alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Christopher McCormack, Appellant, v Charles J. Scully, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents finding that the petitioner had violated prison rules by using a controlled substance and imposing punishment, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated October 31, 1985, which *633dismissed the proceeding. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court dated January 28, 1986, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the judgment was superseded by the order made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondents’ determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*71 NY2d 135). Furthermore, under the circumstances presented, we find that the petitioner’s due process rights were not violated. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1865 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                     November 12, 2019.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1865) entitled ``An Act to require the Secretary of the Treasury to 
mint a coin in commemoration of the opening of the National Law 
Enforcement Museum in the District of Columbia, and for other 
purposes.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            At the end, add the following:

SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

    The Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary to ensure 
that--
            (1) minting and issuing coins under this Act will not 
        result in any net cost to the United States Government; and
            (2) no funds, including applicable surcharges, are 
        disbursed to any recipient designated in section 7 until the 
        total cost of designing and issuing all of the coins authorized 
        by this Act (including labor, materials, dies, use of 
        machinery, overhead expenses, marketing, and shipping) is 
        recovered by the United States Treasury, consistent with 
        sections 5112(m) and 5134(f) of title 31, United States Code.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H.R. 1865

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
#### U.S. Ice Cream Corp. et al., Appellants, v Carvel Corporation et al., Respondents.

Motion by the appellants to hold the respondents in contempt of this court’s orders dated July 17, 1987 and August 18, 1987, respectively. By decision and order dated December 7, 1987, this motion was referred to George J. Balbach, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, as a Special Referee to hear and report on the issues raised. The report of the Special Referee has been received.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto and the report of the Special Referee made after a hearing, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent that the defendant Carvel Corporation is adjudged in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s orders dated July 17, 1987 and August 18, 1987, respectively; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiffs are awarded compensation from the defendant Carvel Corporation for damages in the amount of $10,992.89; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is in all other respects denied.

We concur in the Special Referee’s findings, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, that the defendant Carvel Corporation violated the orders of this court dated July 17, 1987 and August 18, 1987, respectively. However, we find that the actual damages sustained and proven by the plaintiffs consist of only $5,288.90 in lost profits and $5,703.99 in extra freight charges. Since there is no contract which prohibits the manufacture of Carvel ice cream cakes by the sublicensees, the plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation for any decrease in their sales of ice cream cakes to the sublicensees resulting from the respondents’ actions in facilitating the in-store manufacture of such cakes. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH     Document 9      Filed 09/05/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05402-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05402-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Stephen M. Maresca, Appellant, v Salvatore Albanese et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition designating Salvatore Albanese as a candidate in the Liberal Party primary election to be held on September 12, 1989, for the public office of Member of the City Council of the City of New York from the 31st Councilmanic District, the appeal, as limited by the appellant’s brief, is from *720so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated August 17, 1989, as directed the Board of Elections of the City of New York to afford an opportunity to ballot.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the application for an opportunity to ballot is denied.

In this matter the petition purporting to designate Salvatore Albanese as the Liberal candidate for the public office of Member of the New York City Council for the 31st Council-manic District was invalidated by the New York City Board of Elections because the subscribing witness of 15 of the requisite 30 signatures did not reside in the district. Inasmuch as the deficiency in the petition was not a mere technical challenge, there was no equitable basis for authorizing a write-in primary and the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in so doing *(see, Matter of Quaglia v Lefever,*143 AD2d 238; *Matter of Santoro v Kujawa,*133 AD2d 534; *cf., Matter of Schwarzfeld v D’Apice,*133 AD2d 203, 204). Kunzeman, J. P., Eiber, Spatt, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-12 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 21 of 21
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 6 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 6 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 6 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 6 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 6 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 6 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 6 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 6 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 6 Filed 07/17/2007 Page 9 of 9
#### In the Matter of Edwin L. Gregoreski, Appellant, v Terry A. Niebel et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Chautauqua, et al., Respondents.

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs *(see, Matter of Liss v Sadowski,*59 NY2d 635; *Matter of Higby v Mahoney,*48 NY2d 15). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, J. — Election Law.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ. (Order entered Sept. 22, 1987.)
A92A1581.

#### VEAL v. THE STATE.

(422 SE2d 920)

Decided September 24, 1992.

*Donna L. Avans,*for appellant.

*Donald E. Moore, Solicitor,*for appellee.

Carley, Presiding Judge.

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of driving under the influence. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdict.

Appellant enumerates only the general grounds. The evidence showed that appellant was found sleeping in his car parked on the side of the road. A number of empty beer cans were in the car and appellant’s breath smelled of alcohol. Appellant was unsteady on his feet and his speech was slurred. He refused a breath test. It was undisputed that appellant and no one else had driven the vehicle. On this evidence, the jury was authorized to find appellant guilty of driving under the influence. *Brooks v. State,*187 Ga. App. 194, 195 (1) (369 SE2d 801) (1988); *Lewis v. State,*149 Ga. App. 181 (1) (254 SE2d 142) (1979). When construed most favorably for the State, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trior of fact to find proof of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pope and Johnson, JJ., concur.*
Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, Robert Kimball, President and Acting Chief Executive Officer of RealNetworks, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of RealNetworks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of RealNetworks, Inc.

Date: November 9, 2010



|    |  |                    |  |                                      
|--- |  | ------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Robert Kimball
|    |  | Name:              |  | Robert Kimball                       
|    |  | Title:             |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|    |  |                    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to RealNetworks, Inc. and will be retained by RealNetworks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01699-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2****SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of enherent Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Karl Brenza, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted as pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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/ Karl Brenza KarlBrenza
Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH Document 20 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH Document 20 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH Document 20 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 3
Clear All

        14 September 2023    

                    Saildrones Set Sail in Support of U.S. 4th Fleet’s Operation Windward Stack                 
                KEY WEST, Florida – Commercial operators began deploying 10 Saildrone Voyager Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) out to sea today, a critical first step in U.S. 4th Fleet’s Operation Windward Stack.            

        13 May 2023    

                    USS Lenah Sutcliffe Higbee Commissions in Conch Republic Honoring Navy Nurses                 
                KEY WEST, Fla. -- The U.S. Navy commissioned its newest Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Lenah Sutcliffe Higbee (DDG 123), May 13 in Key West, Florida.            

#####  

##### 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
## Breadcrumb

-  News 

Breadcrumb-  News 

##   October 11, 2023 CDI Monthly Meeting

      By Community for Data Integration (CDI)      October 10, 2023    

The October 11, 2023 CDI monthly virtual meeting will feature presentations on geospatial image-segmentation and mapping and drought data stories.

Join us at our monthly meeting on October 11, 2023 from 11:00 am - 12:30 pm Eastern Time.

The topics are:
                      - CDI Project Update: A Browser-Based Geospatial Image-Segmentation and Mapping Platform,   Daniel Buscombe, Contractor to USGS
                      - Bringing drought data to life through storytelling , Mandie Carr and Althea Archer, USGS
                      - CDI Pop-up Lab , CDI Facilitators

Find abstracts and more information, including how to join, on SharePoint or by joining the CDI mailing list.

### Get Our News

These items are in the RSS feed format (Really Simple Syndication) based on categories such as topics, locations, and more. You can install and RSS reader browser extension, software, or use a third-party service to receive immediate news updates depending on the feed that you have added. If you click the feed links below, they may look strange because they are simply XML code. An RSS reader can easily read this code and push out a notification to you when something new is posted to our site.

RSS Icon**

Community for Data Integration (CDI) News

RSS Icon**

Information Systems News
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00096-CR

IN RE LESTER DAVIS

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lester Davis, an inmate, requests that we grant his petition for writ of mandamus 

and order the trial court to withdraw his judgment of conviction and release him from 

confinement. Davis claims that the indictment against him was “fraudulent” because it 

was not the product of the January 2012 grand jury.

We affirmed Davis’s judgment on direct appeal. See Davis v. State, No. 10-13-

00390-CR, 2014 WL 2946420 (Tex. App.—Waco June 26, 2014) (mem. op., not designated 

for publication). Davis’s petition for discretionary review was refused by the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals. Davis’s numerous petitions for habeas corpus have also been 

rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, resulting in sanctions imposed against 
In re Davis Page 2

him by that court for abuse of the writ. See Ex parte Davis, No. WR-33,426-18, 2018 WL 

3569033 (Tex. Crim. App. July 25, 2018) (order).

Once a felony conviction becomes final, as in this case, only the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to review post-conviction collateral attacks on that

conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 

S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re McIntosh, No. 10-19-00442-CR, 2019 WL 

6954204, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 18, 2019, no pet.).

Accordingly, because Davis complains about a final felony conviction and only the 

Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction regarding his complaints, Davis’s petition for 

writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Neill

Petition dismissed

Do not publish

Opinion delivered and filed March 23, 2020

[OT06]
#### FIRST NAT. BANK OF ATLANTA, TEX., v. CAMERON.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 1, 1913.)

No. 2,478.

Bankruptcy (§ 328*)—Time por Allowing Claims—Claims Liquidated by Litigation.

An agreement between a trustee in bankruptcy and a secured creditor as to the value of the latter’s security, made pending a suit in a state court to which both were parties and in which that question was involved, is a liquidation by litigation of the amount of the claim unsecured, within the meaning of Banter. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 57n, 30 Stat. 561 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3444), which entitles the creditor to prove such claim within 60 days, although the year for proving claims has expired.

[Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 518; Dec. Dig. § 328.*]

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas; Gordon Russell, Judge.

From an order disallowing its claim in bankruptcy proceedings, the First National Bank of Atlanta, Tex., appeals.

Reversed.

Will Steel, of Texarkana, Ark., for appellant.

Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and CADE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

It appears that the appellant, a secured creditor, and the appellee, trustee in bankruptcy, pending a litigation. in the state courts in which both were parties and in which the value of the creditor’s security was involved, agreed together as to the value of the creditor’s security, and thereafter the .bankruptcy court approved such agreement and directed the carrying out of the same.

It seems to us that this was a liquidation by litigation, within the purview of section 57n of the Bankruptcy Law, and that, although more than one year had elapsed from the adjudication in .bankruptcy, the appellant had the right to prove within 60 days from such litigation the amount of his unsecured claim. See Powell v. Leavitt, 150 Fed. 89, 80 C. C. A. 43; Keppel v. Tiffin Savings Bank, 197 U. S. 356, 25 Sup. Ct. 443, 49 L. Ed. 790; Page v. Rogers, 211 U. S. 575, 29 Sup. Ct. 159, 53 L. Ed. 332,

The decree appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to allow the appellant to prove as presented his unsecured debt.
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05790-RJS Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 13 of 13
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 28 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 2
**UNITEDSTATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION**

**Washington****, D.C. 20549**

** **

**Form10-K**

** **

[X]   ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934 

** **

For thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008

** **

or

** **

[ ]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934

** **

For thetransition period from _________to _________

** **

Commission file number0-09262

** **

**REALESTATE ASSOCIATES LIMITED**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

** **

** **

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

** **

Registrant's telephonenumber, including area code (864) 239-1000

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

** **

None

** **

Securities registeredpursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

** **

Unitsof Limited Partnership Interest

(Titleof class)

** **

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section15(d) of the Act. Yes [ ] [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is notcontained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’sknowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated byreference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.[X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).Yes [ ] No [X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as ofthe last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter.  No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

** **

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**