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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered January 5, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was arrested after he and his brother sold cocaine to undercover police officers who videotaped the sale. The videotape was admitted at trial, after which the defendant was convicted of criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Prior to trial, the defendant’s brother agreed to a plea bargain arrangement under which he was required to testify against the defendant. The defendant’s brother subsequently appeared at trial and testified on the People’s behalf that he and his brother had sold cocaine to the undercover officers.

On appeal, the defendant argues, *inter alia,*that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination by precluding his attorney from inquiring into his brother’s use of drugs prior to the date of the transaction in question. We disagree. It is well settled that the scope and extent of cross-examination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court *(see, e.g., People v Schwartzman,*24 NY2d 241, 244; *People v Sorge,*301 NY 198, 202; *see also, People v Almeida,*159 AD2d 508; *People v Williams, 142*AD2d 310, 315). Here, the court permitted the defendant’s counsel to extensively cross-examine the defendant’s brother with respect to his prior sale of crack cocaine, his criminal history, including a conviction for *696possession of a hypodermic needle, and his use of cocaine on the day when the drug sale in question occurred. In light of the more than ample latitude afforded counsel in exploring the witness’s character and his involvement with drugs, it cannot be said that the court’s ruling in limiting counsel’s inquiries constituted an improvident exercise of discretion.

As the People concede, the court erred in permitting the People to recall one of the officers involved in the sale and to utilize portions of a second videotape to rebut the defendant’s testimony that he had never spoken to this officer prior to the drug sale. Nevertheless, any error committed in this respect was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or lacking in merit. Brown, J. P., Hooper, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19442-19443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9503]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Proposed Advisory Circular; Turbine Engine Vibration Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed advisory circulars and 
request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of Advisory Circular 
(AC), N0. 33.83, Turbine Engine Vibration Survey.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the proposed AC to the Federal Aviation 
Administration, Attn: Engine and Propeller Standards Staff, ANE-110, 
Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 10803-5299.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Boudreau, Engine and Propeller 
Standards Staff, ANE-110, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 
MA, 01803, telephone (617) 238-7117, fax (617) 238-7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    A copy of the subject AC may be obtained by contacting the person 
named above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Interested persons 
are invited to comment on the proposed AC, and to submit such written 
data, views, or arguments as they desire, Commenters must identify 
[[Page 19443]] the subject of the AC, and submit comments in duplicate 
to the address specified above. All communications received on or 
before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Engine 
and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service before 
issuance of the final AC.

Background

    The AC is on the subject of engine vibration tests and surveys, and 
was identified as one where differences existed between the Joint 
Aviation Requirements--Engines, and part 33 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations. A study group composed of representatives of the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the Joint Aviation Authorities. Transport 
Canada and industry worked to produce a set of improved and harmonized 
requirements that was subsequently incorporated into part 33 of the 
FAR. This AC is intended to provide guidance in implementing these new 
harmonzied requirements during certification.
    These requirements have been published as a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register on March 16, 1995.
    This advisory circular, published under the authority granted to 
the Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1421 and 
1423, provides guidance for these proposed requirements,

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 7, 1995.
James C. Jones,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 95-9503 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
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-2018-0025-5811

Kyungshin Lear Sales and Engineering LLC:

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
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lucas Energy, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W.A. Sikora, 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, 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|                                      |  | 
|------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                      |  | 
|/S/ W.A.  SIKORA                      |  | 
|W.A. Sikora                           |  | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|November 10, 2008                     |  |
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF 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 of Panorama Investments Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Steven Bekropoulos, Chief Financial 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
6th day of April, 2006.


/s/ Steven Bekropoulos
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Harold C. SPEARS, Appellant.

No. WD 50056.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 24, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 29,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 17,1996.

David Simpson, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, C.J., P.J., and SPINDEN and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Harold Spears appeals from his convictions by jury of arson in the second degree, § 569.050, RSMo Cum.Supp.1993, and property damage in the first degree, § 569.100, RSMo Cum.Supp.1993, and his sentencing by the court to consecutive seven- and four-year terms of imprisonment. He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b). The denial of Mr. Spears’ Rule 29.15 motion is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 XACT AID, INC.

                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 Xact Aid, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert G. Pautsch, the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.

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

Dated: February 21, 2006

Robert G. Pautsch
Chief Executive Officer & President
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Universal Fog, Inc.,
 for the Quarter Ending June 30, 2005, I, Tom Bontems, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Universal Fog, Inc. 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 my knowledge and belief, that:  1.Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005,
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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended June 30, 2005, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Universal Fog, Inc.  Dated: September 12, 2005  UNIVERSAL FOG, INC.  By:
        /s/  Tom BontemsChief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
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-2018-0025-5478

SGRE, 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 17384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8461]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Public Hearing in St. Louis, Missouri: Aviation Accident

    In connection with its investigation of the runway incursion at 
Lambert St. Louis International Airport and collision between Trans 
World Airlines MD-82 and Superior Aviation Cessna 441, St. Louis, 
Missouri, November 22, 1994, the National Transportation Safety Board 
will convene a public hearing at 9:00 a.m. (edt.), on April 19, 1995, 
in the Plaza Ballroom at the Doubletree Hotel National Airport, located 
at 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia, 22202. For more 
information, contact Alan Pollock, Office of Public Affairs, 
Washington, D.C. 20594, telephone (202) 382-0660.

    Dated: April 3, 1995.
Bea Hardesty,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-8461 Filed 4-3-95; 1:17 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
File name: 8413.91.90.50 FluiDyneFP

Request for Exclusion of a particular product from determination of action pursuant to Section 301. Docket number USTR-2018-0025-0001.

Request is for subheading category 8413.91.90.50 which is Pumps for liquids, Parts of pumps, Other. Of hydraulic fluid power pumps.

Product description is parts of hydraulic fluid power pumps.

Value and Quantity of Chinese-origin product purchased in each of the last three years:

2016	    $629,926      12,512 pcs

2017	    $554,778      34,416 pcs

2018	    $715,394      27,857 pcs       as of 9/30/2018

These pump parts are available in other countries including the United States, India, Thailand, France, and Germany amongst others. But none of these other countries has the combination of value pricing and quality as our vendors in China. There is also an significant issue of parts from one manufacturer not fully compatible with pumps from another manufacturer. In the USA these are available at a significantly higher cost and lead times up to several months. 

Since we keep stock of common pumps on the shelf, much of our sales are one or two pumps at a time to small end users such as farmers or equipment repair shops that cannot wait 30 plus weeks for a large US pump manufacturer that also comes at a significant price increase that is a burden on the end user. We use China vendors to private label a less expensive but quality product and reconfigure them to ship the next day to our customers. Our parts are used for converting pumps in stock to the variation the customer needs. This allows us to fill a gap that the large original equipment manufacturers are not interested in filling and requires parts and pumps that have good quality.

The USTR tariff represents a significant and undue hardship on our company and to most of our end customers if we pass this cost on to them.

The China vendors we use are not strategically important to the Chinese industrial program of "Made in China 2025." The pumps use the same technology that was created back in the  1960's and 1970's. The China vendors we purchase from use a mix of old and new standard machining centers developed 10 and 20 years ago without any advanced high end digital controls or robotics. There are no IPR or Intellectual Property Rights as the design patents have long ago expired.

I  Douglas K Eriksen certify that the information provided in the above statements is complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Douglas K. Eriksen

General Manager - FluiDyne Fluid Power
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5388 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide coverage of 

certain technologies and medical devices under the Medicare program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. BALDERSON (for himself and Mr. BUCHANAN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 

addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

coverage of certain technologies and medical devices 

under the Medicare program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Innovation 

5 for Seniors Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5388 IH

1 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF CERTAIN TECHNOLOGIES AND MED2 ICAL DEVICES. 

3 Section 1852(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

4 U.S.C. 1395w–22(a)(3) is amended— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘subpara6 graph (D)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs (D) and 

7 (E)’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(E) COVERAGE OF CERTAIN TECH11 NOLOGIES AND MEDICAL DEVICES.— 

12 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For plan year 

13 2025 and subsequent plan years, in addi14 tion to any supplemental health care bene15 fits otherwise provided under this para16 graph, an MA plan, including a specialized 

17 MA plan for special needs individuals (as 

18 defined in section 1859(b)(6)), may pro19 vide the supplemental benefits described in 

20 clause (ii). 

21 ‘‘(ii) SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS DE22 SCRIBED.— 

23 ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The supple24 mental benefits described in this 

25 clause are as follows: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5388 IH

1 ‘‘(aa) A medical device or 

2 technology that has a national 

3 coverage determination or local 

4 coverage determination under 

5 this title for an indication that is 

6 different than the indication for 

7 such coverage determination. 

8 ‘‘(bb) A technology that does 

9 not fit into another benefit cat10 egory under this title. 

11 ‘‘(II) AUTHORITY TO WAIVE UNI12 FORMITY REQUIREMENTS.—The Sec13 retary may, only with respect to sup14 plemental benefits provided under this 

15 subparagraph, waive the uniformity 

16 requirements under this part, as de17 termined appropriate by the Sec18 retary.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Queen, Chief Financial Officer of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to 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 result of operations of our Company.

|                    |                               | 
|------------------- | ----------------------------- | 
|Date:  June 7, 2013 | /s/ Michael D. Queen          | 
|                    | Michael D. Queen,             | 
|                    | Chief Financial Officer       | 
|                    | (Principal Financial Officer) |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00882-CV

Joseph ZAPATA and Maria Banda,

Appellants

v.

Walter Mortgage Company LLC, 

WALTER MORTGAGE COMPANY LLC, et al.,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-03-48880-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 5, 2014

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

The clerk’s record was due on January 13, 2014. On January 6, 2014, the trial court clerk 

filed a Notification of Late Record stating the clerk’s record would not be filed because appellants

had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and that 

appellants are not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. Accordingly, on January 13, 2014, 

this court ordered appellants to provide written proof to this court no later than January 23, 2014

that either (1) the clerk’s fee had been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; 

or (2) appellants are entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. Our order cautioned 
04-13-00882-CV

appellants that if they failed to file such written proof within the time provided, this appeal would

be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). 

Appellants have not responded; therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

- 2 -