alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### Table of Contents



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION   Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report
(date of earliest event reported)
May 14, 2004 NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION   CANADA
    
    001-07260
    
    not applicable(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 8200 Dixie Road, Suite 100, Brampton, Ontario, Canada
    
    L6T 5P6(address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code (905) 863-0000.




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 5. Other EventsItem 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and ExhibitsSIGNATURESEXHIBIT INDEXEX-99.1    Table of Contents  
 Item 5. Other Events On May 14, 2004, the Registrant issued the press release attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.1, and such press release is incorporated in its entirety by
reference herein. 
 Item 7. Financial Statements,Pro FormaFinancial Information and Exhibits (c) Exhibits. 99.1
    
    Press release issued by the Registrant on May 14, 2004.




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized. NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Deborah J. NobleDeborah J. NobleCorporate SecretaryBy:
    
    /s/ Blair F. MorrisonBlair F. MorrisonAssistant Secretary
 Dated: May 14, 2004




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX 99.1
    
    Press release issued by the Registrant on May 14, 2004.
#### In the Matter of David Clark, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 175]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sackett, J.), entered May 20, 2008 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Central Office Review Committee denying his grievance.

Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County, commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge a determination of the Central Office Review Committee (hereinafter CORC) denying his grievance requesting an exemption from certain package restrictions imposed by Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4921. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. In order to prevail, petitioner must demonstrate that CORC’s determination was either irrational or arbitrary and capricious *(see Matter of Winkler v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*34 AD3d 993, 994 [2006]; *Matter of Tucker v Nuttall,*31 AD3d 1078 [2006]), which petitioner failed to do. The challenged directive limits inmates who, like petitioner, are incarcerated in a designated “TV Facility” to two packages per calendar year from family, friends or other personal sources, and to “items ordered directly by the inmate from approved vendors” (Dept of Correctional Servs Directive No. 4921 § III-B-2). Petitioner sought an exemption from this directive—specifically, permission for his family to order and pay for packages shipped to him from approved vendors—contending that various encumbrances placed upon his inmate account precluded him from placing such orders directly. CORC denied petitioner’s *933request, finding that viable avenues of relief existed short of revising or exempting petitioner from the cited directive. Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say that CORC’s determination in this regard was irrational. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his breach of contract and equal protection claims, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, EJ., Peters, Lahtinen, Kane and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Presidential Documents 21529 

Proclamation 8372 of May 4, 2009 

National Charter Schools Week, 2009 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Improving our schools is the collective responsibility of all Americans— 

business owners and workers, educators and parents, students and their 

communities. We must ensure that all students receive a high-quality education that delivers the knowledge and skills needed to succeed, and that 

young men and women stay on the path to graduation and a life-long 

commitment to learning. 

Many successful public charter schools across the Nation are working to 

meet these goals. Founded by parents, teachers, and civic or community 

organizations, our Nation’s public charter schools enjoy broad leeway to 

innovate. 

The best public charter schools and their students are thriving in States 

that have adopted a rigorous selection and review process to ensure that 

autonomy is coupled with greater accountability. The growth of effective 

public charter schools benefits our children, and States have an important 

role to play in their expansion. 

During National Charter Schools Week, we recognize these public charter 

schools for their dedication and commitment to achievement in education. 

They are models of excellence and are promoting the interests of our children, 

our economy, and our Nation as a whole. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 3 through May 

9, 2009, as National Charter Schools Week. I commend our Nation’s successful public charter schools, teachers, and administrators, and I call on States 

and communities to support public charter schools and the students they 

serve. 

21530 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 87 / Thursday, May 7, 2009 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day 

of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence 

of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third. 

[FR Doc. E9–10860 

Filed 5–6–09; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–W9–P 


OB#1.EPS</GPH>
The use of cameras or recording equipment during the

performance is not allowed. Please be sure that cell phones,

pagers, and other electronic devices are turned off.

Music Department

National Gallery ofArt 

Sixth Street and Constitution Avenue nw

Washington, DC

www.nga.gov

Concerts are made possible in part through the generosity of donors

to the National Gallery ofArt through The Circle. Reserved seating is

available in recognition oftheir support. Please contact the development

office at (202) 842-6450 or circk@nga.gov for more information.

COVER: Marc Chagall, Greeting Card 1972,1971, National Gallery

ofArt, Washington, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Gerhard E. Pinkus

12

The Seventy-Third Season of

The William Nelson Cromwell and F. Lammot Belin

Concerts

National Gallery ofArt 

3,030th Concert

The Alexandria Kleztet

Seth Kibel, clarinet and flute

Helen Hausmann, violin

Bob Abbott, double bass

Tim Jarvis, drums

December 21, 2014

Sunday, 3:30 pm

West Building, West Garden Court
The program will be announcedfrom the stage.

The Musicians

Exciting and innovative, The Alexandria Kleztet has been combining

traditional Eastern European/Jewish music with diverse influences

for more than a decade. New arrangements oftraditional melodies

and original songs by members ofthe band draw upon jazz, classical, 

world beat, rock, and other musical genres to create a unique and

entertaining sound.

The band is based in the Washington-Baltimore area and has

performed throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, including annual

appearances at the Kennedy Center and regular concerts at the Peabody Institute. The group began touring internationally in 2007, with

an appearance at the Semanas Musicales festival in Chile. It recently

released it fourth album, Peace, Love and Coffee. In addition to six

original compositions, the recording features fresh arrangements of

traditional melodies and creative reworkings ofsongs by Kurt Weill

and John Williams. The Kleztet has won fifteen Washington Area

Music Awards (also known as Wammies), including: World Music 

Duo or Group, World Music Instrumentalist, Jazz Instrumentalist,

and World Music Recording.
#### Kenneth J. Lewis et al., Appellants, v New York State Department of Civil Service et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 216.

Motion by New York State Catholic Conference for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricky Sebring, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 722]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered June 22, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of forgery in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of forgery in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.10 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence because one of the People’s witnesses was not credible. “ Tn a bench trial, no less than a jury trial, the resolution of credibility issues by the trier of fact and its determination of the weight to be accorded the evidence presented are entitled to great deference’ ” *(People v McCoy,*100 AD3d 1422, 1422 [2012]; *see People v Hollins,*278 AD2d 932, 932 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 759 [2001]). Here, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, he was not denied effective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). We note in particular that the failure of defense counsel to make a specific motion for a trial order of dismissal or to move for a *Wade*hearing does not constitute ineffective assistance. Any motion for a trial order of dismissal would have had no chance of success *(see People v Horton,*79 AD3d 1614, 1616 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 859 [2011]), and “no *Wade*hearing was required because the identifying witness [ ] knew defendant, and thus the identification was merely *1347confirmatory” *(People v Maryon,*20 AD3d 911, 912 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 854 [2005]). Further, defense counsel’s waiver of his opening statement is “attributable to or substantially ameliorated by the fact that defendant elected to waive a jury trial” *{id.*at 913; *see People v Webster,*56 AD3d 1242, 1243 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 931 [2009]).

With respect to defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence, we note that defendant’s release to parole supervision does not render his challenge moot because he “remains under the control of the Parole Board until his sentence has terminated” (Pe*ople v Hannig,*68 AD3d 1779, 1780 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 801 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Barber,*106 AD3d 1533, 1533 [2013]). We nevertheless conclude that his challenge lacks merit. Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| Date: May 15, 2007 |   |   |                                   |
|--------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                    |   |   | /s/ Rafiq                A. Sayed |
|                    |   |   | Rafiq                A. Sayed          |
|               |   |   | Chief Financial Officer                |

----
Exhibit 35.2


                                                [LOGO] Countrywide
                                                    HOME LOANS

                                                400 Countrywide Way
February 29, 2008                       Simi Valley, California 93065-6298


Impac Funding Corporation
Attn: Jerome Yap
19500 Jamboree Rd.
Irvine, CA 92612

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

 I, Joseph Candelario, hereby certify that I am an officer of Countrywide GP,
 Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (the "Servicer").
 I further certify, with respect to the applicable servicing agreement relating
 to the securitization transaction(s) set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto
 (the "Servicing Agreement") that:

      (a) A review of the activities of the Servicer during the preceding
      calendar year and of the performance of the Servicer under the Servicing
      Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

      (b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all
      material respects throughout such year.


 /s/ Joseph Candelario                      February 29, 2008
 ---------------------                      -----------------
 Joseph Candelario
 First Vice President
 Compliance Officer
 Loan Administration


<PAGE>

Exhibit A - Securitized Transaction(s)
Impac Funding Corporation - 19500 Jamboree Rd.




IMPAC SAC 2007-1

IMPAC SAC 2007-2

IMPAC SAC 2007-3
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Quarterly Report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Donald Speer, II, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief
Operating Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

|Date: November 14, 2002 | By: | /s/  L. DONALD SPEER, II                                                                           
|----------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |     |                                                                                                    
|                        |     | L. Donald Speer, II Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### In the Matter of Suzanne Avery et al., Appellants, v Sandra A. Aery, as Assessor of the Town of Harrietstown, et al., Respondents, et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 27, 2009;

decided June 24, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely (see CPLR 5513 [b]).
[915 NE2d 1158, 886 NYS2d 862]

#### Edward Koehl, Appellant, v S. Mirza et al., Respondents.

Decided September 8, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Edward Koehl,*appellant pro se.

*Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General,*Albany *{Robert M. Goldfarb, Barbara D. Underwood*and *Andrea Oser*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Upon reargument, following remand by the Supreme Court of the United States, this Court’s November 27, 2007 dismissal or*760der vacated and appeal reinstated *(see Koehl u Mirza,*556 US —, 129 S Ct 2734 [2009]; *Haywood v Drown,*556 US —, 129 S Ct 2108 [2009]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7371

JAMES G. ARMISTEAD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DERRICK WADSWORTH, Superintendent; HYDE

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-03-1178)

Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 16, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James G. Armistead, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James G. Armistead seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation to deny his petition for habeas corpus

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 Innolog Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, William P. Danielczyk, Executive Chairman of the Board and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael J. Kane, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to §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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/William P. Danielczyk


William P. Danielczyk


Principal Executive Officer


May 18, 2011
  /s/Michael J. Kane


Michael J. Kane
 Principal Accounting Officer
 May 18, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Tamayo, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 130]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered November 13, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3x/2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence supports the inference that when defendant broke two reinforced glass doors in order to gain entry into secured portions of an apartment building, he did so with the intent to commit a crime therein.

The jury’s mixed verdict does not warrant a different conclusion *(see People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557 [2000]; *People v Yanayaco,*99 AD3d 416 [1st Dept 2012]). To the extent that defendant is arguing that his acquittal of a weapon charge requiring unlawful intent rendered the evidence legally insufficient with respect to the intent element of burglary, that argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Contrary to defendant’s argument, to convict him of burglary the People were not required to prove that he intended to use the knife in his possession to threaten, scare or stab anyone. The indictment charged defendant with entering the apartment building with intent to commit an unspecified crime therein, and the People never limited their theory of the case to a particular intended crime *(see People v Romero,*84 AD3d 695, 695 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 955 [2011]; *see also People v Smalls,*92 AD3d 420, 420 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*18 ibf3d 998 [2012]).

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the court’s supplemental jury charge, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the court provided a meaningful and correct response to the deliberating jury’s request for information *{see People v Santi,*3 NY3d 234, 248-249 [2004]; *People v Malloy,*55 NY2d 296 [1982], *cert denied*459 US 847 [1982]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
##### 



CP SHIPS AND HAPAG-LLOYD ANNOUNCE NEW WEEKLY AUSTRALASIAN SERVICE
 GATWICK, UK & HAMBURG, GERMANY
         Forward Looking Information
 1/2




---



##### 



CONTACTS
 
 2/2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      SEP-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                              1,881,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    1,892,000
<PP&E>                                              6,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      2,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,931,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               51,000
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            21,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                          3,200,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,931,000
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    51,000
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       343,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (292,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (292,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (292,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.14)


</TABLE>