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

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

476 CA 11-00335 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM JOHNSON, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, BUFFALO (AILEEN M. MCNAMARA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ZAINAB A. CHAUDHRY OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered January 28, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order committed respondent to a secure treatment facility.

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

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, respondent appeals from an order revoking his prior regimen of strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST) and committing him to a secure treatment facility ( see § 10.11 [d] [1], [4]). We reject respondent’s contention that he was denied due process when Supreme Court denied his request for an independent psychiatric evaluation. An indigent respondent in a civil commitment proceeding does not have an absolute right to an independent psychiatric evaluation ( see Goetz v Crosson , 967 F2d 29, 36-37). Instead, a right to present the testimony of an independent psychiatrist arises only where “such testimony is necessary to a reliable assessment” of an indigent respondent’s mental condition ( id. ). Here, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s request for an independent psychiatric evaluation, which was made during the trial after petitioner had rested and respondent had called two witnesses. We also note that this was a SIST revocation hearing, not an initial proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law article 10, and that respondent stipulated that he had a mental abnormality within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (i). We further conclude that petitioner established at the hearing by the requisite clear and convincing evidence that respondent is a dangerous-2- 476 CA 11-00335
sex offender requiring confinement ( see § 10.03 [e]; § 10.07 [f]).

Entered: April 27, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CRIMINAL MINUTES

CR 15-01713-01-TUC-RCC(LAB) Date: 11/3/2016

Case Number

Hon. Raner C. Collins, Chief United States District Judge

USA v. Mel Shriner Carter 

DEFENDANT: : Present 9 Not Present : Released 9 Custody 9 Writ

Deputy Clerk: Sherry Gammon Court Reporter: Erica McQuillen 

U.S. Attorney: Carolyn Nedder Interpreter: N/A 

Defendant Atty: Bates Butler, (CJA)

PROCEEDINGS: : Status Conference 

Matter comes before the Court for a Status Conference. 

The Court having made a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report

and Recommendation (Doc. 81) and the objection filed by the defendant, IT IS

ORDERED the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES the Motion

to Dismiss (Doc. 69) filed by the defendant. 

Counsel present argument on the Motion in Limine to Exclude Identification

(Doc. 80)filed by the defendant. Defense counsel request the Court permit him

to present testimony. IT IS ORDERED the motion will be addressed and

testimony will be heard on 11/8/2016 following selection of the jury and the

Court will rule on the motion following testimony. 

The Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 79) remains outstanding and will be

addressed following jury selection. 

The jury trial date of 11/8/2016 at 9:30 a.m. before Chief Judge Raner C.

Collins is AFFIRMED. 

Status Conference:41 minutes 

 Start: 1:33 PM End:2:14 PM

Case 4:15-cr-01713-RCC-LAB Document 92 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   WRITTEN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the President of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:


(a)      the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
         2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
         Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
         Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                    /s/ Ross M. Strickland
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Ross M. Strickland,
                                    President
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)
                                    May 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Webster Preferred Capital Corporation and will be retained by
Webster Preferred Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Reynolds *v.*Union Bank & Trust Company.

Opinion delivered July 14, 1930.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, having obtained an appeal from a decree of the White Chancery Court and having lodged a certified copy of the decree in this court, now *496asks the court to make an order directing the stenographer who took in shorthand a report of the oral testimony in said cause as required by act 267 of the Acts of 1925, to make and file with the clerk of said chancery court a transcript of his stenographic notes as required by said act. See Acts of 1925, p. 823. He asks that the court direct said stenographer to prepare and deliver said transcript of his notes, free from costs, *in forma pauperis.*This court has no jurisdiction to make such order. The remedy of appellant in such case is in the chancery court. While the chancery court could not make any change in its decree after an appeal had been taken and a transcript containing a certified copy of the decree was lodged in this court, it retained jurisdiction to perform any act in furtherance of the appeal. *Rindlaub v. Rindlaub,*19 N. D. 352, 125 N. W. 479, and cases cited. The lower court does not by reason of the appeal lose its jurisdiction to do anything that may be necessary for the presentation of the case in the appellate court. 3 C. J., p. 1254, par. 1367. See also *Schofield*v. *Rankin,*86 Ark. 86, 109 S. W. 1161.

In *State of Louisiana*v. *Clark,*33 La. Ann. 422, it was held that, although the jurisdiction of the lower court ceases when the order of appeal has been granted, yet the court retains its power over its clerk to compel him to fulfill the ministerial duties of his office in the case. Our original jurisdiction in matters of mandamus does not extend to cases like this, and the application is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 719 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 719

 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow 
  children who meet certain criteria to attend a school that receives 
               funds under part A of title I of such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1997

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow 
  children who meet certain criteria to attend a school that receives 
               funds under part A of title I of such Act.

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

SECTION 1. TARGETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOLS.

    Section 1115(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) A child who attends a school that does not receive 
        funds under this part may be eligible to transfer to a school 
        that receives funds under this part if the child meets the 
        criteria described in paragraph (1).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Woodkirk *v.*Williams.

The prosecution under the statute for the support of illegitimate children, whether itbe on the complaint of the mother, or of the overseers of the poor, must be in the name of the state.

errqR to the *Wayne*Circuit Court;

Blackford, J.

The statute, providing for the support of illegitimate children, is not very express in all its provisions (1). The practice under it, however, need not for this reason remain doubtful and unsettled, when correct rules of proceeding may be established consistently with the evident meaning and spirit of the law. An accusation is first made on behalf of the state, before a justice of the peace, by the woman having cause of complaint; or, upon her neglect, by the overseers of the poor. The magistrate reduces the accusation to writing, and issues a warrant, in the name of the state, for the apprehension of the party accused. On the return of the warrant, the woman is examined upon oath by the justice; and cross-examined by the accused, *if*he appear. This examination the justice reduces to writing: and if it appear to his satisfaction, that the person charged is the father'of the child, the defendant must make a satisfactory compensation to the mother, give security to indemnify the county, and pay the costs of prosecution; or, if he fail to do so, the magistrate binds him by recognizance, with sfirety, for his appearance at the next Circuit Court, and returns the accusation and proceedings thereon to that Court. This return *is-*made matter of record, and from it the Circuit Court derives its jurisdiction over the case. The state is the plaintiff, and the accusation made before the justice is the charge. The defendant may plead not guilty, and have the issue tried by a jury, *111On the trial the mother is a competent witness; and her examination before the justice is admissible evidence. Upon conviction of the accused, the Court adjudge him the father of the child, make an order against him for its maintenance, and require security for the performance of the order. A judgment is also rendered against him for the costs.

Caswell, for the plaintiff!

*Test,*for the defendant.

The present prosecution was instituted by virtue of this statute. It appears from the record, that the issue made up in the Circuit Court was between *Jane*Williams, who made the complaint, and *John*Woodkirk, who was the person accused. The jury were sworn to try this issue, joined between these parties. At the last term it was decided, that a mother cannot be a party to such a suit (2). The prosecution must be in the .name of the state, *whether the*accusation be made by the mother, or by the overseers of the poor. The issue, therefore, was not joined by the proper parties. The judgment for costs is rendered in favour of the mother: in that there is also error.

*Per Curiam.*

The Judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the plea are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded for further proceedings.

(1)

 Ind. Stat. 1817, p. 229; — 1823, p. 225.

(2)

*The State*v. *Bradley,*ante, p. 83.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 571 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 571

  To amend the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act) to 
require that contract work covered by the Act which requires licensing 
              be performed by a person who is so licensed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1997

 Mrs. Mink of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Act of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act) to 
require that contract work covered by the Act which requires licensing 
              be performed by a person who is so licensed.

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

SECTION 1. LICENSING.

    Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of March 3, 1931 
(known as the Davis-Bacon Act) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ``A contract covered by this subsection which is to be 
carried out in a State which requires persons performing the work under 
the contract to be licensed shall be carried out by a person who is so 
licensed.''.
                                 <all>
```
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396






May 31, 2000



Campbell & Company, Inc.
Court Tower Building, Towson
210 West Pennsylvania Avenue
Suite 770
Baltimore, MD 212104


Attn: Mrs. Theresa D. Becks

         Re:      Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mrs. Becks:

We are  writing  with  respect  to your  management  agreements  concerning  the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the "Management  Agreements").
We are extending the term of the Management  Agreements through June 30, 2001and
all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

                       Smith Barney Potomac Futures  Fund L.P.
                       Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
                       Smith Barney Global Markets Futures Fund
                       Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II
                       Smith Barney Campbell F.M. and Energy Fund plc
                       Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
                       Smith Barney Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.



Please  acknowledge  receipt of this  modification  by signing  one copy of this
letter and returning it to the  attention of Mr. Daniel  Dantuono at the address
above or fax to  212-723-8985.  If you have any  questions  I can be  reached at
212-723-5416.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC


By:
         Daniel A. Dantuono
         Chief Financial Officer,
         Director & Treasurer

AGREED AND ACCEPTED

CAMPBELL & COMPANY, INC.



DAD/sr
#### C. R. Myers *v.*J. S. Stephens, Admr.

Bills and Notes — Illegal Consideration — New Obligation by Replevying.

Although the illegality of an original consideration might constitute a bar to an action on a note, yet where judgment is permitted thereon, a new obligation is created by replevying it.

APPEAR FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

January 7, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

If, as is insisted for the appellant, the illegality of the original transaction in which the note to Wyatt was given, might have constituted a bar to the action on the note, or even have been sufficient to prevent a recovery by one of the obligor’s for contribution, if he had paid the note, yet when the appellant and Stephens had permitted a judgment to be rendered on the note by Wyatt’s assignee and taken on themselves a new obligation by replevying the judgment, they were both legally bound to pay *76the debt and liable for .contribution as between themselves *(Minus v. Johnson, etc., 1 Duvall, 171).*

*Hazlerigg & Winn, for appellant.*

*Turner, for appellee.*

The instruction which the court gave the jury, being in conformity with this view, seems to us to have presented the law of the case.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10-j

As a taxable executive benefit, the Company pays the premiums for life insurance
policies on the lives of non-employee Directors and certain key executives. The
executive or Board member has the right to designate the beneficiary under the
applicable life insurance policy. At December 31, 2002, Mr. Alter and Mr. Rosoff
were covered by policies of $10,000,000 and $5,000,000, respectively. Each
non-employee Director is eligible to receive a $500,000 policy. Upon termination
of employment, the executive is entitled to acquire the insurance policy from
the Company upon payment to the Company of an amount equal to the cash value of
the policy at that time. The policies insuring the non-employee Directors are
term life insurance policies, on which there is no build-up in cash value.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 42","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"X8LaYNql7F\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-42\/\">Expedition 42<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-42\/embed\/#?secret=X8LaYNql7F\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 42” — NASA\" data-secret=\"X8LaYNql7F\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/exp42-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                         MARISA CHRISTINA, INCORPORATED

           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
Marisa Christina, Incorporated. (the Company), each hereby certifies that, to
his knowledge, on the date hereof:

     (a)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
          December 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
          Exchange Commission (the Annual Report) fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

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

/s/ Michael H. Lerner                   /s/ S.E. Melvin Hecht
----------------------------------      ---------------------------------------
Michael H. Lerner                       S.E. Melvin Hecht
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,      Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer,
  and President                             and Treasurer
Marisa Christina, Incorporated          Marisa Christina, Incorporated

                                       38
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ONIX SYSTEMS
INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 3, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                                  6,997
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          38,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                            1,974
<INVENTORY>                                            28,284
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      107,252
<PP&E>                                                 19,118
<DEPRECIATION>                                          8,343
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        181,110
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  30,960
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  156
<OTHER-SE>                                            146,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          181,110
<SALES>                                                68,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       68,735
<CGS>                                                  43,671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          43,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        4,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          166
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         3,233
<INCOME-TAX>                                            1,261
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            1,972
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.14


</TABLE>