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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.), rendered November 10, 1988, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and sentenced him to a prison term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The defendant and others stabbed to death a man with whom the defendant had been living, exchanging sexual favors for financial support. Several days after the crime, the defendant enlisted the aid of his young girlfriend and two others, who returned to the victim’s apartment while the defendant was in the hospital and attempted to destroy the apartment and the victim’s body by arson.

The trial court properly declined to place before the jury the question of whether or not two of those friends, who testified against the defendant at trial, were accomplices. Neither of these witnesses participated in the murder itself in any way, and one of them did not even learn of the murder until days later. Although they attempted to conceal the defendant’s crime, an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice for purposes of the corroboration requirement *(People v Torres,*160 AD2d 746).

Evidence of threats made by the defendant against one of the People’s witnesses, although evidence of prior bad acts, was admissible on the issue of consciousness of guilt *(People v Wang,*140 AD2d 567, 570, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 926). Evidence of consciousness of guilt, while weak, is admissible *(People v Ali,*146 AD2d 636, 638).

Defendant seeks reversal on the ground of allegedly im-

*358proper remarks made by the prosecutor on summation. With only one unfocused exception, there were no objections to any of the prosecutor’s remarks at issue. Accordingly, defendant’s arguments as to the prosecutor’s summation are not preserved for review by this court, and we decline to reach them. Were we to reach them, in the interest of justice, we would find that any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(People v Briggs,*155 AD2d 306, *Iv denied*75 NY2d 867).

The sentence was not excessive, considering that defendant brutally murdered a person who trusted him and supported him financially, instructed friends to destroy evidence of his crime by burning a residential apartment building, and showed no remorse for any of his actions *(see, People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7174

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOEY ANTRONE CARROLL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00048-KDB-DSC-4)

Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: November 29, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joey Antrone Carroll, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joey Antrone Carroll appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. After reviewing the record, we 

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carroll’s motion. See 

United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review), 

cert. denied, No. 21-5624, 2021 WL 4733616 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2021); see also United States 

v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 189 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court order denying 

compassionate release where “[t]he court’s rationale . . . was both rational and legitimate 

under [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]” and “the court sufficiently explained its denial to allow for 

meaningful appellate review” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We therefore affirm the 

district court’s order. United States v. Carroll, No. 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-DSC-4 (W.D.N.C. 

entered July 27, 2020 & filed July 28, 2020). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of VeriFone Holdings, Inc.;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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):
   By:
    /s/  Barry ZwarensteinBarry ZwarensteinExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: August 19, 2008
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

I, Brent M. Cook, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge, the Annual Report of Raser Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Raser Technologies, Inc.



|                     |  |                                                                    
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2009 |  | /s/    BRENT M.
COOK                                               
|                     |  | Brent M. Cook Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

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

I, Martin F. Petersen, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of Raser Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Raser Technologies, Inc.



|                     |  |                                                                                        
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2009 |  | /s/    MARTIN F.
PETERSEN                                                              
|                     |  | Martin F. Petersen Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of each of the written statements above required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Raser Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Raser Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21165-21166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11570]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-1145-000]


Alternate Power Source Inc., Notice of Issuance of Order

May 3, 1996.
    On February 23, 1996, as supplemented March 20, 1996, Alternate 
Power Source Inc. (APSI) submitted for filing a rate schedule under 
which APSI will engage in wholesale electric power and energy 
transactions as a marketer. APSI also requested waiver of various 
Commission regulations. In particular, APSI requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by APSI.
    On April 30, 1996, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:

[[Page 21166]]

    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by APSI should file a motion to intervene 
or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 
and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, APSI is authorized 
to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a 
guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of 
another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some 
lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of APSI's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is May 30, 1996.
    Copies of the full text of the order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11570 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Modification to Compensation of Directors



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 Compensation Summary Sheet 
 for the Board of Directors of 
 AK Steel Holding Corporation 
 The
Board of Directors of the Company has increased the annual retainer to be paid to directors from $80,000 to $90,000, increased the retainer fee for the chair of the audit committee from $5,000 to $15,000, and increased the retainer fee for the chair
of the compensation committee from $5,000 to $12,500. These changes were all effective July 1, 2006.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual
Report on Form 20-F of Rediff.com India Limited (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Swasti Bhowmick, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 represents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 31, 2015



| | By: | /s/ Swasti Bhowmick          
| | --- | -----------------------------
| |     | Swasti Bhowmick              
| |     | Chief Financial Officer      
| |     | (Principal Financial Officer)



A signed original of this
written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3648

___________

Karen R. Rosby, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Unum Life Insurance Company of *

America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 13, 2010

 Filed: August 24, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Karen Rosby appeals the district court’s1

 affirmance of Unum Life Insurance

Company of America’s (Unum’s) termination of long-term disability benefits in this

action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

After careful de novo review of the record, we conclude that Unum, the

administrator of Rosby’s employer-based disability plan, did not abuse its discretion
-2-

in terminating Rosby’s disability benefits because its decision was supported by

substantial evidence that Rosby could perform the material and substantial duties of

her job, as detailed in the district court’s opinion. See Norris v. Citibank, N.A.

Disability Plan (501), 308 F.3d 880, 883-84 (8th Cir. 2002) (appellate standard of

review and applicable standard for reviewing plan administrator’s decision under

ERISA). We also decline to remand based on a Social Security Administration

decision that was not part of the administrative record or binding on Unum, see

Wakkinen v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 531 F.3d 575, 583 (8th Cir. 2008) (examining only

evidence before plan administrator when benefits decision was made); Rutledge v.

Liberty Life Assurance Co., 481 F.3d 655, 660-61 (8th Cir. 2007) (ERISA plan

administrator not bound by Social Security Administration decision), or based on

Rosby’s dissatisfaction with counsel’s assistance, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d

536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of

counsel in civil case).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Brent M. Cook, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 on Form 10-K/A of Raser Technologies, Inc.; and

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.*



|                     |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: April 21, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/ BRENT M. COOK      
|                     |  |  |  | Brent M. Cook,         
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



|* | Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the form of certification are omitted because this Amendment No.1 on Form 10-K/A does not include the information as to which such paragraphs relate.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ZHAIRE N. DEKEYSER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 227 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5946 

To prohibit the diminution of the District of Columbia National Guard. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 12, 2023 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill 

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the diminution of the District of Columbia 

National Guard. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF DIMINUTION OF THE DIS4 TRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL GUARD. 

5 Neither the Secretary of Defense nor the Com6 manding General of District of Columbia National Guard 

7 may transfer personnel or equipment of the District of Co8 lumbia National Guard to— 

9 (1) a unit of the Department of Defense; or 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5946 IH

1 (2) the National Guard of another State (as 

2 such term is defined in section 901 of title 32, 

3 United States Code). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph M. Liuzzo, Jr., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The court and the prosecutor fully complied with the terms of the plea agreement and, therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. The record fully supports the conclusion that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary, and that defendant understood the nature of the charges against him *(see, People v Moore,*71 NY2d 1002, 1005; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 16). The sentence is not harsh and excessive and we decline to disturb it. We have examined the remaining issues raised by defendant and find them lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court, Adams, J.—attempted intimidation of witness, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3464

___________ Anthony McFarlin, * * Plaintiff/Appellant, * * v. * * McDonnell Douglas Corporation, * * Defendant/Appellee. *

---------------------------------- * * Anthony McFarlin, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Plaintiff/Appellant, * District of Missouri. * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Jeff Ashley, Individually and in his * capacity as Supervisor, McDonnell * Douglas; McDonnell Douglas * Corporation, * * Defendants/Appellees. *

---------------------------------- * * Anthony McFarlin, * * Plaintiff/Appellant, * * v. * *McF arlinalso sued his union and a fellow employee, but has abandoned hi s 1 appeal from the summary judgment dismissing his claims against them. -2- McDonnell Douglas Corporation; * Local Lodge 837 B, International * Association of Machinists and * Aerospace Workers, * * Defendants/Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 23, 1997 Filed: June 9, 1997

___________ Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Anthony McFarlin was fired by McDonnell Douglas Corporation in 1993, later rehired, and then terminated in 1994. McFarlin sued, claiming that McDon nell Douglas had d iscriminated against him on the basis of his race in violation of Title VII of th e Civil Rights Act

of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Missouri Hu man Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 213.010 et. seq.; and state common law. The 1 district court granted summary judgment in favor of McDonnel l Douglas, and McFarlin appeals. A careful re view of the record shows that McFarlin did not make a sufficient showing to withstand the motion for summary judgment. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The judgment is therefore affirmed.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)





I,
      Michael A. Reisner, Director, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
      Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of ICON Capital Corp.,
      the Manager of the Registrant in connection with the Quarterly Report of ICON
      Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC (the "LLC") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
      September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the "Quarterly Report") certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
                Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                13(a) or
                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m);
                and





2.
            The
                information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
                all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                the LLC.








*Dated:
      December 11, 2007*





*/s/Michael A. Reisner*


Michael
      A. Reisner


Director,
      Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
      Manager


(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)


ICON
      Capital Corp.


Manager
      of ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC
#### Eva Barrett LOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 0592-85.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1986.

Appeal from 178th District Court, Harris County; Dan E. Walton, J.

Prior report: Tex.App., 686 S.W.2d 304 (1985).

On appellant’s petition for discretionary review: judgment of the Court of Appeals affirmed.

CLINTON, TEAGUE and MILLER, JJ., dissent.
Order entered November 21, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-17-01293-CV

IN RE TOYOTA MOTO R CORPORATION AND TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U. S.A, INC., Relators

Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-15296



### ORDER Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Boatright

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of

mandamus and LIFT the Court’s November 9, 2017 stay of both the November 2, 2017

discovery order and the deposition of relators’ corporate witnesses. We ORDER relators to bear

the costs, if any, of this original proceeding.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE