alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[J-69-2022] [OISA: Mundy, J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

RYAN MICHAEL DUNN,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 10 WAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the 

Superior Court entered December 

23, 2020 at No. 176 WDA 2020, 

affirming the convictions and 

vacating the Judgment of Sentence 

of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Allegheny County entered 

September 11, 2019 at No. CP-02-

CR-0014780-2018, and remanding.

ARGUED: October 26, 2022

OPINION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE

CHIEF JUSTICE TODD DECIDED: June 23, 2023

I join Justice Mundy’s Opinion in Support of Affirmance (“OISA”), except for Part 

IV(b). On the question of whether Dunn was prejudiced by the Commonwealth’s violation 

of Pa.R.Crim.P. 573, I conclude he has failed to demonstrate that prejudice. 

In his principle brief to this Court, Dunn contends that, because of the 

Commonwealth’s late disclosure of Jamie Mesar’s expert report, he was unable to 

conduct his own research on her opinions; unable to effectively cross-examine her; 

unable to determine whether to retain his own expert; unable to challenge the admissibility 

of Mesar’s opinions; unable “to meaningfully reflect upon and evaluate how the expert's 

proposed testimony could bear upon all of the facts”; and was diverted from other lastminute trial preparation issues. Dunn Brief at 50-51 (emphasis omitted). Further, 

because, in his view, the report was overly generic, Dunn contends he was unable to 

monitor the scope of Mesar’s testimony. Id. at 51-52. Yet, having gone to trial and having 
[J-69-2022] [OISA: Mundy, J.] - 2

seen Mesar’s actual testimony, Dunn has had time to “reflect” on it, and yet he does not 

describe, in any detail, what he would have done differently had he been given proper 

notice and what he viewed as a compliant report. For example, he does not proffer

research that would have undermined Mesar’s testimony; provide questions he would 

have asked on cross examination or suggest which parts of her testimony were 

inadmissible or irrelevant. It is true that, after being criticized by the Commonwealth for 

these lapses, see, e.g., Commonwealth Brief at 28 (“Dunn contends that he might have 

been able to counter Mesar’s testimony better had he had earlier notice of it, but he does 

not specifically say how that would have been accomplished, instead relying on vague 

assertions . . . .” (emphasis omitted)), Dunn attempts to provide some such detail in his 

reply brief. In my view, however, that effort was too late. See Pa.R.A.P. 2113(a) (“the 

appellant may file a brief in reply to matters raised by appellee's brief . . . and not 

previously addressed in appellant's brief.” (emphasis added)); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 

737 A.2d 214, 218 n.8 (Pa. 1999) (“a reply brief cannot be a vehicle to argue issues raised 

but inadequately developed in appellant's original brief”); Michael G. Lutz Lodge No. 5, of 

Fraternal Ord. of Police v. City of Philadelphia, 129 A.3d 1221, 1226 n.5 (Pa. 2015)

(same). Accordingly, on this basis, I agree with the OISA that Dunn is not entitled to a 

new trial.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5764

Alo USA 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 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
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jerry Rex PARKER, Appellant.

No. WD 47984.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted March 17, 1994.

Decided April 12, 1994.

Motion to Modify or Change Opinion May 31, 1994.

Alden Lance, Savannah, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and FENNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree, § 566.100, RSMo Supp.1993, and from sentence of three years’ imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.-25(b).
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 iVoice Technology, Inc. (the
"COMPANY"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, I, Jerome
Mahoney, hereby certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     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.



Date: May 14, 2007                       By: /s/ Jerome Mahoney
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Jerome Mahoney
                                             President, Chief Executive Officer
                                             and Chief Financial Officer
|   | (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/              Neal              Ludeke                                                                                                                               |   |   |   |
| Neal                LudekeChief                Financial Officer of Richman AmericanCredit                Corp., Manager of the RegistrantMarch                12, 2008 |   |   |        |

----
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 JayHawk Energy, Inc. a Colorado corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Lindsay E. Gorrill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to JayHawk Energy, Inc., and will be retained by JayHawk Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/ Lindsay GorrillLindsay Gorrill

Chief Executive Officer

May 12 2010
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arthur Roy TOLER, Defendant/Appellant. Arthur Roy TOLER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 59285, 61764.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District. Division One.

Jan. 5, 1993.

S. Paige Canfield, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert Alan Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant appeals from a conviction of tampering in the first degree in violation of § 569.080.1(2) RSMo 1986. Defendant also appeals from a denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgments of the trial court and motion court are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
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 Juma Technology, Corp. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Giangano,
      the 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/ David
                GianganoDavid
                Giangano
              Chief
                Executive Officer




August
      17, 2007
ex1020.htm


Exhibit 10.20




 


Supply contract


Party A (buyer): Yangling Dongke Madisen Pharmaceutical co.,Ltd


Party B (supplier): Shaanxi Yungui Subsidiary Foodstuff Corporation Ltd


Sign Place: Shaanxi Yangling


Sign Date: Nov 1, 2009


 


Based on the mutual trust and understanding, two parties reach the following agreements:


 


1 Products Name, Specifications, Quantity, Total Amount, Delivery Date and Remark


 



	
Name

	
Specification

	
Unit

	
Quantities

	
Unit price

	
Account

	
Remark


	
Guangxi caster sugar

	
50kg/bag

	
kg

	  	
4.5

	  	
Quantities is decided by the order


	
Total amount in words:







 


2 Quality and Technical Standard: state standards or company standards


3 Means of Transportation and Expenses and Place of Delivery: PartyB the deliveries the goods to the designated place, and cover the expenses.


4 The Standard for Check and Accept and Objection Period: according the industry standards, any quality problem could inform ParyB in writing 7days ahead.


5 Terms of Payment: pay on delivery


6 This contract is made in two copies and becomes valid after signature, two copies to be each party in witness thereof. The fax document also has the same effect. Copies of manufacture qualification certification of both parties are attached.


7 Settlement of Disputes: through negotiation or submitted to the local court.


8 Party B issues 17% VAT invoice.


 


 




  





  











  






 


 


Party A: Yangling Dongke Madisen Pharmaceutical co.,Ltd


Address: 8 Xinqiao Road Yangling Demonstration Zone


Zip Code: 712100


 


PartyB:Shaanxi Yungui sugar and wine, Non-staple Food Co., Ltd.


Address: Room 601 Unit 3 Jingdiansiji Garden on Dianzizheng street Xi’an. Shaanxi
**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 Bella Trading Company, Inc. a Colorado
      corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
      2007,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report"), Joseph B. Young, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies
      to
      the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Bella Trading Company, Inc., and will be retained by Bella Trading Company,
      Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.








/s/ Joseph
              B. YoungJoseph B. Young
              Chief
                  Executive Officer
                May
                  11, 2007
$[ ] [ ]

$[ ] [ ]

INPUT

.05

80
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. submits this exclusion request on behalf of our business

unit. OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and only supplier of this component.

AT SHIFTER SWITCH is a switch and is used only automotive purposes of shifting the transmission, of

which is an OEM-specified dimension. It is only used for further assembly of components which go into

domestic automobile production, which is specified by auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic automobile

industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for

vehicle components at the HTS level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate

movement of production to a US manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling

costs, significant amounts of time, and approvals pertaining to consumer automobile safety standards are

costly and would take a significant amount of time to obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the AT SHIFTER

SWITCH in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP exclusion

instructions:

"AT SHIFTER SWITCH; rectangular base assembly with a "J" shaped switch housing molded to the top

running parallel to the base; circular connector at the center of the base and a rectangular connector on

the edge extending at appx 45 degree angle from the face of the base "Metal, Plastic, Rubber, Other

Material & Material Compound;Switch to change the gear into transmission up and down; Used for AT

Shifter switch, consisting of 1) Plastic Handle, Shaft, Detent, sping and Plunger; 2) sub assy including

PCB ASSY and Plastic Housing; 3) One damper - made of rubber. Handle dimensions 87.8 mm X

53.5mm X 24.9mm, housing dimensions: 55.33mm X 44.29mm X28.5mm."

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re: Petition of the Board of School :

Directors of the Hatboro

- Horsham :

School District for the Sale of Real :

Property : No. 1001 C.D. 2022

:

Appeal of: Peggy Ambler and John :

Ambler :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, January 23 , 202 4

, having considered A ppell ant s ’ application for

reargument and Appellee’s answer in response thereto

, the application is DENIED

.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We
consent to the inclusion of our report dated February 27, 2003, on the consolidated financial statements of Firstwave Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiary (the "Company")
as of and for the years ended December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2001, in the Company's annual report on Form 10K for the Company's year end December 31, 2002, and
to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-46319 and No. 333-72666) and the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (No. 33-66456, No. 33-88304. No. 333-55939 and No. 333-55971) of our report.

/s/
Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.

Atlanta,
Georgia
March 4, 2003

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.2
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lam Liang
Corp. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Prapaipan Chayawatana,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.



Date:  March 14, 2005         /s/ Prapaipan Chayawatana
                              ----------------------------------------
                              By: Prapaipan Chayawatana, Chief Financial
                              Officer and Principal Accounting Officer












<PAGE>
ACE Limited Description of Executive Officer Cash Compensation for 2010



 Exhibit 10.1 

ACE LIMITED 

DESCRIPTION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CASH COMPENSATION 

Set forth below are the 2010 annual base salaries of the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and each of the three other most highly
compensated executive officers in 2009 who were executive officers as of December 31, 2009. 
 Evan G. Greenberg, Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer 
 2010 salary 

$1,200,000 
 Philip V. Bancroft, Chief
Financial Officer  
 2010 salary 

$700,000 
 Robert Cusumano, General Counsel
and Secretary 
 2010 salary 

$550,000 
 Brian E. Dowd, Vice-Chairman, ACE
Limited; Chief Executive Officer, Insurance-North American 
 2010 salary 

$800,000 
 John Keogh, Chief Executive
Officer ACE Overseas General 
 2010 salary 

$800,000 
 In addition to the above, these
officers receive bonuses, perquisites and other personal benefits as described in our proxy statement for our 2010 annual meeting.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 of Panorama  Investments  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  August 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Connie Linder, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
26th day of October, 2005.

/s/ Connie Linder
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4679

II-VI Incorporated:

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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel