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

[975 NYS2d 871]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), entered on or about July 17, 2012, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Regardless of whether the court properly assessed defendant 15 points for infliction of physical injury, defendant still qualifies as a level two offender, and there is no basis for a discretionary downward departure to level one *(see People v Pettigrew,*14 NY3d 406, 409 [2010]). The underlying offense, committed against a child, was serious, and the mitigating factors cited by defendant were generally taken into account by the risk assessment instrument. Concur — Tom, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 45 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 45

Congratulating the American Farm Bureau Federation for a long tradition 
of advocacy on behalf of agriculture and rural America and for holding 
                      its 100th annual convention.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2019

  Mr. Peterson (for himself and Mr. Conaway) submitted the following 
     resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Congratulating the American Farm Bureau Federation for a long tradition 
of advocacy on behalf of agriculture and rural America and for holding 
                      its 100th annual convention.

Whereas the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) grew out of the Extension 
        education movement at land grant colleges in the early 20th century, and 
        the organization's first formal national convention was held in Chicago 
        in 1919;
Whereas AFBF has been a vocal and reliable advocate for farmers, ranchers, and 
        rural Americans throughout the intervening 100 years;
Whereas the sentiments of the first national president of the AFBF, James Howard 
        of Iowa, ring as true today as a century ago, when he stated ``what's 
        good for farmers is good for America'';
Whereas AFBF represents farm and ranch families in all 50 States and Puerto 
        Rico, with 2,800 county Farm Bureaus and six million member-families;
Whereas Farm Bureau members are gathering this week in New Orleans, Louisiana, 
        at the 100th Annual AFBF Convention and IDEAg Trade Show to conduct 
        organizational business, participate in educational workshops, explore 
        local agriculture, and develop leadership skills through competitions; 
        and
Whereas the work of the AFBF is guided by a network of State organizations and 
        is led by President Vincent ``Zippy'' Duvall of Georgia: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates the 
American Farm Bureau Federation for a long tradition of advocacy on 
behalf of agriculture and rural America and for holding its 100th 
annual convention.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2  CERTIFICATIONS  I, Eldon D. Dietterick, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007 of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company and Big Boulder Corporation (together , the Registrants);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants boards of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Date: January 28, 2008  /s/ Eldon D. Dietterick Eldon D. Dietterick Executive Vice President and Treasurer
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

Notice is hereby given that the Order revoking the following license is being rescinded by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.

*License Number:*                     020700F.                

*Name:*                     Allen & Sally Associates, LLC dba USA Customs Brokers & Freight Forwarders.                

*Address:*                     7094 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Ste. 270-1, Norcross, GA 30071.                

*Order Published:*                     FR: 05/13/09 (Volume 74, No. 91 Pg. 22551).                

Sandra L. Kusumoto,

Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.

[FR Doc. E9-14159 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Patricia Kane, as the Limited Administratrix of the Estate of Jeanne Kane, Deceased, and Patricia Kane, Individually, Respondent, v John Galtieri, Appellant, and Marilyn Galtieri, Intervenor.

Decided November 29, 2012

Appeal transferred, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, to the Appellate Division, Second Department, upon the ground that a direct appeal does not lie when questions other than the constitutional validity of a statutory provision are involved (NY Const, art VI, §§ 3 [b] [2]; 5 [b]; CPLR 5601 [b] [2]).
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of

INDEPENDENT BANCSHARES, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Independent BancShares, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Independent BancShares, Inc.'s Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Independent BancShares, Inc.

/S/ Dennis M. Clarke
Dennis M. Clarke
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
December 8, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Denise M. Tallman, Appellant.

Submitted October 29, 2012;

decided November 19, 2012

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.
No. 4926.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### CLOVERLAND DAIRY CO. vs. MRS. S. CALECAS.

Denegre & Blair and Chaffe for plaintiff and appellees.

G. G. Kronenberger attorney.

Gleason & Legier for appellant.

*275March 21, 1910.

GrODCHATJX, J.

Defendant in a petitory action appeals from a judgment decreeing plaintiff to be the owner of a strip of ground having a mean or average width of about ten inches. The value of this strip was not at issue in the lower court, but plaintiff’s petition alleges that it is “well worth the sum of one hundred ($100.00) dollars.” The only other evidence in the record upon this point is the consideration recited in the deed whereby plaintiff, a few months prior .to the institution of this suit, acquired the property of which this strip is claimed to form a part. Measured by the price therein recited for the whole, the strip in question would be worth less than twenty-one ($21.00) dollars. Consequently, as the matter in dispute does not exceed one hundred dollars, jurisdiction of the. appeal cannot be maintained under Article 101 of the Constitution of 1898.

Nor can appellant’s affidavit be received in contradiction of these facts and to establish that the value of the property is in excess of what is shown by the record; for affidavits are received only when there is a hiatus by reason of the record failing to disclose the amount in dispute.

Lindner vs. City of New Orleans, 3 Ct. of App. 263.

It is accordingly ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/S/ Kelly TucekName:Kelly TucekTitle:Vice President of the General Partner andprincipal financial officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.Date:November 6, 2006
----

|   | (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 result of operations of the      Company. |

|   |   | June      18, 2010                                       |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                          |
|   |   | By:      /s/ Ray Singleton                |
|   |   |                                                          |
|   |   | Ray      Singleton, President andChief      Executive Officer |
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 417 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 417

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on support for 
                                Georgia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 2019

 Mr. Conaway submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives on support for 
                                Georgia.

Whereas Georgia is a valued friend of the United States and has repeatedly 
        demonstrated its commitment to advancing the mutual interests of both 
        countries, including the deployment of Georgian forces as part of the 
        International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) led by the North Atlantic 
        Treaty Organization (NATO) in Afghanistan and the Multi-National Force 
        in Iraq;
Whereas the European Deterrence Initiative builds the partnership capacity of 
        Georgia so it can work more closely with the United States and NATO, as 
        well as provide for its own defense;
Whereas in addition to the European Deterrence Initiative, Georgia's 
        participation in the NATO initiative Partnership for Peace is paramount 
        to interoperability with the United States and NATO, and establishing a 
        more peaceful environment in the region; and
Whereas despite the losses suffered, as a NATO partner of ISAF, Georgia is 
        committed to the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan with one of the 
        largest contingents on the ground: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) reaffirms United States support for Georgia's 
        sovereignty and territorial integrity within its 
        internationally recognized borders, and does not recognize the 
        independence of the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions 
        currently occupied by the Russian Federation; and
            (2) supports continued cooperation between the United 
        States and Georgia and the efforts of the Government of Georgia 
        to provide for the defense of its people and sovereign 
        territory.
                                 <all>
```
#### YOUNG v. LOEW’S, Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Feb. 3, 1942.

Arthur Stryker, of New York City, for plaintiff.

J. Robert Rubin, of New York City, (Samuel D. Cohen, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The defendant moves to transfer this action from the jury calendar to the non-jury calendar of this court.

*351This is a copyright infringement suit. Primarily, the plaintiff seeks an accounting of profits and injunctive relief. In each of the three causes of action pleaded, plaintiff alleges that she has no adequate remedy at law. She also demands damages as may be ascertained and determined upon the trial of this action. Plaintiff predicates her right to a jury trial by virtue of this demand for damages.

 Where a complaint contains both legal and equitable causes of action, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, the right to a trial by jury as to the legal cause is preserved. Dellefield v. Blockdel Realty Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 689; Elkins v. Nobel et al., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 357. But, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have not abolished the distinction between equitable and legal remedies, and such distinctions remain the same as before the adoption of the new rules. It is only the procedural distinctions that have been abolished. Bellavance v. Plastic Craft Novelty Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 37, 39. At bar, the complaint is essentially equitable in nature and the demand for damages is merely incidental to the main relief.

 The motion to transfer the action to the non-jury calendar is granted. Sheldon v. Noredall Realty Co., D.C., 22 F.Supp. 91, modified on another point, 2 Cir., 95 F. 2d 48. The plaintiff has requested that in the event this action is transferred to the non-jury calendar, the Calendar Commissioner be directed to place this action on the calendar in a position determined by the date upon which issue was joined herein. I feel that there is merit to this request but an application for this relief should be made to Judge Knox, Senior Judge of this court, who passes upon all calendar matters.
[979 NE2d 799, 955 NYS2d 540]

#### In the Matter of Jerry Delakas, Appellant, v Jonathan Mintz, in His Capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, Respondent.

Decided October 23, 2012

*1057APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Santamarina & Associates,*New York City *(Gil Santamarina*of counsel), for appellant.

*Proskauer Rose LLP,*New York City *(Alyse Fiori*of counsel), and *Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel (Elizabeth S. Natrella*of counsel) for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The determination of the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs to deny petitioner’s license to operate a newsstand *1058because petitioner was not financially dependent on the licensee within the meaning of 6 RCNY 2-64 (a) (12) had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious.

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

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
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.

CEDRIC ROBERSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10480

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00211-GEB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Cedric Roberson appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 22-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy

to defraud the government, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. We have jurisdiction

FILED

APR 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-10480

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Roberson contends that the district court clearly erred when it applied a

three-level aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Roberson

argues that the record does not support a finding that he served as either a manager

or supervisor because there was no evidence to show that he directed, managed or

supervised any other participant in the offense. Contrary to Roberson’s contention,

the record reflects that he recruited and supervised others in the commission of the

offense. Therefore, the court did not clearly err in applying the adjustment. See

United States v. Riley, 335 F.3d 919, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (aggravating role

enhancement is warranted where the defendant was “responsible for organizing

others for the purpose of carrying out the crime”) (internal quotations ommitted);

United States v. Egge, 223 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating standard of

review).

Roberson also contends that the district court should be ordered to consider

his entitlement to a minor role adjustment on remand. We do not reach this

contention in light of our disposition above.

AFFIRMED.
#### Medina County Bar Association *v.*Grieselhuber.

[Cite as *Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Grieselhuber*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 373.]

(No. 96-2783

Submitted February 19, 1997

Decided May 14, 1997.)

*375
      *Patricia A. Walker*and *Stephen J. Brown,*for relator.

*Pierre Grieselhuber, pro se.*

*Per Curiam.*

We recognize that advertising assists the public in the selection of an attorney. EC 2-9. However, our Ethical Considerations, which represent the objectives toward which every member of the profession should strive warn that “[mjethods of advertising that are false, misleading or deceptive should be and are prohibited.” EC 2-9. To enable attorneys to meet these ethical objectives, our Disciplinary Rules provide specific guidelines for the content of public communications by attorneys. Underlying these guidelines is the standard of truthfulness.

We accept the findings of the board and agree with its conclusions that the advertisements of respondent contain unverifiable as well as misleading statements. We further agree with the board that the wording in respondent’s advertisements violates specific Disciplinary Rules.

Respondent’s claim that his advertisements are within the guidelines regarding commercial speech by professionals set out by the United States Supreme Court is inaccurate. For example, DR 2-102(B) proscribes the practice of law under a trade name, a restriction found to be valid with respect to professional optometrists in *Friedman v. Rogers*(1979), 440 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 887, 59 L.Ed.2d 100. DR 2-101(E)(1)(c) requires that information regarding contingent fees be accompanied by a statement that the litigant might be liable for costs and expenses. The Supreme Court found such a restriction to be valid in *Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel*(1985), 471 U.S. 626, 652-653, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 2282-2283, 85 L.Ed.2d 652, 673. In short, our Disciplinary Rules do not infringe on respondent’s right of commercial speech.

We further agree with the recommendation of the board. Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.