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

[870 NYS2d 342]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uvil-ler, J., at competency hearing; Charles J. Tejada, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered April 10, 2007, convicting defendant of burglary in the second degree (three counts), grand larceny in the third degree (two counts) and bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 16 years to life for the burglary convictions consecutive to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years for the larceny convictions and consecutive to a term of 2 to 4 years for the bail jumping conviction, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing that the sentences for the larceny convictions be served concurrently with the sentences for the burglary convictions, and otherwise affirmed.

The hearing court properly found that the People had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant was competent to stand trial *(see People v Mendez,*1 NY3d 15, 19-20 [2003]; *see also Pate v Robinson,*383 US 375 [1966]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s evaluation of expert testimony *(see People v McMillan,*212 AD2d 445 [1995], *l.v denied*85 NY2d 976 [1995]). The evidence at the hearing established that defendant’s psychiatric illness did not prevent him from understanding the legal process or assisting his attorney in his defense.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors *469and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]).

The procedure under which defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender was not unconstitutional *(see Almendarez-Torres v United States,*523 US 224 [1998]; *People v Leon,*10 NY3d 122, 126 [2008], *cert denied*554 US —, 128 S Ct 2976 [2008]).

The sentencing court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the burglary and larceny convictions. Concurrent sentences must be imposed “for two or more offenses committed through a single act or omission, or through an act or omission which in itself constituted one of the offenses and also was a material element of the other” (Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; *see also People v Laureano,*87 NY2d 640, 642 [1996]). In each of the incidents at issue, the evidence established that larceny was the only intended crime that satisfied the “intent to commit a crime” element of burglary (Penal Law § 140.25). Thus, in each incident, the two acts—the entering of a dwelling for the sole purpose of stealing, and the actual taking of the property—cannot logically be considered separate and distinct acts. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION



PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, John B. Wood, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Telos Corporation (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, (the
Report). The undersigned hereby certifies that:



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



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



|                |  |  |  | 
|--------------- |  |  |  | 
|                |  |  | 
|August 14, 2003 |  |  |  | 
|                |  |  |  |
================================================================================

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



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



In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of BSD  Medical  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended May 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Hyrum A. Mead, President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                      /s/ Hyrum A. Mead
                                      ------------------
                                      Hyrum A. Mead
                                      President (Principal Executive Officer)
                                      July 16, 2007





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1



                     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO:

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omagine, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report"), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, the undersigned certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/Frank J. Drohan
------------------
Frank J. Drohan
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive & Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)


November 18, 2010

The originally executed copy of this certification will be
maintained at the Registrant's offices and will be made
available for inspection upon request.
#              As a Federal agency, NHTSA regulates the safety of motor vehicles and related equipment.        

###           LAWS        

          Laws Administered by NHTSA        

###           POLICY & GUIDANCE        

          Guidance Documents        

###           LETTER OF INTERPRETATION        

          Letters from NHTSA's Chief Counsel        

### 

          Bipartisan Infrastructure Law        

### 

          Whistleblower Program        

### 

          Compliance Assistance Program        

###           REPORTS TO CONGRESS        

          Evaluation & Updates        

###           Standing General Order        

          Crash Reporting for Levels of Driving Automation 2-5        

###           Part 583 AALA Reports        

          American Automobile Labeling Act Reports        

###           Settlement Amounts since FY-1999        

          Civil Penalty Settlement Amounts        

### 

          Digest of State Alcohol Highway Safety-Related Legislation        

###    CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy

   New standards for CAFE increase the fuel economy of vehicles.
Learn More

### Latest News

# Regulations

NHTSA issues Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to implement laws from Congress. These regulations allow us to fulfill our mission to prevent and reduce vehicle crashes.

- Any -Air BagsBrakesChild Passenger SafetyDisabled Drivers and PassengersElectronic Stability Control (ESC)Fuel Economy (CAFE)Manufacturer InfoOther EquipmentSeat BeltsTiresVehicles
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6076

KENNETH EDWARD BARBOUR,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. F. Bradford Stillman, 

Magistrate Judge. (2:09-cv-00302-MSD-FBS)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Edward Barbour, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Edward Barbour seeks to appeal the magistrate 

judge’s order directing the Respondent to answer his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2006) petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction 

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 

337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Barbour seeks to appeal is 

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we deny what we construe as a 

motion to expedite a decision in this appeal and dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11800]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13335-000]


FFP Project 31, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

May 14, 2009.
    On November 24, 2008, FFP Project 31, LLC filed an application, 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study 
the feasibility of the Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 4 Water Power 
Project (Lock & Dam 4 Project), to be located at River Mile 752.8 on 
the Mississippi River in the City of Alma, Buffalo County, Wisconsin, 
and Wabasha County, Minnesota.
    The proposed Lock & Dam 4 Project would be integral with: (1) The 
existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lock & Dam No. 4 comprised of a 
1,367-foot-long gated dam section with 6 roller gates and 22 tainter 
gates, and a 600 foot-long lock; and (2) an existing 44.1-mile long 
reservoir with a normal pool elevation of 667 feet mean sea level and 
31,200 acre-feet of storage.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) 24 Very Low Head (VHL) 
generating units and 70 hydrokinetic generating units with a total 
installed capacity of 11.4 megawatts (MW); (2) a new 69-kilovolt 
transmission line connected to an existing above ground local 
distribution system; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The project would 
have an estimated average annual generation of 57,900 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Daniel R. Irvin, Free Flow Power 
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930, phone (978) 
252-7631.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy, (202) 502-8755.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13335) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11800 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Don Setliff & Assocs., Inc. v. Subway Real Estate Corp.

Case below: 178 N.C. App. 385

No. 413P06

1. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1423)

2. Pit’s Motion to Supplement and Amend the PDR

1. Allowed 03/08/07

2. Allowed 03/08/07
Exhibit 32

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Jag Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, DeanElliott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

       (1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

       (2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

/s/ Dean Elliott

DeanElliott

ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

February19, 2008
#### Aaron (Isby) ISRAEL, Appellant v. Richard L. YOUNG, Appellee.

No. 06-7053.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2006.

Aaron (Isby) Israel, Westville, IN, pro se.

BEFORE: ROGERS, GRIFFITH, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the district court be affirmed. Appellant seeks a declaration that the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is unconstitutional. He also requests an order compelling a district judge in the Southern District of Indiana to consider the merits of claims that the judge previously dismissed for lack of exhaustion. The request for an injunction against the district judge amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on the judgment entered in appellant’s previous suit. *See United States v. Atkins,*116 F.3d 1566, 1571 (D.C.Cir.1997). Furthermore, because appellant has not alleged that he has any other cases subject to § 1997e either pending or imminent, he lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of that provision. *See Worth v. Jackson,*451 F.3d 854, 858 (D.C.Cir.2006).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Exhibit 31.1
Cronos Global Income Fund XIV
Rule 13a-14 Certifications
     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cronos GlobalIncome Fund XIV (the “Registrant”);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), theGeneral Partner of the Registrant, and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:
          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared; and
          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
          (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of Registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
          (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: March 26, 2004
/s/ DENNIS J TIETZ    Dennis J Tietz  President and Chief Executive Officer of CCC
Exhibit 32.2

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-4(b)and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**

            I, J. Reid Porter, the Chief Financial Officer of IMC Global Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended June 30, 2003 of IMC Global Inc. fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IMC Global Inc.

 

            J. Reid Porter                         J. Reid Porter

November 13, 2003

*Return to IMC Global Inc. Form10-Q*
#### Widrig *against*Oyer and wife.

To cay of a woman, “sheprocured, or took medicine,- or ?hebut»id child haveTand^siie aou ktíe basCd fikedtoShLv"as> síb¿ ls actl?a

IN ERROR, from the court of Common pleas of *HerTcirnei'*> " *1*county. The plaintiff brought an action of *slander*in the court *J*i . o kel°w* The words- charged, as spoken by the wife of *Oyer,*the-defendant, of and concerning the plaintiff, were, “ She (mean-’ng the plaintiff) did, with the assistance of her mother, procure, ai)d take medicine, or poison, in order, and with intent, to kill, ai)d poison to death, a bastard child she (the plaintiff) was pregnant with, or like to.have; and she (the plaintiff) did kill the bastard child which she was like to.have, by means of taking, the said medicine,’’ &c. The defendants demurred to the declaration, and the court below gave judgment for the defendants on the demurrer.

The only question was, whether the words charged, in the declaration were actionable *l*

*M. Williams,*for the plaintiff in error.

He. cited *Brooker v, Coffin, 5 Johns. Rep. 188. 3 Co. Inst. 50. 1 Bl. Com. 129., Christian’s note.*1 *Hawk, Pl. Cr.*b. *1.*ch. 31. sect. 16. Bracton, *1*. 3. ch. 21. *Finch’s Law,*186. He was stopped by the court.

*Skinner,*contra,

said it was idle to go back to ancient books,, v, hen this court had so clearly laid down the rule, as to what words were actionable, in *Brooker*v. *Coffin ;*“ That where the charge, if true, will subject the party charged to an indictment for a crime involving moral turpitude, *or*subject him to an infamous punishment, the words, in themselves, were actionable.” We admit the soundness of the rule, but witha slight alteration.of “ or” to *and,*which would make it conformable to the cases in *Wilson*
      ***
      **and *Salkeld.-*The charge, we contend, must not only in- . . ° . . , . *, J*volve moral turpitude, but, also, subject the party charged to an infamous punishment.. Procuring an abortion is not, by the law of *England,*or of this state, murder, or manslaughter,† The impossibility of proving the fact may, perhaps, be the reason why no case, can be found, in which such an offence has been punished in England»

*Onslow v. Horne,*3 *Wils. Rep. 177. 3 Salk. 328.*

*1 Hale P.*C. 433. 3 Co Inst. 150. Hawk b. 1. ch. 31. sect. 6.

*125
      *Per Curiam.*

We have no doubt the offence charged is indictable, and its criminality, or moral turpitude, cannot be questioned. The words were clearly actionable, witbin the rule laid down by üs in *Brooker*v. *Coffin,*which we consider as affording the best criterion for determining whether words spoken are actionable or not. The judgment of the court below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed*