alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Charles F. Comer, Petitioner, v James L. LaRocca, as Commissioner of New York State *1056Department of Transportation, et al., Respondents.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation affirming a qualified abandonment of Sample Corners Road in the Town of West Sparta, Livingston County, pursuant to Highway Law § 205 (2). That statute provides alternative criteria for qualified abandonment depending on whether the road in question is more or less than two rods wide. The test applied here was that specified for a road more than two rods in width. The only proof of width was that Sample Corners Road was at most 20 feet wide (a rod is 16.5 feet) and that it was too narrow to admit a snowplow. The Commissioner nevertheless affirmed a finding that the road was presumed to be at least three rods wide, relying on Highway Law § 189. This reliance was misplaced. We are not required to decide whether in the absence of any proof of actual width that section could be said to supply a presumption and thereby meet the town’s burden of proof *(see, Matter of Shawangunk Holdings v Superintendent of Highways of Town of Shawangunk,*101 AD2d 905, 907, *appeal dismissed*63 NY2d 773). Even if it did, any such presumption would be rebuttable and disappears as soon as sufficient proof to the contrary is introduced *(see,*Richardson, Evidence § 58 [Prince 10th ed]).

The record lacks substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s determination *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Houston, J.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francisco Hernandez, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The court erred in denying defendant’s written request to charge on circumstantial evidence. Although the court gave an instruction on circumstantial evidence, it failed to state that the circumstantial facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the circumstantial facts proved must exclude to a mortal certainty every hypothesis but guilt *(see, People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 379-380; 1 CJI[NY] 9.05, at 471-476). Since proof of defendant’s possession of cocaine was wholly circumstantial, the moral certainty charge was required and defendant is entitled to a new trial. Evidence of a confirmation buy made shortly before defendant’s arrest and the marked $20 bill found on defendant’s person was properly admitted into evidence as they tended to demonstrate defendant’s knowledge that the substance found was cocaine and to show absence of accident or mistake. We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J. — criminal possession of controlled substance, fourth degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 99-368

W. T. SUMNER, APPELLANT,

 V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY, HOLDAWAY,

IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

On August 9, 2000, the Court, by a single-judge order, dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the

appellant's application for an award of attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice

Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). On September 29, 2000, a panel denied the appellant's motion

for a panel decision and denied, as premature, his motion for a full Court decision. On October 17,

2000, the appellant filed a motion for panel reconsideration or, in the alternative, for a full Court

decision.

Upon consideration of the appellant's motion for reconsideration, it is by the panel

ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration by the panel is DENIED. 

Upon consideration of the appellant's renewed motion for a full Court decision, because the

resolution of Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Virginia Dep't of Health and Human Res.,

203 F.3d 819 (4th Cir.) (table), cert. granted, 121 S.Ct. 28 (Sept. 26, 2000) (mem.), argued, 2001

WL 219427, No. 99-1848 (Feb. 27, 2001), may affect the disposition of this appeal, it is by the full

Court

ORDERED that the appellant's motion for a full Court decision is held in abeyance pending

further order of the Court. It is further

ORDERED that, within 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court's disposition of Buckhannon,

supra, the appellant file and serve a legal memorandum addressing the resolution of that proceeding

as it pertains to the appellant's EAJA application. It is further

ORDERED that the Secretary file and serve a legal memorandum within 30 days after service

of the appellant's legal memorandum. 
2

DATED: April 3, 2001 PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 99.2

                     Form of Section 906 Certification

                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

                     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection with the Annual Report of SaiphT Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the
"Report"), I, Jason Daggett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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/ Jason Daggett
__________________________________
Jason Daggett
Chief Financial Officer

Date:  March 28, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6264 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6264

 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require labeling 
                    of genetically engineered fish.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2010

 Mr. Young of Alaska (for himself and Mr. Wu) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require labeling 
                    of genetically engineered fish.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT 
              REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SALMON.

    Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
343), is further amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(z) If it contains genetically engineered fish unless the food 
bears a label stating that fact.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,996
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             164
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,502
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    103,655
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,337
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,302
<LOANS>                                        153,581
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,959
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 278,699
<DEPOSITS>                                     202,648
<SHORT-TERM>                                    29,924
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,772
<LONG-TERM>                                     16,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,865
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 268,699
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,185
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,636
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     7
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,828
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,991
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,449
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,379
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      167
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (47)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    759
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         759
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       571
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.87
<LOANS-NON>                                        890
<LOANS-PAST>                                       606
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    928
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,805
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       13
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,959
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,959
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
J

- S74012

- 14

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

– SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

S.W.,

Appellant :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2922 EDA 2013

Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered August 9, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 23

- CR

- 0002904

- 2003

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DONOHUE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED DECEMBER 08, 2014

I join the Majority Memorandum. I do so only because I am bound by

this Court’s opinion in Commonwealth v. Henkel , 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super.

2014) ( en banc ), holding that claims of ineffectiveness of PCRA counsel

cannot be raised for th e first time on appeal. Were I writing on a clean

slate, I would adopt the position of P.J.E. Bender in his dissent in Henkel

.

P.J.E. Bender joins this concurring statement.

Judge Donohue joins this concurring statement.
- Home
- Media Center
- Yearly Press Archive

# 2023  Press Releases

### USCP Officers Arrest Man with Machete & Knife outside the U.S. Capitol 

December 27, 2023

### USCP Statement on the Unlawful Demonstration outside the DNC

November 16, 2023

### USCP Officers Arrest Man with Rifle Thanks to Citizen Tip

November 7, 2023

### USCP Officers Confiscate Guns, Capture Criminals Who Crashed Stolen Car into Capitol Complex Barricade

November 6, 2023

### USCP Searching for Criminals Who Carjacked Congressman

October 3, 2023

### USCP Investigating Cannon Building Evacuation

October 2, 2023

### Labor Day Concert at the U.S. Capitol 

September 1, 2023

### New USCP Initiatives Aim to Add Agents & Investigators to Further Protect the U.S. Congress

August 8, 2023

### The USCP Remains Vigilant Following False Active Shooter Report

August 2, 2023

### Gun Arrest with High-Capacity Magazines Marks the USCP’s 22nd Firearm Related Arrest in 2023

July 11, 2023

-               Current page            1
-               Page            2
-               Page            3
- Next page››
- Last pageLast »

## Media Center

              - Press Releases
              - USCP Arrests
              - USCP FAST FACTS

## Yearly Archive

                  - 2024               (4)          
                  - 2023               (26)          
                  - 2022               (36)          
                  - 2021               (73)          
                  - 2020               (9)          
                  - 2019               (15)          
                  - 2018               (14)          
                  - 2017               (28)          
                  - 2016               (18)          
                  - 2015               (10)          
                  - 2014               (14)          
                  - 2013               (10)          
                  - 2012               (10)          
                  - 2011               (13)          
                  - 2010               (10)          
                  - 2009               (18)          
                  - 2008               (11)          
                  - 2007               (14)          
                  - 2006               (23)          
                  - 2005               (18)          
                  - 2004               (24)          
                  - 2003               (15)
----

----

| 1.  | The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the LP. |
|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 25, 2011                                                                                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                                                     |
| /s/ Michael A. Reisner                                                                                                   |
| Michael A. Reisner                                                                                                       |
| Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-PresidentICON Capital Corp. General Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight B L.P. |
ex10_1.htm













 






TENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

















This Tenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2010 by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and William Naylon ("Executive").












Recitals








	
A)  

	
On January 16, 2002 an Employment Agreement ("Agreement") was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.













	
B)  

	
Said Employment Agreement has been amended on nine prior occasions;













	
C)  

	
Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:

















Agreement








	
1.  

	
Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides:













	
  

	
2.1

	
Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $285,600 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.







 

 


is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2010, to provide as follows:








	
2.1  

	
Salary.  For Executive's services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $291,312 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer's normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


















	
2.  

	
Section 3.1 of the Agreement which provides:













	
  

	
3.1

	
Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on January 16, 2002 and shall continue until January 31, 2010 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.












is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2010, to provide as follows:








	
3.1  

	
Term.  The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on January 16, 2002 and shall continue until January 31, 2011 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided.













	
3.  

	
All other terms of the Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






















Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.






















EXECUTIVE                                                                                                EMPLOYER


PRICESMART, INC.







William Naylon                                                                           By:           







______________________                                                   Name:      Jose Luis Laparte 


                           Its:           President
Exhibit 99.7







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 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 of Hydrogenics Corporation (the “Company”) as filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Robert Motz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.






By:
/s/ Robert MotzName:
Robert MotzTitle:
Chief Financial Officer




Date: March 7, 2014







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hydrogenics Corporation and will be retained by Hydrogenics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Guide to Judiciary Policy 

Vol 14: Procurement 

Ch 5: Special Categories of Procurements 

Appx 5A: Economy Act Determination and Finding 

Note: The following determination and finding should only be used for procurement 

using an Interagency Agreement (IA) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under 

the Economy Act. 

As required by the Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1535, the attached documentation 

includes facts that demonstrate that: 

(1)	 amounts are available to meet the proposed cost; 

(2)	 the order is in the best interest of the judiciary; 

(3)	 the agency filling the order is able to provide, or get by contract, the 

ordered products and services; and 

(4)	 the ordered products or services cannot be provided by contract as 

conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise. 

To the best of my knowledge and belief, I hereby certify that the information provided in 

this Determination and Finding, including the attached supporting documentation, is 

accurate and complete. 

Typed Name: 


Signature:
 

Title:
 

Typed Name of Approving Official:
 

Signature of Approving Official:
 

Title of Approving Official:
 

(Chief Judge or FPD, within their delegation authority (or 

PLO, if delegated), or at the AO the Procurement Executive) 

Last revised June 29, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10012]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers


Grant of Exclusive Licenses

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR 404.7(b)(1)(i), announcement is made 
of a prospective exclusive license of Russian Patent No. 2126867 titled 
``Concrete Armor Unit to Protect Coastal and Hydraulic Structures and 
Shorelines.''

DATES: Written objections must be filed not later than June 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry 
Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, Attn: CEWES-OC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Stewart (601) 634-4113, e-
mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e093948597819290a085988cce978593ce81928d99ce8d898c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8af9feeffdebf8facaeff2e6a4fdeff9a4ebf8e7f3a4e7e3e6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Concrete Armor Unit was invented by 
Jeffrey A. Melby and George F. Turk. Rights to the patent application 
identified above has been assigned to the United States of America as 
represented by the Secretary of the Army. The United States of America 
as represented by the Secretary of the Army intends to grant an 
exclusive license for all fields of use, in the manufacture, use, and 
sale in the territories and possessions, including territorial waters 
of Russia to W.F. Baird and Associates, a Delaware corporation with 
principal offices at 2981 Yarmouth Greenway, Madison, Wisconsin 53711. 
Pursuant to 37 CFR 404.7(b)(1)(i), any interested party may file a 
written objection to this prospective exclusive license agreement.

Richard L. Frenette,
Counsel.
[FR Doc. 01-10012 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Delroy Grant, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered January 21, 1983, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was deprived of his right of confrontation when a police detective testified concerning statements made by a man seen with the defendant just prior to the shooting *(see,*US Const 6th Amend; *Pointer v Texas,*380 US 400). However, the defendant did not object to this *467testimony, elicited on redirect examination, which merely expounded on an issue introduced by the defendant on cross-examination. In any event, the proof of guilt, which includes the defendant’s admission to his paramour and the identification of the defendant by a police officer and another eyewitness, is overwhelming *(see, People v Sheffield,*118 AD2d 882, *lv denied*68 NY2d 773) and we find no reasonable possibility that the admission of the now-challenged testimony contributed to the defendant’s conviction. Thus, any error in the admission of the testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 237).

The defendant’s sentence was not harsh or excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be both merit-less and unpreserved for appellate review. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.