alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A1 73 4 . MONALETA D. ALLEN v

. THE STATE.

In 1 9 9 5

, M o n al et a D. Al l en was s en t en ced t o l i fe i m pri s o nm en t aft er p l ead i n g

g u i l t y t o m

u rd er, arm ed ro b b ery , ag g rav a t e d a s s a u l t

, an d p o s s es s i o n o f a fi rearm
d u ri n g t h e co m

m i s s i o n o f a cri m e. In Feb ru ary 20 2 2

, Al l en fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r o u t -o ft i m e ap peal

. Th e t ri al co u rt d i s m i s s ed t h e m o t i o n , an d Al l en fi led a n o t i ce o f ap p eal

t o t hi s Co u rt . W e l ack ju ri s di ct i o n

. Un d er o u r Co ns t it u t i o n , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ap p el l at e ju ri s d i c t i o n o v er

“ [a] l l cas es i n w h i ch a s en t en ce o f deat h was i m p o s ed o r co ul d b e i m

p o s ed .” See Ga.

Co n s t

. of 19 8 3

, A r t

. V I

, Sec. VI, Par. III (8 ). Becau s e a p en al t y o f d eat h can b e

i m p o s ed fo r t h e cri m e o f m u rd er, j u r i s d i c t i o n i s p ro per i n t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

. See

OCGA § 1 6 -5 -1 (e ) ( 1 ); Nea l v. S t a t e , 2 9 0 Ga. 56 3

, 5 7 2 (7 2 2 SE2 d 76 5 ) (2 0 1 2 )
(Hu ns t ei n , C. J ., co n cu rri n g ); s ee al s o S t a t e v. Th o r n to n , 2 5 3 G a. 5 2 4

, 5 2 4 (1 ) (3 2 2

SE2 d 71 1 ) (1 9 84 ) (d irect i n g t h i s Co u rt t o t ran s fer “ al l cas es i n w h i ch ei t h er a

s en t en ce o f d eat h o r of l i fe i m p ri s o n m en t h as b een i m

p o s ed u po n co n v ict i o n o f

m u rd er”), o v erru led i n p art o n o t h er gro u n d s as reco g n i zed in El l io t t v. St a t e , 3 0 5 Ga.

1 7 9

, 2 0 5 (III) (C) (i ) (8 2 4 SE2 d 2 6 5 ) (2 0 1 9). T h e Su p rem e Co urt ’ s ju ri sd i ct i o n o v er

m u rd er cas es i n cl u d es ap p eal s fro m o rd ers res o l v i n g p o st -ju d g m en t m o t i o n s i n s u ch

cas es

. See S imp s o n v. St a t e , 2 9 2 Ga. 7 6 4

, 7 6 5 (7 40 SE2 d 1 2 4) (2 01 3 ) (ap p eal fro m
d en ial o f a m o t i on i n arres t o f ju d g m en t at tack i n g m u rd er co n v i ct i o n s as v o i d ). July 27, 2022Acco rd i ng l y , t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y TRANSFERRED to t h e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r

d i s p o s i t i on

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/27/2022
#### Keith Thames, Appellant, v New York City Police Department et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 96]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered August 10, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion to change venue from Bronx County to Queens County, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for, inter alia, false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and violation of civil rights, following his arrest, initial incarceration, prosecution, and eventual acquittal in Queens County. All of the necessary elements giving rise to plaintiffs causes of action for false arrest and imprisonment occurred in Queens County, and plaintiff does not assert any distinct claim based on misconduct of City officials occurring in Bronx County. Thus, notwithstanding the length of plaintiffs detention in Bronx County, the action was properly transferred pursuant to CPLR 504 (3) *{see Garces v City of New York,*60 AD3d 551 [1st Dept 2009]; *Smith v City of New York,*60 AD3d 540 [1st Dept 2009]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEA Income Fund VIII (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John
Kallas, the Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., the
General Partner of the Registrant, certify, based on my knowledge,
that:



| | (i)  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and                                 
| | ---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Registrant.



| | November 14, 2002 |  | 
| | ----------------- |  | 

| |  |    |  |                                                                                                                 
| |  | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By |  | /s/ John Kallas

 John Kallas
Chief Financial Officer of
Cronos Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Registrant



---

|* |  | This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be
filed with the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Fact Sheet: NHTSA Actions to Accelerate the Takata Remedy

                                                                          Download file:                       Fact Sheet: NHTSA Actions to Accelerate the Takata Remedy
<PAGE>   1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Transworld Home HealthCare, Inc.  on Form S-3 (File No. 33-93774) and Form S-8  
(File No. 33-50876) of our report dated December 20, 1996, except as to the
information presented in the last five paragraphs in Note 12, for which the
date is January 14, 1997 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedule as of October 31, 1996 and 1995, and for each
of the three years in the period ended October 31, 1996, which report is
included in the 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K.  Our report on such audits
contains an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of the provisions of
the Financial Accounting Standards Board's Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 109 "Accounting for Income Taxes," in fiscal 1994.

New York, New York
January 27, 1997
#### Teague v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp.

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 215

No. 281P06-3

Pit’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment on Five Separate and Distinct Alternative NC Statutes All Referenced to the Subject Case (COA05-522)

Dismissed
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory M. Drayton, Appellant.

Submitted November 9, 2009;

decided December 17, 2009

Reported below, 56 AD3d 1278.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed upon the ground that the criminal prosecution has abated by reason of defendant’s death *(see People v Mintz,*20 NY2d 770, 771 [1967]).
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0178 

CITY OF KALISPELL, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

GORDON THOMAS LEWIS ZUNDEL, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

AUG 0 9 2022 

Bowen Greenwood Clerk 

Stato 

of Supreme Court of Montana 

ORDER 

Appellant Gordon Thomas Lewis Zundel appeals the Eleventh Judicial District 

Court's Order on Appeal in Flathead County Case No. DC-20-378(B). Zundel argues that 

the District Court erred by ruling that the Kalispell Municipal Court advised Zundel of his 

right to counsel and to court-appointed counsel where Zundel had no counsel present at any 

stage of his city court action—which resulted in Zundel being sentenced to 180 days of 

incarceration—and that the record does not demonstrate that Zundel voluntarily, knowingly, 

intelligently, and unequivocally waived his right to counsel. 

The State has filed a Notice of Concession that the District Court's order should be 

reversed, and this matter should be remanded to the Kalispell Municipal Court for a new trial 

with Zundel either having counsel or knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel 

on the record. Without agreeing with all of the arguments Zundel has raised, the State agrees 

that in this case the record is insufficient to determine whether the Kalispell Municipal Court 

conducted a sufficient inquiry to establish that Zundel voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently, 

and unequivocally waived his right to counsel. 

Based on Zundel's opening brief and the State's concession, and good cause 

appearing, 

08/09/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0178
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order on Appeal of the Eleventh Judicial District 

Court, Flathead County, in its Case No. DC-20-378(B) is REVERSED, and the District 

Court is directed to remand the case to the Municipal Court for further proceedings. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record, to the 

Kalispell Municipal Court, to the Clerk of the Flathead County District Court, and to 

presiding judge Honorable Robert B. Allison. 

Dated this ay of August, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

Li imod o 

(9 4 Al J41.1 

Justices 

2
Exhibit
10.2


 


September 20, 2004


 


Mr. Robert D. Biggs


Executive Chairman


DPL Inc.


1065 Woodman Drive


Dayton, OH 45432


 


Dear Bob:


 


You entered into an
employment agreement with DPL Inc. and The Dayton Power and Light Company
(collectively, the “Companies”) on July 21, 2004, which was effective as of May
16, 2004.


 


This will confirm that
the option to purchase 200,000 common shares of DPL Inc. (the “Option”)
contemplated by Section 3(c) your agreement, which has not been granted to
date, will be granted on the date you sign the attached Stock Option Agreement
(the “Grant Date”).  Notwithstanding
anything in your agreement to the contrary, the per share exercise price of the
Option will be the Fair Market Value (as defined in the DPL Inc. Stock Option
Plan) on the Grant Date.


 


Please execute
this letter agreement where indicated below to express your acknowledgement and
agreement to the above and return one signed original of this letter agreement
to Pamela Holdren.


 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DPL Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  W August Hillenbrand

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Vice Chairman

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Acknowledged and Agreed
  to:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Robert D. Biggs

  	
  Dated:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"National Intelligence University","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu","author_name":"ray.x.villarreal@odni.gov","author_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/author\/ray-x-villarrealodni-gov\/","title":"Academic Calendar","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"G87bjQTAGu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/academic-calendar\/\">Academic Calendar<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/academic-calendar\/embed\/#?secret=G87bjQTAGu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Academic Calendar” — National Intelligence University\" data-secret=\"G87bjQTAGu\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 19, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50370 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAMON PARRA-PARRA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-1585-2-DB

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ramon Parra-Parra appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that the district court lacked authority to enhance his sentence because the Information and Amended Information filed by the Government did not satisfy the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851.No. 05-50370 -2- For the first time on appeal, Parra challenges the Information by arguing that the Government failed to properly file and serve the document. Because Parra did not challenge the Information in the district court on the basis he now asserts, his argument is subject to plain error review. See United States
v. Dodson , 288 F.3d 153, 161-62 (5th Cir. 2002); see also United
States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993). A review of the rearraignment transcript indicates that the Government filed and served the Information prior to the entry of Parra’s guilty plea, as required by § 851. Additionally, although the Information identified the wrong venue for the prior conviction, the record establishes that Parra was not misled by the erroneous venue designation. See United States v. Steen , 55 F.3d 1022, 1028 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, the error does not negate the notice provided by the Information. See id. Parra has not established plain error with regard to the sufficiency of the Information. See Olano , 507 U.S. at 731-37. Because the original Information filed in this case was sufficient under § 851, it is not necessary to address Parra’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the Amended Information. The district court did not lack authority to impose the
enhanced sentence. See Steen , 55 F.3d at 1025. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Michael John Wynne, a Suspended Attorney.

[974 NYS2d 787]

— Motion by Michael John Wynne for reinstatement to the Bar as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Mr. Wynne was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department on February 14, 1972. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 14, 2009, the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Wynne and the issues raised were referred to David I. Ferber, as Special Referee, to hear and report. By opinion and *756order of this Court dated April 19, 2011, Mr. Wynne was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, commencing May 19, 2011, based on a misdemeanor conviction *(see Matter of Wynne,*84 AD3d 118 [2011]). By decision and order on motion of this Court dated May 10, 2012, Mr. Wynne’s motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on his current fitness to practice law, including but not limited to, any issues relating to alcohol which could affect his fitness to practice law.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, and upon the report of the Committee on Character and Fitness and the exhibits annexed thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that, effective immediately, Michael John Wynne is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law and the Clerk of the Court is directed to restore the name of Michael John Wynne to the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law. Eng, EJ., Mastro, Rivera, Skelos and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### Paine *against*Parker.

in an action ibr a 15i>el» deehmmonwasailowed to be anjendeMpasto change the *v&niie,;*it resting in the sound discretion of the court,-under th e of the cate.

*VAN BEUREN,*(attorney-general,) and *Root,*for the plaintiff,

*1*moved to amend the declaration in this cause, so as to 7 . /'ll Ihe action was for a libel, and the cause 5 change the venue, having come on to trial, the jury were discharged.

Sherwood, contra.

He cited *Barnes,*479. 484. 1 *Wils.*173. *3. Str.*1162. 1202. 3 *Johns. Rep. 453.*

*330*Per*Curiam»

The practice of the court of king’s bench, *in England,*is to allow the plaintiff to amend by changing the venue. It rests in the sound discretion of the court, and is not an ordinary motion to change the venue. Under the special circumstances disclosed in- this case, we think proper to allow the venue to be changed to the county of *Albany.*

Motion granted.
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Conforming Product List (CPL) Speed-Measuring Devices


Download file: Conforming Product List (CPL) Speed-Measuring Devices
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
#### Crandell v. American Home Assurance Co.

Case below: 183 N.C. App. — (5 June 2007)

No. 321P07

1. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06-533)

2. Pit’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31

1. Denied 11/08/07

2. Dismissed as Moot 11/08/07
#### VAN REYPEN ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a THE GIN MILL v. GERALD EUGENE TEETER, and GORDEN LEWIS d/b/a GORDEN’S EXCAVATING SERVICE

No. 84PA06

(Filed 15 December 2006)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 175 N.C. App. 535, 624 S.E.2d 401 (2006), affirming an order entered 29 April 2004 by Judge David S. Cayer and an order entered 4 August 2004 by Judge Robert C. Ervin, both in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 20 November 2006.

*James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Charles M. Viser, Preston O. Odom, III, and Fred P. Parker, IV, for plaintiff-appellant.*

*Stiles Byrum & Home, L.L.P., by Lane Matthews, for defendant-appellees.*

*The Avery, P.C., by Isaac T. Avery, III, for North Carolina Association of Police Attorneys, and Kimberly N. Overton for North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, amici curiae.*

*Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor General; John F. Maddrey, Assistant Solicitor General; and Robert C. Montgomery and Hal F. Askins, Special Deputy Attorneys General, for Roy Cooper, Attorney General, amicus curiae.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
##### 



Exhibit 23 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
Uroplasty, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(Nos. 333-107110 and 333-30372) on Form S-8 of Uroplasty, Inc.
and subsidiaries of our report dated July 26, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Uroplasty, Inc. and subsidiaries as of March 31,
2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for the
years then ended, which report appears in the March 31, 2004, annual report on
Form 10-KSB of Uroplasty, Inc. As discussed in note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company
has restated its consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2003. /s/ KPMG LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota
July 29, 2004