alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Susan Baba, Appellant, v Martin Evans et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 13, 2007;

decided March 29, 2007

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 16, 2007 dismissal order denied *[see 8*NY3d 839].
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001001907
<NAME>                        SPACEHAB, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.000
<CASH>                                         58,330
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               70,677
<PP&E>                                        113,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                 44,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                217,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          33,579
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       81,302
<OTHER-SE>                                         16
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  217,791
<SALES>                                        28,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               28,273
<CGS>                                          21,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  21,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,382
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   689
<INCOME-TAX>                                      276
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               413
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      413
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.04
        


</TABLE>
# C_2021192EN.01000301.xml

| 19.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 192/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10187 — BBC/ITV/Channel 4/Freesat)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 192/03)

On 30 April 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 32021M10187. 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 32021M10187. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2563 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow States to regulate tow 

truck operations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself and Mr. BEYER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow States 

to regulate tow truck operations. 

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 ‘‘State and Local Preda5 tory Towing Enforcement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REGULATION OF TOW TRUCK OPERATORS. 

7 Section 14501(c)(2)(C) of title 49, United States 

8 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘the price of’’ and all that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2563 IH

1 follows through ‘‘transportation is’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

2 regulation of tow truck operations’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Richard P. Lucas, Appellant, v Charles J. Scully, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to declare provisions of the respondents’ inmate correspondence program unconstitutional, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Green, J.), dated July 15, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, the proceeding is converted into an action for a declaratory judgment *(see,*CPLR 103 [c]), with the petition deemed the complaint, and it is declared thé respondents’ regulations 7 NYCRR 720.3 (b) (15), (17); (e) (6), which in effect require the intended recipient of inmate mail be identified as the addressee, and 7 NYCRR 720.3 (e), which permits inspection of business mail, do not implicate the petitioner’s 1st Amendment rights, and further legitimate governmental objectives in a rational manner. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, *572without costs or disbursements *(see, Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334, *appeal dismissed*371 US 74, *cert denied*371 US 901).

This appeal does not concern mail addressed to and intended for news media personnel, nor direct personal correspondence, nor content restrictions, and thus does not implicate the petitioner’s 1st Amendment interests in protected speech *(see, Procunier v Martinez,*416 US 396; *Matter of Milburn v McNiff,*108 AD2d 860, *appeal discontinued*65 NY2d 812; *cf. Pell v Procunier,*417 US 817, 822; *Jones v North Carolina Prisoners’ Union,*433 US 119, 129-131). The petitioner has failed to establish that he has a 1st Amendment right to engage in business correspondence *(see, Valentine v Gray,*410 F Supp 1394), and thus the respondents’ regulation concerning inspection of business mail in order to prevent credit purchases by inmates (obligation of inmate funds) is rational and valid *(see, Matter of Milburn v McNiff, supra,*at p 862). Further, the respondents may require that the intended recipient of inmate mail be the addressee identified on the envelope in order to enable the respondents to supervise correspondence with minors, persons under parole and probation supervision and other inmates, to distinguish business mail from other mail and to ensure that the addressee is not on a negative correspondence list. That inmates may be able to circumvent the regulations, standing alone, does not render them irrational. And, in the absence of 1st Amendment considerations, the respondents need not employ the least restrictive measures to further legitimate institutional objectives. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?

IMMC.COM%282021%29329%20final.ENG.xhtml.1\_EN\_ACT\_part1\_v3.docx


![european flag](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/image/eclogo.jpg)EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 18.6.2021

COM(2021) 329 final

COMMISSION OPINION

on a draft Regulation of the European Parliament laying down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (Statute of the European Ombudsman) and repealing Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom

COMMISSION OPINION

on a draft Regulation of the European Parliament laying down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (Statute of the European Ombudsman) and repealing Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom

On 25 March 2019, pursuant to Article 228(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament sent a letter to the Commission seeking its opinion on a draft regulation, as adopted at the Parliament’s plenary session on 12 February 2019, laying down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (Statute of the European Ombudsman) and repealing Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom. The same day, the Parliament sent a letter to the Council seeking its consent.

The Commission delivered its opinion on 31 October 2019
[I](#endnote1)
. On 27 November 2019, the Finnish Presidency of the Council sent a letter to Mr Antonio Tajani, Chair of the Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs, with preliminary comments.

Following subsequent discussions between the three institutions, the Parliament adopted a new draft regulation on 9 June 2021.

The Commission considers that the new draft regulation can be accepted and therefore delivers a positive opinion on it.

: [(I)](#endnoteref1)

  COM(2019) 553 final/3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

CHARYL D. BERRIEN, : No. 97 MM 2019 

Respondent 

v. 

ANTHONY J. PARKER, 

Petitioner 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2019, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
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 Classic Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lisah M. Frazier, Chief Operations Officer 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:

     (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.



Date:  February 12, 2004                      /s/ Lisah M. Frazier
      -------------------                     --------------------------------
                                              Lisah M. Frazier
                                              Chief Operations Officer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
32**
   
  **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 of Mpower Holding Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      the undersigned, Rolla P. Huff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
      S. Gregory Clevenger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our
    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 result of operations of the
      Company.
  
   Date:
    March
      14,
      2005
    By:
    /s/
      Rolla P. HuffRolla
      P. HuffPrincipal
      Executive Officer
 Date:
    March
      14,
      2005
    By:
    /s/
      S. Gregory ClevengerS.
      Gregory ClevengerChief
      Financial Officer
   A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Robert Coull, Appellant, v Pamela Rottman, Respondent.

Submitted March 12, 2007;

decided March 27, 2007

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Margaret M. Tomeck, Deceased. Edward M. Tomeck, as Executor of Margaret M. Tomeck, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant; Robert Christopher, as Commissioner of Social Services of Saratoga County, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Respondent.

Submitted December 18, 2006;

decided January 9, 2007

Motion by Andrew M. Cuomo, as Attorney General of the State of New York, for an order permitting movant to participate in oral argument of the appeal granted.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                                 CONSENT OF KPMG

              Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm Consent

The Board of Directors
First Acceptance Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-102210 and 333-115601) on Form S-8 of First Acceptance Corporation
(the Company) of our report dated September 23, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of June 30, 2004 and 2003, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 2004 ,
which report appears in the June 30, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of First
Acceptance Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Dallas,  Texas
September 27, 2004
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Walter J. Roache, Appellant, v S.A. Connell, Respondent.

Submitted February 13, 2007;

decided March 27, 2007

*908Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*8 NY3d 803].
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  June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jim C. Pyle, 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/  Jim C. Pyle
------------------------------
Jim C. Pyle,
Principal Accounting Officer
August 23, 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>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Pettiford, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (White, J.), *857rendered August 20, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, based on unsubstantiated claims of innocence. The defendant was thoroughly allocuted in open court during which time he was advised of his rights and at which time he assured the court that he was pleading voluntarily and knowingly. The defendant gave a detailed description of the facts pertaining to the burglary for which he was charged. Furthermore, the defendant was not a neophyte in the criminal justice system, having been arrested previously eight times and sentenced to incarceration on at least two prior occasions. Accordingly, the defendant’s subsequent unsubstantiated claim that he was coerced into pleading guilty for a crime which he did not commit constituted an insufficient basis upon which to vacate his plea of guilty *(see, People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520, 523; *People v Dixon,*29 NY2d 55). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### In re BREMER.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

In the matter of Alexander Bremer.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and PARKER, J.

No opinion. Referee ordered to take proof of the facts, and report with his opinion thereon.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Michael Anthony Danna v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00416

- CR

Trial court case number: 2155287

Trial court: Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 3 of Harris County

Appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file his brief is grant ed . Appellant ’ s brief is

due April 2 4 , 2020. No fu rther extensions wi ll be granted.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___________ /s/ Julie Countiss

______________ A cting individually

Date : March 17, 2020
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cruz Salgado, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered September 1, 1982, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we conclude that the People sustained their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a crime in the premises which he had attempted to enter and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see, e.g., People v Gilligan,*42 NY2d 969).

In addition, the comments made by the prosecutor during his opening and closing arguments do not require reversal. The prosecutor’s opening statement was made in good faith and when the matter to which he had referred was stricken from the record, curative instructions were given to the jury. Moreover, the prosecutor’s closing statements were a fair response to the defense summation *(see, e.g., People v Marks,*6 NY2d 67, *cert denied*362 US 912; *People v Blackman,*88 AD2d 620).

The defendant waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of a prior conviction which was the basis for his persistent felony offender adjudication since he failed to allege any constitutional irregularity concerning that specific conviction at the hearing or at sentencing *(see,*CPL 400.20 [6]). His sentence was neither harsh nor excessive.

Finally, we have examined the defendant’s remaining *pro se*contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.3


                            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 of United Energy Corp. (the "Company")
on this Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-K/A for the year ending March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ronald Wilen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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

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


Dated:   July 29, 2004              By: /s/ Ronald Wilen
                                       -----------------
                                       Ronald Wilen
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


This certification accompanies this Report on this Amendment No. 2 to Form
10-K/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2021483EN.01000501.xml

| 1.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 483/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 483/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9971 – P27 NPP / BANKGIROT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 483/05)

On 8 July 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M9971. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M9971. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---