alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[660 NE2d 1137, 637 NYS2d 358]

#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant-Respondent, v Verlon Tuck, Respondent-Appellant.

Argued October 25,1995;

decided November 29, 1995

*829APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Kevin M. Dillon, District Attorney*of Erie County, Buffalo *(Donna A. Milling*and *John J. DeFranks*of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

*Vincent F. Gugino,*Buffalo, *Linda S. Reynolds*and *Barbara J. Davies*for respondent-appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order óf the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from by the People, should be reversed and the case remitted to that Court in accordance with CPL 470.25 (2) (d) and 470.40 (2) (b); insofar as the order is cross-appealed by defendant, it should be affirmed.

While in the home of Antoinette Rhodes on an evening in November 1992, defendant placed a loaded, operable handgun to the head of Samuel Radford, who at the time was engaged in a physical altercation with another individual. Defendant discharged the weapon, inflicting a serious head wound to Rad-ford.

After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of reckless endangerment in the first degree *(see,*Penal Law § 120.25). By guilty plea, defendant was also convicted of assault in the second degree for a separate incident occurring on another date. The Appellate Division modified and vacated the reckless endangerment count. A Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal to the People and to the defendant from the respective aggrieving portions of the Appellate Division order.

On the People’s appeal, we reinstate the reckless endangerment count because the proof at trial was legally sufficient to *830support defendant’s conviction under *People v Chrysler*(85 NY2d 413). In that case, this Court held that placing a handgun to the temple of a victim and cocking the weapon "created a grave risk of death under circumstances evincing a depraved mind” under Penal Law § 120.25 *(id,.,*at 416). Defendant’s various arguments in an effort to distinguish *People v Chrysler*are unavailing.

The defendant’s cross appeal dealing with the voluntariness of his guilty plea as to the other criminal conduct and conviction lacks merit and the Appellate Division order should be affirmed in that respect.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order modified by reinstating defendant’s conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree and remitting to the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              34
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                       118
<INVENTORY>                                      8,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,573
<PP&E>                                          19,427
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,414)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,778
<BONDS>                                          7,569
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               31
<PREFERRED>                                      3,898
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,267)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,009
<SALES>                                          8,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,712
<CGS>                                            6,986
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,986
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,538
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,305)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,305)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund I for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F.
Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III      
|Leo F. Wells, III          
|Principal Executive Officer
|August 8, 2007             



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams    
|Douglas P. Williams        
|Principal Financial Officer
|August 8, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund I for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F.
Wells, III, Principal Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Principal Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III      
|Leo F. Wells, III          
|Principal Executive Officer
|November 8, 2007           



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams    
|Douglas P. Williams        
|Principal Financial Officer
|November 8, 2007
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

June 29, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00042

- CV

Joseph M. ESPARZA and Volaire Jet Interio rs, Inc.

, Appellant s

v.

Chad F. CHRISTIAN

, Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CV03128 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The parties have filed a Second Agreed Motion to Abate Appellate Deadlines pending mediation. The parties request that we abate this appeal until July 14, 2018. The parties’ agreed motion is GRANTED

. It is ORDERED that the appellant file a m otion requesting an appropriate disposition of this appeal on or before July 14, 2018

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1, 43.2; see Caballero v. Heart of Texas Pizza, L.L.C. , 70 S.W.3d 180, 180 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2001, no pet.).

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
# ..



# N UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GEORGE GREGORY REDDICK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, etaI., ) ) Defendants. ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED NOV 302010 Clerk, U.S. District 

### and Bankruptcy Courts

This matter is before the Courtupon consideration ofplaintiffs application to proceed in formapauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by prose litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted bylawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Evenpro se litigants, however, must complywith the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the court'sjurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleaderis entitled to relief, and a demand forjudgment for the reliefthe pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose oftheminimum standard ofRule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants ofthe claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiffs complaint does not contain a short and plain statement ofa claim that plaintiff 1,,.,1"".11.1,111111111111is entitled to the reliefhe seeks. As drafted, neither the Court nor the named defendants can reasonably discern which claim or claims are made against which defendant or defendants. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed for its failure to complywithRule 8(a). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE:

# /~**~~201()**
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Rob
Hutchison,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                                     /s/ ROB HUTCHISON
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Rob Hutchison
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     May 23, 2005
Exhibit 32

REX
American Resources Corporation
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned officers of REX American Resources Corporation (the Company)
hereby certify, to their knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2010 which this certificate accompanies,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

|                                       | 
|-------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Stuart
 A. Rose                    | 
|Stuart A.
 Rose                        | 
|Chairman of the Board and              | 
|Chief Executive Officer                | 
|                                       | 
|/s/ Douglas
 L. Bruggeman              | 
|Douglas L.
 Bruggeman                  | 
|Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and | 
|Chief Financial Officer                | 
|                                       | 
|Dated:
 September 9, 2010              | 



---
#### Charles W. Shonk v. Shonk Tin Printing Company.

*Injunctions—Injury to Business—Corporations.*

A manufacturing corporation which has ceased to do any business except to turn over to other manufacturers, for a commission, any orders it may receive, has no ground for restraining a former stockholder who is engaged *21in the same business on his own account, from stating in his advertisements that the corporation is out of business, and can not restrain him from prosecuting his business.

[Opinion filed June 2, 1890.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County: the Hon. O. H. Horton, Judge, presiding.

Mr. Edwin F. Abbott, for appellant.

Mr. Horace F. White, for appellee.

Gary P. J.

The appellant had been in the business oE manufacturing metal signs, and for nine hundred shares of the stock of the appellee’s company, transferred his plant, good will, patents and business secrets to the company, with covenants, among others, to use the secrets only in the business of the appellee, and reveal and explain them as the company might appoint.

From all the evidence, the secrets were, or are, so secret, or so valueless, that even Shonk can not use them, if they have any existence. Shonk sold out his stock in the company; went back to his old place, and resumed business.

Shortly thereafter the company ceased to manufacture, and sold part of their plant to former employes, and for more than a year before filing this bill had done no business, except, if orders came to them, they turned them over to those former ¿mployes, and received a commission'on them.

Shonk uses in his business a card and a letter head, that state that the company is out of business-, and the letter head is quite historical in showing that he is the original Shonk; that'he had given distinction to the name in the sign business. The company being in fact out of ■business, had no ground to stand upon in seeking to restrain Shonk from making signs by any process he pleased, or from stating the fact that they were out of business.

The bill did not allege that the company was in business, but by implication admitted that it was not, and if the occasional and uncertain commissions they received could be any *22ground for relief, there is no allegation on the subject in the bill, nor any proof of any amount that would be sufficient to justify the interference of a court of equity. There is a total absence of any showing that this conduct, whatever its character, could be injurious to the company.

The decree, awarding an injunction and damages, is reversed, with directions to dismiss the bill with costs.

*lieversed and remanded.*
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.


  I, Jenna L. Kemp, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
    Form 10-K of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2007-SD1 (the
    "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
    to state a material fact 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
    servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews
    conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in
    this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
    in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled
    their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material
    respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
    for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
    assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
    securities required to be included in this report in accordance with
    Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18
    have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance
    described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
    10-K.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Servicer  and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Securities
    Administrator.

    Dated:   March 31, 2008


    /s/ Jenna L. Kemp
    Signature

    Executive Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of the servicing function of the master
    servicer)
Exhibit 32.1





COPSYNC, INC.





CERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE OFFICERS


(Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of COPsync, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Company's Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.





Date: April 29, 2011
By:
/s/ RONALD A. WOESSNERRonald A. WoessnerChief Executive OfficerBy:
/s/ BARRY W. WILSONBarry W. WilsonChief Financial Officer
















The forgoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Notice Recipients

District/Off: 0971−3 User: admin Date Created: 3/27/2023

Case: 19−30088 Form ID: TRANSC Total: 8

Recipients of Notice of Electronic Filing:

aty

 

 

Nicholas Wagner kschemen@wagnerjones.com

TOTAL: 1

Recipients submitted to the Claims Agent (Kroll Restructuring Administration, LLC):):

aty Scott H McNutt 324 WARREN RD SAN MATEO, CA 94402−1038 UNITED STATES

aty David J. Molton Brown Rudnick LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036

aty Jessica Liou Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153

aty Steven S. Kane The Kane Law Firm 402 W. Broadway, # 2500 San Diego, CA 92101

ANGELA JAE CHUN, ESQ. Law Office of Angela Jae Chun 10680 Treena Street Suite 160A San

Diego, CA 92131

aty Debra I. Grassgreen Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP 150 California St., 15th Flr. San Francisco, CA 94111 TOTAL: 6

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13645-3 Filed: 03/27/23 Entered: 03/27/23 05:10:19 Page 1

of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense (DoD).

# ACTION:

Termination of federal advisory committee.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 41 CFR 102-3.55 and consistent with the Sunset Provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, subtitle K, section 576, Public Law 108-375, the Department of Defense gives notice that it is terminating the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, effective June 1, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Freeman, Deputy Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-601-6128.

Dated: May 25, 2010.

Mitchell S. Bryman,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2010-12902 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P