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

[608 NYS2d 351]

White, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Bell, J.), rendered June 24, 1992, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

After defendant was stopped for speeding and arrested on an outstanding felony warrant,* his vehicle was impounded and its contents inventoried by a State Trooper. During the course of the inventory, cocaine and heroin were found in a paper bag located in the trunk and hidden behind some of the vehicle’s interior paneling. Following his indictment, defendant moved to suppress the contraband and an incriminating statement regarding the contraband that he made while being booked. County Court (Keegan, J.) denied the motion, finding that the contraband was discovered in an inventory search of an impounded vehicle and that defendant’s statement was admissible because he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his *Miranda*rights. Defendant then proceeded to trial where he was convicted of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. This appeal ensued.

Law enforcement officials may conduct an inventory search of an impounded vehicle without a warrant, provided the search is conducted according to a "single familiar standard” or procedure established by the police agency *(see, People v Galak,*80 NY2d 715, 716; *see also, Colorado v Bertine,*479 US 367, 375). Aside from a few questions pertaining to an inventory record sheet on the cross-examination of the Trooper who conducted the inventory, there was no evidence adduced at the suppression hearing to indicate that the Trooper was acting pursuant to any standardized procedure in conducting the inventory. Therefore, County Court should have suppressed the evidence found in the car *(see, Florida v Wells,*495 US 1; *People v O’Connell,*188 AD2d 902; *compare, People v*
      *709
      *Walker,*194 AD2d 92). Defendant’s incriminating statement should also have been suppressed because it was directly related to the illegally seized evidence *(see, People v Lloyd,*167 AD2d 856). For these reasons, we reverse.

Mikoll, J. P, Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr, JJ, concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, motion to suppress tangible evidence and oral statement granted, and indictment dismissed.

It was subsequently determined that the warrant had been vacated.
Via Focsimi/e and ECF

Magistrate Judge Claire C. Ceccbi

U.S. District Court of New Jersey Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse

50 Walnut Street

Newark, Newjersey 07101

r

.TJE. ON ORA.L MOTh)N

Re:

(improperly

Main Street Tide

pled),

&

et

Settlement

al

Services, LLC v. Ace American Insurance Company, Ace USA

Civil Action No.: 2:1 0-cv-064 1 0-JLL-CCC File No.: 01560-0077 18

Dear Magistrate Judge Cecchi:

We represent Defendant Ace American Insurance Company (“Ace American”) action, which the abbverèfertncçd

writing to advise

is currently

you

scheduled for an initial conference with Your Honor oi.March 14,2Ol 1.W.e are

Services, LLC

that on February 14, 2010, Ace American and Plaintiff Main Street Ti&Sttlement

towards the settlement

(“Main Street”) reached a settlement. Specifically, Ace American agreed to pay $27,500

insurance coverage.

of the underlying action for which, by way of this action, Main Street sought

asserted against

Ace American’s payment is to result in a discontinuance “with prejudice” of all claims

attorney’s fees incurred

it in this

in

action, including Main Street’s claims for defense fees in the underlying action and

dismissal, we trust

this action. While Main Street has yet to provide a release and stipulation of that it will do so in the near future.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Daniel Pickett

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP

cc: Robert G. Ricco, Esq. (rna ECF)

T’ve SChcLJfl

ci ei ice Sc..‘- €‘c’i

Ll ai IS O\j

ci.

SO ORDERED

s/Claire Cecchi

Claire C. Cecchi,

Date: AO(Qj I

Respectfully submitted,

NY/655338v I
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-70,552]

Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 22, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a North Carolina State Agency Representative on behalf of workers of Meridian Automotive Systems, Salisbury, North Carolina.

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition (TA-W-70,529) filed on May 26, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15753 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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 Renaissance Acquisition Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Barry W. Florescue, 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 of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|May 15, 2007 | /s/    Barry W. Florescue                                 
|------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------
|             | Barry W. Florescue                                        
|             | Chief Executive Officer
 (and principal financial officer)
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive 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 SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September
30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(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.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerOctober
      23, 2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Stanley, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe fiscal quarter ended September 25, 2009 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Philip O. Nolan,Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Brian J.Clark, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairlyrepresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ PHILIP O. NOLAN                                              |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Philip O. Nolan                                                  |   |
| Chairman, President and  Chief Executive Officer                 |   |
| October 29, 2009                                            |   |
|                                                             |   |
|                                                             |   |
| /s/ BRIAN J. CLARK                                               |   |
| Brian J. Clark                                                   |   |
| Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
| October 29, 2009                                            |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6537

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00231-JRS-1; 3:14-cv-00496-JRS)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kareem Jamal Currence, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kareem Jamal Currence seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders finding Currence’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to be 

successive and unauthorized and dismissing it for lack of 

jurisdiction, and denying Currence’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate 

both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Currence 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 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# table24_q4.3_size
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 4.3    
  


 
 

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
  TO THE
  RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
  OF
  MICHAELS STORES, INC.    
  


    Michaels Stores, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, 


    DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY: 



	 	FIRST:	 	The name of the Corporation is Michaels Stores, Inc.
	 	

SECOND:	
 	

At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation held on July 23, 2001, resolutions were duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation effective July 26, 2001 setting forth a proposed amendment to the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, as amended (the "Certificate"), declaring the amendment to be advisable and directing that the amendment be considered at the 2001 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Corporation. The resolution
setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:





    "RESOLVED,
that Paragraphs Three and Four of Article Seven of the Certificate be amended and restated in their entirety to read as follows: 



    Each
director shall hold office for a term expiring at the next annual meeting of the stockholders of the Corporation and until his successor is duly elected and qualified or until
the earlier of his resignation, death or removal. 


    Any
vacancies in the Board of Directors for any reason, and any newly created directorships resulting from any increase in the number of directors, will be filled by the Board of
Directors, acting by a
majority of the directors then in office, although less than a quorum, and any director so chosen will hold office until the next annual meeting of stockholders and until his successor is duly elected
and qualified or until the earlier of his resignation, death or removal. No decrease in the number of directors will shorten the term of any incumbent director. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and
except as otherwise required by law, whenever the holders of any one or more series of Preferred Stock have the right, voting separately as a class, to elect one or more directors of the Corporation,
the terms of the director or directors elected by such holders will be as provided in the terms of such series." 




	 	THIRD:	 	At the 2001 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Corporation, duly called and held on October 5, 2001, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, the
necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.
	 	

FOURTH:	
 	

The amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.





    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by Mark V. Beasley, its Secretary, on this 5th day of October, 2001. 



	 	 	MICHAELS STORES, INC.
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ MARK V. BEASLEY   
 Mark V. Beasley, Secretary











QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.3


CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO THE RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF MICHAELS STORES, INC.
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 report of Asia Time Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities
      and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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.





/s/
                Kwong Kai ShunKwong
                Kai ShunChief
                Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(Principal
                Executive Officer)May
                15, 2008/s/
                King Wai LinKing
                Wai LinChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)May
                15, 2008




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Asia Time Corporation and will be retained by Asia Time Corporation
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206-6 Filed 08/22/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 3150
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206-6 Filed 08/22/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 3151
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206-6 Filed 08/22/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 3152
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206-6 Filed 08/22/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 3153
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206-6 Filed 08/22/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 3154
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206-6 Filed 08/22/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 3155
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206-6 Filed 08/22/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 3156
Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 206-6 Filed 08/22/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 3157
essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition." Without 

these documents this court is not in a position to grant extraordinary writ 

relief. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Saitta 

Gibbons 

J. 

gekudit, , J 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge 

The Faux Law Group 

Beasley Law Group, PC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 893 

Expressing support for designation of March 21, 2020, as ‘‘National Rosie 

the Riveter Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2020 

Mr. HUFFMAN (for himself, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. DESAULNIER, Mr. 

FITZPATRICK, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. MALINOWSKI, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Mr. KILMER, Ms. KAPTUR, Ms. STEVENS, Mr. BRENDAN F. 

BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. 

NORTON, Mr. YARMUTH, and Mr. KENNEDY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of March 21, 2020, as 

‘‘National Rosie the Riveter Day’’. 

Whereas ‘‘National Rosie the Riveter Day’’ is a collective national effort to raise awareness of the 16,000,000 women 

working during World War II; 

Whereas Americans have chosen to honor female workers who 

contributed on the home front during World War II; 

Whereas these women left their homes to work or volunteer 

full-time in factories, farms, shipyards, airplane factories, 

banks, and other institutions in support of the military 

overseas; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 893 IH 

Whereas these women worked with the United Service Organizations and American Red Cross, drove trucks, riveted 

airplane parts, collected critical materials, rolled bandages, and served on rationing boards; 

Whereas it is fitting and proper to recognize and preserve the 

history and legacy of working women, including volunteer 

women, during World War II to promote cooperation and 

fellowship among such women and their descendants; 

Whereas these women and their descendants wish to further 

the advancement of patriotic ideas, excellence in the 

workplace, and loyalty to the United States of America; 

and 

Whereas March 21, 2020, during Women’s History Month, 

would be an appropriate date to designate as ‘‘National 

Rosie the Riveter Day’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Rosie 

3 the Riveter Day’’; and 

4 (2) acknowledges the important role played by 

5 women in World War II. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# table168_q16.5_size
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4539

_____________________________

DOMINIC RARPHELL BENSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

March 15, 2019 

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

William H. McLean of McLean Law, P.A., Panama City, for 

Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2015

No. 04-15-00324-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A.M. AND R.M.M., CHILDREN,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00737

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s motion 

is deemed timely filed as of July 15, 2015.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Pulla Chacha, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 230]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jeong, J.), rendered February 28, 2012, as amended December 3, 2012, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]) in which she moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute this appeal.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v*Paige, 54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.