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

[975 NYS2d 653]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered June 22, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to disprove his justification defense and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Moreover, we find that the evidence was overwhelming. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. The testimony of numerous witnesses, most of whom were disinterested bystanders, completely refuted defendant’s justification defense.

The evidentiary rulings challenged by defendant were proper exercises of the court’s discretion that weighed appropriate considerations of probative value and prejudicial effect. To the extent that any of these rulings could be viewed as erroneous, we find them harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

Defendant’s challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D’Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

*548We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
#### Swain *v.*Boylston Ins. Co.1

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

February 12, 1889.)

Pleading—Amendment of Answer—Xew Defense—Materiality.

In an action on a policy of marine insurance, on application to amend the answer by the insertion of a clause in the application for insurance warranting the vessel to be commanded by a certified captain, *held,*that if the clause operated as an inducement to the defendant to accept the risk, defendant was at liberty to avail himself of such defense under an amendment made since the trial. If the statement was one not material to the risk, defendant should not now be allowed to set it up as a bar in a case wheré his amendment as to representation gave him opportunity to prove in defense whatever fact he selected for a defense when he made his contract. Hence the motion was denied.

*767At Law.

On motion for reargument of a motion to amend the answer by setting up as a defense a clause in the application for insurance that the vessel on which the policy sued on was issued was to be commanded by a certified captain.

*Wing, Shoudy & Putnam,*for plaintiff.

*Lester W. Clark,*for defendant.

1

 Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq,, of the New York bar.

Lacombe, J.

1. Upon the trial it was held that the clause in the application for insurance on the Altavelia could not be considered a warranty because it was not carried into the policy. The defendant’s contention then was (and still is) that, the policy being an open one, not in fact completed as to the Altavelia until the application for that particular vessel was put in, the application is to be considered a part of the policy or contract of obligation between the parties. If the contention of the defendant is sound, it will avail him under his original answer, which contains a denial that the plaintiff has duly fulfilled all the conditions of the policy.

2. If the clause warranting the Altavelia to be commanded by a certified captain, which is contained in the application for insurance on that vessel, operated as an inducement to accept the risk, the fact warranted being deemed by the insurer material to the risk, the defendant should in all fairness be allowed to avail of such a defense. But he is at liberty to do so now, under the amendment made since the trial.

8. If the statement as to the certificate of the captain was one not material to the risk, and of no effect as an inducement to the insurer to accept the plaintiff’s offer,—in other words, if it is an after-thought,—then the defendant should not now be allowed to set it up as a flat bar in a case where his amendment as to representation gives him every opportunity to prove in defense whatever fact he selected for a defense when he made his contract.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3979 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3979

 To amend the National Trails System Act to clarify Federal authority 
relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the North Country 
                         National Scenic Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2006

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Trails System Act to clarify Federal authority 
relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the North Country 
                         National Scenic Trail.

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

SECTION 1. NORTH COUNTRY NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL.

    (a) Acquisition of Land.--Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails 
System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ``No lands or interests therein outside the exterior 
boundaries of any Federally administered area may be acquired by the 
Federal government for the trail except with the consent of the owner 
thereof.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 10(c)(1) of the National Trails 
System Act (16 U.S.C. 1249(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``the North 
Country National Scenic Trail,''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
      32











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 Amended Annual
      Report of Cactus Ventures, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form
      10-KSB for the annual period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Diane S. Button, Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350),
      that
      to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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 result of operations of the Company.











Date:
      April 4,
      2008                                                                                                
 /s/ Diane S. Button


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICE

CHAIR OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE :

:

:

:

: N O

. 731

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11 th day of April , 202 2

, Kathleen D. Bruder, Esquire

, is hereby

designated as Chair

, and Maureen Murphy McBride, Esquire, is designated as Vice

Chair

, of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee, c ommencing Ju ne 30, 2022

.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus PADILLA-GOMEZ, also known as Jesus Padilla, also known as Armando Martinez-Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41468

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jesus Padilla-Gomez (Padilla) appeals the sentence he received for illegally reentering the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826. Padilla argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing each of his prior state felony convictions for possession of controlled substances as “aggravated felonies” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C). Padilla’s argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. *See United, States v. Hinojosar-Lopez,*130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Padilla argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with *Jerome v. United States,*318 U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943). Having preceded *Hinojosa-Lopez, Jerome*is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” *See United States v. Short,*181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).

Padilla also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b) in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Padilla’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Padilla argues that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Padilla properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PERIODIC REPORT




Each of
the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of Global Gold Corporation (the
"Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that:




(1) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March
31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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:
      May 19, 2009
            /s/
      Van Z. Krikorian
              Van
      Z. Krikorian
              Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer







Date:
      May 19, 2009
            /s/
      Jan E. Dulman
              Jan
      E. Dulman
              Chief
      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.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 4044

AN ACT

To clarify the treatment of certain charitable contributions

under title 11, United States Code.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Religious Liberty and

5 Charitable Donation Clarification Act of 2006’’.
 †

2

S 4044 ES

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS IN

2 BANKRUPTCY.

3 Section 1325(b)(3) of title 11, United States Code,

4 is amended by inserting ‘‘, other than subparagraph

5 (A)(ii) of paragraph (2),’’ after ‘‘paragraph (2)’’.

Passed the Senate September 30 (legislative day,

September 29), 2006.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 4044

AN ACT

To clarify the treatment of certain charitable

contributions under title 11, United States Code.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher DeJesus, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 137]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered January 26, 2010, as amended March 22, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first and second degrees and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal. In a thorough colloquy, the court carefully separated the right to appeal from the rights automatically given up by a guilty plea *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]).

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, and regardless of whether the waiver applied to post-plea sentencing enhancement issues, defendant’s claim that the court improperly enhanced his bargained-for sentence without sufficient inquiry into the validity of his post-plea arrests is unpreserved since defendant neither requested a hearing nor moved to withdraw his plea *(see e.g. People v Malaj,*69 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 776 [2010]; *People v Carrillo,*2 AD3d 260 [1st Dept 2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 797 [2004]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry and properly imposed an enhanced sentence *(see People v Outley,*80 NY2d 702, 713-714 [1993]). Since defendant did not challenge the validity of his post-plea arrests or deny his involvement in the underlying crimes, the court was under no obligation to conduct an inquiry into the validity of these arrests *(see e.g. People v Pinkston,*287 AD2d 294 [1st Dept 2001], *462
      *lv denied*97 NY2d 707 [2002]). There were no disputed factual issues that required a hearing as a matter of due process *(see People v Valencia,*3 NY3d 714 [2004]; *compare Torres v Berbary,*340 F3d 63 [2d Cir 2003]).

Regardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Abdus-Salaam and Gische, JJ.
Order entered October 20, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00521-CR

GREGORY ALLEN ROBINSON, JR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-34479-R

ORDER

On August 12, 2014, this Court ordered the trial court to prepare and file a certification of 

appellant’s right to appeal. The Court determined that the certification was signed by the trial 

court on August 13, 2014. Therefore, on September 17, 2014, we ordered the Gary Fitzsimmons, 

Dallas County District Clerk to file a supplemental record containing the certification. To date, 

the Court has not received the supplemental record. The appeal cannot proceed until the Court 

has received the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal.

Accordingly, we ORDER Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk, to file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the August 13, 2014 certification of appellant’s right to 

appeal within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. If the Court does not receive the 

supplemental record within the time specified, we utilize the available remedies to obtain the 

supplemental record, including referral of the case to the trial court for findings regarding the 

failure to file the supplemental record.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Mark Stoltz, Presiding Judge, 265th Judicial District Court; Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas 

County District Clerk; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-51322

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DUNOIS DEE T. BEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-98-CR-2-2

- - - - - - - - - -

October 26, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dunois “Dee” T. Beman appeals from his sentence following

resentencing for conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine and

aiding and abetting the manufacture of methamphetamine. He

argues that his sentence is invalid pursuant to Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because it was based upon the

district court’s determination of drug quantity and such quantity

was neither submitted to a jury nor found beyond a reasonable

doubt.
No. 00-51322

-2-

This court has declined to apply Apprendi when a sentence is

enhanced within the statutory range based upon a drug-quantity

finding. United States v. Keith, 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir.

2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1163 (2001); United States v.

Doggett, 230 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.

Ct. 1152 (2001); United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 575-77

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied sub nom., Parker v. United States,

531 U.S. 1100 (2001), amended on reh’g, 244 F.3d 367 (5th Cir.

2001). Beman concedes that his sole argument on appeal is

foreclosed by this court’s precedent, but he urges this court to

reconsider the issue.

The above-cited cases are binding on this court. See United

States v. Ruff, 984 F.2d 635, 640 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly,

the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3642 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3642

  To suspend temporarily the duty on knitted or crocheted fabrics of 
                            cotton, printed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2006

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on knitted or crocheted fabrics of 
                            cotton, printed.

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

SECTION 1. KNITTED OR CROCHETED FABRICS OF COTTON, PRINTED.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.60.07        Knitted or crocheted    Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           fabrics of cotton,                                                31/2009          ''
                           printed (provided for                                                               .
                           in subheading
                           6006.24).............

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Robert A. Doak, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB of  Mountains  West
Exploration, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 5, 2004


/s/ Robert A. Doak
- -----------------------
 Robert A. Doak President