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

[975 NYS2d 274]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boiler, A.J.), rendered January 6, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, speeding and failure to obey a police officer.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [2] [a] [iv]). We reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress the crack cocaine seized from the vehicle he was driving. The court’s implicit credibility determinations “ ‘are entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record’ ” *(People v Bush,*107 AD3d 1581, 1582 [2013]). The testimony at the suppression hearing established that the State Troopers observed defendant driving a vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit, which justified their stop of the vehicle for speeding *(see People v Williams,*79 AD3d 1653, 1654 [2010], *affd*17 NY3d 834 [2011]). Thereafter, one of the Troopers, trained in the recognition of marihuana, detected the odor of marihuana when he ap*1348proached the vehicle, which provided probable cause to search the vehicle *(see People v Chestnut,*43 AD2d 260, 261 [1974], *affd*36 NY2d 971 [1975]; *People v Cuffie,*109 AD3d 1200, 1201 [2013]). Further, the Trooper noticed marihuana “residue” on the driver’s side floorboard and seat. “Having justifiably stopped the vehicle for [a traffic violation] and having detected the odor of marihuana from inside it, [the Trooper] had reasonable suspicion that the [vehicle] contained drugs and the subsequent canine sniff was proper” *(People v Gathogo,*276 AD2d 925, 926-927 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 734 [2001]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the Trooper’s testimony was not “incredible as a matter of law,” i.e., “ ‘manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory’ ” *(Bush,*107 AD3d at 1582).

We note that defendant’s release to parole supervision does not render moot his challenge to the severity of the sentence because “he ‘remains under the control of the Parole Board until his sentence has terminated’ ” *(People v Barber,*106 AD3d 1533, 1533 [2013]). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Annual  Report of  Manakoa  Services  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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


Date: April 15, 2005                            By: /s/ G. Robert Williams
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    G. Robert Williams
                                                    C.E.O.
                                                   (Principle Executive Officer)

Date: April 15, 2005                            By: /s/ James C. Katzaroff
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    James C. Katzaroff
                                                    President & Acting Treasurer
                                                   (Principle Financial Officer)



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required  by Section  906,  has been  provided  to  Manakoa  Services
Corporation and will be retained by Manakoa Services Corporation,  and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                       1
<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Turhan F. Jessamy, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 800]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Hubert, J.), rendered June 9, 2011, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]) in which he moves to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the motion of Jason M. Bernheimer for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant is granted, and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Del Atwell, Esq., 39 5th Street, East Hampton, N.Y., 11937, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the appellant’s new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order on motion and the respondent shall serve and file its brief within 30 days after the brief on behalf of the appellant is served and filed. By prior decision and order on motion of this Court *763dated August 4, 2011, the appellant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers, including a certified transcript of the proceedings, and on the briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

The brief submitted by the appellant’s counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]) is deficient because it fails to adequately analyze potential appellate issues or highlight facts in the record that might arguably support the appeal *(see People v Fennell,*107 AD3d 737, 738 [2013]; *People v Ervin,*107 AD3d 736, 737 [2013]; *People v McNair,*105 AD3d 1061, 1062 [2013]; *People v Sanders,*91 AD3d 798, 799 [2012]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252, 256 [2011]; *People v Barger,*72 AD3d 696, 697 [2010]). Since the brief does not demonstrate that assigned counsel acted “as an active advocate on behalf of his . . . client” *(Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d at 256 [internal quotation marks omitted]), we must assign new counsel to represent the appellant *(see People v Fennell,*107 AD3d at 738; *People v Ervin,*107 AD3d at 737; *People v Foster,*90 AD3d 1070, 1071 [2011]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d at 258). Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for thequarter ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Craig D. Crisman, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 
| /s/                                    | Craig D. Crisman |   |   |
|----------------------------------------|------------------|--------|--------|
|                                   |             |
| Craig D. Crisman                       |             |
| President and Chief Executive  Officer |             |
|                                   |             |
| May 14, 2003                           |             |

 

1

----
Order entered February 4 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00980

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M .D.M.

- C., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 301s t Judicial District Court

D allas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 09

- 21123



### O RDER By letter dated December 7, 2019, we notified appellant his br ief failed to comply with

rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appel late Proc edure and directed him to file an amended brief t hat compli ed with rule 38 within ten days. To date, appellant has not filed an amended b rief. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal su bmitted on ap pellant ’ s November 18, 2019 brief. Appellee ’ s brief, if any, shall be filed within T HIRTY DAYS of th e date of this order. 1

/ s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

1 By letter dated November 1 9, 2020, the Office of the Attorney General notified the Court it would not be filing an appellee ’ s brief. Our notices to Mother have been ret urned to the Court because her addr ess on fil e with the Court is not current.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Langley, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 655]

McCarthy, J.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered June 17, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree, and (2) from a judgment of said court, rendered June 17, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of possessing a sexual performance by a child.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape in the third degree in full satisfaction of an indictment charging him with 15 counts of said crime and one count of criminal sexual act in the third degree and was sentenced to three years in prison followed by seven years of postrelease supervision. As a part of the same plea agreement addressing a separate matter, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with possessing a sexual performance by a child. County Court sentenced him to the agreed-upon term of 1 to 3 years in prison to run consecutively to the sentence on the rape count. Defendant now appeals both judgments of conviction.

*1024As the record does not reflect that defendant moved to vacate the judgment of conviction or withdraw his guilty plea, his challenge to his plea to the rape count is not preserved for our review (see *People v Zimmerman,*87 AD3d 1225, 1225 [2011]; *People v Planty,*85 AD3d 1317, 1317-1318 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 820 [2011]). In any event, the record reflects that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. The terms of the plea agreement were clearly set forth on the record, County Court advised defendant of the rights he was forfeiting by pleading guilty and defendant acknowledged that he understood these rights and proceeded to freely admit his guilt (see *People v Zimmerman,*87 AD3d at 1225; *People v Keebler,*15 AD3d 724, 725-726 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 854 [2005]). Turning to defendant’s argument that the sentences imposed were harsh and excessive, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting modification of the sentences imposed pursuant to the negotiated plea agreements *(see People v Garren,*84 AD3d 1638, 1638-1639 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 816 [2011]; *People v Miller,*70 AD3d 1120, 1121 [2010], *lv denied*14 NY3d 890 [2010]).

Rose, J.E, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Exhibit
32.





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned,  Gary T Stroud,  President,  Chief
Executive Officer, Secretary, and Director of Global General Technologies, Inc.
(the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





Dated:
April 15, 2008








/s/ Gary T
Stroud


Gary T
Stroud


President,
Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Director


(Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)





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 Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1635]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00354]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 14-1856]


Notice of Debarment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice; correction

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

SUMMARY: The Enforcement Bureau published a document in the Federal 
Register of January 7, 2015, debarring Ms. Donna P. English from the 
schools and libraries universal service support mechanism (or ``E-Rate 
Program'') for three years. The document contained incorrect contact 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy M. Ragsdale, 202-418-1697.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 7, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-00036, 
on page 889, in the third column, correct the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section to read:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joy M. Ragsdale, Attorney Advisor, 
Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations 
and Hearings Division, Room 4-C330, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 
20554. Joy Ragsdale may be contacted by telephone at (202) 418-1697 or 
by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f153026710d3e382c3b3e333a1f393c3c71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6ecc9df88f4c7c1d5c2c7cac3e6c0c5c588c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>. If Ms. Ragsdale is unavailable, you 
may contact Mr. Jeffrey J. Gee, Acting Chief, Investigations and 
Hearings Division, by telephone at (202) 418-1420 and by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0a406f6c6c786f73244d6f6f4a6c6969246d657c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d298b7b4b4a0b7abfc95b7b792b4b1b1fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>.

Federal Communications Commission.
Jeffrey J. Gee,
Acting Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2015-00354 Filed 1-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 31.4****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Lisa Musgrove, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Civitas BankGroup, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for theregistrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.         Date: April 30, 2007          By: /s/ Lisa Musgrove           Name: Lisa Musgrove    Title: Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer andChief Financial Officer
#### State v. McQueen

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 417

No. 101P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-203)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s Motion for Temporary Stay

4. Def’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

5. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 05/03/07

3. Allowed 04/05/07 Stay Dissolved 05/03/07

4. Denied 05/03/07

5. Denied 05/03/07
#### Falk *v.*T. P. Howell *&*Co.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

December 20, 1888.)

Copyright—Photographs—Infringement.

A copyright of a photograph artistically designed to illustrate a musical composition is infringed by stamping an imitation in raised figure on leathern chair bottoms and backs.

In Equity.

Bill by Benjamin J. Falk against T. P. Howell & Co., a corporation, to restrain the infringement of a copyrighted photograph. The plaintiff is a photographer, and has copyrighted a picture of Geraldine Ulmer as “Yum Yum,” in which she is represented as sitting upon the horn of the moon, while uttering the words, “We’re very wide awake, the moon and I;” it being intended thereby to illustrate a song sung by Miss Ulmer in the *“*Mikado. ’.’ Defendant is engaged in the manufacture of chairs, and stamped a raised figure, like the picture, on the leather of which the bottoms and baeks of chairs are made. The picture was illustrative of the song, not only by the combination of the figure of the girl with that of the moon, but also by the representation of the moon as a face, the features of both hearing an expression appropriate to the words of the song.

*Isaac N.*Falk, for complainant.

*William 0.*Wallace, for defendants.

Coxe, J.

Since the decision of the supreme court in *Burrow-Giles Co.*v. *Sarony,*111 U. S. 53, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 279, there can be no doubt that a photograph which has the artistic merits possessed by the complainant’s photograph is the subject of a copyright. The only question is, do the defendants infringe? That their design is copied directly from the copyrighted photograph is not denied, but it is urged that infringement is avoided, because it is larger than the photograph, and is stamped .on leather, and is intended for the bottom or back of a. chair. It is thought that this proposition cannot be maintained. Differences which relate merely to size and material are not important. They may affect the question of damages, but not the question of infringement. The complainant is-entitled to the usual decree.
Andy Smith is an Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners 

(AFTE) certified Firearm and Tool Mark Examiner and Supervisor 

of the Firearm and Toolmark Unit at the San Francisco Police 

Department Crime Laboratory. He is also a past President of 

AFTE, having served from 2018-2019.

Mr. Smith was the Chair of the Scientific Working Group for 

Firearms and Toolmark Examination (SWGGUN) as it transitioned 

into the OSAC framework, and after that transition served as the 

first Chair of the newly formed Firearm and Toolmark 

Subcommittee under the Physics and Pattern Scientific Area Committee. 

Mr. Smith earned his B.A. degree from the University of Southern Mississippi and a M.S. in 

Forensic Science from the University of New Haven. He began his employment and training in 

the field of Firearm and Toolmark Examination with the Florida Department of Law 

Enforcement’s Orlando Regional Crime Lab and in 2004 began his employment with the San 

Francisco Police Department. Mr. Smith has extensive knowledge and casework experience in 

firearms examinations, toolmark examination, serial number restorations, fracture / physical fit 

comparisons and muzzle to garment distance determinations. Mr. Smith has also been trained 

and performs casework in primer residue testing and examination utilizing scanning electron 

microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray analysis. 

Mr. Smith is a Technical Assessor for ANAB, serves as a member of the 3D Toolmark 

Technologies Technical Working Group, and is an instructor for the National Firearms Examiner 

Academy.

He was appointed to the FSSB in 2019 and currently serves as the AFTE representative.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 23, 2020

No. 04-19-00893-CV

Judy BARRERA,

Appellant

v.

BEXAR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a University Health System and Charles Reed,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI22275

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The court reporter’s second request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record is 

GRANTED. The reporter’s record is due on or before April 9, 2020.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court