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

[870 NYS2d 330]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Efrain Alvarado, J.), rendered June 14, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted aggravated assault upon a police officer and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved (see *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484 [2008]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternate 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]). Defendant’s course of conduct warranted the inference that he intended to cause a. police officer to land on a subway track as trains approached. The People’s expert witness refuted any claim that defendant lacked the mental capacity to form the requisite intent to cause serious physical injury to the officer. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5312-N-01]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        HUD announces the availability of program requirements, including eligibility requirements and application instructions, for the Green Retrofit Program authorized under Title XII of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5, approved February 17, 2009). The Green Retrofit Program makes funding available to multifamily owners for adopting measures that will meet requirements for green project operation. The notice establishing the program requirements is available on the HUD Web site at:                         *http://www.hud.gov/​recovery/​*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theodore K. Toon, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 6230, Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-708-0001 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

Dated: May 13, 2009.

Brian D. Montgomery,

Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner.

[FR Doc. E9-11556 Filed 5-13-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the inclusion in this Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement
No. 333-126936 on Form F-4 of Henry Birks & Sons Inc. of our report dated June
6, 2003 (June 22, 2005 as to the effects of Note B), relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Mayor's Jewelers, Inc. for the
year ended March 29, 2003. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration
Statement.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Miami, FL
September 7, 2005
(April 10, 2013)

#### Rudolph Allen et al., Respondents, v Jaclyn R. Pistorino et al., Appellants.

[962 NYS2d 702]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated January 12, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries after a car operated by the defendant Jaclyn R. Pistorino (hereinafter Pistorino) collided with a car operated by the plaintiff Rudolph Allen. In a related case commenced on behalf of Rebecca Anzel, who was a passenger in the vehicle driven by Pistorino, the Supreme Court granted Anzel’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. In so doing, the Supreme Court found that, as between Pistorino and Allen, Pistorino was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Based solely upon the preclusive effect of that finding, the plaintiffs in the present case moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. For the reasons stated in *Anzel v Pistorino*(105 AD3d 784 [2013] [decided herewith]), the determination of the Supreme Court in that case as to the relative fault between Allen and Pistorino was erroneous. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been denied.

Skelos, J.P, Leventhal, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.
#### Perkins v. U.S. Airways

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 205

No. 276P06

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-392)

Denied 03/08/07
EX-35.2
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION


Re: Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Inc.
    Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates
    Series 2007-1


In connection with the above-referenced transaction the undersigned officer, on
behalf of Bank of America, National Association, hereby certifies that (i) a
review of the Servicing activities, for the period ending December 31, 2007 and
of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
February 1, 2007 has been made under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my
knowledge, based on such review, Bank of America, National Association has
fulfilled all of its obligations under this agreement in all material respects
throughout the aforementioned period.


Bank of America, National Association



/s/ Janice M. Smith
Janice M. Smith
Managing Director


/s/ H. Michael Lumadue
H. Michael Lumadue
Vice President
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Tecton Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.



|Dated: May 15, 2008 | By:/s/Norman Meier                 
|------------------- | -----------------------------------
|                    | Norma Meier                        
|                    | President, Chief Executive Officer,
|                    | Chief Financial Officer            

---
NO. 07-04-0556-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	DECEMBER 17, 2004

	______________________________

	GARRY LISTER, NANCY LISTER AND DORETTA MOORE, APPELLANTS

	V.

	LEE-SWOFFORD INVESTMENTS, L.L.P., APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF ROBERTS COUNTY;

	NO. 1828; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	On November 24, 2004, the clerk of this Court received a copy of a notice of appeal filed on behalf of appellants Garry Lister, Nancy Lister and Doretta Moore.  By letter dated November 30, 2004, the clerk notified appellants that the filing fee and docketing statement had not been received, and that failure to pay the filing fee and file the docketing statement within ten days from the date of the letter could result in dismissal of the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 32.1, 42.3(c); see Tex. R. App. P. 5. 

	That date has passed and no response has been received.  Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

							James T. Campbell

							        Justice
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 period ending
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, Veronica O. Tarrant, Interim 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:



| | 3. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                               
|-------------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2006       
|                               
|/s/ VERONICA O. TARRANT        
|Veronica O. Tarrant            
|Interim Chief Financial Officer
##### 



August 10, 2004
    
    Exhibit 15
 Sears, Roebuck and Co.
3333 Beverly Road
Hoffman Estates, IL 60179 We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial
information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the thirteen week and twenty-six week
periods ended July 3, 2004 and June 28, 2003, as indicated in our report dated
August 10, 2004; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 3, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,
33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851, 33-64345,
333-08141, and 333-113532 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration Statement No.
333-92082 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck Acceptance Corp.;
Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears,
Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan;
Registration Statement No. 333-102114 of Sears, Roebuck and Co., the Sears
401(K) Savings Plan (formerly, the Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears
Employees and the Sears 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan) and Lands End, Inc.
Retirement Plan; Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.
and Sears DC Corp.; Registration Statement No. 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and
Co. and the Sears Associate Stock Ownership Plan; Registration Statement No.
333-52056 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2000 Employee Stock Plan;
Registration Statement No. 333-72514 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2001
Broad-Based Stock Option Plan; and Registration Statement No. 333-87942 of
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
#### In the Matter of Chester J. Thomas, Sr., Appellant, v Gabrielle C. Smith, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 894]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Patricia E. Gallaher, J.), entered February 23, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

*1399It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings on the petition.

Memorandum: Petitioner, an inmate at a correctional facility, contends that Family Court erred in summarily dismissing his petition alleging that respondent violated a prior order based on his failure to appear by video or telephone for proceedings held on a specified adjourned date. We agree. Although Family Court was entitled to dismiss the petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute based on the existence of “exceptional circumstances or an unreasonable neglect to prosecute” *(Matter of Stacey O. v Donald P.,*137 AD2d 965, 966 [1988]), here there were no such exceptional circumstances, nor can it be said on this record that there was an “unreasonable neglect to prosecute” *(id.).*Indeed, the record before us does not establish the basis for petitioner’s failure to appear by telephone or video from the correctional facility but, rather, the court merely stated on the record that its staff had attempted to call the correctional facility and “didn’t get through.” We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the petition and remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings on the petition.

Present—Centra, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Shawn Green, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 15, 2009;

decided June 30, 2009

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see 12*NY3d 703 (2009)].

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lee Applewhite, Appellant.

[608 NYS2d 634]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice K. Shea, J.), rendered May 8, 1992, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of *251two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932), we find that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the verdict. Moreover, upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the prosecution’s police witness, including inconsistencies in his testimony, the fact that no drugs or money were found on defendant’s person at the time of arrest, and the testimony of the two accused buyers that defendant was not the person who had sold them drugs, were properly before the fact finder and, after considering the relative force of the conflicting testimony and the competing inferences that may be drawn therefrom, we find no reason on the record before us to disturb the court’s determination.

The stationhouse identification of defendant was confirmatory in nature, made as it was by a trained police officer within 30 minutes after having observed defendant selling drugs, an observation made with binoculars for 5 to 7 minutes without interruption or obstruction, and thus properly admitted *(see, People v Francis,*139 AD2d 527, 528, *lv denied*72 NY2d 859).

Nor was it error to allow this police witness to briefly testify as an expert about the practices and patterns of 2 and 3 person drug-selling teams in order to explain why no drugs or money were found on defendant at the time of arrest *(see, People v Matos,*165 AD2d 767, 768, *lv denied*76 NY2d 988). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Nardelli, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               84,407
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           749,555
<OTHER-SE>                                        (833,962)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,223)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (1,223)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.00)
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rio Jackson, Appellant.

Submitted December 7, 2009;

decided December 15, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 1057.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
#### Morrison *v.*Dodge.

Neither the documentary evidence specified in the bill of exceptions, nor any brief of the same, being set out and authenticated, either in the bill of exceptions or in the transcript of the record, and it not appearing that said evidence ever was briefed and approved by the judge so as to become a part of the re,cord, and none of the *731errors assigned being susceptible of proper examination and adjudication without considering the evidence, no reversal of the judgment of the court below is legally possible.

April 30, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

R. R. Norman and W. L. Clarke, by D. W. Rountree, for plaintiff in error. DeLacy & Bishop, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
II 

Calendar No. 390 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 598 

[Report No. 109–221] 

To reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating to Native Hawaiian low-income 

housing and Federal loan guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2005 

Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

MARCH 16 (legislative day, MARCH 15), 2006 

Reported by Mr. MCCAIN, without amendment 

APRIL 4, 2006 

Ordered referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; 

committee discharged and ordered to be placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing 

Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating 

to Native Hawaiian low-income housing and Federal loan 

guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing. 

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

S 598 PCS

1 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION. 

2 Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assist3 ance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 

4 4243) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years’’ and all that 

5 follows and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2006 through 2009’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Calendar No. 390 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 598 

[Report No. 109

–221] 

A BILL 

To reauthorize provisions in the Native American 

Hawaiian housing. housing and Federal loan guarantees for Native of 1996 relating to Native Hawaiian low-income Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

MARCH 16 (legislative day, MARCH 15), 2006 

Reported without amendment 

APRIL 4, 2006 

Ordered referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 

to be placed on the calendar and Urban Affairs; committee discharged and ordered 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Association/Fidelity New York FSB, Respondent, v Marilyn Lane, Appellant, and Frances Turner et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Submitted November 16, 2009;

decided December 17, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 454.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*13 NY3d 808 (2009)].
Order entered January 23, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01548-CV

PURE GEN HOLDINGS, INC., Appellant

V.

NEORA, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-10205

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 21, 2020 unopposed motion for extension of time 

to file its brief on the merits. Appellant seeks an extension because the parties are currently 

engaged in settlement negotiations. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER appellant to file its 

brief or a status report on the negotiations by February 26, 2020.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE