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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin R. Weissberg, J.), rendered on or about May 3, 1988, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years on the weapons possession count and a concurrent determinate term of six months on his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress physical evidence was properly denied, without a hearing, since his motion papers failed to allege sufficient facts showing that the property sought to be suppressed had been obtained by the prosecution under circumstances precluding its admission at trial. *(People v Covington,*144 AD2d 238.) His totally conclusory claims failed to set forth factual allegations with respect to his or the police officers’ conduct and did not conform to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law. *(Supra,*at 238; CPL 710.20 [1]; 710.60 [1], [3] [b]; *see also, People v Reynolds,*71 NY2d 552, 558.) Defendant claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, but has failed to demonstrate that counsel failed to provide "meaningful representation”. *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147.) Similarly, defendant lodges only a conclusory argument, on appeal, in support of *179the claim that the People introduced perjurious testimony at trial, because of an officer’s inconsistent Grand Jury testimony. The fact of an inconsistency alone does not warrant such a conclusion, especially when the inconsistency is brought to the attention of the trier of the facts, in this case the court, and there is no evidence to suggest that the People otherwise suppressed *Rosario*material to which defendant was entitled. Defendant’s remaining arguments have been considered and found to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of FedFirst Financial Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date:   May 11, 2007
    
    /s/ Robert C. Barry Jr.Robert C. Barry Jr.Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President(Principal Financial Officer and Chief Accounting
Officer)
---

---

Exhibit 10.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements Forms S-8 (Registration Nos.
333-113932, 333-96630, 333-08826, 333-10092, 333-12466, 333-12988 and 333-123410) and Forms F-3 (Registration No.
333-113950 and 333-12698) of our report dated  February 2, 2005, except for Notes 1e, 2s, 8j, 10c, 12d, 12e, 12f,
12g, 13b, 14d and 15d as to which the date is November 29, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended
December 31, 2004.

| |  | Yours Truly,/s/ KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERERA Member of Ernst & Young Global
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tel Aviv, IsraelNovember 29, 2005



---

---
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6922

BorgWarner Emissions Systems:

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
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

523 

CAF 13-01536 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF CHARLES L. HIGGINS, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JESSE M. HIGGINS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

CHARLES L. HIGGINS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT PRO SE. 

PETER M. CASEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BATAVIA. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R.

Adams, J.), entered August 15, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family

Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, awarded petitioner

primary physical placement of the subject children. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that,

insofar as appealed from, awarded petitioner father primary physical

placement of the subject children. The mother contends that Family

Court erred in determining that there was the requisite showing of a

change in circumstances to warrant modification of the existing

custody arrangement. We reject that contention. “ ‘It is well

established that alteration of an established custody arrangement will

be ordered only upon a showing of a change in circumstances which

reflects a real need for change to ensure the best interest[s] of the

child[ren]’ ” (Amy L.M. v Kevin M.M., 31 AD3d 1224, 1225). Here, the

father established the requisite change in circumstances by showing

that the mother’s residence “had become a ‘harried and chaotic

environment’ that did not provide the subject children with the

focused attention and structure they needed” (Matter of Graziani C.A.

[Lisa A.], 117 AD3d 729, 730). Contrary to the mother’s further

contention, we conclude that there is a sound and substantial basis in

the record to support the court’s determination that it was in the

children’s best interests to award primary physical placement to the

father (see Matter of Marino v Marino, 90 AD3d 1694, 1695-1696; see

also Matter of Tarrant v Ostrowski, 96 AD3d 1580, 1582, lv denied 20

NY3d 855). Considering that “a court’s determination regarding

custody . . . issues, based upon a first-hand assessment of the

credibility of the witnesses after an evidentiary hearing, is entitled
-2- 523 

CAF 13-01536 

to great weight” (Marino, 90 AD3d at 1695 [internal quotation marks

omitted]), we perceive no basis upon which to set aside the court’s

award of primary physical placement of the children to the father.

Finally, we reject the mother’s contention that she was deprived

of a fair hearing because the court improperly admitted hearsay

statements in evidence. Any error is harmless inasmuch as the court

placed minimal, if any, reliance on those hearsay statements, and the

evidence is otherwise sufficient to support the court’s determination

(see Matter of Tracy v Tracy, 309 AD2d 1252, 1253; Matter of Jelenic v

Jelenic, 262 AD2d 676, 678; Matter of Liza C. v Noel C., 207 AD2d 974,

974).

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6244

BorgWarner, 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 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
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Planet Polymer
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), H. Mac Busby, President of the Company, hereby certify, 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, 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ H. MAC BUSBY
-----------------------
H. Mac Busby, President
March 30, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
**Exhibit
      23.1**

















**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms
      S-8 Nos. 333-74245, 333-39450, 333-67720 and 333-129225) pertaining to the
      1998
      Stock Incentive Plan  of
      GeoGlobal Resources Inc. and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3, No.
      333-129225) and the related prospectus pertaining to the registration of
      6,671,316 shares of common stock of GeoGlobal Resources Inc., of our report
      dated March 23, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
      of
      GeoGlobal Resources Inc. included in Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report (Form
      10-KSB/A) for the year ended December 31, 2006.














Calgary,
      Canada       */s/
      Ernst & Young LLP (signed)*


May
      11,
      2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                      20,326,317
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,718,823
<ALLOWANCES>                               (3,439,311)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,780,551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,753,608
<PP&E>                                     141,128,059
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,746,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             155,976,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,470,680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       583,931
<OTHER-SE>                               (157,583,318)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               155,976,314
<SALES>                                    137,515,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           150,470,849
<CGS>                                       17,930,082
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              109,581,328
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            25,129,231
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,491,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (19,315,031)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,624,549)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,624,549)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8316]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS) 
Subcommittee on Disability and Long-Term Care Statistics: Meeting

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, the National Center for Health 
Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 
announces the following meeting.

    Name: NCVHS Subcommittee on Disability and Long-Term Care 
Statistics.
    Time and date: 9 a.m.-5 p.m., April 25, 1995.
    Place: Room 703A, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
    Status: Open.
    Purpose: The subcommittee will discuss current uses and data 
issues in two surveys: Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and 
National Nursing Home Survey.
    Contact Person for More Information: Substantive program 
information as well as summaries of the meeting and a roster of 
committee members may be obtained from Gail F. Fisher, Ph.D., 
Executive Secretary, NCVHS, NCHS, CDC, room 1100, Presidential 
Building, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone 
301/436-7050.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 95-8316 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-N
```
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-2018-0025-6814

Omron Management Center of 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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30320

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Brandon Fontnett, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:21-CR-177-8

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Defendant–Appellant Brandon Fontnett appeals the 151-month 

sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with the 

intent to distribute cocaine. In particular, Fontnett challenges the district 

court’s use of his prior conviction for attempted possession with intent to 

distribute cocaine to qualify him as a career offender. As he argued in the 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 2, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30320 Document: 00517017689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2024
No. 23-30320

2

district court, Fontnett asserts that (1) inchoate offenses are not included in 

the definition of a “controlled substance offense” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b) 

and (2) guidelines commentary to the contrary is not entitled to deference.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief.

Fontnett correctly concedes that his claim is foreclosed by United States v. 

Vargas, 74 F.4th 673 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Oct. 

23, 2023) (No. 23-5875). In that case, we determined that the commentary 

warranted deference and “reaffirm[ed] our longstanding precedent that 

inchoate offenses . . . are included in the definition of ‘controlled substance 

offense.’” Vargas, 74 F.4th at 698.

When, as here, “there can be no substantial question as to the 

outcome of the case,” summary disposition is appropriate. Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The motion for 

summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension 

of time is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-30320 Document: 00517017689 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2024
Consent of Independent Auditors





We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Dundee Corporation (the Company) of our independent auditors' report dated April 10, 2008 on the consolidated balance sheet of the Company as at December 31, 2007 and the consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2007 which appears in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.





[auditorconsent002.gif]



Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants



Toronto, Canada

April 10, 2008