alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[933 NE2d 207, 906 NYS2d 808]

#### In the Matter of Capital Newspapers Division of the Hearst Corporation et al., Appellants, v City of Albany et al., Respondents.

Argued June 1, 2010;

decided July 1, 2010

*760APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Office of General Counsel, Hearst Corporation,*New York City *(Jonathan R. Donnellan, Eve B. Burton*and *Eva M. Saketkoo),*for appellants.

*John J. Reilly, Corporation Counsel,*Albany *(Jeffery V. Jamison*of counsel), for City of Albany, respondent.

*Office of General Counsel, New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, District Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,*Albany *761
      *(Matthew E Ryan*and *Ennio J. Corsi*of counsel), for Albany Police Officers Union, Local 2841 of New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, District Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, respondent.

*David E. McCraw,*New York City, *Jacob E Goldstein, Sabin, Bermant & Gould LLP (Patricia A. Clark*of counsel), *Karen Kaiser, Assistant General Counsel, Associated Press, Anne B. Carroll, Deputy General Counsel, Dailey News, L.P., Barbara*TV *Wall, Associate General Counsel, Gannett Co., Inc.,*McLean, Virginia, *Beth R. Lobel,*New York City, *Michael G. Cameron, Assistant General Counsel, News America Incorporated,*for Advance Publications, Inc., and others, amici curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.

Respondent City of Albany failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the gun tags are “personnel records” under Civil Rights Law § 50-a. The Police Chiefs conclusory affidavit did not establish that the documents were “used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion,” as required by that statute (Civil Rights Law § 50-a [1]). Consequently, the unredacted gun tags do not fall squarely within a statutory exemption and are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) (see Public Officers Law § 87 [2]). Petitioners’ claim that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying counsel fees is without merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order modified, etc.
Exhibit 99.1


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


     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Global Gold  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Drury J. Gallagher,  the Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer 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,  following due inquiry,  that I
believe that:

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


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


Dated: November 19, 2002          GLOBAL GOLD CORPORATION


                                  By: /s/  Drury J. Gallagher
                                     -------------------------------
                                           Drury J. Gallagher
                                           Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           26226
<RECEIVABLES>                                   532250
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           583068
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             370148
<PP&E>                                           12954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1550853
<SHORT-TERM>                                    206696
<PAYABLES>                                       69359
<REPOS-SOLD>                                      1146
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                             519337
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              233834
<LONG-TERM>                                      30598
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                      131466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1550853
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                41547
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             41116
<COMMISSIONS>                                   105558
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    26293
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    28596
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               24342
<COMPENSATION>                                  149113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  17252
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     10249
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RICARDO GONZALEZ-MORALES,

a.k.a. Ricardo Gonzales-Morales, a.k.a.

Jose Gonzalez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-10302

D.C. No. 2:07-CR-01019-MHM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Ricardo Gonzalez-Morales appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and

38-month sentence for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Gonzalez-Morales’s

FILED

JUL 01 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-10302

counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion

to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity

to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief

has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of World Waste Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that based on his knowledge:

          (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal
     year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
     Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Date: March ____, 2006                       /s/ David A. Rane
                                             -----------------
                                             Name:   David A. Rane
                                             Title:  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. The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-KSB and shall not be considered filed as
part of the Form 10-KSB.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11536]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Docket Nos. MC-F-4901 and MC-F-6152]


United Van Lines, LCC--Pooling Agreement

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: United Van Lines, LLC (United), on behalf of itself and 
certain affiliated companies, filed an application with the Board under 
49 U.S.C. 14302 for approval of revisions to its pooling agreement. The 
Board establishes a procedural schedule for the submission of public 
comments on the proposed revisions, principally the requirement that 
carrier agents may not transport under their own motor carrier 
authority any interstate shipments of household goods except, subject 
to United policies, shipments for the government. After reviewing any 
comments received, the Board will determine whether it has sufficient 
information to decide whether the proposed revisions meet the standard 
for approval under section 14302 or whether a hearing is necessary 
prior to such a determination.

DATES: Comments on the proposed revisions to United's pooling agreement 
shall be filed by July 2, 2009. United may file a response to any 
comments by July 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Docket Nos. MC-F-4901 and MC-F-6152, must be filed with the Surface 
Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In 
addition, one copy of all pleadings must be served on United's 
representative, James A. Calderwood, Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger 
L.L.P., 888 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3309.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Farr, (202) 245-0359. 
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Board's decision, available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: May 12, 2009.

    By the Board, Acting Chairman Mulvey, and Vice Chairman 
Nottingham.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. E9-11536 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11565]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small 
Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to 
function as a small business investment company under the Small 
Business Investment Company License No. 09/79-0404 issued to Bay 
Partners SBIC, L.P., and said license is hereby declared null and void 
as of May 1, 2009.

    United States Small Business Administration.

Harry E. Haskins,
Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. E9-11565 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony Lavar HAGWOOD, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-6532.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 26, 2009.

*230Anthony Lavar Hagwood, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Lavar Hagwood appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Hagwood,*No. 4:04-cr-70014-jlk-1 (W.D.Va. filed Mar. 27, 2008 & entered Mar. 28, 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. 07-18-00442-CR

Fabian Perez

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 320th District Court

of Potter County

January 15, 2019

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated January 15, 2019

, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that this appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         509,257
<SECURITIES>                                 9,217,962
<RECEIVABLES>                                  346,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,247
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,079,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          842,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,561
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,227,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,079,562
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (3,140,539)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               738,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,880,234)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,304,501)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,575,733)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,575,733)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Ruchama Gamiel, Appellant, v Curtis & Reiss-Curtis, P.C., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted October 19, 2009;

decided November 24, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 473.

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic *[see*13 NY3d 763 (2009)].
EX-10.79C



 

 


Exhibit 10.79c

April 16, 2007




Via Certified Mail — Return Receipt Request




Mr. Fred Tomarchio

F&J Properties, Inc.

P.O. Box 55

Glenelg, MD 21737





			
	RE:	 	Lease Agreement dated January 1, 1998 by and between F&J Properties, nc. (“Landlord”) and Monro
Muffler Brake, Inc., as successor in interest to Mr. Tire, Inc. (“Tenant”) for premises situate
at 5910 Liberty Road, Baltimore, MD [MMB #750]




Please accept this letter as Monro Muffler Brake, Inc.’s official notification of our intent to
renew said lease agreement for the ten-year renewal period commencing on January 1, 2008 and
expiring December 31, 2017. The rent for said renewal shall be increased annually by 1% as shown
below.




	 	 	 	 	 
	1/1/2008 — 12/31/2008

	 	$	5,426.01	 
	1/1/2009 — 12/31/2009

	 	$	5,480.27	 
	1/1/2010 — 12/31/2010

	 	$	5,535.08	 
	1/1/2011 — 12/31/2011

	 	$	5,590.43	 
	1/1/2012 — 12/31/2012

	 	$	5,646.33	 
	1/1/2013 — 12/31/2013

	 	$	5,702.79	 
	1/1/2014 — 12/31/2014

	 	$	5,759.82	 
	1/1/2015 — 12/31/2015

	 	$	5,817.42	 
	1/1/2016 — 12/31/2016

	 	$	5,875.59	 
	1/1/2017 — 12/31/2017

	 	$	5,934.35	 






Tenant shall have one ten-year renewal option remaining.



Please do not hesitate to contact me at 800-876-6676 ext. 3384 if you have any questions relative
to the renewal.




Yours truly,




/s/ Thomas M. Aspenleiter

      VP Real Estate




 




TMA:mc
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00534

- CV

Keriston Alais Thomas v. Francisco Rodriguez Ortiz

On Appeal from the 267th District Court of Jackson County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2104

- 16400

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having co nsidered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 19, 2023
#### In the Matter of William Wood, Respondent, v Andrea Wood, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 649]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2012, which denied respondent mother’s objection to the Support Magistrate’s order modifying an order of support, to the extent it awarded petitioner father a credit of 15% or $34.07 per week as an offset against his basic child support obligation for his payment of the child’s college room and board expenses, unanimously modified, on the facts, to the extent of adjusting the credit to $28.95 per week, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The Support Magistrate properly awarded petitioner the credit toward his child support obligation, since *“a*noncustodial parent paying child support is entitled to a reduction in that support for the amounts contributed toward room and board expenses during periods when a child lives away from home” *(Powers v Wilson,*81 AD3d 803, 803 [2d Dept 2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 702 [2011]; *see Azizo v Azizo,*51 AD3d 438, 439 [1st Dept 2008]). Respondent’s argument that there is no mention *638or contemplation of a credit or offset to child support obligations in the stipulation of settlement is unpersuasive, since the parties never reached an agreement on how the child’s college education expenses would be paid. Indeed, the plain language of the college education provision in the stipulation of settlement constituted nothing more than “an unenforceable agreement to agree” *(Schneider v Jarmain,*85 AD3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2011]).

The order is modified to the extent indicated because the subject credit to petitioner was improperly calculated. It appears that the $34.07 amount was arrived at based upon the assumption that petitioner would be paying 100% of the child’s room and board expenses. The child’s annual expenses for room and board consists of $11,810, and petitioner is obligated to pay 85% of those expenses or $10,038.50. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a credit of 15% of this amount or $1,505.77 divided by 52 weeks, which amounts to $28.95 per week.

Concur—Tom, J.P, Acosta, Román, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Annual Report of International Barrier Technology Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Corcoran, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 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) 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: September 28, 2011



/s/ David Corcoran

David Corcoran

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)





_______________________________________________________________________

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section.  This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.