alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### June Visconti, Appellant, v Irene M. Paino et al., Respondents.

— Appeal by the petitioner from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 2, 1987, which dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it was not timely commenced.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for reasons stated by Justice Hickman in his decision and judgment in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur. [137 Misc 2d 1.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          25,860
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  661,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    121,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,083,259
<PP&E>                                       1,370,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,100,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,961,749
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        36,950
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,100,841
<SALES>                                      2,046,714
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,046,714
<CGS>                                        1,248,478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,910,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (137,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (138,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 30,487
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (108,453)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.004)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
            
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-5570-LA, 333-43899 and 333-50385 on Form S-3, Form S-8 and Form S-3,
respectively, of our report dated March 27, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Bristol Retail Solutions, Inc. as of
December 31, 1996, and for the period from inception (April 3, 1996) to December
31, 1996 included in its Annual Report (Form 10-KSB/A) for the year ended
December 31, 1997 as amended on April 16, 1998 and on June 10, 1998.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
----------------------------------------------
Orange County, California
June 10, 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 eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB  for  the  quarter  ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ken Hedrick, Principal
Accounting  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
the  best  of  my  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 of the Company.



/s/  Ken Hedrick
------------------------------------
Ken Hedrick,
Principal Accounting Officer
May 24, 2004


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


<PAGE>
#### Davis-Wallbridge, Inc., Respondent, v City of Syracuse, Appellant.

Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
Civil Penalty Appeals

Written By LCDR Michele Bouziane

By direction of the Commandant, the Chief Judge of the Coast Guard Court of 

Criminal Appeals is also the Coast Guard Civil Penalty Appellate Authority. 

As of this writing, 49 cases are pending review by the Coast Guard Civil 

Penalty Authority, down from approximately 100 on average in previous years, 

according to appellate staff. The bulk of the appeals cases are Boating Under 

the Influence cases. 

Most filers of civil penalty appeals hope that the Civil Penalty Appellate 

Authority will overturn the findings, and hence, the civil penalties, handed 

down by the Hearing Officer in their cases.

The Civil Penalty Appellate Authority reviews the Hearing Officer’s decision 

to see if the findings of fact are based on substantial evidence. A good 

explanation of the term “substantial evidence” can be found in the below 

excerpt from 2009 Civil Penalty Appeal Decision No. 2405585, posted on the 

Hearing Office website:

Pursuant to our procedural rules at 33 CFR 1.07, the Hearing Officer’s decision 

must be “based upon substantial evidence in the record.” See 33 CFR 1.07-

65(a). The Supreme Court defined substantial evidence, both affirmatively and 

negatively, in Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 

(1938). The affirmative definition makes clear that “substantial evidence” 

“means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 

to support a conclusion.” Id. at 229. In the negative, the Court stated that 

“[m]ere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial 

evidence.” Id. at 230. Later court decisions have clarified the definition, stating 

that “substantial evidence” is the quantum and quality of relevant evidence that 

is more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance and that “a reasoning 

mind would accept as sufficient to support a particular conclusion.” (Emphasis 

added) See LeFebre v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 747 F.2d 197, 208 (4th Cir. 

1984) (overruled on other grounds); see also United Seniors Ass’n v. Social 

Sec. Admin., 423 F.3d 397, 404 (4th Cir. 2005).
Appellate staff would like to remind charged parties that the civil penalty 

hearing and appellate processes are informal. The charged party’s due process 

rights in these proceedings are not the same as an accused person’s rights in a 

criminal proceeding.

According to appellate staff, typed appeal letters are preferable to hand-written 

ones, preferably proof-read and spell-checked. See 33 CFR §§ 1.07-70 and 

1.07-75 for more information on the appeal process.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. CONSTABLE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First. Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Proceeding on the relation of Joseph R. Williams against Stevenson Constable, as superintendent, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed with costs, on the authority of In re Whitney (decided by this department Sept. 9, 1896) 40 N. Y. Supp. 1151.
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Kathryn C. Davis

Judge Kathryn C. Davis was appointed to the United States Court of Federal Claims in December 2020.  

Prior to her appointment, Judge Davis served in the Federal Programs Branch in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, joining in 2008 as a Trial Attorney and rising to the position of Senior Trial Counsel.  Her work at the Federal Programs Branch focused primarily on defending federal agencies in suits raising complex issues of constitutional and administrative law.  During her tenure at the Justice Department, Judge Davis received the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award for her work on district court litigation related to the 2013 Federal Government shutdown and Civil Division Special Commendation Awards for her work on the Guantanamo Bay detainee litigation and the border security litigation team.  Since 2018, she also has served as a Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School.  From 2005 to 2008, Judge Davis was in private practice in Philadelphia.

Judge Davis received her B.S. in Business Administration from Boston University in 2001, and her J.D., cum laude, from Temple University Beasley School of Law in 2005.

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
PINEVIEW RESERVOIRLatitude: 41.254Longitude: -111.843Elevation: 4916

PINEVIEW RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lightning Ridge Site Page...



Lightning Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kilfoil Creek Site Page...



Kilfoil Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Powder Mountain Site Page...



Powder Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ben Lomond Peak Site Page...



Ben Lomond Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ben Lomond Trail Site Page...



Ben Lomond Trail

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Dry Bread Pond Site Page...



Dry Bread Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Horse Ridge Site Page...



Horse Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Little Bear Site Page...



Little Bear

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Monte Cristo Site Page...



Monte Cristo
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold McKay, Appellant.

The defendant’s contention that there was no probable cause to support his arrest and that the subsequent showup identification of him by the complainant was, therefore, illegal, is without merit.

*829Probable cause to arrest exists if the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer would lead a reasonable person possessing the same expertise as the arresting officer to conclude that it is more probable than not that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense *(People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417, 423; *People v Carrasquillo,*54 NY2d 248, 254). In this case, the arresting officers, while on motor patrol at approximately 2:45 a.m., observed what appeared to be a fight on the street from a distance of approximately one-half block. The police then observed two young males, one of whom was wearing a burgundy jacket, run from the scene of the fight. After ascertaining from the complaining witness that he did not require immediate attention, the police drove in the direction of the fleeing man. Within less than one minute after observing the fight, the police observed the defendant several blocks from the scene of the fight. The defendant was the only civilian in the area, and was wearing a burgundy jacket. The combination of the personal knowledge by the police that an altercation had occurred and the direction in which the man had fled, the observation of the defendant in extremely close proximity in time and location to the altercation, the status of the defendant as the only civilian in the vicinity, and the fact that the defendant was wearing a burgundy-colored jacket which the police had observed one of the fleeing men wearing, taken together, constituted probable cause to arrest the defendant.

The defendant’s other contention is similarly without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

STATE OF TEXAS,

 State, 

v.

RODOLFO MORALES,

 Appellee.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

No. 08-20-00021-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal Court at Law No. 4

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20180C06554)

 

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellee’s third motion for extension of time within which to file 

the brief until November 18, 2020. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLEE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. Joshua C. Spencer, the Appellee’s attorney, prepare the 

Appellee’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 18, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
Order filed August 27, 2015 , Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated and Order filed

October 6 , 2015

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00018

- CR

____________ QUINCY LEE JOHNSON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1400858



### ORDER
Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Gary M. Polland

. Appellant’s brief was originally due June 17, 2015. No brief was filed.

On August 27 , 2015, this court issued an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for failure to file appellant’s brief

. On September 25, 2015, the trial court informed this courtthat a hearing had been conve ned and it was determined counsel did not receive

notice from this court.
Accordingly, o ur order of August 27, 2015 , is withdrawn and t he appeal is
reinstated. Further, we order Gary M. Polland to file a brief with the clerk of this

court within 30 days of the date of this order

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Jamison, McCally and Wise
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

___________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 132949(85) Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

RANDY C. BURRIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 132949 

v COA: 261505 

Wayne CC: 02-208320-NF

ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by the Coalition Protecting Auto NoFault for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this case is considered and it is 

GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 11, 2008 

 Clerk
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 Emeritus Corporation (the "Company")
on  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Daniel
R.  Baty, 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  Quarterly  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a)  or  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
       78o(d));  and


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




                                           /s/    Daniel  R.  Baty
                                           -----------------------
                                            Daniel  R.  Baty
                                            Chief  Executive  Officer
                                            May  13,  2004
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2021245EN.01003601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 24.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/36 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10263 — Ardian/Deli Home)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 245/20)

1.

On 16 June 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2021245EN.01003601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Ardian France SA (France) (‘Ardian’); and |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Deli Home Holding B.V. (The Nerherlands) (‘Deli Home’). |

Ardian acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of the whole of Deli Home.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Ardian: private equity asset management; and |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Deli Home: manufacturing and supply of timber-based home improvement products to retailers, builders’ merchants and online markets. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10263 — Ardian/Deli Home

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2021245EN.01003601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

---
**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 quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2005(the “Report”), I, Alex C. Hui, 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 ofSection 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. 

 

February 9, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Hyperion Telecommunications Inc. Financial Data Schedule for the year
ended March 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001017648
<NAME> HYPERION TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         230,750
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               235,184
<PP&E>                                         250,633<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 634,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,904
<BONDS>                                        501,089
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    207,204
<COMMON>                                           329
<OTHER-SE>                                   (118,991)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   634,893
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,510
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (337)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (69,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (69,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (69,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.97)
<FN>
<F1>PP&E net with Depreciation
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF  AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS EARNED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     CANADIAN

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.5348
<CASH>                                         283,319
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  121,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    153,181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               558,184
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,082,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          333,945
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13,510,163
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,761,960)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,082,148
<SALES>                                        22,925
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               43,519
<CGS>                                          9,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               374,927
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (23,894)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (317,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (317,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (317,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)




</TABLE>