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

[807 NYS2d 649]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered April 9, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented by the People was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was the assailant. The trial testimony revealed that the complainant had ample opportunity to see the assailant both before and during the incident and pointed out the defendant to the police about an hour after the incident *(see People v Barrer,*257 AD2d 364 [1999]; *People v Jackson,*168 AD2d 633 [1990]). In addition, despite initially pointing to a courtroom spectator, during his direct testimony and on cross-examination, the complainant subsequently identified the defendant as the assailant three times *(see People v Mendoza,*218 AD2d 672 [1995]).

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). The defendant contends that the testimony of the complainant lacked credibility and, in fact, established that the defendant was not the assailant. The weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, however, as well as the resolution of issues as to identification and credibility, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Prahalad,*295 AD2d 373 [2002]; *People v Purvis,*152 AD2d 756 [1989]). The jury’s “determination should be accorded great deference on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record” *(People v Wells,*18 AD3d 482, 483 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 811 [2005]). Here, the record supports the jury’s determination. Schmidt, J.P., Krausman, Luciano and Covello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         136,435
<SECURITIES>                                    84,516
<RECEIVABLES>                                  280,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,227
<INVENTORY>                                    210,076
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               718,503
<PP&E>                                       1,780,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                 983,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,713,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          269,928
<BONDS>                                        268,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       712,356
<OTHER-SE>                                     268,622
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,713,853
<SALES>                                      1,472,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,472,159
<CGS>                                        1,149,168
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,149,168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,507)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                170,167
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,554
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            129,613
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   129,613
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.82
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0085. IN RE: CHRISTOPHER ANDREW LYNCH.

Christopher Lynch, a prison inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for name

change in the superior court. After the superior court denied Lynch’s request to

proceed in forma pauperis, Lynch filed this application for discretionary appeal. The

trial court’s denial of pauper status, however, is not subject to appellate review. 

Mitchell v. Cancer Carepoint, Inc., 299 Ga. App. 881 (1) (683 SE2d 923) (2009). 

Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/15/2014

October 15, 2014
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 10Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas CityFilings received during the week ending April 21, 2018FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodAMERICAN STATE BANK & TRUST COMPANY                                                                                     * 18C
TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

AMENDMENT TO

2003 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN


Background


           TurboChef
Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted its 2003 Stock Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”) on October 29, 2003.  Under
Section 4.1 of the Plan, the total number of shares of Common Stock of the
Company available for grant of Awards under the Plan was six million
(6,000,000) shares.  The Company’s Board
of Directors deemed it advisable that the number of shares available for grant
of Awards be increased to a total of ten million (10,000,000) shares.  Under Section 13.1 of the Plan the
Committee, defined in the Plan as the Compensation Committee of the Company’s
Board of Directors, is authorized at any time to amend the Plan.


Amendment

           At a
meeting held on March 29, 2004, the Company’s Board of Directors, including
both members of the Compensation Committee, unanimously approved amending the
Plan to increase by four million the number of shares of Common Stock of the
Company available for grant of Awards under the Plan.  Accordingly, the Plan is amended, effective April 1, 2004, by
deleting the first sentence of Section 4.1 thereof and substituting in lieu
thereof the following sentence:

	
   
	
  Subject to adjustment as provided in
  Section 4.3, the total number of Shares available for grant of Awards under
  the Plan shall be ten million (10,000,000) Shares, all of which may be
  granted as Incentive Stock Options.




By authority of the Board of Directors

	
  /s/ Dennis
  J. Stockwell

	
  



  	
   

	
  Dennis J.
  Stockwell

	
  Secretary
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01755-BNB DENVER, COLORADO
ANTHONY DAVID SWINDLE, SEP 20 2011
Plaintiff, GREGORY C. LANGHAM
CLERK

v.

EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,

EL PASO COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER, and
COMMANDER RODNEY GEHRETT,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, Anthony David Swindle, currently is confined at the El Paso County
Criminal Justice Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Mr. Swindle, acting pro se,
initiated this action by filing a prisoner complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking
injunctive relief. He was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On August 12, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland ordered Mr. Swindle to
file within thirty days an amended prisoner complaint that complied with the pleading
requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, named only proper
parties, and alleged specific facts that demonstrate how each named Defendant
personally participated in the asserted constitutional violations. Magistrate Judge
Boland warned Mr. Swindle that if he failed to comply with the August 12 order within
the time allowed the complaint and the action will be dismissed without further notice.

Mr. Swindle has failed within the time allowed to comply with the August 12 order

or otherwise to communicate with the Court in any way. Therefore, the complaint and


the action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for
failure to comply with a Court order and file the amended complaint as directed within
the time allowed and for failure to prosecute.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the complaint and the action are dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the failure of Plaintiff,
Anthony David Swindle, within the time allowed, to file an amended complaint as
directed in the order of August 12, 2011, and for his failure to prosecute.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this _20" day of __ September , 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T, Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01755-BNB
Anthony David Swindle
Prisoner No. A0271939
El Paso County Criminal Justice Center
2739 E Las Vegas St
Colorado Springs, CO 80906

| hereby certify that | have mailed a copy of the ORDER and JUDGMENT to the
above-named individuals on September 20, 2011.

GREGORY C. LANGHAM, CLERK

By:

Deputy Clerk
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 5Federal Reserve Bank of: RichmondFilings received during the week ending October 3, 2020FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANK OF DELMARVA, THE                                                                                                   MemberThe Bank of Delmarva, Seaford, Delaware, to become a member of the Federal Reserve System.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicable
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2502

___________

William Daniel Helix, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Mike Huckabee, Governor, State of *

Arkansas; Winston Bryant, Attorney * On Appeal from the United States

General, State of Arkansas, Garland * District Court for the

County Quorum Court, State of * Western District of Arkansas. 

Arkansas; Larry Williams, Quorum *

Court Judge; Dave Ellis Grim; Earl E. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Robbins; John E. Cook; Don George; *

Jeff McFee; Gina Parks; Mickey Gates; *

Alphonso Logan; Ray Owen, Jr.; A.J. *

Simpson; Carolyn Sisney; M. Roger *

Smith; Mahlon E. Grigsby, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: January 21, 1999

 Filed: January 28, 1999

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Arkansas. 

-2-

William D. Helix appeals from the district court&s adverse grant of summary

1

judgment in his civil suit challenging the constitutionality of a county&s solid waste

collection system. After a careful review of the record and the parties& briefs on

appeal, we conclude the district court ruled correctly and an extended discussion is

unnecessary. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### DAVIS-WOOD LUMBER CO., Inc., v. COLONIAL FIRE UNDERWRITERS OF HARTFORD, CONN., et al.

No. 1316.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 8, 1934.

Lemle, Moreno *&*Lemle, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Harvey E. Ellis, of Covington, for appellee.

MOÜTON, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the case of Davis-Wood Lumber Co. v. Insurance Company of North America, 154 So. 760, the judgment appealed from herein, with damages, legal interest, and attorney’s fees be and is hereby avoided, annulled, and reversed; and that the demand of plaintiff company be and is hereby rejected, at its cost in both courts.

ELLIOTT, J.,

dissenting. See Davis-Wood Lumber Company, Inc., v. Insurance Company of North America, 154 So. 760, this day decided.
#### Theresa Lolly, Appellant, v Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[807 NYS2d 305]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated June 30, 2005, as denied her cross motion to impose a sanction upon the defendant Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center, or alternatively, to strike its answer for failure to comply with a demand for insurance information, dated August 12, 2004.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, the cross motion is granted to the extent that the defendant Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center is directed to comply with the plaintiffs demand for insurance information, dated August 12, 2004, and the cross motion is otherwise denied; in the event the defendant Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center fails to comply, then the cross motion is granted to the further extent of striking that defendant’s answer, and the cross motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the time of the defendant Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center to comply is extended until 30 days after service upon it of a copy of this decision and order.

The plaintiff made a proper demand for insurance information, dated August 12, 2004, pursuant to CPLR 3101 (f) *(see*
      *668
      *Brandes v North Shore Univ. Hosp.,*1 AD3d 549, 550 [2003]; *Kimbell v Davis,*81 AD2d 855 [1981]). The defendant Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center (hereinafter Brookdale) failed to comply with the demand as required by the preliminary conference order dated October 1, 2004. The letter of Brookdale’s counsel, dated December 14, 2004, was an insufficient response to the plaintiffs demand. Cozier, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### James C. THERBER, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Oct. 3, 1956.

Minnet, Allsworth, Dourman, Schuler & Russell, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, and Harrison D. Griffin, Fort Lauderdale, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Segler, Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 658, 16 A.L.R.2d 731, at page 736.

DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 946 

Recognizing the Canandaigua Veterans Affairs Medical Center on its 75th 

anniversary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2008 

Mr. KUHL of New York (for himself and Mr. ARCURI) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Canandaigua Veterans Affairs Medical 

Center on its 75th anniversary. 

Whereas the Federal Board of Hospitalization selected 

Canandaigua, New York, as the site for a Veterans Administration Hospital in 1929; 

Whereas the Canandaigua Veterans Affairs Medical Center 

(‘‘VAMC’’) officially opened on February 6, 1933, with 

the arrival by train of 202 patients from Northport, New 

York, and 22 from Lyons, New Jersey; 

Whereas the Canandaigua VAMC has introduced significant 

advances in the psychiatric treatment of hospitalized veterans since 1933, including the introduction of insulin 

treatment; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 946 IH 

Whereas the Canandaigua VAMC became affiliated with the 

University of Rochester Medical School following World 

War II, thereby fostering increased community involvement within the hospital; 

Whereas the Canandaigua VAMC introduced the open hospital concept during the 1950s, providing patients with 

increased freedom and greater responsibility for their 

own care and rehabilitation; 

Whereas the Canandaigua VAMC became a member of the 

Veterans Integrated Service Network during the 1990s, 

shifting to an outpatient model of care with refined and 

specialized facilities; 

Whereas the Canandaigua VAMC was designated a Mental 

Health Center of Excellence in 2005, advancing research 

for mental health issues affecting many veterans; 

Whereas the Canandaigua VAMC opened a National Suicide 

Prevention Hot Line in 2007, to provide continuous national assistance for veterans from mental health professionals at Canandaigua; 

Whereas the Canandaigua VAMC employs 755 Full Time 

Equivalent Employees, who have honorably and wholeheartedly devoted themselves to serving our nation’s 

bravest heroes; and 

Whereas the Canandaigua VAMC continues to offer a full 

continuum of services to our Nation’s veterans: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the United States House of Rep2 resentatives recognizes the Canandaigua Veterans Affairs 

3 Medical Center for 75 years of outstanding, dedicated 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 946 IH 

1 service to our Nation’s veterans, who have put their lives 

2 on the line and served their country with honor. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
Exhibit 13.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Dated: June 7, 2007



/s/ CARL-HENRIC SVANBERGCarl-Henric Svanberg President and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of
any general incorporation language in such filing.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1875

To amend the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 by expanding the legal

assistance for victims of violence grant program to include legal assistance for victims of dating violence.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 16, 2001

Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself and Mrs. MORELLA) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 by

expanding the legal assistance for victims of violence

grant program to include legal assistance for victims

of dating violence.

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

3 SECTION 1. LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF VIO4 LENCE.

5 Section 1201 of the Violence Against Women Act of

6 2000 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg–6) is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘dating vio8 lence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence,’’;
2

•HR 1875 IH

1 (2) in subsection (b)—

2 (A) by inserting before paragraph (1) the

3 following:

4 ‘‘(1) DATING VIOLENCE.—The term ‘dating vio5 lence’ means violence committed by a person—

6 ‘‘(A) who is or has been in a social rela7 tionship of a romantic or intimate nature with

8 the victim; and

9 ‘‘(B) where the existence of such a rela10 tionship shall be determined based on a consid11 eration of the following factors:

12 ‘‘(i) the length of the relationship;

13 ‘‘(ii) the type of relationship; and

14 ‘‘(iii) the frequency of interaction be15 tween the persons involved in the relation16 ship.’’;

17 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2),

18 and (3) as paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) respec19 tively; and

20 (C) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by

21 subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, by insert22 ing ‘‘dating violence,’’ after ‘‘domestic vio23 lence,’’;

24 (3) in subsection (c)—

25 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting—
3

•HR 1875 IH

1 (i) ‘‘, dating violence,’’ after ‘‘domes2 tic violence’’; and

3 (ii) ‘‘dating violence,’’ after ‘‘domestic

4 violence,’’;

5 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘dating

6 violence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence,’’; and

7 (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘dating

8 violence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence,’’;

9 (4) in subsection (d)—

10 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘, dat11 ing violence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence’’;

12 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, dat13 ing violence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence’’;

14 (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘, dat15 ing violence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence’’; and

16 (D) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘dating

17 violence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence,’’;

18 (5) in subsection (e), by inserting ‘‘dating vio19 lence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence,’’; and

20 (6) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by inserting ‘‘dating

21 violence,’’ after ‘‘domestic violence,’’.

Æ