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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered July 16, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the *185defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress lineup and voice identifications of him.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the indictment did not adequately apprise him of the operative facts constituting the instant crime. The proper method for challenging the adequacy of an indictment is by a pretrial motion to dismiss *(see,*CPL 210.20, 210.25). Inasmuch as the defendant did not raise this issue in his omnibus motion, it is not preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Iannone,*45 NY2d 589, 600; *People v Smith,*113 AD2d 905, 907). In any event, the form of the indictment is proper in that it sufficiently sets forth a plain and concise statement of the facts supporting each element of the crimes charged *(see,*CPL 200.50 [7] [a]).

We further find that, under all of the circumstances, the lineup procedure was not impermissibly suggestive *(see, Stovall v Denno,*388 US 293; *Simmons v United States,*390 US 377). In this regard, there is no evidence that the police influenced the complainant in selecting the defendant. Moreover, the fillers possessed physical characteristics reasonably similar to those of the defendant *(see, People v Burwell,*26 NY2d 331; *People v Lebron,*46 AD2d 776). Thus, there is no basis to suppress the complainant’s visual identification of the defendant.

The defendant further contends that the complainant’s voice identification of him was violative of due process. In this regard, voice identifications must be measured by the same due process considerations that apply to visual identifications *(see, People v Collins,*60 NY2d 214). However, in the absence of some improper conduct by law enforcement officials there is no Due Process Clause violation *(see, People v Ramos,*52 AD2d 640, 644, *affd*42 NY2d 834; *People v Frawley,*131 AD2d 504). The evidence adduced at the pretrial hearing demonstrated that the voice identification was requested by the complainant without any prompting by the police and thus was not impermissibly suggestive.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*brief, and conclude that they are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#                                                                         Helmet-Mounted Components for F/A-18, EA-18G Upgrades Increase Safety, Readiness                                                                    

10 April 2024

                The Naval Aircrew Systems Program Office is leading the design and modification of the F/A-18 Hornet and EA-18G Growler pilot helmet-mounted components of the Improved Joint Helmet-Mounted Cuing System (IJHMCS).            

                Helmet-Mounted Components for F/A-18, EA-18G Upgrades Increase Safety, Readiness            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: U.S. Navy Photo

VIRIN: 240327-N-QM413-1006

*From the Naval Aircrew Systems Program Office.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          14,386
<SECURITIES>                                     4,890
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                       396
<INVENTORY>                                      2,035
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,343
<PP&E>                                           6,421
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,132
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,317
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,132
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,925
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,030
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    40
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,304
<INCOME-TAX>                                       887
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,417
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,417
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
#### Matthew S. Mogil, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Terry C. Mogil, et al., Appellants, v Town of Hempstead, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated April 3, 1987, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from an order of the same court dated March 21, 1988, which denied their motion for renewal of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The infant plaintiff broke his leg when he fell allegedly as the result of a depression located in a paved area of one of the defendant’s parks. In support of its motion for summary judgment the defendant submitted the affidavits of a Deputy Town Clerk and the Commissioner of Parks of the Town of *688Hempstead indicating that a search of the defendant’s records revealed that no prior written notice of the alleged defect had been given to the defendant as required by Town of Hemp-stead Code chapter 6. The plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden in opposing the motion to come forward with sufficient proof to establish that prior written notice had been given or that the condition had been caused or created by the defendant *(see, O’Rourke v Town of Smithtown,*129 AD2d 570; *Gallo v Town of Hempstead,*124 AD2d 700; *Parella v Levin,*111 AD2d 750). The court therefore properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

In addition, the court also properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion for renewal. Their reliance upon an attorney’s affirmation and the unsworn report of an accident expert was misplaced since neither constituted the necessary tender of evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to defeat summary judgment *(see, Cummings v St. Joseph’s Hosp. Health Center,*130 AD2d 957; *Cone v Daus,*120 AD2d 788). Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*LUCIS RICHARDSON

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn. App. 32 (AC 25177), is denied.

*908
      *Lisa J. Steele,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*Michele C. Lukban,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided February 16, 2005
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Billy R. Williams certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Coddle Creek Financial Corp.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

(b) [Reserved]; 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small businessissuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change inthe small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 7, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MAXXIS GROUP INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U. S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                    10,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,323,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   476,000
<INVENTORY>                                    327,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,329,000
<PP&E>                                       5,583,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 107,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,454,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,918,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,625,000
<COMMON>                                       612,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,706,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,454,000
<SALES>                                      4,320,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,320,000
<CGS>                                        1,890,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,012,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,122,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             188,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (880,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (880,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (880,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.54)


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05300-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
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 Fuel Corporation  of
America  (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31,  2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on
the  date  hereof  (the "Report"), I, Frank  Hall,  acting  in  the
capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify  to
the  best of our knowledge, 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 result of
     operations of the Company.


/s/ Frank Hall
---------------
     Frank Hall
     Chief Executive Officer
     August 14, 2003
#### Cynthia Lynn WELCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7272.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2011.

Decided: May 11, 2011.

David Bernard Hargett, Hargett Law, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia Lynn Welch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prison*236er satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Welch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
awsm-ex41_22.htm



 

Exhibit 4.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO UNSECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE 

OF COOL HOLDINGS, INC.

 

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO UNSECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE (the “Amendment”), dated November 30, 2019 (the “Effective Date”), is among Cool Holdings, Inc., a Maryland corporation with its principal offices located at 2001 NW 84th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33122 (the “Company”), and ______________ (the “Holder”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Company and Holder are parties to that certain 12.0% Unsecured Convertible Note dated October 24, 2018 (the “Issuance Date”) for the principal sum of $______________; and

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2019 the Company and Holder entered into the First Amendment to such 12.0% Unsecured Convertible Note (as amended, the “Convertible Note”) to extend its maturity date to November 15, 2019; and

WHEREAS, on November ___, 2019 the Company and Holder entered into the Second Amendment to such 12.0% Unsecured Convertible Note (as amended, the “Convertible Note”) to extend its maturity date to November 30, 2019;

AND WHEREAS, each of the Company and Holder desire to amend the Convertible Note further as set forth herein;

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, the Convertible Note is hereby amended as follows:

1.Definitions. All terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall retain the meanings given to those terms in the Convertible Note.

2.Amendment.  The definition of Maturity Date is amended as follows: (i) __________________, 20__.

3.Representations and Warranties.  The Holder acknowledges it was originally issued the Convertible Note on the Issuance Date, and has neither transferred nor assigned any portion of the principal sum, or interest accrued thereon, under the Convertible Note.  The Holder represents and warrants that as of the Effective Date it has the right to enter into this Amendment without the consent of any third party, and that it has sought its own legal and tax advice with respect to the Convertible Note and this Amendment.

4.No Other Modification.  Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms of the Convertible Note and all documents executed in connection therewith shall not be modified or altered in any way, and shall continue in full force and effect.

 



 

5.Signatures and Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signatures transmitted by the exchange of .pdf copies or other electronic copies of signatures are fully effective for all purposes.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.

 

COOL HOLDINGS, INC.

By: ___________________________________

Name: Vernon A. LoForti

Title: Chief Financial Officer

 

 

By: ___________________________________

Name: _______________________

Title:   _______________________
Deputy /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 19, 2014

No. 04-13-00316-CV

BEXAR COUNTY TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION OF BEXAR COUNTY,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-14030

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The panel has considered the appellant's motion for rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01546-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.2****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Karl Brenza, Chief Financial Officer of enherent Corp., certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of enherent Corp.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Karl Brenza     Karl Brenza     Chief Financial Officer  August 14, 2006
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of Arden Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-69787) of our report
dated March 10, 2000, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
of Arden Group, Inc. and Subsidiary as of January 1, 2000 and January 2,
1999, and for each of the three fiscal years in the period ended January 1,
2000, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



                                                     PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Los Angeles, California
March 28, 2000