alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### OFFNER v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 7, 1913.)

No. 1,940.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois; Kenesaw M. Landis, Judge.

Criminal prosecution by. the United States against Morris H. Offner. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

B. M. Shaffner, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.

James H. Wilkerson and Frederick Dickinson, both of Chicago, Ill., for defendant in error.

Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This writ of error is brought for review of a judgment upon conviction of the plaintiff in error, under an indictment charging that he testified falsely in bankruptcy proceedings, in violation of section 29b of the Bankruptcy Act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 554 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3433]). The assignment of error and all questions of law presented are substantially identical with those involved in No. 1,939, Baskin v. United States, 209 Fed. 740, decided herewith, and answered by the opinion and rulings therein.

The judgment against the plaintiff in error in the District Court is therefore affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, David S. DeVito, certifythat:

 

1.         I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of Apex Mortgage Capital, Inc.;

 

2.         Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot 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 underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.         Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.         The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b.         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c.         Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.         The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a.         All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b.         Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: August  14, 2003 |   | /s/ David S.  DeVito                     |   |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | David S.  DeVito                         |
|                   |   | *Chief Financial Officer and Controller* |
|                   |   |                                     |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2282
JAMES M. BURROW, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-92-501) Submitted: August 12, 1997 Decided: September 9, 1997 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Burrow, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Debra Jean Prillaman, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Sonya Annette White, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district co urt's order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") to grant disability insurance benefits commencing June 27, 1989. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Burrow v. Chater , No. CA92-501 (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 1996). However, we modify the onset of disability insurance benefits to begin on May 19, 1989, the date ofDr. Nazir Chaudhary's examination in which he found that Appellant's psychiatric problems rendered him unable to work. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994). 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Clear All

        09 November 2023    

                    USS Farragut Going Full Speed Ahead Making Multiple Drug Busts                 
                USS Farragut (DDG 99) has found success in stopping alleged illicit drug traffickers in the Caribbean, with four drug busts in October.            

        22 February 2023    

                    USS Farragut (DDG 99) Arrives in the 4th Fleet AOR                 
                CARIBBEAN SEA - The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS Farragut (DDG 99) arrived in the U.S. 4th Fleet area of operations for a scheduled deployment, Feb. 15. Embarked with the ship is U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) 406 to conduct counter narcotic operations            

        12 October 2022    

                    USS Farragut (DDG 99) arrives in Piraeus, Greece                 
                PIRAEUS, Greece - The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Farragut (DDG 99) arrived in Piraeus, Greece, near the city of Athens, for a scheduled port visit, Oct. 10, 2022.            

        19 September 2022    

                    USS Farragut (DDG 99) arrives in Jijel, Algeria                 
                JIJEL, Algeria - The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Farragut (DDG 99) arrived in the commercial port of Djen Djen, Algeria near the city of Jijel, for a scheduled port visit, Sept. 18, 2022.            

        18 August 2022    

                    Destroyer USS Farragut assists in marine mammal behavior study                 
                ATLANTIC OCEAN – The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Farragut (DDG 99) took part in a study conducted by Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFFC) on possible behavioral responses of marine mammals to military sonar, Aug. 7, 2022. For the study, Farragut’s Combat Acoustics            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**714 KA 09-01085**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CRAIG D. BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ERIN TUBBS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered March 5, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley
, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the jury was entitled to find defendant guilty of both crimes beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the credible evidence concerning the operability of the .32 caliber pistol at the time of his possession ( see People v Cavines , 70 NY2d 882, 883; People v Velez , 278 AD2d 53, 53, lv denied 96 NY2d 808; People v Francis , 126 AD2d 740, 740). The testimony of the police officer that, immediately after recovering the pistol, he released the slide to empty the round of ammunition from the pistol’s chamber, combined with the expert testimony of the firearms examiner, established that, although the slide mechanism was sticking at the time of the examination, at the time the firearm was recovered it was loaded and it would have discharged during test firing had it not been unloaded based on the ease with which the trigger and hammer moved. Furthermore, the firearms examiner successfully discharged the pistol with ammunition recovered with the pistol after releasing the slide.**-2- 714 KA 09-01085** 

Defendant further contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to those crimes on the issue of his knowledge of the operability of the pistol. Contrary to defendant’s contention, however, the People were not required to establish that he was aware of the operability of the pistol ( see People v Cooper , 59 AD3d 1052, 1053, lv denied 12 NY3d 852; People v Ansare , 96 AD2d 96, 97-98, lv denied 61 NY2d 672).

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05303-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jean Poole, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), imposed September 11, 1986, upon her conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, upon her plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 4 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to an indeterminate term of 2 Vi to 7 Vi years’ imprisonment; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

Upon a review of the record we conclude that the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. We note that upon their postjudgment investigation of the facts and circumstances of this case, the People have reached the same conclusion, and consent to the reduction. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            31,575
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,317
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  32,892
<CASH>                                          26,722
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              18,528
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           1,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,803
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                113,850
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             62,520
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 14,986
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,700
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,831
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   254,803
<PREMIUMS>                                      53,344
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              2,835
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 338
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  51,816
<BENEFITS>                                      46,010
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     33,721
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            36,101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        37
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,536)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,536)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.99)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  36,322
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             47,250
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              (1,240)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                            (30,827)
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                              (11,672)
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 39,833
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        (2,879)


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-05296-AKH     Document 5      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-01526-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01526-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01526-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01526-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01526-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01526-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-01526-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1814 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the age requirement 

with respect to eligibility for qualified ABLE programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2019 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS (for himself, Mrs. RODGERS of Washington, Mr. COHEN, Mr. 

FITZPATRICK, Mr. TURNER, Mr. ROSE of New York, and Ms. 

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the age requirement with respect to eligibility for qualified ABLE programs. 

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 ‘‘ABLE Age Adjust5 ment Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF AGE REQUIREMENT FOR QUALI7 FIED ABLE PROGRAMS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 529A(e) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘age 26’’ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1814 IH

1 in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A)(i)(II) and inserting ‘‘age 

2 46’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Clear All

        04 August 2022    

                    U.S. Navy releases name of deceased Arleigh Burke Sailor                 
                BALTIC SEA - The U.S. Navy identified the Sailor assigned to USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) lost overboard while operating in the Baltic Sea August 1, as North Carolina native Seaman Recruit David L. Spearman.             

        02 August 2022    

                    USS Arleigh Burke responds to man overboard                 
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) conducted search and rescue efforts for a man overboard while operating in the Baltic Sea, Aug. 1, 2022.             

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 3 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 4 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 5 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 6 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 7 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 8 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 9 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 10 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 11 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 12 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 13 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 14 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 15 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 16 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 17 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 18 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 1 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 19 of 19
#### MICHAEL G. ECONOMOS ET AL. *v.*LILJEDAHL BROTHERS, INC.

The plaintiffs’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn. App. 578 (AC 24877), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court improperly vacated the arbitration award because the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law?”

*914The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17394.

*Karen L. Dowd, Wesley W. Horton*and *Anita M. Varanes,*in support of the petition.

*James H. Lee*and *David R. Clemens,*in opposition.

Decided March 11, 2005

VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
A92A1969.

#### COPPOCK v. GOODEN.

(423 SE2d 708)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff brought suit against defendant seeking damages for personal injuries. He alleged that he slipped and fell on defendant’s premises and landed in a negligently placed and maintained garbage pile. Defendant answered the complaint, denied liability, and, following discovery, moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion and plaintiff appeals.

Viewing the evidence in a light favorable to plaintiff, the party opposing the summary judgment motion, we find the following: Plaintiff volunteered to help defendant cut down a tree on defendant’s premises. The tree fell against and lodged in another tree and plaintiff and defendant tried to dislodge the tree by pulling on it with a cable. It had been drizzling and the ground was wet. As plaintiff pulled on the cable, he slipped and fell in the vicinity of a trash pile.

Plaintiff had observed the trash pile shortly before he started to pull on the cable. When he fell, plaintiff braced himself with his hand and received a deep cut stretching from the palm of his hand to his wrist. Plaintiff does not know what he cut his hand on and he could *764not state whether he actually put his hand in the trash pile. He acknowledged that he could have cut his hand on a can, a bottle or a tree root. *Held:*

Decided October 8, 1992.

*Jack F. Witcher, Maryellen S. Mitchell,*for appellant.

*Downey, Cleveland, Parker, Williams & Davis, G. Lee Welborn,*for appellee.

Because plaintiff could not state what caused the injury to his hand, we must conclude that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s negligence is not established by the mere fact that plaintiff sustained an injury. *Harmon v. Reames,*188 Ga. App. 812, 813 (374 SE2d 539); *Roberts v. Gardens Svcs.,*182 Ga. App. 573 (356 SE2d 669).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Sognier, C. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*
#                                                                         U.S. Navy deploys newest medical expeditionary capability aboard Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group                                                                    

##### by Bobbie A. Camp, Naval Medical Forces Atlantic

16 October 2023

            SLIDESHOW | 2 images | En-Route Care System deploys aboard Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group                    231011-N-MS174-1009 NORFOLK, Va. (Oct. 11, 2023) From left, Lt. Kyle Rowland, a critical care nurse assigned to Navy Medicine Readiness and Training Command (NMRTC) Camp Lejeune, and Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Bradley Christian, a search and rescue medical technician assigned to NMRTC Patuxent River, test an integrated intensive care mobile unit during inventory in the medical department aboard Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69). Rowland and Christian are a part of a 2-person team with the En-Route Care System (ERCS), one of the Navy’s newest medical capabilities that will deploy for the first time with the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group to meet the demands of maritime operations in a distributed environment. (U.S. Navy photo by Bobbie A. Camp)        

                    En-Route Care System deploys aboard Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group                                            1 of 2                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

                    En-Route Care System deploys aboard Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group                                            2 of 2                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

Tags:
**NMFL**Navy medicine**ERCS**En-Route Care System**Expeditionary Medicine**Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group**USS Dwight D. Eiseinhower