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

[852 NYS2d 119]

*269Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his duly executed, open-court jury waiver is unpreserved *(see People v Johnson,*51 NY2d 986 [1980]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Defendant was fully aware, prior to waiving his right to a jury trial, that there had been a conference among the court, the prosecutor and the reluctant complaining witness, without defendant and his counsel, during which the court explained to the witness that he could be compelled to testify and could be jailed if he failed to do so. It was not necessary to inform defendant that his waiver meant he was waiving the right to factfinders who had not had such ex parte communications *(see People v Smith,*6 NY3d 827, 828 [2006], *cert denied*548 US 905 [2006] [while allocution by court is preferred practice, “no particular catechism is required to establish the validity of a jury trial waiver”]). The record establishes that defendant’s waiver was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.

Defendant did not preserve any of his constitutional or other challenges to the fact that the court conducted an in camera, ex parte proceeding involving the prosecutor and complaining witness, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. This conference, which resulted in the witness’s compliance without the necessity of a material witness order, was indistinguishable from a material witness proceeding under CPL article 620. Such a proceeding is brought against a recalcitrant witness by the party seeking to call such witness. The proceeding seeks an order fixing bail to secure the attendance of a witness who would not be amenable or responsive to a subpoena; it has nothing to do with the content of the witness’s testimony or any legal or factual issue that might involve the opposing party in the underlying criminal case *(see People v Hamilton,*272 AD2d 553 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 935 [2000]; *People v Lovett,*192 AD2d 326 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 722 [1993]). Moreover, the existence of a record of the conference was disclosed to defendant *270and the record clearly established that no facts or trial issues were discussed *(compare People v Ortega, 78*NY2d 1101 [1991]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.
#### Waters *against*Burnet.

NEW-YORK,

October 1817.

In an action a-^defendant6in iatterhTMómpe1 ule*"offic&r; bis bting^gái'nstthe party caiimg

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a justice’s court.

The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the court below,, brought an action on the case against the plaintiff in error, and declared against, him, as a constable, for the escape of *one Bixby,*execution. The defendant below moved for a nonsuit, on the grounc] that the action should have been debt, and not case; but the motion was over-ruled; and or! the trial, the defendant offered *Bixby,*as a witness to prove that the plaintiff had directed the defendant not to take *Bixby*to ’gaol, on the execution. The witness was objected to, and excluded by the justice, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff for the amount of the execution. ,

*Per Curiam.*

The variance between the summons and the declaration would probably be considered matter of form», if that were the only objection to the prceedings; but we think that *Bixby*was improperly excluded. He was not interested in the event of this cause, nor could this judgment be given in evidence in any suit between the witness and the plaintiff below. His interest would rather seem to be against the defendant who called him; for, if the plaintiff recovered against the constable, the witness would be exonerated from any liability to the plaintiff; and, if the escape were voluntary, the constable could not ■ recover any thing from the witness. On this ground, therefore, the judgment must be reversed*

Judgment reversed.
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 Annual Report of Calgon Carbon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leroy M. Ball, Chief 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 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
conditions and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Leroy M. Ball      
|                       
|                       
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 30, 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to Calgon Carbon Corporation and will be retained by Calgon Carbon
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ DALE C. MATTINGLY, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________
2022

- 1265

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 20

- 3640
, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch.

______________________ O N M OTION

______________________ O R D E R

U pon consideration of the appellant’s unopposed

mo tion to voluntarily dismiss the above

- captioned appeal
,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismiss ed

. Case: 22-1265 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 10/03/2022M ATTINGLY V

. M C D ONOUGH 2

(2) Each side s hall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

October 3, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 3, 2022 Case: 22-1265 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 10/03/2022
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 28, 2018

No. 04-17-00565-CV

David MORA, Texas Sterling Construction Co. a/k/a Texas Crushed Concrete, and Sterling 

Construction Company, Inc. a/k/a Sterling Delaware Holding Company, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

Martin VALDIVIA Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, both Individually and as Sole Heirs of the 

Estate of Martin Valdivia Jr., Deceased,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CI09734

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After this court granted court reporter Amy L. Hinds’s first, second, and third requests for

extensions of time to file the record, the reporter’s record was due on March 9, 2018.

After the extended due date, the court reporter filed a fourth notification of late record

and a status report showing the number of pages that have been edited, proofread, and formatted

to date. The court reporter requested a fourth extension of time to file the record until April 9, 

2018, for a total extension of 124 days. The court reporter stated she will complete the record by 

April 9. 2018.

The court reporter’s request is GRANTED. We ORDER court reporter Amy L. Hinds to 

file the reporter’s record with this court not later than April 9, 2018. See id. R. 35.3(c) (limiting 

an extension in an ordinary appeal to thirty days). No further requests for an extension of 

time to file the reporter’s record will be granted.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of March, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
|                                         | 31.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|---------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
|                                         |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|I, Lisa Norman, certify that:           
|1.                                       | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Home Alliance Corporation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|2.                                       | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 annual report.
|3.                                       | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results from operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.                





|By:  /s/Lisa NormanLisa Norman
Chief Executive Officer & Chairman | Date:  July 8, 2013
|----------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-1987

LT Case No. 2016-680-CFMA

_____________________________

MARVENO D. SCRIVEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County.

R. Lee Smith, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. 

Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee.

April 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, SOUD, and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
August 31, 2015

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

Court of Appeals

Third District of Texas

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711-2547

Re: Cause No. 03-13-00370-CV; The State Board for Educator Certification v.

Erasmo Montalvo; In the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas at 

Austin

Dear Mr. Kyle:

Please be advised that the undersigned counsel intends to argue this case, 

now reset for October 7, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., before the Court.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ellen Sameth 

ELLEN M. SAMETH 

Assistant Attorney General

State Bar No. 17555550

OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

P.O. Box 12548

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Telephone: (512) 936-1838

Facsimile: (512) 457-4608

Ellen.sameth@texasattorneygeneral.gov

Attorney for Appellant

Cc: Mr. Mark W. Robinett

 Brim, Arnett & Robinett, P.C. 

 Via e-mail 

Post Of fice Box 12548, Austin, Texas 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.texasattor neygeneral.gov 

ACCEPTED

03-13-00370-CV

6718918

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/31/2015 10:39:47 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/31/2015 10:39:47 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1141 

To provide predictability and certainty in the tax law, create jobs, and 

encourage investment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2019 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide predictability and certainty in the tax law, create 

jobs, and encourage investment. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Motorsports Fairness 

5 and Permanency Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1141 IS

1 SEC. 2. 7-YEAR APPLICABLE RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MO2 TORSPORTS ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX FA3 CILITIES MADE PERMANENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 168(i)(15) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subpara6 graph (D). 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

9 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 658 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 658

 Expressing support for the designation ``Housing America Month'' and 
honoring the importance of affordable housing and community development 
  programs and resources that allow communities across the country to 
provide access to safe, secure housing for all Americans, regardless of 
                             income level.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2019

Mr. Clay submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for the designation ``Housing America Month'' and 
honoring the importance of affordable housing and community development 
  programs and resources that allow communities across the country to 
provide access to safe, secure housing for all Americans, regardless of 
                             income level.

Whereas for over 80 years it has been the policy of this Nation to promote the 
        general welfare of the Nation by employing its funds and credit to 
        assist States and localities to remedy housing conditions, and create 
        and preserve housing that is decent, safe, and sanitary under the United 
        States Housing Act of 1937;
Whereas the House of Representatives, which has, over a period of many years, 
        endeavored to address affordable housing and community development needs 
        and has been successful in doing so through related appropriations and 
        authorizing legislation has committed itself to meeting the affordable 
        housing and community development needs of the country; and
Whereas the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials has 
        celebrated October as Housing America Month for over a decade and has 
        honored the children living in subsidized housing through a calendar 
        featuring their artwork: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
designation of ``Housing America Month'' and honors the importance of 
our Nation's housing and community development programs.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7150

KEITH V. HARNED,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SARA REVELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:09-hc-02129-FL)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 2, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith V. Harned, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith V. Harned, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Harned v. Revell, No. 5:09-hc-02129-FL (E.D.N.C. July 2, 2010). 

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 OF CHIEF 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 Maple Mountain Explorations Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marvin Wosk, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
6th day of December, 2006.


/s/ Marvin Wosk
------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42271

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEFFREY JOSEPH STUBBS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 564

Filed: July 27, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of nine years with four 

years determinate for two counts of aggravated battery, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Joseph Stubbs was found guilty of two counts of aggravated battery. Idaho Code 

§ 18-903, 18-907(a). The district court sentenced Stubbs to concurrent unified sentences of nine 

years with four years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained 

jurisdiction, the district court placed Stubbs on probation for a period of three years. Stubbs

appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Stubbs’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
Exhibit 32



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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Sole Executive
Officer of the Company, certifies, that to his knowledge:

         1) Ridgefield Acquisition Corp.'s Form 10-KSB for the annual period
         ended December 31, 2004 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 Ridgefield Acquisition Corp.'s Form
         10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2004 fairly presents,
         in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.



                                            /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Steven N. Bronson, President
Case 2:11-cr-00055-CCC Document 15 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cr-00055-CCC Document 15 Filed 07/08/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOAN MULLIN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF 

THE ESTATE OF ROBERT MULLIN, 

deceased, and JOAN MULLIN, individually,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

ADMINISTRATOR KAREN BALICKI, et 

al.,

 Defendants.

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-247 (MLC)

 O R D E R

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion dated July 25, 2014, 

IT IS on this 25th day of July, 2014, ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration of 

the Court’s November 1, 2013 Order (dkt. entry no. 185) is DENIED; and it is further 

ORDERED that the plaintiffs are GRANTED LEAVE to file a separate notice of 

motion concerning leave to amend the complaint and assert new claims, as well as 

separate briefs and exhibits in support thereof, before the Magistrate Judge BY AUGUST 

22, 2014 in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil 

Rules.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper .

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00247-MLC-LHG Document 204 Filed 07/25/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 3087