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

[971 NYS2d 923]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, J.), rendered May 8, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts).

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

*1472Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1], [3]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), and affording deference to the jury’s credibility determinations *(see People v Wedlington,*67 AD3d 1472, 1473 [2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 807 [2010]), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). “Although there was conflicting testimony and thus ‘an acquittal would not have been unreasonable’ ” *(People v Burroughs,*57 AD3d 1459, 1460 [2008], *lv denied*12 NY3d 756 [2009], quoting *Danielson,*9 NY3d at 348), the verdict is supported by the weight of the credible evidence, i.e., the testimony of the evidence technician, security guard, and two police officers that defendant was found shortly after the shooting, albeit unconscious from a gunshot wound to the head, with a fully loaded defaced pistol on his lap. Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 92 (Thursday, May 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22762-22763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11387]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Federal Register Notice

Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Date: Week of May 18, 2009.

Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.

Status: Public and Closed.

Week of May 18, 2009

    Monday, May 18, 2009
    10 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative).
    a. Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant, Units 2 and 3), Docket Nos. 52-022-COL and 52-023-COL, Progress 
Energy and NRC Staff Appeals from LBP-08-21; NC WARN's Motion to Hold 
the Proceeding in Abeyance (Tentative).
    b. Crow Butte Resources, Inc. (License Renewal), LBP-08-24 and LBP-
08-27 (Staff and Applicant Appeals of Order Granting Hearing) 
(Tentative).
* * * * *
    *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short 
notice. To verify the status of meetings, call (recording)--(301) 415-
1292. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Rochelle Bavol, (301) 415-
1651.
* * * * *

[[Page 22763]]

    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/schedule.html.
* * * * *
    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation 
to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or 
the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another 
format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability 
Program Coordinator, Rohn Brown, at 301-492-2279, TDD: 301-415-2100, or 
by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9be9f4f3f5b5f9e9f4ecf5dbf5e9f8b5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="384a575056165a4a574f5678564a5b165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>. Determinations on requests for 
reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * *
    This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no 
longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the 
distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, 
DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b6f6a79676e656e257c79626c637f4b657968256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cda9acbfa1a8a3a8e3babfa4aaa5b98da3bfaee3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a>.

    May 11, 2009.
Rochelle C. Bavol,
Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11387 Filed 5-12-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 92 (Thursday, May 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22759-22760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11237]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; ARRA Competitive Supplements--Brain.
    Date: June 5, 2009.

[[Page 22760]]

    Time: 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications,
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: William Cruce, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute on Aging, Scientific Review Branch, Gateway 
Building 2C-212, 7201 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-
7704, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b68797e686e7c4b65626a25656263256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="781b0a0d1b1d0f3816111956161110561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research 
Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 5, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-11237 Filed 5-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CD
2007-CD4 Commercial Mortgage Trust
 Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
 Series
2007-CD4
 Pooling
and Servicing Agreement
 OFFICER'S
CERTIFICATE
 Pursuant
to the requirements of that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the
"Agreement"), it is hereby certified to the Depositor thereunder that on behalf
of Midland Loan Services, Inc. (the "Servicer"), (i) a review of the Servicer's
activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under the undersigned officer's supervision; (ii) to the
best of the undersigned officer's knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the reporting period or, if there has been a failure to
fulfill any such obligation in any material respect, each such failure known to
the undersigned officer and the nature and status thereof are set forth below;
and (iii) the Servicer has not received any notice regarding qualification, or
challenging the status, of any REMIC formed pursuant to the Agreement from the
IRS or any other governmental agency or body.
 Nature
and Status of Failures: None.
    MIDLAND LOAN
      SERVICES, INC/s/
      Steven W. SmithSteven W.
      SmithPresident and
      Chief Operating Officer
    A
Member of the PNC Financial Serices Group
  P.O. Box
419127  Kansas City Missouri 64141-6127
  www.midlandls.com  913 253 900T   913 253  9001F
- 1

-

No. 63 SSM 8
In the Matter of Jamael Bursch, Appellant,

v. Purchase College of the State University of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted by Peter E. Brill, for appellant. Submitted by Seth M. Rokosky, for respondent s.

MEMORANDUM :

T he order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from should be reversed,

with costs, and the petition insofar as it sought to annul respondents’ disciplinary

determination granted and the matter remitted to the Appellate Divis ion with directions to- 2

- SSM No. 8

- 2

- remand to respondents for a new disciplinary hearing. Petitioner, a student enrolled at

respondent Purchase College of the State University of New York , was accused of multiple

disciplinary violations including sexual assault of ano ther student. Petitioner requested a

three

- hour adjournment of his scheduled a dministrative hearing so that his attorney could

attend the proceeding. Respondent s denied this request. Under the particular

circumstances of this case , we find r espondent s abused their discretion as a matter of law

by failing to grant the requested adjournment ( see Matter of Abdur

- Raheem v Mann , 85

NY2d 113, 124 [1995])

. Petitioner’s remaining arguments need not be reached and any

other contentions raised below have been a bandoned.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order insofar as appealed from reversed, with costs, and petition insofar as it sought to annul respondents’

disc iplinary determination granted and matter remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, with directions to remand to respondents for a new disciplinary hearing, in a

memorandum. Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur. Chief Judge DiFiore took no part.

Decided June 6, 2019
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

In connection with Quarterly Report of IRIS International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Peter L. Donato, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: November 1, 2007 
|                       
|/s/ PETER L. DONATO    
|Peter L. Donato        
|Chief Financial Officer

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the Exchange Ace. Such certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our reports dated (a) August 13, 2004 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of OccuLogix, Inc. (the "Company," formerly Vascular
Sciences Corporation) as at December 31, 2003 and 2002 and for each of the years
in the three year period ended December 31, 2003 and (b) August 13, 2004 with
respect to the financial statements of OccuLogix, L.P. as at December 31, 2003
and 2002 and for the year ended December 31, 2003 and for the period from
July 25, 2002 to December 31, 2002, in the Registration Statement (Amendment
No. 2 to Form S-1 No, 333-118204) and related Prospectus of the Company dated
November 15, 2004.




/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Toronto, Canada
November 15, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6797

STEPHAN D. BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, Law Enforcement Officer; R. G. BUENING, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-460-3-2MU) Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 25, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephan D. Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Harcourt Fulton, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Frank Bayard Aycock, III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Stephan D. Brooks appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2002) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brooks v. Doe , No. CA-98-460-3-2MU (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 30, 2002 & entered May 2, 2002). 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
2003 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-24-2003

USA v. Shalata

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 01-4064

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Shalata" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 792.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/792
*The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior District Judge for the Northern

District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 01-4064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOSEPH SHALATA,

 Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(Dist. Court No. 3:CR-01-033)

District Court Judge: Munley, J.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

February 10, 2003

Before: ALITO and McKEE, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge*

(Opinion Filed: February 24, 2003)

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:
Defendant Joseph Shalata pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute in excess of 100

grams of heroin which resulted in the death of another person, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§846. The District Court imposed sentence and entered judgment, and this appeal followed.

The defendant contends (1) that the District Court should have lessened his federal

sentence by according him full-time credit for a related state conviction and sentence

already served and (2) that his guilty plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly, and

intelligently. In accordance with the defendant’s instructions, defendant’s counsel submitted

a brief presenting these claims to this Court. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), however, defendant’s counsel submitted a brief certifying that each of the issues

raised by the defendant is without merit. We agree. 

After reviewing counsel’s Anders brief and engaging in an independent review

of the record, see United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 299-300 (3d Cir. 2001), we find no

non-frivolous issues meriting appeal. Accordingly, pursuant to Anders and Third Circuit

Local Appellate Rule 109.2(b), we affirm the judgment of the District Court and grant

defense counsel’s motion to withdraw.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             782
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,957
<PP&E>                                         102,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                (39,210)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,015
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               92
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,031
<SALES>                                          8,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,111
<CGS>                                            4,603
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   896
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,771
<INCOME-TAX>                                       841
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,462
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,462
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
Karen F. Long, Plaintiff,
v. Karen Oposch, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED AUG 26 2010 eleark, u.s. DistrIct 

### and ankruptcy Courts

## t~- 

# rtf-55

This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintiffs 

### pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed 

### informapauperis. The Court will grant the 

### informapauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. 

### Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. 

### Jarrell v. 

### Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires complaints to contain "( 1) a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); 

### see Ashcroft v. 

### Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); 

### Oralsky v. 

### CIA, 355 F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice ofthe claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of

### resjudicata applies. 

### Brown v. 

### Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

### Plaintiff, a resident ofOxon Hill, Maryland, sues an individual located in Alexandria, Virginia. The complaint, consisting ofnames and disjointed phrases, fails to provide any notice ofa claim. A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: August 

### 1&,2010 Unite tates Dlstnct Judge

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Adrian Howard JACKSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-6046.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2009.

Decided: May 5, 2009.

Adrian Howard Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Howard Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for *163reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Jackson,*No. 0:98-cr-01126-JFA-2 (D.S.C. filed Dec. 18 & entered Dec. 19, 2008; filed Jan. 7, 2009 & entered Jan. 8, 2009). 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.*
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation;d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
 24




---



##### 



the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  Date:  May 6, 2010
    By:
    /s/ RON E. HOOPERRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President and Trust Administrator
Bank of America, N.A. 25