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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen G. Crane, J.), rendered February 5, 1988, convicting defendant, after a bench trial, of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

On May 27, 1987, a security guard found defendant in Macy’s department store three hours after the store had *257closed and the lights had been turned off, with Macy’s merchandise that had no accompanying sales receipts. Defendant stated that he was visiting his sister, who worked in an office located downstairs. However, no offices are located on the lower levels of the store, and defendant did not provide the security guard with his sister’s name. After further questioning, defendant admitted that the merchandise did not belong to him.

On appeal, defendant argues that the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowingly and unlawfully remained in Macy’s, since there was evidence that he was inebriated and had fallen asleep in the store, and since there was no proof that he had defied a lawful order, personally communicated to him by an authorized person, not to remain in the premises. This claim is without merit.

Penal Law § 140.20 provides that, "A person is guilty of burglary in the third degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein.” There is no requirement that a proprietor must personally order someone to leave the store after it has closed, even if that person had entered during store hours. *(See, People v Powell,*58 NY2d 1009, 1010.) In the case at bar, Macy’s sounded warning bells to announce its imminent closing, and conducted an extensive search that included the checking of all floors, bathrooms, and special checkpoints, by security personnel with trained dogs. Thereafter, the lights were turned off. These steps were clear indication that Macy’s was closing for business, and provided sufficient evidence to establish that defendant’s continued presence in the premises was unlawful.

With respect to defendant’s claim that he was intoxicated and therefore unaware that the store had closed, the only evidence presented at trial on this issue came from the prosecution, and it established only that the defendant had alcohol on his breath, not that he was inebriated. *(See, People v Westergard,*69 NY2d 642.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
**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 theperiod ended September 30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”) of CardinalFinancial Corporation (the “Company”), I, Bernard H. Clineburg, Chairman andChief Executive Officer, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to my knowledge:

 

(a)           the Form 10-Qfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 

| Date: November 8, 2008 | /s/ Bernard H. Clineburg             |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                        | Bernard H. Clineburg                 |
|                        | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50304

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALVIN LEON ROUNDTREE, also known as Alvin Roundtree, also known as 

Alvin L. Roundtree,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-554-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alvin Leon Roundtree, federal prisoner # 20242-380, pleaded guilty to 

assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon, 

and he was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. He appeals the district 

court’s denial of his post-judgment motions to compel the Government to 

specific performance.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50304 Document: 00513303142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2015
No. 15-50304

2

Roundtree argues that the Government violated the plea agreement by 

asking the district court to sentence him based on a cross-reference to assault 

with intent to commit murder and attempted murder, offenses to which he did 

not plead guilty, instead of the Guideline for aggravated assault, the offense to 

which he pleaded guilty pursuant to the plea agreement. Roundtree, however,

has not cited, in the district court or this court, any recognized procedural 

vehicle supporting his motions. Because Roundtree has not filed a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion attacking his conviction and sentence, the district court could 

not construe his motions as a § 2255 motion without informing Roundtree of 

its intent to recharacterize his motions as a § 2255 motion, warning Roundtree 

that such a recharacterization would restrict his ability to file a future § 2255 

motion, and giving Roundtree the opportunity to withdraw or amend his 

motions. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382-83 (2003). 

Furthermore, Roundtree has not shown that he was prejudiced by the district 

court’s failure to construe his motions as a § 2255 motion. The district court 

could not construe the motions as a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 

motion because they were neither made by the Government nor made within 

seven days of sentencing. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 35; United States v. Early, 27 

F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). Similarly, the district court could not construe 

the motions as a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion because they were not based 

upon an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. See § 3582(c)(2); Early, 27 

F.3d at 142. 

This appeal is “from the denial of [] meaningless, unauthorized 

motion[s].” Early, 27 F.3d at 142. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

 Case: 15-50304 Document: 00513303142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2015
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

The undersigned, Remy Kozak, the Chief Executive Officer of Power Air Corporation, and Donald M. Prest, the Chief Financial Officer of Power Air Corporation, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Report on Form 10-QSB of Power Air Corporation, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Power Air Corporation.

Date:     August 10, 2007.



| | /s/ Remy Kozak                                                                                 
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Remy Kozak
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)                 
| | /s/ Donald M. Prest                                                                            
| | Donald M. Prest
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Power Air Corporation and will be retained by Power Air Corporation 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-2018-0025-6849

Otis Elevator Co.:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any

formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 14-BS-1101

IN RE: ADRIAN CRONAUER,

Respondent. Board Docket No. 14-BD-075

Bar Registration No. 427503 BDN: 224-13

BEFORE: Glickman and Easterly, Associate Judges; and King, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED - October 9, 2014)

On consideration of the affidavit of Adrian Cronauer, wherein he consents to

disbarment from the Bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to § 12 of Rule XI of the

Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which affidavit

has been filed with the Clerk of this Court, and the report and recommendation of the

Board on Professional Responsibility, it is this 9 day of October 2014,

th

ORDERED that the said Adrian Cronauer is hereby disbarred by consent,

effective forthwith. The effective date of respondent’s disbarment shall run, for

reinstatement purposes, from the date respondent files his affidavit pursuant to D.C. Bar

Rule XI, § 14 (g).

The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed

or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon written consent of

the respondent.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the

Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him notice

of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which set forth certain rights and

responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply therewith.

PER CURIAM
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5528 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To require the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget conduct a review to determine the impact of 

the lowest price technically acceptable source selection 

process on national security, and for other purposes. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5528 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe and Smart Fed3 eral Purchasing Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE LOW5 EST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE 

6 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS ON NATIONAL 

7 SECURITY. 

8 (a) REVIEW.—The Director shall review the procure9 ment management practices of Defense and Civilian agen10 cies to determine whether the provisions of section 

11 15.101–2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation have cre12 ated any national security risk. 

13 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the en14 actment of this Act, the Director shall submit a report 

15 on the results of the review under subsection (a) to— 

16 (1) the Committee on Oversight and Account17 ability of the House of Representatives; and 

18 (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and 

19 Governmental Affairs of the Senate. 

20 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

21 (1) DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN AGENCY.—The 

22 term ‘‘Defense and Civilian agency’’ has the mean23 ing given the term ‘‘agency’’ in section 133 of title 

24 41, United States Code. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 5528 RFS

1 (2) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means 

2 the Director of the Office of Management and Budg3 et. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 29, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
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-2018-0025-5900

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9699]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Resources and Services Administration


Notice of Filing of Annual Report of Federal Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to section 13 of Public Law 
92-463, the Annual Report for the following Health Resources and 
Service Administration's Federal Advisory Committees have been filed 
with the Library of Congress:

Departments of Family Medicine Review Committee
Faculty Development Review Committee
Graduate Training in Family Medicine Review Committee
Predoctoral Training Review Committee
Residency Training Review Committee

    Copies are available to the public for inspection at the Library of 
Congress Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room, Room 1026, 
Thomas Jefferson Building, Second Street and Independence Avenue SE., 
Washington, D.C. Copies may be obtained from: Ms. Sherry Whipple, 
Executive Secretary, Room 9A-27, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone (301) 443-6874.

    Dated: April 14, 1995.
 Jackie E. Baum,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, HRSA.
[FR Doc. 95-9699 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard A. Kielty, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 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:  February 13, 2007

/s/ Richard A. Kielty
---------------------
Richard A. Kielty
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### John FARR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41327.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 22, 1989.

John É. Craig, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before NUGENT, C.J., and FENNER and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial without evidentiary hearing of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Firstwave Technologies, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
on Form S-8 (No. 333-112625) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-103903) of Firstwave
Technologies, Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2004 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Firstwave Technologies, Inc. as of December 31,
2003 and 2002 and the related consolidated statements of operations and
statements of changes in shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003 which report appears
herein.

/s/ Cherry,Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.
Atlanta Georgia
March 26, 2004

---

---
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-2018-0025-6274

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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7384

DONALD HERRINGTON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of D.O.C.,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00215-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: December 15, 2022

Before KING, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Herrington, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7384 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Herrington seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Herrington has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Herrington’s motions to 

supplement his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7384 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/15/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

GABRIEL BRADLEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-1984 December 6, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Stephen Whyte, Judge. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, SMITH, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.