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

Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered March 7, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of one count of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35), for which she was sentenced to five years’ probation, restitution of *264$37,798, a fine of equal amount, and 500 hours of community service, unanimously affirmed. The stay of the judgment previously granted is vacated.

This is a complex embezzlement case, based on circumstantial evidence, involving thefts on 120 different days over a two-year period by defendant, the assistant supervisor in the bursar’s office of the SUNY School of Optometry’s clinical services. The evidence was both legally sufficient an proved defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, excluding to a moral certainty any inference other than one of guilt *(People v Kennedy,*47 NY2d 196, 202; *cf., People v Way,*59 NY2d 361). The thefts occurred when a person who processed payments from patients substituted unrecorded checks for cash, and concealed the substitution by use of other patients’ accounts. The evidence clearly established defendant’s supervisory role at the bursar’s office; her virtually exclusive control over the processing of payments; and her knowledge of the alternative method of receipting the subject payments which applied only to payments for contact lenses. Further evidence established that defendant was the only employee present on each of the 120 days on which the substitutions of checks for cash occurred, and that no such substitutions occurred when defendant was absent.

We have considered defendant’s claim that the auditor who testified as an expert improperly offered an opinion that the substitutions occurred when the payments were processed at the close of the day in the bursar’s office. We conclude that this testimony did not depart from the standards set forth in *People v Cronin*(60 NY2d 430, 432-433). The facts could not have been stated or described to the jury in such a manner as to enable them to form an accurate judgment thereon without this opinion testimony.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
Description of Compensation Arrangement for Andrew Graham



 Exhibit 10.34 
  
 Trimeris, Inc. 
 Description of Compensation Arrangement for Andrew Graham 
  
 Following is a description of the compensation arrangement for Andrew Graham, our Principal Accounting Officer and Secretary. Under the terms of his employment, Mr. Graham will earn a base salary of $135,000 during the 2005 fiscal year. In
addition, Mr. Graham may be awarded cash bonuses upon the achievement of certain performance objectives to be determined by the compensation and governance committee. Mr. Graham is entitled to all benefits made generally available to Trimeris
employees, including participation in the Company’s stock incentive plan.
##### 



EXHIBIT 15.1

The Trustee and Unitholders
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust:

Re: Registration Statements Nos. 333-89164 (Form S-3) and 333-103952 (Form
A-3).

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 17, 2003, related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report
is not considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by
an accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
November 12, 2003
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1763-DR]

Iowa; Amendment No. 19 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related 
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 26, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 27, 2008.

    Howard, Humboldt, Jackson, and Poweshiek Counties for Individual 
Assistance (already designated for Public Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-20830 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
```
#### Rose M. Zabbia et al., Plaintiffs, v Peter Dicks, Respondent, and Betty D. Manne, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Peter Dicks et al., Respondents, v Betty Manne, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., which were jointly tried on the issue of liability, Betty D. Manne, the defendant third-party plaintiff in action No. 1 and a defendant in action No. 2, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), dated November 18, 1988, as granted the branch of the respondents’ motion which was to transfer the venue of the trial on damages in action No. 2 to Bronx County, and *sua sponte*transferred the venue of the trial on damages in action No. 1 to Bronx County.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the branch of the respondents’ motion which was to transfer the venue of the trial on damages in action No. 2 is denied, the *sua sponte*transfer of the venue of the trial on damages in action No. 1 to Bronx County is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a joint trial on damages.

The liability phase of two actions arising from a four-car collision in Bronx County was determined in a joint trial in Nassau County. After the verdict on liability, the jury was disbanded to allow for more discovery relevant to damages. Thereafter, the plaintiffs in action No. 2 moved for severance and transfer of the venue of action No. 2 to Bronx County, on the ground that Bronx County was a central location for the convenience of nonparty witnesses and medical witnesses residing chiefly in Connecticut. The Supreme Court directed, pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), that both actions be transferred and tried jointly as to damages in Bronx County.

*477On appeal, Betty D. Manne, the defendant third-party plaintiff in action No. 1 and a defendant in action No. 2, who bears the greatest liability for the accident pursuant to the jury verdict, opposes the transfer.

We find that under the facts and circumstances of this case the Supreme Court improperly transferred the venue of the joint trial on damages to Bronx County. Kunzeman, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6352]

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including under Section 699D(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (FOAA), 2008 (Div. J, Pub. L. 110-161), and similar provisions related to Serbia in prior year FOAAs, and the President's Delegation of Responsibilities Related to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, dated March 22, 2001, I hereby determine and certify that the Government of Serbia is:

(1) Cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia including access for investigators, the provision of documents, timely information on the location, movement, and sources of financial support of indictees, and the surrender and transfer of indictees or assistance in their apprehension, including Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic;

                    (2) Taking steps that are consistent with the Dayton Accords to end Serbian financial, political, security and other support which has served to maintain                           ( print page 52445)                        separate Republika Srpska institutions; and                

(3) Taking steps to implement policies which reflect a respect for minority rights and the rule of law.

                    This Determination and related Memorandum of Justification shall be provided to the appropriate committees of the Congress. This Determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: September 2, 2008.

Condoleezza Rice,

Secretary of State, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-20914 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-23-P
EXHIBIT 32.3

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code

I, Thomas M. OFlynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Power LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Power LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSEG Power LLC.



|/s/ Thomas M. OFlynn  
|-----------------------
|Thomas M. OFlynn      
|PSEG Power LLC         
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 1, 2008         









---
#### P. C. McLEMORE v. P. L. COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 5448.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 3, 1937.

S. M. Cagle, of Coushatta, for appellant.

Henry W. Bethard, Jr., of Coushatta, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in case entitled P. L. Collins v. P. C. McLemore, *177*So. 502, this day decided by us, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6964 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6964

 To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for the 
            Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2022

   Ms. Strickland (for herself, Mr. Kilmer, and Ms. Herrera Beutler) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for the 
            Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation.

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

SECTION 1. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS RESERVATION LEASING 
              AUTHORITY.

    Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 
(25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended in the second sentence by inserting ``, 
land held in trust for the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis 
Reservation'' after ``Crow Tribe of Montana''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 29, 2018

No. 04-17-00716-CV

Samuel R. BUILTA a/k/a Sam Builta, Individually and

d/b/a Technical Services System,

Appellants

v.

PARAGON, INC.,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 393227

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant was initially represented by retained counsel. On April 5, 2018, this court 

received notice from the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas that 

Appellant’s counsel has been suspended from the practice of law effective March 21, 2018. 

Appellant advised this court he had obtained replacement counsel, but no notice of appearance of 

new counsel to represent Appellant has been filed. 

Appellant’s brief was due on June 22, 2018. To date, no motion for extension of time to 

file the brief or appellant’s brief has been filed. 

We ORDER Appellant Samuel R. Builta, pro se, to show cause in writing within TEN 

DAYS of the date of this order why this cause should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), (c); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Appellant’s written response must include a 

reasonable explanation for Appellant’s failure to timely file the brief. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(a). 

If Appellant fails to show cause as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed without 

further notice. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c); Elizondo, 975 S.W.2d at 63.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21214]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary


Privacy Act of 1974; Abolish Obsolete System of Records

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of abolishment of U.S. Department of Agriculture System 
of Records USDA/FS-05 Certified Cost Collectors record system.

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

SUMMARY: The records formerly maintained in this Privacy Act System of 
Records, USDA/FS-05 Certified Cost Collectors are no longer maintained, 
and the System of Records is obsolete. Therefore, this system is being 
abolished and removed from the inventory of USDA System of Records in 
accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This notice is effective on September 11, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For additional information contact the Director of Forest 
Management, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 
Independence Avenue, SW., Mailstop 1103, Washington, DC 20250-1103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Director of Forest Management, 
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, telephone: (202) 205-
0893; or e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9aedf5c5fcf5f3fbdafce9b4fcfffeb4efe9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c6b1a999a0a9afa786a0b5e8a0a3a2e8b3b5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, requires that each agency publish a notice of the existence 
and character of each new or altered ``system of records.'' 5 U.S.C. 
552a(a)(5). This notice identifies and abolishes a U.S. Department of 
Agriculture discontinued and obsolete system of records, USDA/FS-05 
Certified Cost Collectors. The records formerly maintained in this 
System of Records have been destroyed according to the Federal Records 
Disposal Act of 1943 (44 U.S.C. 366-380) and the Federal Records Act of 
1950, and as designated in the Forest Service Records Management 
Handbook (FSH) 6209.11.

    Dated: August 29, 2008.
Edward T. Schafer,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21214 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Denver Montgomery JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-51101.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 11, 2003.

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Defendant-Appellant Denver Montgomery Jackson appeals his conviction on charges of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking offense. On appeal, Jackson argues that the district court improperly denied his motion to suppress, wrongly admitted opinion testimony of a law enforcement official, improvidently denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the firearms charge, and wrongfully admitted the testimony of several co-conspirators.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and considered the factual and legal arguments advanced by counsel in their appellate briefs and in their argu*356merit before this panel. As a result, we are convinced that the district court committed no reversible error in denying Jackson’s suppression motion, and that the conduct of Jackson’s jury trial was free of error with the possible exception of the admission of the testimony of investigator Harlan, which, if erroneous, was nevertheless harmless. Jackson’s conviction and sentence are, in all respects, AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1530

_____________________________

TIMOTHY RICHARD JORDAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

J. Scott Duncan, Judge.

April 26, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and BILBREY and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7057 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7057

    To revoke Transportation Security Administration directives to 
 implement the Federal mask mandate in public transportation systems, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2022

  Mr. Gimenez (for himself, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Norman, Mrs. Miller-
  Meeks, Mr. Van Drew, and Mr. Guest) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To revoke Transportation Security Administration directives to 
 implement the Federal mask mandate in public transportation systems, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Unmasking of Americans Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. REVOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DIRECTIVES 
              TO IMPLEMENT THE FEDERAL MASK MANDATE IN PUBLIC 
              TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.

    Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration may not 
enforce any Security Directive, Emergency Amendment, or other 
regulation or requirement issued by the Administration to implement any 
Federal Government directive, notice, order, guidance, regulation, or 
requirement relating to the wearing of a mask in public transportation 
systems (commonly and popularly referred to as the ``Federal mask 
mandate'') that is in effect, or continued in effect, as of such date, 
and any such Security Directive, Emergency Amendment, or other 
regulation or requirement shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of National Presto Industries, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.


Date: August 12, 2010

/s/ MaryjoCohenMaryjo CohenChief Executive Officer