alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

816 

KA 11-02403 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANIEL W. BROTZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (NEAL D. FUTERFAS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (DAVID P. DYS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J.

Doran, J.), rendered October 23, 2009. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen

property in the fourth degree (six counts) and identity theft in the

third degree (six counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of six counts each of criminal possession of stolen

property in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 165.45 [2]) and identity

theft in the third degree (§ 190.78 [1]), defendant contends that

County Court violated CPL 380.50 (1) by not affording him an

opportunity to speak at sentencing about the restitution portion of

his sentence. Because defendant did not request an opportunity to be

heard about restitution, the payment of which was contemplated by the

plea agreement, and did not object to the order of restitution on that

or indeed any other ground, his contention is unpreserved for our

review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McGinn, 96 AD3d 977, 978, lv

denied 19 NY3d 998; People v Sharp, 56 AD3d 1230, 1231, lv denied 11

NY3d 900), and we decline to exercise our power to review that

contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see

CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Entered: July 19, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 419

For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDING AND PURPOSE.

4 (a) FINDING.—The Congress finds that Benchmark

5 Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, satisfactorily per6 formed emergency work after the Northridge earthquake,

7 but has not been reimbursed as a result of a technicality

8 under California State law.

9 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to fairly

10 compensate Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the work for

11 which, except for the technicality under California State

12 law, it would otherwise have been paid under the provi-
2

•HR 419 IH

1 sions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emer2 gency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121).

3 SEC. 2. PAYMENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the

5 date of enactment of this Act, the director of the Federal

6 Emergency Management Agency shall pay to Benchmark

7 Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, an amount equal

8 to the total amount owed to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.,

9 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the

10 State of California to compensate Benchmark Rail Group,

11 Inc., for the emergency work and services performed at

12 the request of the Southern California Regional Rail Au13 thority, to the extent that such work and services are oth14 erwise eligible for reimbursement under the Robert T.

15 Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act (42

16 U.S.C. 5121). The payment shall be made from funds ap17 propriated to implement such Act.

18 (b) DEOBLIGATION OF FUNDS.—The Federal Emer19 gency Management Agency shall deobligate an equal

20 amount to that obligated previously for payment to the

21 State of California to cover the costs of work performed

22 for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority by

23 Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., after the Northridge earth-
3

•HR 419 IH

1 quake which would have been eligible for reimbursement

2 under such Act.

Æ
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131596 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131596 COA: 266318 Muskegon CC: 94-037346-FH TODD BRYANT LEMIEUX, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e May 17, 2006 of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing en titlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 481 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 481

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections 
       to maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 1995

 Mrs. Fowler (for herself, Mr. Foley, Mr. Goss, Mr. Mica, Mr. Peterson 
 of Florida, Mrs. Thurman, and Mr. Callahan) introduced the following 
         bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to make technical corrections 
       to maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.

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

SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS TO MAPS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall, before the 
end of the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, make such corrections to the maps described in subsection (b) as 
are necessary to ensure that--
            (1) depictions of areas on those maps are consistent with 
        the depictions of areas appearing on the maps entitled 
        ______________, dated ______________, and on file with the 
        Secretary; and
            (2) the Coastal Barrier Resources System does not include 
        any area that, on the day before the date of the enactment of 
        this Act, was part of unit Q01 of that System.
    (b) Maps Described.--The maps described in this subsection are maps 
that--
            (1) are included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal 
        Barrier Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990; and
            (2) relate to the following units of the Coastal Barrier 
        Resources System: P04A, P05, P05A, P08, P10, P11A, P18, P25, 
        FL-90.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1





STATEMENT OF MANAGING DIRECTOR


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Alan Schaffner, Managing Director of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-Q Report for the six months ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Alan Schaffner


Alan Schaffner, Managing Director


Dated: August 23, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0506 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. EDWARD JEFFREY ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 1 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 27 2023

02/27/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0506
---

|Exhibit 32.1                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as
      Adopted Pursuant to
|Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002                                

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MASS Petroleum Inc.,
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Gary Chayko, 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 my knowledge:

|1 | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  |                                                                                                                                                                 
|2 | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

By: /s/Gary ChaykoGary
ChaykoPresident and Chief Executive Officer

October 20, 2009

---
DENIED and Opinion Filed June 7, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00464-CV 

IN RE ASHLEY NICOLE HORNE, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-03505 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

In her April 18, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator sought relief from 

the trial court’s denial of her demand for jury trial and certain aspects of the trial 

court’s temporary orders. In a memorandum opinion and order dated April 24, 2024, 

the Court denied relator’s requested relief. On April 25, 2024, relator filed a Motion 

for Rehearing and Leave to Amend Petition and an amended mandamus petition. 

We deny the motion for rehearing, grant the motion for leave to amend 

petition, withdraw our opinion and vacate our order of April 24, 2024, and issue this 

new memorandum opinion and order of this date in their place. 
 –2– 

On original submission, the Court denied relief because relator failed to 

provide a certification that satisfied the requirements of rule 52.3(j), and we noted 

that relator had omitted a statement of the case and did not support her statement of 

facts with citations to competent evidence included in the appendix or record. 

Relator moved for rehearing and filed an amended petition that complies with the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and seeks the same relief as the original petition. 

Because relator had removed the technical grounds on which the Court’s 

memorandum opinion rested, the Court requested a response to the motion for 

rehearing and the amended petition. Real party in interest filed a response, and 

relator filed a reply. We now consider the merits of relator’s amended petition. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. 

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s amended petition and the record before us, 

we conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). We also lift the stay issued by this Court’s May 17, 2024 

Order. 

240464F.P05 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE
1

Wells Fargo Bank and Argent Mortgage were dismissed by previous orders of the Court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MELVIN CHRISTIAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13337

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

WELLS FARGO BANK, ARGENT

MORTGAGE, and THE COUNTY 

OF WAYNE,

Defendants.

______________________________/

JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Wayne County’s Motion for Summary Judgment

and Dismissal.1

 For the reasons set forth in an opinion issued this date,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Wayne County’s motion

is granted and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Date: July 16, 2010

Copies to:

Melvin Christian

11395 Vaughan St.

Detroit, MI 48228

Margaret M. Flanagan, Esq.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4301

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that elected tax

collectors shall be treated as self-employed for certain purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Mr. GOODLING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that elected tax collectors shall be treated as self-employed for certain purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF ELECTED TAX COLLECTORS.

4 (a) DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES FROM GROSS IN5 COME.—Paragraph (2) of section 62(a) of the Internal

6 Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross income)

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub8 paragraph:

9 ‘‘(C) CERTAIN EXPENSES OF ELECTED

10 TAX COLLECTORS.—The deductions allowed by
2

•HR 4301 IH

1 section 162 which consist of expenses paid or

2 incurred by an elected tax collector in connec3 tion with the performance by him of tax collec4 tion services as an employee. For purposes of

5 the preceding sentence, the term ‘elected tax

6 collector’ means any individual who is elected to

7 collect county, local, and school district taxes

8 within such individual’s electoral district and

9 who, as such, is an employee.’’

10 (b) ELIGIBILITY FOR KEOGH PLAN IF NOT PARTICI11 PATING IN PUBLIC RETIREMENT PLAN.—Paragraph (2)

12 of section 401(c) of such Code is amended by redesignat13 ing the subparagraph relating to income from disposition

14 of certain property as subparagraph (B) and by inserting

15 after such subparagraph the following new subparagraph:

16 ‘‘(C) INCOME OF ELECTED TAX COLLEC17 TORS.—For purposes of this section, in the case

18 of an elected tax collector (as defined in section

19 62(a)(2)(C)) who is not a participant (as such

20 a collector) in a retirement system of a State or

21 local government, the term ‘earned income’ in22 cludes the amount by which the individual’s net

23 earnings from self-employment (as defined in

24 section 1402(a)) would increase if the individual
3

•HR 4301 IH

1 were not an employee with respect to the per2 formance of tax collection services.’’

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

5 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
**Exhibit21**

** **

List of Subsidiaries

 
| **Subsidiary**                             | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                       |       |                              |
| **National Wireless Holdings Inc.**        | ** ** | **Delaware**                      |
| ** **                                 | ** ** | ** **                        |
| Anagram  International Communications Ltd. |       | Delaware                          |
|                                       |       |                              |
| Electronic  Network Systems, Inc.          |       | Delaware                          |
|                                       |       |                              |
| TLC  Productions, Inc.                     |       | Florida                           |
|                                       |       |                              |
| NW  Media, LLC                             |       | Delaware                          |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT (11) - STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA EARNINGS PER SHARE 

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 

                                              1996              1995              1994
                                          -----------        ----------        ----------
<S>                                        <C>               <C>               <C>
Average number of shares outstanding...    27,655,964        23,340,706        22,362,986

Net effect of common and common 
equivalent shares issued in an 
initial public offering under
SAB 83.................................         -                 -                     0
                                         ------------      ------------      ------------
Total                                      27,655,964        23,340,706        22,362,896
                                         ============      ============      ============

Net loss                                 $(26,593,178)     $(19,660,458)     $(27,932,681)
                                         ============      ============      ============

Net loss per share                       $      (0.96)     $      (0.84)     $      (1.25)
                                         ============      ============      ============


</TABLE>

Note:  Options are anti-dilutive for all periods presented as the Company
incurred net operating losses from operations.  Under Staff Accounting Bulletin
Number 83 (SAB 83), the effects of common and common equivalent shares issued
within one year of an initial public offering are considered outstanding for all
years presented, even if their effect is anti-dilutive in periods where a net
loss occurred.
#### The People of the State of New York v. John F. Ahearn.

Motion granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4284 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4284

                     To prohibit certain abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1996

Mr. Hoyer (for himself, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Abercrombie, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. 
Sawyer, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Bentsen, Ms. McCarthy, Mr. Dooley of California, 
Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Frost, Mr. Scott, Mr. Moran, 
 and Mr. Richardson) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                      to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                     To prohibit certain abortions.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Late Term Abortion Restriction 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ABORTIONS.

    (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful, in or affecting interstate 
or foreign commerce, knowingly to perform an abortion after the fetus 
has become viable.
    (b) Exception.--This section does not prohibit any abortion 
performed if, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, the 
abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert 
serious adverse health consequences to the woman.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


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








The undersigned, Juhani Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer, and Trupti Mehta, Principal Financial Officer, of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2011 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(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 Registrant.





Dated:  August 10, 2011


By:  /s/ Juhani Taskinen


Juhani Taskinen


Chief Executive Officer





August 10, 2011


By:  /s/Trupti Mehta


Trupti Mehta


Principal Financial Officer





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

 

Order Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 128453 Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 128453 

 COA: 252733 
 Wayne CC: 03-008071-01 

CARL DONNELL LONG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 

2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are 

not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0919 

I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 28, 2005
 

Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 Ma 

y 21, 2021

Order 

Clerk

May 21, 2021

162818(66)

LAURA FRIZZO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 162818

v COA: 347361

Iron CC: 17-005475-CZ

CITY OF IRON RIVER and DAVID THAYER,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time 

for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer 

submitted on May 18, 2021, is accepted as timely filed.