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

[826 NYS2d 292]

*935Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Sullivan, J.), rendered May 12, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence, identification testimony, and his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence presented at the suppression hearing was sufficient to establish that the arresting police officer observed him driving his vehicle at night without headlights, exceeding the posted speed limit, and failing to stop at two stop signs. Thus, the officer acted lawfully in attempting to stop the defendant’s vehicle *(see Whren v United States,*517 US 806, 810 [1996]; *People v Robinson,*97 NY2d 341, 349 [2001]; *People v Gonzalez,*25 AD3d 620 [2006]; *People v Lamanda,*205 AD2d 934 [1994]; *People v Frank,*161 AD2d 794 [1990]). The officer acquired probable cause to arrest the defendant by virtue of the defendant’s reckless conduct in fleeing when the officer attempted to pull him over, including driving into oncoming traffic on an icy roadway at a high rate of speed *(see People v Britz,*239 AD2d 428 [1997]; *People v Quezada,*177 AD2d 660 [1991]). After the defendant lost control of his vehicle and crashed into a telephone pole, the robbery victim promptly arrived at the scene and identified the defendant as the perpetrator, thus providing the police with additional probable cause for an arrest. The defendant’s arrest, in turn, justified a warrantless search of his vehicle *(see People v Yancy,*86 NY2d 239, 245 [1995]; *People v Belton,*55 NY2d 49, 54-55 [1982]), and once lawfully inside the vehicle, the police officers were authorized to seize the gun and robbery proceeds that were in plain view on the front seat and on the floor *(see People v McEniry,*240 AD2d 681 [1997]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, EJ., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
# table125_q14.3_state
# Result 21.7
# table106_q13.1_naics
Exhibit
      32.1


Form
      10-KSB/A


Cardiff
      International, Inc.


File
      No.
      000-49709











CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002





The
      certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Cardiff
      International, Inc.(the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with
      Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
      “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
      Code.





I,
      Daniel
      Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
      that:





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





2.  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Cardiff International,
      Inc.








Dated:
                June 23, 2006
            By:
                /s/ Daniel ThompsonPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 689 

Recognizing the significance of the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak, 

the founder of Sikhism, to Sikh Americans and Sikhs worldwide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2019 

Mr. GARAMENDI (for himself, Mr. COSTA, Ms. STEVENS, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. 

SPANBERGER, and Mr. COOK) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the significance of the 550th birth anniversary 

of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, to Sikh Americans and Sikhs worldwide. 

Whereas the United States is enriched by the diversity of its 

residents, who have cultivated a climate of social tolerance and intellectual pluralism that has sustained it 

throughout its history; 

Whereas the Sikh community, which originated in Punjab, in 

South Asia, and began immigrating into the United 

States over 100 years ago, has played an important role 

in developing the United States; 

Whereas Sikhism is the world’s fifth largest religion with 

nearly 30,000,000 followers, including about 1,000,000 

in the United States; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 689 IH 

Whereas a holistic understanding of peace, supported by 

ideas of equality and fraternity, is part of the Sikh tradition; 

Whereas the very origin of Sikhism is linked to overcoming 

communal hatred and divisions; 

Whereas the year 2019 carries significance for Sikhs across 

the globe as being the 550th birth anniversary of the 

founder of the Sikh faith, Guru Nanak; 

Whereas Guru Nanak (1469–1539) preached to his followers 

to— 

(1) remember God; 

(2) earn their living by honest means; and 

(3) share it with the less fortunate; 

Whereas Guru Nanak was an original spiritual thinker and 

expressed his thoughts in extraordinary poetry that forms 

the basis of Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib; 

Whereas Guru Nanak’s social teachings denounced the caste 

system and taught that everyone is equal, regardless of 

caste, creed, or gender; 

Whereas Guru Nanak’s message was to recognize the entire 

human race as one; and 

Whereas Guru Nanak criticized caste and gender inequalities 

and declared that all men and women are equal: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the significance of the 550th birth anniversary of 

3 Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, to Sikh Americans 

4 and Sikhs worldwide. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
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

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Phillip B.
Douglas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 220, 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2007



/s/ PHILLIP B. DOUGLASPhillip B. DouglasChief Financial Officer
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Opes Exploration Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ken Ralfs, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to s.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 represents, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Ken RalfsKen Ralfs 
Chief Financial Officer 
June 12, 2007
#### In the Matter of Marilyn Schneider, Respondent, v Roslyn Engelmayer, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 769]

Respondent should not have to pay any part of the evaluator’s fee where the petition, which was dismissed after a hearing for lack of medical evidence substantiating petitioner’s claim of incapacity, lacks the required “specific factual allegations” of personal actions or financial transactions demonstrating incapacity (Mental Hygiene Law § 81.08 [a] [4], [5]; *see Matter of Petty,*256 AD2d 281, 283 [1998]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Andrias, Williams and McGuire, JJ.
# table56_q7_state
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 2295

ABRASIVES

- SOUTH INC. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. AWUKO ABRASIVES WANDMACHER GMBH & CO KG; WANDMACHER GMBH; MARTY KORTE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard M

. Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:16

- cv - 00768

- RMG )

Submitted : August 16, 2017 Decided: August 24, 2017

Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
John B. Kern, JOHN B. KERN INTERNATIONAL LAW, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Russell S. Abrams, Karen E. Spain, K & L GATES LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpubl ished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Abrasives

- South, Inc., which brought this action against Defendants asserting several state law claims, including claims of interference with contractual relations, fraud and deceit, an d unfair trade practices claims, appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants summary judgment and denying its Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court ’s orders

. See Abrasives

- South Inc. v. Awuko Abrasives Wandmacher GMBH & Co
KG , No. 2:16

- cv - 00768

- RMG (D. S.C. Aug. 17, 2016 & Oct. 4, 2016 ) ; see also Hooper v. Ebenezer Sr. Servs. & Rehab. Ctr. , 687 S.E.2d 29, 33 (S.C. 2009) ( “ Equitable tolling may be applied where it is justified under all the circumstances . . . [but it] is a doctrine that should be used sparingly and only when the interests of justice compel its use. ” ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequ ately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
# United State s Court of Appea ls For the Seventh Ci rcuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 February 27, 2003 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER , Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL

A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
No. 01-3745 JOANN CAVALI

ERI, AS PLENA

R Y GU ARDIAN

OF THE ESTATE OF STEVEN CAV AL IERI , A DISABL ED PERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DONAL D SHEPARD , Defenda nt-Appel

lant.
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 99-CV-2121 Michael P. McCuskey , Judge
.

O R D E R The Opini on of this c ourt issue d on Febr uary 24, 2003 should be amended a s follows: Page 13, first paragra

ph, line 14, “Stephen’s” should read “Steven’s.”
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0750. DEWANTEZ CHESTER v. AUTOVEST, LLC.

Dewantez Chester, the defendant in this civil action, filed this direct appeal

from the trial court’s order denying his OCGA § 9-11-60 (d) motion to set aside the

default judgment against him. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

“[T]he denial of a motion to set aside a final judgment under OCGA § 9-11-60

is not directly appealable and instead requires the filing of an application for

discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 (b).” Jim Ellis Atlanta v. Adamson, 283

Ga. App. 116, 116 (640 SE2d 688) (2006); see OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (8). Chester’s

failure to follow the required appellate procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this

appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 11, 2018

12/11/2018
@article{1208846,
  author = {Jing Liu and Junze Zhang and Zeyu Zhao and Yanping Liu and Wai Cheong Tam and Zekun Liu and Gang Li},
  title = {A negative-response strain sensor towards wearable microclimate changes for body area sensing networks},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-01-31 05:01:00},
  publisher = {Chemical Engineering Journal},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935969},
  language = {en},
}
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brendan Finnegan, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 231]

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County-Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), both rendered January 24, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 2010-694, and burglary in the second degree under superior court information No. 2010-764, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

On the day the defendant pleaded guilty, the County Court told him that a condition of the plea agreement was that he waive his right to appeal. However, the County Court did not explain the right to appeal until the date the defendant was sentenced, almost two months after the defendant pleaded guilty, and only after the sentences were actually pronounced. In addition, the defendant’s written waiver of the right to appeal was executed after the pronouncement of the sentences. These circumstances do not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently agreed to waive his right to appeal as a condition of his pleas of guilty (see *People v Gil,*109 AD3d 484 [2013]). Accordingly, the appeal waiver may not be enforced *(see id.*at 485; *see also People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record shows that he entered a valid waiver of indictment, and freely and voluntarily consented to prosecution by superior court information *(see People v Mays,*84 AD3d 1269 [2011]; *People v McKenzie,*51 AD3d 823 [2008]).

The defendant’s contention that the County Court failed to conduct a hearing to determine the amount of restitution imposed is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to request a hearing or otherwise challenge the amount of restitution imposed at sentencing *(see People v Sanchez,*103 AD3d 819, 820 [2013]; *People v Baxter,*102 AD3d 805, 806 [2013]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see People v Fields,*101 AD3d 1043 [2012]; *People v Haylett,*100 AD3d 774 [2012]).

The sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.E, Skelos, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULES 1901.3, : NO. 674

1901.6, 1905, 1910.4, 1910.7, 1910.11, :

1910.27, 1915.3, 1915.4-4, 1915.7, : CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES

1915.15, 1915.17, 1915.18, 1920.13, :

1920.15, 1920.31, 1920.33, 1920.75, : DOCKET

1930.1, 1930.6, 1953, AND 1959 OF THE :

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL :

PROCEDURE :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5

th day of January, 2018, upon the recommendation of the 

Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published

for public comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, 47 Pa.B. 4664 (August 12, 2017):

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Rules 1901.3, 1901.6, 1905, 1910.4, 1910.7, 1910.11, 1910.27, 1915.3, 1915.4-4, 

1915.7, 1915.15, 1915.17, 1915.18, 1920.13, 1920.15, 1920.31, 1920.33, 1920.75, 

1930.1, 1930.6, 1953, and 1959 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure are

amended in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective on January 6, 2018.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
# table174_q16.7_size
Opinion issued July 16, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00083-CV

———————————

REYNALDO ROBLEDO, Appellant

V.

IDALIA M. ROBLEDO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 312th Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-03363

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Reynaldo Robledo, has filed a motion to withdraw his notice of 

appeal, which we construe as a motion to dismiss his appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(a)(1). Appellant seeks dismissal of the appeal before the trial court’s entry of 

a final judgment set for July 21, 2015, after the trial court had granted, in part and 
2

within its plenary power, appellant’s timely-filed motion for new trial, because he 

does not intend to appeal the new judgment. The motion contains a certificate of 

conference indicating that the appellee’s counsel has been contacted and does not 

oppose this motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a)(2). No other party has 

filed a notice of appeal and no opinion has issued. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 

(c).

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. 

P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We construe this motion to include a motion to expedite the 

mandate and direct the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate within three days 

of the date of this opinion. See id. at 18.1(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale.
cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge 

Thomas C. Burdsal 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Pershing County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
#### 530 West 28th Street LP, Appellant, v RN Realty, L.L.C., et al., Respondents.

[975 NYS2d 675]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered April 23, 2012, which set use and occupancy at the rent in the lease, and denied, without prejudice, plaintiffs motion to unseal an affidavit and directed that plaintiff address the unsealing motion to the prior Justice in the case who had recused himself, unanimously dismissed, with costs, as moot.

Given that plaintiff never paid any use and occupancy and is now out of the premises, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties that also addressed the issue of use and occupancy, this appeal, as to use and occupancy is moot *(see Matter of Citineighbors Coalition of Historic Carnegie Hill v New York City Landmarks Preserv. Commn.,*2 NY3d 727, 728-729 [2004]). So too is the portion of the appeal that seeks the unsealing of an affidavit in the evidentiary proceedings relating to the setting of *409use and occupancy. Concur — Tom, J.R, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of St. Paul Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 17, 1997 included in the
1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of St. Paul Bancorp, Inc.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-11890) pertaining to the St. Paul Federal Bank For Savings
Profit Sharing and Savings Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-60609) pertaining to the St. Paul Bancorp, Inc. 1995 Incentive Plan of our
report dated January 17, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of St. Paul Bancorp, Inc.  incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                               Ernst & Young LLP

March 27, 1997
Chicago, Illinois
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Principal Financial Officer, 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 Alamo Energy Corp. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Philip Mann, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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; and





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alamo Energy Corp., and will be retained by Alamo Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Philip MannPhilip Mann

Chief Financial Officer

December 20, 2010
Order entered February 19, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01143-CV

LAKEITH AMIR-SHARIF, Appellant

V.

QUICK TRIP CORPORATION, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-09-13818-E

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s February 14, 2013 third motion for court order 

directing the clerk of court to provide appellant with copies of supplemental records filed by 

court reporter and clerk of court. Because such an order has already been entered, the motion is 

DENIED as moot. The Court also has before it appellant’s February 14, 2013 motion to compel 

clerk to file appellant’s original brief. The Court treats this motion as a motion for extension of 

time, GRANTS the motion, and ORDERS that the amended brief tendered by appellant on 

February 1, 2013 be timely filed as of that date.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 1.     | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November                30, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the period ending November 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                Bywater Resources Inc. |

**BYWATER      RESOURCES INC.**

| By: | */s/                Rolf Harms*Chief                Executive Officer and Chief                Financial Officer |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|