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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.), rendered on May 17, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Sullivan, Asch and Lynch, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Blount International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Calvin E. Jenness,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)                                     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed inthe report.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BlountInternational, Inc. and will be retained by Blount International, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

 

Date: May 9, 2008

 

 
| /s/ Calvin E. Jenness      |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Calvin E. Jenness          |
| Senior Vice President  and |
| Chief Financial Officer    |

 

----
# C_2021057EN.01000101.xml

| 17.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10049 — Partners Group/Atlantia/Telepass)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 57/01)

On 10 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10049. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10049. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                         290,066
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,223,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (382,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 14,329,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,302,043
<PP&E>                                       3,543,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,251,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,281,034
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    336,680
<COMMON>                                         2,655
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,559,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,251,152
<SALES>                                     97,999,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            97,999,969
<CGS>                                       68,548,599
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,935,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,737,859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,890,335
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,466,771
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,423,564
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,423,564
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit31.2

I, Steven R. Delmar, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
ACE*COMM Corporation., certify that:



| | 1. |  | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ACE*COMM Corporation;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report;
|
| | 3. |  | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this annual report;                   

Date: September 29, 2003



| | /s/ Steven R. Delmar
Steven R. Delmar
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1516

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Seth Zimmerman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006

Filed: April 11, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Seth Zimmerman appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed following

revocation of his supervised release. We affirm.

While on supervised release, Zimmerman admittedly tested positive for

methamphetamine on five different occasions. Noting the provisions of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(g)(4) (if defendant, as part of drug testing, tests positive for illegal controlled

substance more than 3 times over course of 1 year, court shall revoke supervised
-2-

release and require defendant to serve term of imprisonment), the district court

revoked Zimmerman’s supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months’

imprisonment and 18 months’ supervised release.

On appeal, Zimmerman argues that the district court failed to consider whether

he qualified for a substance-abuse treatment option as an exception to mandatory

revocation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (court shall consider whether availability of

appropriate substance-abuse treatment programs, or individual’s current or past

participation in such programs, warrants exception in accordance with Guidelines

from rule of § 3583(g) when considering any action against defendant who fails drug

test). We reject this argument. At sentencing, the district court asked the parties for

their views as to whether they would dispute the application of the mandatory

revocation provision. Based on their responses, which revealed that Zimmerman’s

drug problem took a turn for the worse while he was at a low-security facility and

during his supervised release, and that he failed to benefit from the treatment that was

provided to him, the court imposed an 18-month prison sentence which would allow

him to participate in a long-term residential drug-treatment program while confined.

We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Hammonds,

370 F.3d 1032, 1038-39 (10th Cir. 2004) (standard of review; finding no abuse of

discretion where court did not make specific ruling rejecting application of § 3583(d),

because there was no indication court did not recognize its power to grant exception:

at sentencing defendant requested order directing treatment rather than revocation,

government noted defendant’s poor record in treatment programs, and court ordered

revocation with in-prison treatment); cf. United States v. Pierce, 132 F.3d 1207, 1207-

09 (8th Cir. 1997) (remanding where district court’s statements at revocation hearing

cast doubt on whether it realized it could order drug treatment as alternative to

revocation).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
Symphony in B flat 

Paul Hindemith 

Movement! 

• Beginning t.o letter B

12 S f B J' J J r rr r j Irr er Cu ll t i .. Jc EE E trl

":I" s 

14-f •c c r •c rr 'P ' t •er re er I -P ' i , c c r r ff f I �

,.--......---- 2 

:.: ., 

� 

:r . J

FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOS E S ONLY
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
Exhibit 99.4


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



          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blount International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Calvin E. Jenniss, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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, to such officer's
knowlege:

      (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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Blount International, Inc. and will be retained by Blount
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.


Date:  July 30, 2004

/s/ Calvin E. Jenness

____________________________________
Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021459EN.01002101.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/21

---

EUROPEAN INSTITUTE FOR GENDER EQUALITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/21)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://eige.europa.eu/about/documents-registry/final-annual-accounts-financial-year-2020

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00516

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF F.M. III , a m inor c hild

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 0076

- CV

Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Because Appellant F.M. Jr. is indigent, no costs are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED J anuary 30, 2017.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL 

U.S. v. __________________________________ __________ ______________

(Last, First, MI) (Rank) (EMPLID)

________________________________________ _______________________________________

(Member’s Unit) (CMD of CA)

__________________ __________________ ___________________

 Trial Date(s) Sentence Date Length of confinement 

Record of Trial Checklist

Item Present N/A

1. RCM 1307 review

2. Summary Court-Martial memorandum with all enclosures 

(Must include summary of all evidence received at trial to prove each element of each offense of which the accused was found guilty.)

3. Original convening order*

4. DD-458 (Charge sheet)*

a. First offense: MMM/DD/YYYY

b. Do charges involve Art. 112a or 128b? Yes / No (circle one)

c. Preferral date: MMM/DD/YYYY

d. Referral date: MMM/DD/YYYY

e. Convening Authority Action date: MMM/DD/YYYY 

5. DD-2329, Record of Trial by Summary Court –Martial*

6. Acknowledgement of Rights-Acceptance of SCM*

7. Stipulation of fact (if any)*

8. All documentary evidence*

9. Proof of service on accused

10. Matters filed by the victim under R.C.M. 1106A or any written waiver/declination of the 

right to submit such matters (if any)

11. Matters filed by the accused under R.C.M. 1106 or any written waiver/declination of the 

right to submit such matters (if any)

12. Any rebuttal matter(s) submitted by the accused or defense counsel in response to the 

victim’s matters (if any)

13. Extension requests to submit matters under R.C.M. 1106/1106A and any ruling on such 

matter (if any)

14. Clemency request, (if any)

15. Deferment request, (if any)

16. Vacation of suspension, (if any)

17. Forward case in Law Manager to CG-LMJ Date / Initials

* Included as enclosure to the summary memorandum.

Notes to CG-LMJ Records Custodian:

Coast Guard Legal Technician/Paralegal: _____________________________________ Date: _______________

 (Printed name & legal office)

Trial Counsel: _________________________________________ Date: _______________

 (Printed name & Signature)
#### WEIN et al., Respondents, v. MOONEY et al., Appellants.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

December 12, 1896.)

Action by Henry Wein and others against George Mooney and others. K. Powell, for appellants. J. G. Ritter, for respondents.

No opinion. Orders appealed from affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin DeJesus, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered on October 3, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. *569Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
Listen

# CSSBMB Meetings

Meetings for The Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys. Learn more about CSSBMB.

CSSBMB Second Quarter Business Meeting
Event Date: February 22, 2024

CSSBMB First Quarter Business Meeting
Event Date: November 17, 2023

CSSBMB Fourth Quarter Business Meeting
Event Date: August 29, 2023

Act Now Summit
Event Date: July 24, 2023

Virtual Roundtable Discussion: Creating A Model for Black Economic Citizenship
Event Date: March 29, 2023

Virtual Roundtable Discussion: Unlocking America’s Democratic Potential by Reducing Inequality in the Classroom
Event Date: November 3, 2022

Virtual Roundtable Discussion on Preventative Strategies to Mitigate the Social Disparities of Black Men in America
Event Date: July 8, 2022

Virtual Roundtable Discussion on Criminal Justice and Quarterly Business Meeting
Event Date: April 22, 2022

CSSBMB Business Meeting
Event Date: January 14, 2022

Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Inaugural Business Meeting
Event Date: November 9, 2021

-  Event Calendar 
-  Public Briefings 
-  Commission Business Meetings 
-  Advisory Committees Meetings 
-  Archives
# C_2021015EN.01000301.xml

| 14.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/3

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 15/03)

| Member State | Finland |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | Helsinki – Joensuu
  Helsinki – Jyväskylä
  Helsinki – Kajaani
  Helsinki – Kemi
  Helsinki – Kokkola |
| Date of entry into force of public service obligations | 1 April 2021 |
| Address from which the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge | Further information: Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom) |
| Address: |
| PO Box 320 |
| FI-00059 Traficom |
| FINLAND |

Member State

Finland

Routes concerned

Helsinki – Joensuu

Helsinki – Jyväskylä

Helsinki – Kajaani

Helsinki – Kemi

Helsinki – Kokkola

Date of entry into force of public service obligations

1 April 2021

Address from which the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge

Further information: Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom)

Address:

PO Box 320

FI-00059 Traficom

FINLAND

Email: kirjaamo@traficom.fi

Internet: http://www.traficom.fi/en/transport/aviation/air-public-service-obligations

---
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-32703, 333-32705, 333-49530, 333-49532, 333-49540, 333-49570, and 333-62269) of TransAct Technologies Incorporated of our report dated March 14, 2008 relating to the financial
statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
LLP   
|Hartford, Connecticut March 14, 2008
#### Bonnie Mittman, Respondent, v International Menswear, Ltd., Appellant.

— In an action to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.), dated March 24, 1986, as, upon transferring the action from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, to the Supreme Court, Kings County, and increasing the ad damnum clause, *sua sponte,*transferred the action back to the Civil Court pursuant to CPLR 325 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not err or abuse its discretion in retransferring the action back to the Civil Court, pursuant to CPLR 325 (d), after first transferring the action to itself so *378that it could increase the ad damnum clause *(see, Huston v Rao,*74 AD2d 127). It is not at all illogical that the Supreme Court might conclude that the plaintiffs damages will ultimately be more than the $25,000 originally sought but less than the $40,888.25 now sought in the increased ad damnum clause. Nor does it appear that the issues are so complex as to warrant a trial in the Supreme Court, with its attendant delays. Finally, the CPLR 325 (d) retransfer does not negate the other relief granted. The plaintiffs recovery, if any, will now be subject to the monetary jurisdiction of the transferor Supreme Court, up to a ceiling of the amount sought in the increased ad damnum clause. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

KEANDRE DASHAWN IVORY,

Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 2D23-891

March 20, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Pat Siracusa, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow , for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
BLACK, Judge. In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm without comment the revocation of Keandre Dashawn Ivory's probation in circuit court case nos. 14- 15085-CF and 14-15318-CF and the resulting sentences. However, we

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).2

remand for the correction of a scrivener's error in the revocation order entered in case no. 14-15318-CF. The affidavit of violation alleged in part that Ivory had violated condition 21 of his probation in each case for failing to abide by his curfew. But in case no. 14-15318-CF, condition 21 required Ivory to submit to random drug and alcohol testing; it was condition 22 that imposed a curfew in that case. Despite identifying the condition violated in case no. 14-15318-CF as condition 21 rather than condition 22, the affidavit of violation described the condition as requiring Ivory to abide by a curfew. And it is clear that the parties and the court understood the violation in both cases to be the failure to abide by the curfew imposed. See Washington v. State , 228 So. 3d 707, 708 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("A violation of supervision need not be alleged with the same specificity necessary for an information charging an offense, and even a charging document's error in citation 'shall not be ground for dismissing the count or for a reversal of a conviction based thereon if the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to the defendant's prejudice.' " (first citing Hollingshead v. State , 846 So. 2d 627, 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); and then quoting McMann v. State , 954 So. 2d 90, 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007))). Therefore, we affirm the order of revocation and sentence in each case but remand for the circuit court to correct the revocation order entered in case no. 14-15318-CF to reflect that Ivory was found to be in violation of condition 22 instead of condition 21. See id. Affirmed; remanded. SILBERMAN and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.