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

Mercure, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered May 26, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress certain contraband taken from his automobile during a warrantless search. The hearing testimony demonstrated that State Trooper Peggy Casey lawfully stopped defendant’s speeding vehicle and, while waiting for defendant to produce his registration, noticed "a number of seeds and stems on the floor of the vehicle which [she] believed to be marijuana” and *879"an odor of burnt marijuana in the vehicle”. An ensuing search of the vehicle disclosed quantities of marihuana and cocaine. Following County Court’s denial of the motion, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 3 to 6 years.

Defendant’s challenge to County Court’s denial of his motion to suppress the contraband is without merit. County Court credited Casey’s testimony that she observed marihuana in plain view and noticed the distinctive odor of marihuana, thus justifying the search of the vehicle *(see, People v Terrero,*139 AD2d 830, 831; *People v Chestnut,*43 AD2d 260, 261-262, *affd*36 NY2d 971). Issues of credibility are primarily for the hearing court, and its findings should be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761; *People v Goodrich,*126 AD2d 835, *Iv denied*69 NY2d 880), given "its peculiar advantages of having seen and heard the witnesses” *(People v Prochilo, supra,*at 761). Casey’s testimony was not inherently improbable or incredible as a matter of law so as to lead this court to substitute its judgment for that of County Court *(see, People v Thompson,*126 AD2d 684, 685, *Iv denied*69 NY2d 887; *People v Goodrich, supra).*Thus, County Court properly denied suppression of the contraband.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 99.1**

**INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT**

Board of Directors Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as ofMarch 31, 2003, and the related consolidated statement of income for the three month ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the three month periods ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, and the consolidatedstatement of changes in shareholders’ equity for the three month period ended March 31, 2003.  These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.

Weconducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data andmaking inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective ofwhich is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any materialmodifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We havepreviously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated February 20, 2003 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in theaccompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

| /s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.      |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   |
|                          |   |
| Steubenville, Ohio            |
| May 12, 2003                  |
|                          |
| S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.          |
| 626 North Fourth Street       |
| Steubenville, Ohio 43952-1982 |
| Phone: 740-282-2771           |
| Facsimile: 740-282-1606       |
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2004 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Cardinal Financial Corporation, I,Bernard H. Clineburg, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(a)                                  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)                                 the information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiaries as of,and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Date:  August 16, 2004 | /s/ Bernard H. Clineburg                        |   |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Bernard H. Clineburg                            |
|                        | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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, or the Report, of Universal Truckload Services, Inc., or the Company, on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 28,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Donald B. Cochran, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Robert E. Sigler, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, respectively, that (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 5, 2009



/s/ Donald B. CochranDonald B. CochranPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Robert E. SiglerRobert E. SiglerVice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
##### 



1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Howard M. Sipzner
 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Brandywine Realty Trust and will be retained by Brandywine Realty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3005

Fujitec America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PEOPLES BANCORP, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,499
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,690
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,892
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,106
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,124
<LOANS>                                         89,659
<ALLOWANCE>                                        909
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,795
<DEPOSITS>                                      99,788
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,258
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                594
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,681
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,474
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 120,795
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,876
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  579
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   110
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,565
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,857
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,857
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,708
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       35
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,464
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,464
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       926
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.09
<LOANS-NON>                                        388
<LOANS-PAST>                                       664
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,788
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   876
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  909
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               909
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered July 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00548-CR

No. 05-15-00549-CR

DADRIANNE NICHOLE TURNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-70784-H, F13-55178-H

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On July 13, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding whether the 

record of the April 2, 2015 hearing had been lost or destroyed. On July 20, 2015, court reporter 

Gina Udall filed the record of the April 2, 2015 hearing. Therefore, in the interest of expediting 

the appeal, we VACATE the July 13, 2015 order requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4436

David C. Poole Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              361
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    27,536
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1,231
<INVENTORY>                                       6,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 36,929
<PP&E>                                          126,674
<DEPRECIATION>                                   51,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  142,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            20,810
<BONDS>                                         105,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                          663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    142,122
<SALES>                                         113,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                113,972
<CGS>                                            89,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   121,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (103)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,452)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,617)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,835)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,835)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0



</TABLE>
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 22

- 12317 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus DEANDRE MITCHELL GABRIEL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:21

- cr
- 20324

- JEM

- 4

____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-12317 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 22

- 12317

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Adam Goodman, appointed counsel for Deandre Gabriel in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , a nd Gabriel’s conviction and sentence

are AFFIRMED

. USCA11 Case: 22-12317 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 07/12/2023 Page: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7537]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-83-000]


Dayton Power & Light Co.; Notice of Filing

March 22, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 13, 1995, Dayton Power & Light Company 
tendered for filing additional information in the above-referenced 
docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before March 31, 1995. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7537 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>   1

                                                                Exhibit 23.1




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (nos. 33-65688 and 33-98852) and in the Prospectus
constituting part of the registration statements on Form S-3 (nos. 333-10949 and
333-12435) of Molten Metal Technology, Inc. of our report dated March 5, 1996
appearing on Page F-1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP

Price Waterhouse LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
November 18, 1996
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 3 A0 09 4 . FLOYD HARRELL et a l. v

. BANK OF AMERI CA, N. A.

In 2 0 1 5

, aft er Ban k o f Am eri ca, N. A. fi l ed a co m p lai n t f o r d ecl arat o ry

ju d g m e n t a n d p et i t i o n t o rem o v e cl o ud fro m t i tl e, t he t ri al co u rt en t ered a fi n al

ju d g m en t ag ai ns t Fl o y d an d Di an e Harrel l an d in fav o r o f Ban k of Am eri ca. Sev eral

y ears l at er i n 20 2 2

, t h e Harrel l s

, a p p e a ri n g p ro s e, fi l ed a “ M o t io n t o Set As i d e

J u d g m en t fo r Frau d an d Tem p orary Res t rai n i n g O rd er o n F o r ecl o s u re Un t i l

Di s co v ery ,” wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed . Th e Harrel l s fi l ed a n o t i ce o f ap p eal fro m

t h e t ri al co urt ’ s o rd er. Ho w ev er, we l ack ju ri s di ct i o n

.

A l t h o u g h t he Harrel l s ’ s m o ti o n d i d n o t ex p l i ci t l y ci te OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 0 (d )

,

t h ey s o u g h t t o set as id e th e ju d g m en t o n th e b as i s o f frau d

, w h i ch i s on e o f t h e

g ro u nd s s et fo rt h in OCGA § 9-1 1 -6 0 (d ) (2 ). As a g e n e r a l r u l e, an ap peal fro m an

o rd er d en y i n g a m ot io n t o s et as i d e b ro ug h t u n d e r OCGA § 9 -1 1 -6 0 (d ) m u s t b e

i n i t i at ed b y fi l i n g an ap pl i cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (8 );

Pa r ker v. Ro bi n s o n

, 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 3 6 2, 3 6 4 (2 ) (7 8 7 SE2 d 3 1 7 ) (2 0 1 6 ). “ Co m p l i an ce

wi t h t he d i s cret i on ary ap p eal s pro ced u re i s ju ri sd i ct i o n al .” S mo ak v. Dep t

. o

f Hu ma n

Res o u r ces

, 2 2 1 G a. Ap p

. 2 5 7, 2 5 7 (4 7 1 SE2 d 6 0 ) (1 9 9 6 ). Becau s e t h e Harrel l s fai l ed

t o fo l l o w t he req u i s i t e d i s cret i o n ary ap p li cat i o n p ro ced ure, we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n t o

August 25, 2022co n si d er t h i s d i rect ap p eal , wh ich i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/25/2022
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 29, 2010

y0125 

# Order

January 29, 2010

139334(40)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139334 COA: 284227 Oakland CC: 07-217354-FH TIMOTHY LAWRENCE WATT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s October 26, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.