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

[821 NYS2d 454]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J.), rendered on or about April 1, 2004, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
[J-16-2018][M.O. - Wecht, J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

JORDAN ALEXANDER CLEMONS,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 738 CAP

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence 

entered on 5/15/15 in the Court of 

Common Pleas, Washington County, 

Criminal Division at No. CP-63-CR0000236-2012

SUBMITTED: April 9, 2018

CONCURRING OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: January 23, 2019

I join Sections I-IV and VI-X of the majority opinion, and concur in the result as to 

Section V.

Section V relates to the assertion that the trial court erred in not providing a 

voluntary intoxication instruction. Although I agree Appellant is not entitled to relief on 

this claim, I would not conclude that “the record is devoid of any evidence proving that 

[Appellant] actually ingested any intoxicants” during the relevant timeframe. Majority 

Opinion, slip op. at 38 (emphasis added). As the majority notes, there was evidence 

that Appellant may have used drugs at some point in time close to the incident, and he

was perceptibly intoxicated when he was taken in for questioning by the police. 

Although these proofs do not establish the time at which Appellant may have ingested 
[J-16-2018][M.O. – Wecht, J.] - 2

drugs or alcohol, they do make it more likely that he was under the influence of some 

sort of intoxicant at the time of the murder. I nonetheless concur in the result because, 

in my view, the evidence was insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that Appellant 

acted subject to diminished capacity at the relevant time. See generally Commonwealth 

v. Markman, 591 Pa. 249, 284-85, 916 A.2d 586, 607 (2007) (explaining that 

defendants are constitutionally entitled to an instruction on any recognized defense for 

which there is sufficient record evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find in his favor).

With that said, when there is some evidence along these lines, determining 

whether it is sufficient to entitle the defendant to the requested instruction may be an 

imprecise undertaking. As such, it would be preferable if, in close cases, trial courts 

simply gave the instruction and let the jury weigh the facts accordingly. Such practice 

would enhance the fairness of the trial, avoid the risk of error resulting in the grant of a 

new trial, and reduce the need for appellate courts to make those types of sufficiency 

determinations on a cold record.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7405

NATHANIEL PATTERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS; RED, WHITE AND BLUE LABEL'S

WHEEL OF FORTUNE TELEVISION BROADCASTING COMPANY; RED, WHITE AND BLUE SWEEPSTAKES; WHEEL

OF FORTUNE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-95-750-AM)

Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: January 11, 1996

Before HALL and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Patterson v. Virginia, No. CA-95-750-AM (E.D. Va. July 13,

1995). 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
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 LILM,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2006,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, George
I. Norman, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/   GEORGE I. NORMAN, III
--------------------------------
George I. Norman, III
Chief Executive Officer
November 20, 2006



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement 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  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
#### HADDOCK v. SPRINGFIELD YELLOW CAB CO. et al.

No. 76.

District Court, S. D. Ohio, W. D.

Nov. 9, 1940.

R. Stanley Lucas and Cole & Hodge, all of Springfield, Ohio, for plaintiff.

William E. Bailey and S. A. Bowman, both of Springfield, Ohio, for defendants.

NEVIN, District Judge.

On May 24, 1940, plaintiff filed his bill of complaint herein. The action is premised on certain alleged acts of negligence.

On August 10, 1940, defendant, The Springfield Yellow Cab Company, filed a motion.“to strike certain words and phrases from complaint.” The cause is now before the court on this motion.

The motion contains five subparagraphs, numbered from 1 to 5, inclusive. In each subparagraph, respectively, the “words and phrases” which the defendant seeks to have stricken are set forth. Briefs in support of and contra the motion have been filed. The court has considered the arguments of counsel as set forth in their briefs, together with the authorities cited.

Plaintiff submits that motions such as here under consideration are not now favored by the courts, citing Kraus v. General Motors Corporation, D.C., 27 F.Supp. 537. However, since the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure the necessary allegations in a complaint for negligence have been very greatly simplified, as indicated by Form 9, Appendix of Forms, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c — one of the forms referred to in Rule 84, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

Upon a consideration of the motion and the applicable law, the court finds:

1. That so much of the motion as is contained in Subparagraph 1 thereof is well taken, and that it should be, and it is, sustained.

2. That so much of the motion as is contained in Subparagraph 2 thereof, to this extent, to-wit: “to stop said taxicab within the assured clear distance ahead, or”, is well taken, and that to that extent the motion as contained in Subparagraph 2 thereof should be, and it is, sustained, but that as to the remainder of Subparagraph 2 the motion is not well taken, and that it should be, and it is, overruled.

3. That so much of the motion as is contained in Subparagraph 3 thereof is not well taken, and that it should be, and it is, overruled.

4. That so much of the motion as is contained in Subparagraph 4 thereof is not well taken, and that it should be, and it is, overruled.

5. That so much of the motion as is contained in subparagraph 5 thereof is not well taken, and that it should be, and it is, overruled.

While some of the allegations above referred to might have been eliminated under the present Rules of Civil Procedure, nevertheless, the court has permitted them to remain in on the theory that their presence can in no way harm the defendant. Kraus v. General Motors Corporation, supra.

Counsel may prepare and submit an order in accordance with the ruling of the court and granting plaintiff 30 days from the date of the filing of such order within which to file an amended bill of complaint, if plaintiff desires so to do.
@article{1213401,
  author = {Mustafa Bal and Akshay Murthy and Francesco Crisa and Shaojiang Zhu and Florent Lecocq and Joe Aumentado and Joel Ullom and Pete Hopkins},
  title = {Systematic Improvements in Transmon Qubit Coherence enabled by Niobium Surface Encapsulation},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-06-14 04:06:00},
  publisher = {PRX Quantum},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.13257},
  language = {en},
}
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Duane A. Sausville, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 919]

*985Stein, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main Jr., J.), rendered October 17, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to a prison term of two years followed by two years of postrelease supervision, and imposed a $5,000 fine. Defendant now appeals, challenging the amount of the fine imposed.

We affirm. Initially, inasmuch as the record reflects that the appeal waiver explicitly excluded a challenge as to the fine imposed, the issue is properly before this Court *(see People v Scott,*74 AD3d 1582, 1582 [2010]). Nevertheless, defendant was informed during the plea colloquy of the potential fine that could be imposed and we find that the imposition of the maximum allowable fine was a provident exercise of County Court’s discretion *(see*Penal Law § 80.00 [1] [a]; *People v Shultis,*61 AD3d 1116, 1118 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 929 [2009]), and we discern no basis in the record to disturb it.

Rose, J.E, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM ANTHONY YOUNG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-02-216; CA-04-1562-22) Submitted: June 13, 2005 Decided: June 24, 2005 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Anthony Young, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William Anthony Young, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motions to reconsider the court’s earlier denial of his motion to vacate judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                        Financial Data Schedule
                                           IMMUCELL CORPORATION

 THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 
AS REPORTED ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE 
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997

<CASH>                        1,021,324
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                   723,916
<ALLOWANCES>                     42,649
<INVENTORY>                     474,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,204,158
<PP&E>                        1,499,744
<DEPRECIATION>                  710,361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                3,231,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           561,795
<BONDS>                         339,747
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                      2,329,508
<OTHER-SE>                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  3,231,050
<SALES>                       3,982,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              4,556,678
<CGS>                         1,819,587
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 4,250,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (26,370)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               68,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 263,852
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             263,852
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    263,852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .10
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000810836
<NAME> HEALTHCARE INVESTORS OF AMERICA, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          38,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  182,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,759
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,674,019)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             (4,038,379)
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          263,390
<BONDS>                                      4,462,132
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     (687,143)
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,038,379
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               640,228
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  305,381
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             459,678
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (124,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (124,831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (124,831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.2




**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350)**









In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Royal Equine Alliance Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Demitro
      Marianovich, Principle Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and




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




Registrant
              Date:
                May 30, 2008
            
            *Royal
                Equine Alliance Corporation*
              *By:
                /s/ Demitro Marianovich*Demitro
                Marianovich
              Chief
                  Executive Officer (Principle Executive Officer,
                Principle
                  Financial Officer)
@misc{1148071,
  author = {James B McCracken and Gary P Carver},
  title = {Recommended agency procedures for implementing federal metric policy:},
  year = {1992},
  month = {1992-01-01 05:01:00},
  publisher = {, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.4855},
  language = {en},
}
Order filed July 14, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00488-CV

____________

PATRICIA A. POTTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND TO 

A.M.W., A CHILD, Appellant

V.

VINCENT D. WILLIAM AND DMG EQUIPMENT COMPANY, LTD D/B/A 

PAVERS SUPPLY COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1996-50567

ORDER

This is an attempted appeal from an order of dismissal for want of 

prosecution. Pursuant to chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 

Code, appellant Patricia A. Potts has been declared a vexatious litigant and is 

therefore subject to the pre-filing order under section 11.101. Tex. Civ. Prac. & 

Rem. Code §§ 11.101, 11.103 (West Supp. 2014).
2

Under section 11.103(a), the clerk of this court may not file an appeal 

presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order under section 11.101 

unless the litigant obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting 

the filing, or the appeal is from a pre-filing order entered under section 11.101 

designating a person a vexatious litigant. Id. § 11.103(a) & (d). This is not an 

appeal from a pre-filing order entered under section 11.101. 

This court will consider dismissal of this appeal unless appellant, within 10 

days of the date of this order, files a copy of the order from the local administrative 

judge permitting the filing of this appeal. See id. § 11.103(a).

PER CURIAM
Skip to main content

          -  U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 

            - Virtual Tour
            - Staff Directory
            - En Español

## Site Menu

-  Home 
-  Health Information  - Health Care Providers & Facilities
- Health Info Lines
- HealthCare.gov
- Science Education Resources
- NIH Clinical Research Trials and You
- Talking to Your Doctor

More »

Search Health Topics

Quick Links
- MedlinePlus Health Info
- NIH News in Health
- Wellness Toolkits
 
-  Grants & Funding  - Grants Home Page
- Find Funding
- Due Dates
- How to Apply
- About Grants
- Policy & Compliance
- Grants News/Blog
- Contracts
- Loan Repayment

More »

Quick Links
- RePORT
- eRA Commons
- NIH Common Fund
 
-  News & Events  - News Releases
- Digital Media Kits
- Media Resources
- Media Contacts
- Images and B-roll
- Events
- Social Media

More »

Quick Links
- NIH News in Health
- NIH Research Matters
- NIH Record
 
-  Research & Training  - Medical Research Initiatives
- Science Highlights
- Science Education
- Research in NIH Labs & Clinics
- Training Opportunities
- Library Resources
- Research Resources
- Clinical Research Resources
- Safety, Regulation and Guidance

More »

Quick Links
- PubMed
- Stem Cell Information
- OppNet
- NIDB
- NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research
 
-  Institutes at NIH  - List of Institutes and Centers
- NIH Office of the Director
- Directors of NIH Institutes and Centers
- NIH Institute and Center Contact Information

More »

Quick Links
- NCI
- NEI
- NHLBI
- NHGRI
- NIA
- NIAAA
- NIAID
- NIAMS
- NIBIB
- NICHD
- NIDCD
- NIDCR
- NIDDK
- NIDA
- NIEHS
- NIGMS
- NIMH
- NIMHD
- NINDS
- NINR
- NLM
- CC
- CIT
- CSR
- FIC
- NCATS
- NCCIH
 
-  About NIH  - Who We Are
- What We Do
- Jobs at NIH
- Visitor Information
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Contact Us

More »

Quick Links
- The NIH Director
- Take the Virtual Tour
- NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®
- Impact of NIH Research
- Science, Health, and Public Trust
 

## You are here

Home

## Connect with Us

              - Contact Us
              - X
              - Facebook
              - Instagram
              - YouTube
              - Flickr
              - More Social Media from NIH

## Footer

- NIH Home
- Virtual Tour
- En Español
- Visitor Information
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Privacy Policy
- Disclaimers
- Accessibility
- NIH Website Archives

- Nondiscrimination Notice
- Freedom of Information Act
- No Fear Act
- HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
- Office of Inspector General
- USA.gov

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®

National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Back to Top