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

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

517 CAF 10-02043 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF LEPORIA L.L., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. ------------------------------ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WAYNE COUNTY ATTORNEY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

TRACEY L. FOX, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, SODUS, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DANIEL M. WYNER, COUNTY ATTORNEY, LYONS (DANIEL C. CONNORS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wayne County (Dennis M. Kehoe, J.), entered April 13, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [2]). After a dispositional hearing, Family Court placed respondent in the custody of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services for placement in a limited secure facility ( see Family Ct Act § 353.3 [3] [b]). Contrary to respondent’s contention, “the evidence presented at the hearing, when viewed in the light most favorable to the presentment agency . . ., is legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent committed the acts alleged in the petition” ( Matter of Zachary R.F. , 37 AD3d 1073; see Matter of Shakirrah C. , 66 AD3d 1492).

We reject respondent’s further contention that the court failed to consider the least restrictive available alternative in placing him in a limited secure facility ( see Family Ct Act § 352.2 [2] [a]). “The court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate disposition in juvenile delinquency cases” ( Matter of Richard W. , 13 AD3d 1063, 1064), and here the court did not abuse that discretion. Indeed, “the record establishes that the disposition ordered by the court is ‘the least restrictive available alternative . . . which is consistent with the needs and best interests of the respondent and the need for protection of the community’ ” ( Matter of Brendon H. , 43 AD3d-2- 517 CAF 10-02043
1283, 1284, quoting § 352.2 [2] [a]).

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2 

 

**Certification of Interim Chief Financial Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)         the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2009 (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 10, 2009 |
|----------------------|

 

| /s/ Brian W. White              |
|---------------------------------|
| Brian W. White                  |
| Interim Chief Financial Officer |
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




**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 Scivanta Medical Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David R. LaVance,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d), 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:
              January
              23, 2008
            By:
            /s/
              David R. LaVanceDavid
              R. LaVancePresident
                and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1746

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

339 Hicksville Road in Bethpage, New York, as the ‘‘Brian C. Hickey 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 16, 2003

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 339 Hicksville Road in Bethpage, New York, 

as the ‘‘Brian C. Hickey Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. BRIAN C. HICKEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 339 Hicksville Road in Bethpage, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Brian 

7 C. Hickey Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•S 1746 IS 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Brian C. Hickey Post 

3 Office Building.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

   
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ODWALLA,
INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THIRTY-NINE WEEKS ENDED MAY 30, 1998, AS FILED
ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FILING ON
FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,203
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                       566
<INVENTORY>                                      2,711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,159
<PP&E>                                          20,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,108
<BONDS>                                            263
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,445
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,983)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,867
<SALES>                                         43,788
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,788
<CGS>                                           21,826
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    61
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 157
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (351)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        42
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (309)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (309)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        


    

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65363-65364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.


    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Minority Biomedical 
Research Neuro Grant Applications.
    Date: December 6, 2010.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency-Bethesda, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, One 
Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: John J. Laffan, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 
3AN18J, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2773, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dcb0bdbababdb2b6b39cb1bdb5b0f2b2b5b4f2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1874797e7e79767277587579717436767170367f776e">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 65364]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 18, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-26708 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Watson *v.*Robinson.

Assumpsit on the indorsement of a promissory note. *Held,*that the facts set out in ^1<31,e00rcl showed that the plaintiff had used sufficient diligence, without effect, to collect the money from the maker of the note, to render the indorser liable.

ERROR to the *Vigo*Circuit Court.

Perkins, J.

Assumpsit by the assignee against the assignor of a promissory note. The declaration contains two special and the common counts. The first special count alleges the, making and assigning of the note, and the insolvency of the maker at the time it fell due. The second alleges the making and assigning of the note, the absence of the maker from the state at the time it fell due, suit against him immediately on his return, judgment at the first term of the Court, execution, and a return of “no property,” &c. The pleas were non assumpsit, and several special pleas leading to issues of fact. The cause was submitted to the Court and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for the amount of the note. A motion for a new trial was overruled. (

The only question in the case is whether due diligence was used by the indorsee to collect the money from the maker of the note. This question arises under the general issue.

The following are the facts as they appeared in evidence: The pote in question bears date, *Terre-Haute, March*9th, 1842. It fell due *June*15th, 1842; and was assigned before due. On the 23d of *March,*1842, the maker of the note left the state in company with one *Helms,*his partner, and went to *Louisiana,*they together taking with them produce of the value of 2,500 dollars. A part of this produce appears to have been soon sold in *New Orleans,*and the remainder was, in *June,*sent to *Charleston, South Carolina,*where it was sold and the proceeds returned to its owners by or before the 10th of *August,*1842. At that time the maker of the note left *New Orleans*and proceeded to *St. Louis, Missouri,*at which place he disposed of all his funds in payment of other debts, and from which time he had no property with which the debt in controversy could have been paid, or any part of it. ’ He returned from *Missouri*to *Terre-Haute*on the 2nd of *May,*1843, was sued on the 3d of the same month, and *387regularly prosecuted to judgment and execution. It does not appear to have been known, at the time the maker left, he was going, the length of time he intended to be absent, nor that he was taking his property with him.

*W. D. Griswold*and *J. P. TJsher,*for the plaintiff.

*A. Kinney*and *S. B. Gookins,*for the defendant.

It is not necessary to decide in this case, whether circumstances might exist that would render it the duty of an assignee to follow the maker of a note beyond the limits of the state, to entitle him to recourse upon the assignor. We are satisfied they do not exist in this case. We think the facts above stated show the use of due diligence, and that the plaintiff was entitled to his judgment.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with 2 *per cent.*damages and costs.
**EXHIBIT
32.2**
  
  **Section
1350 Certification of Chief Financial Officer**
  
  In connection with the quarterly report of Nano-Proprietary, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Douglas P, Baker, the Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of
operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
report.
  
  Date: 
      May 3, 2005
    /s/ Douglas P.
      Baker
      Douglas
      P. Baker
      Chief
      Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5831 GARY HATFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-95-94) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 12, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL George A. Mills, III, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Paul A. Billups, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Gary Hatfield pled guilty to three counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (West Supp. 1996), and was sentenced to a term of 21 months imprisonment. He contends on appeal that the district court erred in sentencing him at the high end of the sentencing guideline range and suggests that the sentence was the result of ineffective assistance on the part of his attorney. We dismiss the appeal. Hatfield was informed before he entered his guilty plea that thetotal amount of loss was $448,471. He made no objections to the presentence report which used this amount to calculate a sentencing range of 15-21 months. In his personal statement to the district court, Hatfield stated that he was not responsible for certain loans includedin the loss statement submitted by the bank. At the sentencing hearing, the probation officer and Hatfield's attorney agreed that these loans, which Hatfield disclaimed in his interview with the probation officer, had been removed from the loss calculation. Hatfield then stated that he had no objection to the sentence calculation and that he was satisfied with his attorney's representation. On appeal, Hatfield maintains that the district court should have sentenced him at the low end of the guideline range and that its failure to so sentence him was his attorney's fault. Because Hatfield does not contend that the guideline range was incorrectly calculated, we are without statutory authority to review his sentence. See United States v. Jones , 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994). A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will not be considered on direct appeal unless the record conclusively demonstrates that counsel did not provide effective representation. United States v. Williams , 977 F.2d 866, 871 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 507 U.S. 942 (1993). To the extent he raises the issue, Hatfield has not made the required showing. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT NO. 15

                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT

TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS OF
CHROMATICS COLOR SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.:

We have reviewed the consolidated balance sheet of Chromatics Color Sciences
International, Inc. and Subsidiary as of September 30, 1997 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and cash
flows for the nine- and three-month periods ended September 30, 1997 and 1996.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to
be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity,
and cash flows for the year then ended, and in our report dated February 19,
1997, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial
statements, indicating that the financial statements were prepared on a going
concern basis that might not be appropriate due to significant operating losses.
In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated
balance sheet as of December 31, 1996, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been
derived.


                                                  WISS & COMPANY, LLP


Livingston, New Jersey
October 28, 1997

                                       24
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1757 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1757

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize appropriations for 
          the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE JOHN F. KENNEDY 
              CENTER.

    Section 13 of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76r) is 
amended by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(a) Maintenance, Repair, and Security.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Board to carry out section 4(a)(1)(H)--
            ``(1) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
            ``(2) $18,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 
        2008.
    ``(b) Capital Projects.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Board to carry out subparagraphs (F) and (G) of section (4)(a)(1)--
            ``(1) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
            ``(2) $18,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006; 
        and
            ``(3) $12,000,000 for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.''.

            Passed the Senate October 31, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1757

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize appropriations for 
          the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
```
#### Forbes *v.*Myers.

In slander, evidence that the defendant, after having spoken the words laid, had repeated them at various times, is inadmissible in aggravation of damages.

APPEAL from the *Union*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

Myers brought an action of slander against *Forbes,*alleging in the declaration that the defendant had charged him with having committed robbery and theft. Pleas, not guilty and the statute of limitations. On the trial, the Court instructed the jury that “if the defendant repeated the charges at various times, it would *be*a circumstance the jury might take into consideration as proof of malice and aggravation of damages.” Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff

We think this instruction is wrong. If the defendant, after making the charges alleged in the declaration, repeated them, he was liable to a separate action for each repetition of the slander. The effect, therefore, of permitting a repetition of the slander to be proved in a suit for the previous speak*75ing of the words, to aggravate the damages, would be to enable the plaintiff to recover more than once for the same cause of action. The speaking of the same words laid in the declaration subsequently to the bringing of the action, may be proved to show malice in fact, but not to aggravate the damages. *Barwell*v. *Adkins,*1 Mann. & Granger, 807 (1).

*J. S. Reid*and *C. H. Test,*for the appellant.

*J. B. Sleith*and *J. Ryman,*for the appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with' costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

*See Schoonover v. Rowe,*7 Blackf. 202, and note.