alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(January 27, 2009)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Wright, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 439]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered March 2, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s requests for missing witness charges, since defendant did not establish prima facie entitlement to such charges with respect to any of the uncalled witnesses (see *People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424 [1986]). The victim’s stepson, who told the police he was asleep in a back bedroom during the robbery, was clearly not knowledgeable about any issue. The victim’s stepson’s former girlfriend was not under the People’s control for purposes of a missing witness charge, since she did not have any relationship with the victim or with the prosecution that would create an expectation that she would provide testimony favorable to the People *(see People v Abelson,*27 AD3d 301 [2006]). In addition, there was no reason to believe that she had any knowledge of the identity of the assailants or any other material issue. There is no merit to defendant’s pro se claims regarding other uncalled witnesses, or any of his other pro se claims, including the constitutional components of those claims. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, Renwick and DeGrasse, 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 Quarterly Report of Diatect International Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), We,
Patrick Carr, Principal Executive Officer and Robert Rudman, Principal
Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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











August
      14, 2008
            /s/ Patrick
    CarrPatrick
      CarrPrincipal
      Executive OfficerAugust
      14, 2008
            /s/ Robert RudmanRobert
      RudmanPrincipal
      Accounting OfficerPrincipal
      Accounting Officer
1 10. Affirmance Without Opinion - Memorandum Opinion. (b) Memorandu m Opinion. The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participati ng in the cas e, may affirm, rev erse or modify

the actions of the trial court by memor andum opinion when a f ormal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is dec ided by memorandu m opinion it shall be designated “MEMORA NDU M OPINION, ” shall not be published, and shal l n ot be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case. [As amended by order

filed April 22, 1992.] 

# FILED
October 30, 19 97 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF

APPEALS OF

TENNESSEE EASTERN SECTION

AT KNOXVILLE

MARY HELEN WHITTLE ) HAMILTON CIRCUIT WOLFE, ) ) NO. 03A01-9704-CV -00107 Plaintiff /Appella nt ) ) v. ) HON. GARY GERBITZ ) JUDGE JOHN TROY WOLFE, ) By Interc hange ) Defendant/Appellee ) AFFIRMED

John P. K onvalinka a

nd Antonio L . Matthe ws, Cha ttanooga, for Appe llant. Glenna M. Ramer, Chattanooga, for A ppellee.



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N INMAN , Senior

Judge The monetary term s of the diss olution of the appellant ’s eighth ( 8th) marriag e were

not satisfa

ctory to he

r, and she appeals. A tradit ional opinion would neith er serve the ends of

justice nor

nourish the body of do mestic relations law in this juri sdiction. This case is peculia

rly adapti ve to the ap plication of R ULE 10, R ULES OF THE C OURT OF A PPEALS , 1 and the judgm ent is in al l respect s affirm ed with co sts assessed to the appel lant.2 _________________

________________ William H . Inman, Senior Jud ge CONCUR:

_________________

______________ Houston M. Goddard, PresidingJudge

_________________

______________ Charles D . Susano, Jr., Ju dge
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Sherman, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 914]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered November 23, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit *(see People v Handy,*20 NY3d 663, 669 [2013]). Rivera, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging Corporation
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, (the “Report”), I,
      David Vozick, Co-Chief Executive 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 results of operations of the
                Company.

















__
      /s/
      David Vozick


David
      Vozick,


Chairman
      of the Board


Co-Principal
      Executive Officer


November
      14, 2006




23
#### Jonathan BOONE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-1365.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 4, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 18, 2006.

Jonathan Boone, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Pamela M. Wood, Assistant Regional Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Ap-pellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Boone appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing Boone’s complaint requesting review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that he was not disabled for failure to prosecute. A plaintiffs failure to *515prosecute or to comply with the federal procedural rules or an order of the court may warrant involuntary dismissal. Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b). This court reviews a district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) for abuse of discretion. *Ballard v. Carlson,*882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir.1989). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,357-01

EX P ARTE GERALD REG INALD LEASS EAR, Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1239125-A IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant wa s convicted of capital murde r and sentenc ed to life imprisonment without the possibili ty of parole
. The Four teenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Leassear v. State , No. 14-14-00016- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 2015). Applicant filed this application for t h

a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. The trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusions of law, rec ommending that rel i ef be d en i ed
. This Court adopts the trial court’s finding s of fac t and conclusions of law, wi t h t h e exception of finding of fac t numbers 20, 21, 24, 41–42, 53, 77–81 and conclusions of law numbers 5, 6, and 7. Ba sed on the trial court’s other finding s and conclusions and this Court’s independe nt2

revie w of the e ntire re cord, r elief is denie d.

Deliver ed: Marc h 16, 2022 Do not publish
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

###### National Endowment for the Arts

# AGENCY:

National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that two meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference (unless otherwise specified) from the National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (all meetings are Eastern time and ending times are approximate):

*Folk & Traditional Arts (review of nominations*): These meeting will be closed.                    

# DATES:

February 3, 2015 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. and February 6, 2015 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;                         *plowitzk@arts.gov,*                         or call 202/682-5691.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

Dated: January 14, 2015.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,

Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. 2015-00718 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
#### Christopher Eugene McCOY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Sergeant WHITE; Deputy Taylor, Defendants—Appellees, and Abdul-Hamid Jamuldeen, M.D., Defendant.

No. 08-8023.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 1, 2009.

Decided: May 11, 2009.

Christopher Eugene McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Ehrich, Jeff W. Rosen, Pen-der & Coward, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Eugene McCoy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See McCoy v. White,*No. 2:07-cv-00395-RBS-TEM (E.D.Va. Aug. 14, 2008). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
NO. 07-10-00519-CR AND 07-10-00520-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

APRIL 27, 2011

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT

v.

DAVID NEAL DUNCAN, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 20,170-C; HONORABLE DON R. EMERSON, JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**ORDER ON ABATE AND REMAND**

Pending before us is the State’s motion to abate the appeal and remand the matter back to the trial court so that findings of fact and conclusions of law can be filed.  The record reflects that the State timely filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.  However, none were ever filed.  In State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 699 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that, "[u]pon the request of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essential findings."  In Cullen, the Court explained that the trial court's refusal to state its findings and conclusions prevented the court of appeals from a meaningful review of the decision to grant or deny the motion to suppress.  Id. at 698.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the matter back to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4.  We further direct the Honorable Don R. Emerson, sitting by assignment as judge of the 251st Judicial District Court, Randall County, Texas, to execute findings of fact and conclusions of law in this cause as required by Cullen.  We also direct him to execute his findings and conclusions and file them with the clerk of this court, via a supplemental clerk's record, on or before May 27, 2011.  Upon the filing of the supplemental clerk's record containing the findings and conclusions, the appeal will be reinstated.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish. 

2

2
#### Waxelbaum & Son *v.*Connor.

'Where a judgment is against a partnership, and against the individual members, naming each of them and describing them as members of the firm, an execution founded thereon -which directs the seizure of the property of the firm and of each person named in the judgment as members thereof, is not materially variant from the judgment, although it omits to add the statement that they are members of the firm. *Ti-eadwell, Abbott & Co.*v. Beauchamp, 82 *Ga.*736. In *Clayton & Webb*v. *May,*68 *Ga.*27, the judgment was against the firm only, and for that reason that case is distinguishable from the present ease. *Judgment reversed.*

April 23, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Levy and claim. Before Judge Fish. Pulaski superior court. May term, 1893.

Suit was brought against “ W. B. Fitzgerald & Co., a -firm composed of W. B. Fitzgerald of Wilcox county, .and Charles Fitzgerald and J. W. Connor of Pulaski county, as partners,” upon promissory notes. Each of the defendants was legally served. Judgment by default was rendered against “the defendants W. B. Fitzgerald & Co., and against W. B. Fitzgerald, Charles Fitzgerald ■and J. W. Connor, the individual members of said firm.” Execution issued against the goods, etc., “of W. B. Fitzgerald & Co., and of W. B. Fitzgerald, Charles Fitzgerald and J. W. Connor.” It was levied on land which was claimed by Missouri Connor. She moved to dismiss the levy for fatal variance between the judgment *530and declaration and between the execution and the judgment and declaration; and the motion was sustained.

J. H. Martin, for plaintiffs.

L. C. Ryan, for claimant.
* 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. 97-40092

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDWARDO FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-96-CR-81-1

- - - - - - - - - -

December 3, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edwardo Flores appeals his conviction and sentence for

conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Flores’ claim of insufficient

evidence to show possession with intent to distribute is a

challenge to the credibility of eyewitness testimony. This court

may not substitute its credibility assessments for those of the

jury. United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 578 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 116 S. Ct. 1867 (1996). This claim is without merit. 
No. 97-40092

-2-

The evidence did not establish that Flores was less culpable

than others involved in the offense. The district court did not

clearly err in refusing to award a reduction in his offense level

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. Tremelling,

43 F.3d 148, 152 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1122 (1995). 

Flores’ argument that he should have received a downward

departure on the basis of his poor health and diminished mental

capacity is not reviewable on appeal. See United States v.

Leonard, 61 F.3d 1181, 1185 (5th Cir. 1995). Because the

district court did not misapply the sentencing guidelines, this

court lacks jurisdiction to review the court’s refusal to grant a

downward departure. Id.; United States v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476,

477 (5th Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10921]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,723]


Eagle Compressor, Hickman, KY; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 1, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Eagle Compressor, 
Hickman, Kentucky.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10921 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4094 

To extend the period in which States may spend funds from the additional 

allotments provided to States under the Social Services Block Grant 

program for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane 

Katrina and other hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2006 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the period in which States may spend funds from 

the additional allotments provided to States under the 

Social Services Block Grant program for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina 

and other hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005. 

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


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 4094 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR EXPENDITURE OF 

2 ADDITIONAL SSBG ALLOTMENTS FOR NEC3 ESSARY EXPENSES RELATED TO THE CON4 SEQUENCES OF HURRICANE KATRINA AND 

5 OTHER HURRICANES IN THE GULF OF MEX6 ICO IN 2005. 

7 Notwithstanding section 2002(c) of the Social Secu8 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1397a(c)), the additional allotments 

9 for States from amounts appropriated under the heading 

10 ‘‘Social Services Block Grant’’, under the heading ‘‘Ad11 ministration for Children and Families’’, under the head12 ing ‘‘Department of Health and Human Services’’ of the 

13 Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appro14 priations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, 

15 and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–148, 

16 119 Stat. 2768) shall remain available for obligation 

17 through September 30, 2008. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip B., Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 122]

— Appeals by the defendant from five judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Colangelo, J.), all rendered April 25, 2011, convicting him of (1) robbery in the second degree under superior court information No. 10-01383, (2) robbery in the second degree under superior court information No. 10-01384, (3) robbery in the second degree under superior court information No. 10-01385, (4) robbery in the second degree under superior court information No. 10-01386, and (5) robbery in the second degree under superior court information No. 10-01387, upon his pleas of guilty, adjudicating him a youthful offender, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his pleas of guilty were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas on this ground prior to the imposition of the sentences *(see People v Newson,*106 AD3d 839, 840 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1044 [2013]; *People v Cohen,*100 AD3d 919 [2012]; *People v Andrea,*98 AD3d 627 [2012]). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record establishes that his pleas were knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered *(see People v Garcia,*92 NY2d 869, 870 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 736 [1998]).

The sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Angiolillo, J.E, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.