 666, *lv dismissed*51 NY2d 882; *People v Gruttola,*43 NY2d 116, 122; *People v Rosenfeld,*93 AD2d 872). We are "traditionally resistant to second-guessing [the jury’s] determination on this issue” *(People v Di Girolamo,*108 AD2d 755). We note, furthermore, that the background and prior inconsistent statements of the witness were fully presented for the jury’s consideration *(see, People v Shapiro,*117 AD2d 688; *People v Carter,*114 AD2d 420; *People v Bussey,*111 AD2d 403, 404). Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, as we must *(see, People v Kennedy,*47 NY2d 196; *People v Benzinger,*36 NY2d 29; *People v Martin, supra),*we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found that the People proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(People v Martin, supra; People v Bigelow,*106 AD2d 448).

In addition, the court’s charge to the jury in connection *320with the defendant’s decision not to testify was proper *(see,*CPL 300.10 [2]; *People v Koberstein,*103 AD2d 1021, *affd*66 NY2d 989; *cf. People v Smith,*121 AD2d 411), and we find no repugnancy in the jury’s verdict, which acquitted the defendant of murder in the second degree while convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree *(see, People v Goodfriend,*64 NY2d 695, 697; *People v Tucker,*55 NY2d 1, 7).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either not properly preserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
EX-10.2







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE MOTOROLA SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Generally Effective As Of January 1, 2008)




MSPP Freeze as of March 1, 2009





     WHEREAS, Motorola, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Motorola Supplemental Pension Plan (the
“MSPP”) for the benefit of certain employees who participate in the Motorola Pension Plan whose
accrued benefits under the Motorola Pension Plan are reduced by Internal Revenue Code limitations
or the employee’s participation in the Motorola Management Deferred Compensation Plan;



     WHEREAS, Section 6.1 of the MSPP provides that the Board of Directors of Motorola, Inc. (the
“Board”) may amend the MSPP from time to time; and



     WHEREAS, the Board deems it appropriate to freeze the MSPP, including the freeze of
participation, compensation and future benefit accruals, effective as of March 1, 2009.



     NOW THEREFORE, the MSPP is hereby amended, effective as of March 1, 2009 (unless otherwise
specified below), in the following particulars:



     1. By adding immediately preceding Section 1 of the MSPP, the following new Section 1A as a
part thereof:



“SECTION 1A

FREEZE OF THE PLAN EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2009





     1A.1 Plan Freeze. Notwithstanding any other provision of this document
to the contrary, the Plan is frozen effective as of March 1, 2009, and




     (a) no Participant shall accrue any benefit or additional benefit on
and after March 1, 2009;




     (b) no compensation increases earned by a Participant on and after
March 1, 2009 shall be used to compute any accrued benefit due and owing to
any Participant on and after March 1, 2009; and




     (c) no service performed on and after March 1, 2009, shall be
considered service for any purpose under the Plan.”



     2. By adding the following new sentence immediately at the end of Section 1.11 of the MSPP as
a part thereof:




“Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, no person may
attain an Initial Eligibility Date after January 1, 2009.”



     3. By adding the following new sentence immediately at the end of Section 1.12 of the MSPP as
a part thereof:




“Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, no person shall
become a Participant in the Plan after January 1, 2009.”



 









 





     4. By adding the following new paragraph immediately at the end of Section 2.2 of the MSPP as
a part thereof:




“Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, no person shall
become a Participant in the Plan after January 1, 2009.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the following officer has been designated the authority to execute this
First Amendment and hereby affixes his signature as of this 15th day of December 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MOTOROLA, INC.

 	 
	 	/S/ Greg A. Lee
 	 
	 	Greg A. Lee 	 
	 	Senior Vice President, Human Resources 	 



2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1851 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1851

       To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rocket engines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 24, 1998

 Mr. Mack (for himself and Mr. Graham) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rocket engines.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN ROCKET ENGINES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new subheading:

      

``     9902.84.12      Dual thrust                                                                              
                        chamber rocket                                                                          
                        engines having a                                                                        
                        maximum static                                                                          
                        sea level thrust                                                                        
                        exceeding 800,000                                                                       
                        lbs. and nozzle                                                                         
                        exit diameter                                                                           
                        exceeding 50                                                                            
                        inches (provided                                                                        
                        for in subheading                                                                       
                        8412.10.00)......  Free         No change         No change         On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/01              
                                                                                                                

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[COOPERS & LYBRAND LOGO]

The Board of Directors
Prime Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-33307) on Form S-8 of Prime Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated February 23,
1996, relating to the consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity,
and cash flows of First Sterling Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1995, which report is included in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form
10-K of Prime Bancorp, Inc.

                                                    /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                                        ------------------------

Baltimore, Maryland
March 25, 1998
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 Optical Cable Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of January 31, 2004, and for the period then
ended.



|                     |  |                                                          
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2004 |  | /s/ Tracy G. Smith                                       
|                     |  | Tracy G. Smith Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

KAREN LESTER-MAHAFFEY, Case No. 3:15-cv-00929-YY

Plaintiff,

ORDER (EAJA FEES)

vs.

COMMISSIONER, Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, an attorney fee in the amount of $7,306.75 is

awarded to Plaintiff. It is ordered that the aforementioned attorney fee will be paid to Plaintiff’s

attorney, dependent upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against

the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130

S.Ct. 2521 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made payable to

1 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES
Plaintiff’s attorney, Bruce Brewer, and mailed to him at PO Box 421, West Linn, OR 97068. If

Plaintiff has such debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt shall be

made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney at the mailing address stated above. 

There are no costs or expenses to be paid herein.

DATED this _13th____ day of __April, 2017.

____________________________________

Youlee Yim You 

United States Magistrate Judge

Submitted by:

Bruce W. Brewer, OSB No. 925581

503-621-6633, Attorney for Plaintiff 

2 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES

/s/Youlee Yim You
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
 Pollinator Health in Southern Crop Ecosystems 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 Pollinator Health in Southern Crop Ecosystems Research People & Locations







Linda  Davis
                        Pollinator Health in Southern Crop Ecosystems Research

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant
                        Phone: (662) 686-3068
                        
                        
                        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
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 of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of 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:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Paul KatzeffChief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18349]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


OMB Sequestration Update Report to the President and Congress for 
the Current Fiscal Year

AGENCY: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: OMB is issuing the OMB Sequestration Update Report to the 
President and Congress for the Current Fiscal Year to report on the 
status of the discretionary caps in 2021 and on the compliance of 
enacted discretionary appropriations legislation with those caps.

DATES: August 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The OMB Sequestration Reports to the President and Congress 
are available on-line on the OMB home page at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sequestration-reports-orders/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Tobasko, 6202 New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, Email address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#097d7d666b687a62664966646b276c6679276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3c7c7dcd1d2c0d8dcf3dcded19dd6dcc39dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>, telephone number: (202) 395-5745. Because of 
delays in the receipt of regular mail related to security screening, 
respondents are encouraged to use electronic communications.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 requires the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) to issue a Sequestration Update Report by August 20th 
of each year. For fiscal year 2021, the report finds enacted 
appropriations to be at or below the caps after accounting for enacted 
supplemental appropriations.

Shalanda Young,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 2021-18349 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(December 15, 1986)

#### Peter Asciutto, Appellant, v Barco Auto Leasing Corp. et al., Respondents.

— In an action, *inter alia,*to rescind an automobile leasing agreement, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), *432dated April 17, 1986, which granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The instant action to rescind an automobile leasing agreement is premised upon the defendant Friendly Pontiac, Inc.’s purported breach of an alleged related oral advertising agreement which it entered into with the plaintiff. However, the record reveals that the alleged oral advertising agreement was one which by its terms could not be performed within one year. Therefore, the failure of the parties to memorialize the alleged agreement in a signed writing renders it void and unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds *(see,*General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; *D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63*NY2d *449; Polykoff Adv. v Houbigant, Inc., 43*NY2d 921; *Hausen v Academy Print. & Specialty Co.,*34 AD2d 792). As such, its nonperformance may not constitute a ground for rescinding the automobile lease. In this regard, we discern no basis in the record for equitably estopping the defendants from asserting the Statute of Frauds as a defense, for the written lease contract contained no reference to the advertising agreement and expressly stated that only written and signed modifications of the lease would be binding upon the parties. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence of partial performance, detrimental reliance or unconscionable injury as a result of the nonperformance of the alleged advertising agreement *(see, American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co.,*91 AD2d 901, *affd*59 NY2d 716), nor do his papers raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the unsubstantiated allegation that he was induced to enter into the automobile lease by the oral promises of the defendants. Hence, the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

JANE and JOHN DOE, individually and as 

Parents and Next Friends of DOE CHILD, a 

minor,

No. 3:15-cv-00385-ST

Plaintiffs, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT, an

Oregon municipal corporation; HEATHER

BECK, an individual; JENNIFER SCHIELE, an

individual; IAN LAMONT, an individual;

KAYLA NORDLUM, an individual; ASHLEY

NORDLUM, an individual; SUZANNE YOUNG, an

individual; and UNKNOWN STAFF, UNKNOWN

INDIVIDUALS, 

 Defendants. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On July 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Amended Findings and 

Recommendation [47], recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [15] should be 

GRANTED without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint adding Doe Parents’ 

true names and Doe Child’s initials. Plaintiffs filed their objections to the F&R [49], arguing 

that review is not necessary in light of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 

Case 3:15-cv-00385-YY Document 55 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

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 

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 Amended 

F&R [47] as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2015. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman ___ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00385-YY Document 55 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2