alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*George Moylan, Defendant.

County Court, Bronx County,

November 21, 1956.

*George Moylan,*defendant in person.

No appearance for plaintiff.

William Lyman, J.

After pleading guilty to burglary, third degree and to an information charging him with a prior felony conviction the defendant was committed by a former Judge of this court, on June 21, 1951, to the Elmira Reception Center for a term 5 to 10 years. He now seeks to have furnished to him, as a poor person, pursuant to sections 198 and 199 of the Civil Practice Act, the pleading and sentencing minutes, as well as a copy of the indictment. The defendant is not entitled to the relief sought. In the first place the sections of the Civil Practice Act relied upon have no applicability to criminal cases. Moreover the sole statute governing free minutes, in criminal cases, is section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is limited only to capital cases involving indigent defendants to whom counsel has been assigned. The minutes requested in the instant case may only be furnished upon payment of the legal charges therefor to the recording stenographer. As to the demand for a. *748copy of the indictment, it appears that section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the governing statute and the provisions thereof must be complied with before the accused pleads to the indictment, otherwise he is deemed to have waived his rights thereunder. This motion is denied.
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 Portsmouth Square, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I David T. Nguyen, Treasurer and Controller of the Company, serving
as Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: November 14, 2003                         /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                                ----------------------------
                                                David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                                and Controller (serving as
                                                Chief Financial Officer)




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


                                    CITICORP

               (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)


       DELAWARE                         1-5738                06-1515595
(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., of which Citicorp is a wholly owned
subsidiary,  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.

      Citicorp hereby amends its Schedule 14A, Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
dated June 16, 1998,  filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on June
17, 1998  pursuant to Section 14(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, by
deleting in its entirety the section under the heading "Travelers Group Inc. and
Citicorp Unaudited Pro Forma Condensed  Combined  Financial  Statements" and, to
the extent such information relates to filings made by Travelers Group Inc., the
section under the heading "Where You Can Find More Information."

     (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.




                                        CITICORP
                                        (Registrant)


                                        By: /s/ Roger W. Trupin
                                            -------------------
                                            Roger W. Trupin
                                            Vice President
                                            and Controller


Dated: November 2, 1998
#### Nese Pipitone et al., Respondents, v Julian Zweig et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered November 7, 1988, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs’ motion for consolidation and change of venue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

For five years, plaintiff Nese Pipitone’s doctors allegedly misdiagnosed a problem with her right-hand ring finger. Afterwards, she was diagnosed as having epitheloid sarcoma, a life-threatening form of cancer. In December 1987, plaintiff underwent right forequarter amputation which removed her right shoulder, arm and hand from her neck to the rib cage.

Suit was commenced in Nassau County, situs of plaintiffs’ residence. Three years later, plaintiff changed legal counsel, and a second action was instituted in New York County against various other defendants. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff moved to consolidate the actions, to change venue in action No. 1 to New York County and to amend the caption. The motion was granted and defendants Zweig and Parkway appeal.

The consolidation was proper. Both actions seek damages for the same injury. Both allege misdiagnosis, incorrect treatment and negligence. All the defendant doctors involved are alleged to have acted in a similar incorrect manner, treating the finger problem as a lesion instead of as a cancerous condition.

The change of venue was also correct. The convenience of all material witnesses dictates New York County as the proper venue. All the defendants and nonparty witnesses in the second action work in that county. Similarly, apart from her brief period of treatment in Nassau and Queens, all of plaintiff Nese Pipitone’s remaining treatment was rendered in New York County *(see, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v Nuttall Gear Corp.,*147 AD2d 405; *Morales v Muccio,*145 AD2d 340).

Moreover, while the first action was properly commenced in Nassau (situs of plaintiffs’ residence), moving that action to New York County would hardly inconvenience the defendants in that action, all of whom work in Queens County, which is contiguous to both Nassau and New York Counties. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Asch, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
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 Annual Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, 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:





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.








/S/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzChief Executive OfficerAugust 18, 2010
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2704EM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Thomas Brandon Bayer, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: November 16, 1998

Filed: November 30, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Brandon Bayer appeals the sentence imposed on him following the

revocation of his supervised release. Because Bayer raised no objection to the district

court's sentence, we apply the test of plain error review. See United States v.

Prendergast, 4 F.3d 560, 561-62 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). The record shows the

district court sentenced Bayer within the suggested guidelines imprisonment range,and

well within the statutory maximum, thus we find no error in the district court's analysis,

plain or otherwise. Additionally, Bayer's pro se motions for reconsideration of his

sentence went beyond the district court's authority to correct a sentence for an
-2-

arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(c). Accordingly,

we affirm the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6985 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the private business 

use requirements for bonds issued for lead service line replacement projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2022 

Mr. KILDEE (for himself, Mr. PASCRELL, and Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin) 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 modify 

the private business use requirements for bonds issued 

for lead service line replacement projects. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Financing Lead Out 

5 of Water Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6985 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF PRIVATE BUSINESS USE RE2 QUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN BONDS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 141(b)(6) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(D) CLARIFICATION RELATING TO QUALI7 FIED LEAD SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT

8 USE.— 

9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of 

10 this subsection, qualified lead service line 

11 replacement use shall not constitute pri12 vate business use. 

13 ‘‘(ii) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of 

14 this subparagraph— 

15 ‘‘(I) QUALIFIED LEAD SERVICE

16 LINE REPLACEMENT USE.—The term 

17 ‘qualified lead service line replacement 

18 use’ means, with respect to any public 

19 water system, use of the proceeds of 

20 an issue to replace any privately 

21 owned portion of a lead service line 

22 connected to such system to facilitate, 

23 achieve, or maintain compliance with 

24 a national primary drinking water 

25 regulation for lead. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6985 IH

1 ‘‘(II) LEAD SERVICE LINE.—The 

2 term ‘lead service line’ has the mean3 ing given such term in section 

4 1459B(a)(4) of the Safe Drinking 

5 Water Act, as amended. 

6 ‘‘(III) NATIONAL PRIMARY

7 DRINKING WATER REGULATION FOR

8 LEAD.—The term ‘national primary 

9 drinking water regulation for lead’ 

10 means a national primary drinking 

11 water regulation for lead promulgated 

12 under section 1412 of such Act. 

13 ‘‘(IV) PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.— 

14 The term ‘public water system’ has 

15 the meaning given such term in sec16 tion 1401(4) of such Act.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to obligations issued after Decem19 ber 31, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, DOD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, code of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Spectral Sciences, Inc., Incorporated in the State of Massachusetts, having a place of business at 4 Fourth Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-3304, an exclusive license in any right, title and interest the Air Force has in:

                        U.S. Patent No. 5,884,226, issued 16 March 1999, titled “System and method for modeling moderate resolution atmospheric propagation,” by Gail P. Anderson                         *et al.*, that of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/838801, filed on 20 April 2001, titled “Band model method for modeling atmospheric propagation at arbitrarily fine spectral resolution,” by Alexander Berk                         *et al.*, and that of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/398696, filed on 5 April 2006, titled “Reformulated atmospheric band model method for modeling atmospheric propagation at arbitrarily fine spectral resolution and expanded capabilities,” by Gail P. Anderson                         *et al.*

# DATES:

A license for this patent will be granted unless a written objection is received within fifteen (15) days from the date of publication of this Notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

Written objection should be sent to: James M. Skorich, Esq., 2251 Maxwell Ave., SE, 377th ABW/JAN Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5773. Telephone: (505) 846-1542.

Bao-anh Trinh,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-20340 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6710

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, JR., a/k/a Fat Sammy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:93- cr-00369-AMD-1)

Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 26, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10276

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Juan Asael Velazquez, formerly known as Juan Asael 

Velazquez-Benitez, 

 Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-115-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Asael 

Velazquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

* 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

August 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 20-10276 Document: 00515520924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2020
No. 20-10276

2

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Velazquez has filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as 

well as Velazquez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. However, the 

district court committed nonreversible error when it imposed judgment 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). 

The judgment of the district court is therefore REFORMED to reflect 

a conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367-69 (5th Cir. 2009). Counsel’s motion 

for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

 Case: 20-10276 Document: 00515520924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMEL S. FORD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 244 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 9, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00384

- CR

Jose Andres ROMERO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7972

Honorable Albert D. P attillo, III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 29, 2022, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, stating that the reporter’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to request the record in writing.

We therefore ORDER appellant to provide writt en proof to this court by August 19, 2022 that the appellant has requested the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record, which request must designate the portions of the proceedings and the exhibits to be included. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(b)(1). Th e reporter’s record must be filed no later than thirty days after the date appellant’s written proof is filed with this court. If appellant fails to request the record in writing, the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s br ief that do not require a reporter’s

record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand a nd affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of August, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
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 this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mary E. Sullivan,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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: March 18, 2011 |  |  |  | /S/    MARY E.
SULLIVAN                                              
|                     |  |  |  | Mary E. Sullivan Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
##### 



DCP HOLDING COMPANY (THE COMPANY)
CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS
(Sarbanes-Oxley)
  1.
    
    Senior financial officers shall act with honesty and integrity. Senior financial
officers shall ethically handle all actual or apparent conflicts of interest between
personal and professional relationships.2.
    
    Senior financial officers shall endeavor to provide information that is full,
fair, accurate, timely, and understandable in all reports and documents that the Company
files with, or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other
public filings or communications made by the Company.3.
    
    Senior financial officers shall endeavor to faithfully comply with all laws,
rules and regulations of federal, state, and local governments, and all applicable
private or public regulatory agencies.4.
    
    Senior financial officers shall not knowingly or recklessly misrepresent material
facts or allow their judgment to be compromised.5.
    
    Senior financial officers shall not use for personal advantage confidential
information acquired in the course of their employment.6.
    
    Senior financial officers shall proactively promote ethical behavior among peers
and subordinates in the workplace.7.
    
    Senior financial officers shall promptly report to the Audit Committee any
violation or suspected violation of the Code.
    Signature:
    
    /s/ Anthony A. CookPrincipal Executive OfficerMarch 30, 2007/s/ Robert C. Hodgkins, Jr.Principal Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2007/s/ Michael T. WaldmanControllerMarch 30, 2007
 64