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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.), rendered August 23, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the eyewitness identification evidence adduced at bar was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Bauer,*113 AD2d 543; *People v Bigelow,*106 AD2d 448, 449). The complainant testified that at approximately 3:00 p.m., in the afternoon, she was accosted from behind by an assailant whose face she viewed from a distance of inches. The events surrounding the complainant’s subsequent identification of the defendant were fully presented for the jury’s consideration. The jury resolved the issue in favor of the People and we decline to disturb its conclusion in this regard. It is well settled that " '[t]he accuracy of an eyewitness identification presents an issue of fact for jury resolution’ ” *(People v Bigelow, supra,*at p 449).

Finally, the defendant’s remaining contentions in respect to the court’s charge have not been preserved for our review as a matter of law. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Loan  No.  07-0004017

August  26,  2002
Emeritus  Properties  XIV,  LLC
3131  Elliott  Avenue,  Suite  500
Seattle,  Washington  98121

Re:     $8,300,000  ("LOAN")  from Heller Healthcare Finance, Inc. ("LENDER") to
Emeritus  Properties  XIV,  LLC  limited  liability  company  ("BORROWER")

Dear  Madam  or  Sir:
     We  write  in connection with that certain Loan Agreement, dated as of even
date  herewith,  by  and  between  Lender  and  Borrower (the "LOAN AGREEMENT"),
pursuant  to  which  Lender  has  agreed  to  make  the  Loan  to Borrower.  All
capitalized  terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned  to  such  terms  in  the  Loan  Agreement.
Lender  and  Guarantor  have  entered  into  or  currently  intend to enter into
negotiations  for  Lender to make a loan (the "DEUTSCHE BANK REFINANCE LOAN") to
Guarantor  or its affiliate (the "REFINANCE BORROWER"), which loan will be used,
among  other things, to refinance existing debt of Guarantor (or its affiliates)
owed  to  Deutsche  Bank.
In  the  event  that  (a)  Lender does not issue a loan application in an amount
acceptable  to  Refinance  Borrower  for the Deutsche Bank Refinance Loan or (b)
Refinance Borrower has signed and Lender has accepted a loan application for the
Deutsche  Bank Refinance Loan in an amount acceptable to the Refinance Borrower,
and  Lender  fails  to  obtain  credit  committee approval for the Deutsche Bank
Refinance  Loan  for  any  reason, then Lender hereby agrees that it shall allow
Borrower  to  repay,  in  full  but  not  in  part,  the Loan prior to the first
anniversary  of  the  Closing  Date,  notwithstanding  the  prohibition  of such
prepayment  contained  in  Section  1.7  of  the Loan Agreement (the "FIRST YEAR
REPAYMENT").  If  Borrower  makes  the  First Year Repayment as provided herein,
Lender  hereby  agrees  to waive the Exit Fee due pursuant to Section 1.8 of the
Loan  Agreement in connection with such prepayment and to refund to Borrower, at
the  time  of the First Year Repayment, a portion of the Loan commitment paid to
Lender  in  the  amount  of  Forty-One  Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($41,500).

<PAGE>
Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a commitment to make the Deutsche
Bank  Refinance  Loan,  or  to  enter  into or continue negotiations to make the
Deutsche  Bank  Refinance  Loan.


Very  truly  yours,

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation

 By: /s/  Jefferey  M.  Muchmore
     ----------------------------
 Name:    Jefferey  M.  Muchmore
 Its:     VP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED
IN THE TRIGON HEALTHCARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-K FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,530
<SECURITIES>                                 1,738,515
<RECEIVABLES>                                  397,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,169,470
<PP&E>                                         139,964
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,314,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,003,508
<BONDS>                                        248,039
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           382
<OTHER-SE>                                     936,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,314,115
<SALES>                                      2,271,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,346,428
<CGS>                                        1,804,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,306,551
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,518
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,345
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,463
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49


</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2327 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to inter in national cemeteries individuals who supported the 

United States in Laos during the Vietnam War era. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2015 

Mr. COSTA (for himself, Mr. COOK, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. 

HONDA, Ms. MENG, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. DUFFY, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. 

CICILLINE, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr. 

RUIZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to inter in national cemeteries individuals who supported the United States in 

Laos during the Vietnam War era. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hmong Veterans’ 

5 Service Recognition Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2327 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR INTERMENT IN NATIONAL CEME2 TERIES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2402(a) of title 38, 

4 United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(10) Any individual— 

7 ‘‘(A) who— 

8 ‘‘(i) was naturalized pursuant to sec9 tion 2(1) of the Hmong Veterans’ Natu10 ralization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106– 

11 207; 8 U.S.C. 1423 note); and 

12 ‘‘(ii) at the time of the individual’s 

13 death resided in the United States; or 

14 ‘‘(B) who— 

15 ‘‘(i) the Secretary determines served 

16 with a special guerrilla unit or irregular 

17 forces operating from a base in Laos in 

18 support of the Armed Forces of the United 

19 States at any time during the period begin20 ning February 28, 1961, and ending May 

21 7, 1975; and 

22 ‘‘(ii) at the time of the individual’s 

23 death— 

24 ‘‘(I) was a citizen of the United 

25 States or an alien lawfully admitted 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2327 IH

1 for permanent residence in the United 

2 States; and 

3 ‘‘(II) resided in the United 

4 States.’’. 

5 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

6 this Act shall apply with respect to an individual dying 

7 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Pountney v. Pountney.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

May 12, 1890.)

Divorce—Costs—Allowance to Wife.

Where a wife has been allowed $100 counsel fees to prosecute her action for a limited divorce, she cannot, after she has succeeded in making out her case, have another allowance. Following *Beadleston*v. *Beadleston,*103 N. Y. 402, 8 N. E. Rep. 735.

Appeal from special term, Orange county.

Action by Mary A. Pountney for a limited divorce from her husband, William Pountney. Plaintiff appeals from an order denying her motion for an allowance for counsel fees in addition to the taxable costs, which motion was . made at the close of the trial, the issue having been decided in her favor.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*C. E. Cuddebaclc,*for appellant. *John W. Lyon,*for respondent.

Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment for a limited divorce, with the costs and disbursement of the action. There had been granted previous to judgment $100 for a counsel fee pending the litigation. The court, on application, denied a motion for an additional allowance, upon the ground that no power existed in the court to make such an allowance in a divorce action, and citing *Beadleston*v. *Beadleston,*103 N. Y. 402, 8 N. E. Rep. 735. The case upholds the decision at special term. We think, however, in view of the fact that $100 counsel fee had been allowed, and no further application made, that the $100 and the costs of the action were sufficient compensation to the plaintiff’s attorney for the trial of the issue in the action. Even if the court had the power to grant an extra allowance, the ease was not one where' such an allowance was called for by anything disclosed by the appeal papers.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 246 

To improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2015 

Mrs. BEATTY (for herself and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RESPONSE TO VICTIMS OF CHILD SEX TRAF4 FICKING. 

5 Section 404(b)(1)(P)(iii) of the Missing Children’s 

6 Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(1)(P)(iii)) is amended 

7 by striking ‘‘child prostitution’’ and inserting ‘‘child sex 

8 trafficking, including child prostitution’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          26,579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,212
<PP&E>                                          23,179
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,479
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,983
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,701
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,953
<SALES>                                         70,532
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,532
<CGS>                                           44,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,862
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,154
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,611
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,543
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.92
        

</TABLE>
#### WOODWARD, Appellant, v. HOLLAND MEDICINE CO. et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Charles H. Woodward against the Holland Medicine Company and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

d0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

141029 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141029 

 COA: 296616 

Genesee CC: 07-020307-FH 

JAMES MICHAEL HOUCK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 24, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30,
1997 and the related unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations
and cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 1997, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          22,114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                       529
<INVENTORY>                                      5,291
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,836
<PP&E>                                         382,222
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,896
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 352,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,300
<BONDS>                                        192,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   352,035
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               215,144
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,549)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,559)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,559)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00325

- CV
Raymond Trent Peterek v. Stanley Oehlke
On Appeal from the 135th District Court of Goliad County , Texas Trial Cause No. 18

- 02

- 0644

- CV

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant, Raymond Trent Peterek, although he is exempt from payment due to his
inabi lity to pay costs.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 26, 2018
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**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**





I,
      Phillip Michael Hardy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of eLinear, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March
      31,
      2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
      10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
      results of operations of eLinear, Inc.





Date:
      July 18, 2006











By:
      ___/s/  Phillip Michael Hardy___________


Phillip
      Michael Hardy


Chief
      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00803-CR

IN RE Sandra E. BROWN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 13, 2017

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Relator, Sandra E. Brown, filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel 

the Bexar County, Texas, District Attorney to comply with her request under the Texas Open 

Records Act. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 552.001-552.353 (West 2012). Although a writ of 

mandamus is the proper remedy for failure to comply with the Open Records Act, this court does 

not have original jurisdiction over the writ; it must be filed in the trial court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE

§ 552.321(b); In re Turner, 998 S.W.2d 935, 935 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. 

proceeding); Garner v. Gately, 909 S.W.2d 61, 62 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, orig. proceeding). 

Because we have no jurisdiction over relator’s complaint, we dismiss her petition for writ of 

mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015CR3457 and 2016CR9349W, styled The State of Texas v. Olice Brown, 

pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R AUL B OR GES B ORB A -C ARDOSO,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-70742 Age n c y No. A030-861-138
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d June 5, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a n d B ENC IVENGO, *** Distric t Judge
. R a ul B orge s B orba -C ardoso pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s orde r of re m ova l. In a c onc urre ntly

file d opinion, wehold 

# FIL ED AUG 25 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble C a thy Ann B e nc ive n go, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.that

pe rjury unde r se c tion 118(a) of the C a lifornia Pe na l C ode is a

n “ o ffe n s e
re lating to . . . perjury ” an d is thus a n “ a ggrava t e d fe lony .” 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(43)(S). B orba wa s c onvic te d unde r se c tion 118(a), and we the re fore la c k jurisdic t ion ove r his pe tition for re vie w. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(2)(C ). PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D
.

2
197, 179 P.3d•556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 

Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith ix Eighth Judicial Din. 

Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Accordingly, 

we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Saitta 

Gibbons 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge 

Fahrendorf, Viloria, Oliphant & Oster, LLP 

Zupancic Rothbone Law Group P.C. 

Law Offices of Jerry Carter, PC 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

J.
Exhibit 16.1





Office of
the Chief Accountant


U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission


450 5 th Street, N.W.


Washington, D.C. 20549





May 6, 2002








Dear Sir/Madam:





We have read the
first four (4) paragraphs of Item 9 included in the Form 10-K dated May 6, 2002 of Coldwater Creek Inc. to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are in agreement with the statements contained therein.





Very truly yours,





/S/    ARTHUR
ANDERSEN LLP








cc:

Mr. Dennis C. Pence, Chairman of the Board of DirectorsColdwater Creek Inc.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NMT Medical, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Richard E. Davis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and

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



|                     |  |                                                                     
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2010 |  | /s/    RICHARD E.
DAVIS                                             
|                     |  | Richard E. Davis Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer