alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Manuel Rivera et al., Respondents, v Carol Revzin, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found that defendant, who rented rooms in her single-family home to unrelated persons, made a business use of the premises and thus did not fall within the exception set forth in the statute for "owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for *897but do not direct or control the work” (Labor Law § 240 [1]). We disagree with the court’s reasoning and result.

Since the Legislature did not define the phrase "one and two-family dwellings”, we accord the words their "ordinary and accepted meaning” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94). It is undisputed that defendant’s home is structurally a single-family residence, and has been used as such. It has four bedrooms *lVi*bathrooms, an attic, a basement, one kitchen, one furnace and one water heater. No structural changes were made to the house in order to establish separate living quarters for tenants. We conclude, therefore, that defendant falls within the statutory exception. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment must be denied and defendant’s cross motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) must be granted. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—partial summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Teresa L. Martin, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of FGBC Bancshares, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          (a) Designated such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          (b) [Omitted];          (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2007              /s/ Teresa L. Martin   Teresa L. Martin   Principal Financial Officer
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                          ____________________________

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

       Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): November 1, 1998


                                 CITIGROUP INC.

               (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


       DELAWARE                         1-9924                52-1568099
(State or other jurisdiction  (Commission File Number)      (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)                                   Identification Number)


399 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, NEW YORK                              10043
(Address of principal executive offices)                      (Zip Code)


Registrant's telephone number,
including area code:                                       (212) 559-1000


                                 NOT APPLICABLE
         (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)


<PAGE>

Item 5. Other Events.

      On November 1, 1998,  Citigroup Inc. issued a press release announcing the
integration of its corporate business and certain related executive matters. The
relevant portions of that press release are attached hereto as Exhibit 99.01.

Item 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.

     (c)  Exhibits:

Exhibit No.    Description
-----------    -----------

99.01          Press Release of Citigroup Inc. dated November 1, 1998


                                       2


<PAGE>

                               SIGNATURES

      Pursuant to the  requirements of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed  on its  behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.




                                        CITIGROUP INC.
                                        (Registrant)


                                        By: /s/ Irwin R. Ettinger
                                            ---------------------
                                            Irwin R. Ettinger
                                            Chief Accounting Officer


Dated: November 2, 1998
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Earl Tobey, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), rendered March 13, 1987, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the failure of the Trial Judge to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of rape in the third degree (see, Penal Law § 130.25 [2]) constituted reversible error. We do not agree.

In order to demonstrate that he was entitled to a lesser included offense charge, the defendant was required to show that "in all circumstances, not only in those presented in the particular case, it is impossible to commit the greater crime without concomitantly, by the same conduct, committing the lesser offense” *(People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61, 63). Inasmuch as it is possible to commit the crime of rape in the first degree without concomitantly committing the crime of rape in the third degree, the Trial Judge did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a charge on rape in the third degree. Moreover, there was no evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the crime of rape in the third degree under Penal Law § 130.25 (2).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brett R. Clouette, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of two counts of assault in the third degree. Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and reckless operation and, while at the police station, he was handcuffed to the wall when he refused to be seated. At trial, the police officers testified that, while transporting defendant to the county jail, he assaulted them. Defendant’s testimony was that he was protecting himself from police brutality. The court charged the defense of justification with respect to the two counts of assault in the second degree but refused to so charge with respect to the two counts of assault in the third degree. Defendant was acquitted of the two counts of assault in the second degree and argues on appeal that the court erred in failing to charge the defense of justification with respect to assault in the third degree. The People concede that justification can be an appropriate defense regardless of the *mens rea (see, People v McManus,*67 NY2d 541, 547) and that the court erred in refusing defendant’s request to charge on the ground that justification could not apply to reckless conduct. They argue for the first time on appeal, however, that the court should not have charged justification at all because it was not warranted based on the proof. Because identical conduct was alleged in counts charging both intentional and reckless assault, justification was equally applicable to both. There was testimony in this record from which the jury could have believed that defendant’s actions were justified (Penal Law § 35.15; *see, People v Torre,*42 NY2d 1036, 1037). A new trial on the counts charging assault in the third degree is required.

The court did not err in permitting the prosecutor to *816question defendant about his civil lawsuit. Defendant failed to preserve the issue raised on appeal with respect to the charge and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.—assault, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CONCORD HEALTHCARE GROUP

D/B/A MESA HILLS WOUND CARE

CENTER

,

APPELLANT

,

V.

JOHN G. TAYLOR

, D.P.M.,

APPELLEE

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 1 5 0

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6

o f El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2016DCV4310 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Concord Healthcare Group d/b/a Mesa Hills Wound Care Center , has filed a n

unopposed motion to dismiss its appeal because it no longer desires to prosecute the appeal

. See

T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(a). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Further, we grant Appellant’s

motion to expedite issuance of the mandate. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the party

incurring same

. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.1(d).

November 8, 2017

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
   FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF PORTSMOUTH 
   SQUARE, INC. SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-QSB REPORT FOR THE QUARTERLY
   PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
   REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-QSB REPORT.
<CIK> 0000079661
<NAME> PORTSMOUTH SQUARE, INC.
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           47309
<SECURITIES>                                   2286132
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2428348
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4160351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1240970
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       2092300
<OTHER-SE>                                      827081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4160351
<SALES>                                         606400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                707718
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                149599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 558119
<INCOME-TAX>                                    193296
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             364823
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    364823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



I, George S. Wiedemann, President and Chief Executive Officer of iDine Rewards Network Inc., certify to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2003 (the Periodic Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and



(2) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of iDine Rewards Network Inc.



Dated: August 14, 2003



|/s/ George S. Wiedemann              
|-------------------------------------
|George S. Wiedemann                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.1





Frontier Communications


3 High Ridge Park


Stamford, CT 06905


203.614.5600


www.frontier.com







Frontier Communications Corporation to Participate in Investor Conference




STAMFORD, Conn. – November 9, 2011 –Frontier Communications Corporation (NYSE:FTR) is scheduled to participate in theCiti 2011 North American Credit Conference in New York, NY.  David Whitehouse, Senior Vice President and Treasurer, is scheduled to present on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 at 1:45pm Eastern Time.





A live webcast of the presentation will be available at www.frontier.com on the Investor Relations page under “Webcasts & Presentations.”








About Frontier Communications


Frontier Communications Corporation (NYSE: FTR) offers voice, High-Speed Internet, satellite video, wireless Internet data access, data security solutions, bundled offerings, specialized bundles for small businesses and home offices, and advanced business communications for medium and large businesses in 27 states and with approximately 15,250 employees based entirely in the USA.  More information is available at www.frontier.com and www.frontier.com/ir.











INVESTOR CONTACTS:


MEDIA CONTACT:David Whitehouse
Gregory Lundberg

Brigid SmithSVP & Treasurer
Assistant Treasurer, Investor Relations

AVP Corp. Comm.(203) 614-5708
(203) 614-5044

(203) 614-5042david.whitehouse@ftr.com
greg.lundberg@ftr.com

brigid.smith@ftr.com










###
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7623

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MELDAMION ANTOINE HUGULEY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00205

- WO

- 1; 1:19

- cv 00524

- WO

- LPA )

Submitted : April 24, 2023 Decided: June 16, 2023

Before RICHARDSON , Circuit Judge , and KEENAN and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Meldamion Antoine Huguley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7623 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/16/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Meldamion Antoine Huguley seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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 demon strating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must de monstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion 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 Huguley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny as moot Huguley’s motion for abeyance. 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: 21-7623 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/16/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Helen NAWN and Husband, Matthew Nawn, Appellants, v. Fanny MEDNICK and Marilyn Mednick, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

March 9, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1954.

Affirmed.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 26, 2012

h0319 

# Order

March 26, 2012

144205

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144205 COA: 305942 KATHRYN ELIZABETH HAVENAAR , Cass CC: 10-010189-FH Defendant-Appellant.

___________________ _________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00711

- CR

Jose CASTELLANOS

- AGUILERA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR10449

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

SIGNED December 9, 2015.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice
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 this quarterly report of Possis Medical, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Robert G. Dutcher, Chief
Executive Officer of Possis Medical, Inc., 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; and

     2.   The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Possis Medical, Inc.




Date: June 8, 2007      By:  /s/ Robert G. Dutcher
                           ----------------------------------------------------
                           ROBERT G. DUTCHER
                           Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       26
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Craig Cawthon, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court’s failure to give a circumstantial evidence charge requires that the judgment be modified by reversing defendant’s conviction of first degree rape and granting a new trial on that count of the indictment *(see, People v Ball,*162 AD2d 989 [involving the appeal of the codefendant]). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J.—robbery, first degree.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KIREE GOLDEN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 434 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barry Peters, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), rendered March 18, 1988, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Early in the evening on December 12, 1975, the defendant attempted to rob the complainant at gunpoint in the hallway of an abandoned building in Brooklyn. Immediately after-wards, police officers apprehended the defendant in one of two remaining apartments, hiding fully clothed in the bathtub behind a shower curtain. He was thereafter identified at the scene by the complainant. At the trial in 1977, the defendant’s fiancée and a friend of the defendant produced alibi testimony that the defendant had been with them all evening in the apartment. During jury deliberations, the defendant absconded. He was thereafter convicted of attempted robbery in the first degree. He was not apprehended until 1988, when sentence was imposed upon the 1977 conviction.

On appeal, defendant raises several issues which were not the subject of specific objections at trial and which are therefore unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Colavito,*70 NY2d 996; *People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858; *People v Fleming,*70 NY2d 947; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467).

Furthermore, the defendant’s contentions as to errors in the court’s instructions to the jury regarding his alibi defense and failure to testify are also not preserved for appellate review since objections were not timely made *(see, People v Autry,*75 NY2d 836, 839; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467, 471; *People v*
      *494
      *McLucas,*15 NY2d 167, 170-171). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.