alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PROB 12A

(7/93)

United States District Court

for

District of New Jersey

Report on Offender Under Supervision

his

Name of Offender: Alhadi Armstrong Cr.: 11-00036-001

PACTS #: 60406

Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: THE HONORABLE SUSAN D. WIGENTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date of Original Sentence: 03/09/2012

Original Offense: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1): Convicted Felon in Possession of a Firearm

Original Sentence: 105 months imprisonment, 36 months supervised release

Special Conditions: Special Assessment of $100, Substance Abuse Testing, Alcohol Treatment, Drug 

Treatment, Prohibitions on Gang/Criminal Associations

Type of Supervision: Supervised Release Date Supervision Commenced: 11/08/2019

NONCOMPLIANCE SUMMARY

The offender has not complied with the following condition(s) of supervision:

Violation Number Nature of Noncompliance

1. A warrant was issued for Alhadi Armstrong by Irvington Police Department

following a reported physical altercation.

The victim stated she met Mr. Armstrong, her ex-boyfriend, at 40 Vine Avenue

in Irvington, New Jersey to retrieve her cellphone charger. While receiving the

charger, a verbal altercation ensued. During the altercation, Mr. Armstrong

asked the victim to go home and the victim refused to leave. Mr. Armstrong

reportedly, grabbed the victim’s legs, dragged her down the stairs and fled on

foot. The victim complained of pain to both legs and was transported to Rutgers

University Hospital. The victim refused a temporary order of protection and to

speak with a domestic violence advocate.

Mr. Armstrong turned surrendered himself on September 22, 2020.

U.S. Probation Officer Action:

Mr. Armstrong will be required to participate in the virtual U.S. Probation Office’s STOP (Skills, 

Techniques, Options, and Plans for better relationships) Program and will meet once per week for 10 weeks 

beginning on Monday, October 19, 2020. Attendance and completion of the homework assignments are 

mandatory.

We respectfully request that no court action is taken at this time. We will update the Court if Mr. Armstrong 

does not successfully complete the program and with the outcome of the pending matter. 

Case 2:11-cr-00036-SDW Document 33 Filed 09/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 101
Prob 12A – page 2 

Alhadi Armstrong

Respectfully submitted,

Maria D. Goodwater/SGM

By: Maria D. Goodwater

U.S. Probation Officer

Date: 09/23/2020

/mdg

APPROVED:

Suzanne Golda-Martinez 09/23/2020

SUZANNE J. GOLDA-MARTINEZ Date

Supervising U.S. Probation Officer

Please check a box below to indicate the Court’s direction regarding action to be taken in this case:

No Formal Court Action to be Taken at This Time 

Submit a Request for Modifying the Conditions or Term of Supervision

Submit a Request for Warrant or Summons 

Other (as recommended by the Probation Office)

Signature of Judicial Officer

Date

X

s/Susan D. Wigenton, U.S.D.J.

September 29, 2020

Case 2:11-cr-00036-SDW Document 33 Filed 09/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 102
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,800
<INVENTORY>                                     92,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               261,100
<PP&E>                                       1,179,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 604,900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,034,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          162,300
<BONDS>                                        911,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       179,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   (265,900)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,034,200
<SALES>                                      1,167,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,167,600
<CGS>                                          972,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,086,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (15,900)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
#### County of Nassau, Respondent, v Hugo Rojas, Appellant.

[856 NYS2d 124]

In the early morning hours of July 16, 2004, the defendant was driving along Old Country Road in Nassau County when the police stopped him for several traffic infractions. After observing the defendant and administering a breathalyzer test, the police arrested him on a charge of driving while intoxicated. At the time of the arrest, the police legally parked the defendant’s car at the scene and transported him to the Nassau County Police Department Central Testing Unit. There, he was provided with a vehicle seizure notice informing him that his vehicle was subject to forfeiture, and requiring him to retain possession of the vehicle until the forfeiture action had concluded. Subsequently, after the defendant entered a plea of guilty to a reduced charge of driving while ability impaired, the plaintiff, Nassau County, commenced this action pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0 (g) (4) (hereinafter Code § 8-7.0 [g] [4]) against him, seeking forfeiture of his vehicle. Shortly thereafter, the County moved for summary judgment on the complaint and the defendant cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the County’s motion, denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and directed the defendant to surrender possession of the subject vehicle to the plaintiff. We affirm.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, Code § 8-7.0 (g) (4) *488does not provide for a civil in rem forfeiture action which would have required the physical seizure of his vehicle. Rather, it provides for a civil in personam forfeiture action similar in some respects to CPLR 1311. While characterized as civil *(see United States v One Assortment of 89 Firearms,*465 US 354, 363 [1984]; Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 1311.02 [2d ed]), Code § 8-7.0 (g) (4) requires that there be an adjudication of guilt against the driver and affords an “innocent owner” the opportunity to assert an affirmative defense *(County of Nassau v Velasquez,*44 AD3d 987, 989 [2007]; *see*Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0 [g] [4], [5]; *United States v Bajakajian,*524 US 321, 330 [1998]; *Holtzman v Samuel,*130 Misc 2d 976, 978 [1985]; *cf. Various Items of Personal Property v United States,*282 US 577, 581; *Ford Motor Credit Co. v Molomo,*179 AD2d 210, 213 [1992], *affd*81 NY2d 936 [1993]). Moreover, the County proceeds against the defendant personally and not the vehicle *(see United States v Bajakajian,*524 US at 331-332; *cf. Various Items of Personal Property v United States,*282 US at 581; *Ford Motor Credit Co. v Molomo,*179 AD2d at 213). Therefore, since Code § 8-7.0 (g) (4) provides for a civil in personam forfeiture action, jurisdiction was not dependent upon the seizure of the defendant’s vehicle *(see County of Nassau v Patel,*10 Misc 3d 1052[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51913[U] [2005]; *cf. United States v One Assortment of 89 Firearms,*465 US at 363).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Lifson, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Board of Directors

Velocity Asset Management, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of Velocity Asset Management, Inc. of our report dated April 12, 2005,
except Notes 2, 11 and 15 which are as of May 20, 2005 related to the
CONSOLIDATED balance sheets of Velocity Asset Management, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related CONSOLIDATED statements of
income, shareholder's equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which report is included in the
December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Velocity Asset Management,
Inc.



/s/ Cowan and Gunteski & Co., P.A.

Toms River, New Jersey


May 20, 2005
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 Metals USA Holdings Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the
Periodic Report), I, C. Lourenco Goncalves, Chief Executive 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. To my knowledge, the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                       |  |  |  |                                                            
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    C. LOURENCO
GONCALVES                               
|                       |  |  |  | C. Lourenco Goncalves President and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 121 (Thursday, June 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14931]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Notice of renewal charter and filing letters

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Tax Exempt and Government 
Entities Division.

ACTION: Notice of renewal charter and filing letters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-462, a renewal charter has been filed for the IRS Advisory 
Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (ACT). The renewal 
charter was filed on June 16, 2009, with the Committee on Finance of 
the United States Senate, the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Library of Congress. The renewal 
charter and copies of these filing letters are attached.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and 
Government Entities (ACT), governed by the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, is an organized public forum for discussion of 
relevant employee plans, exempt organizations, tax-exempt bonds, and 
Federal, State, local, and Indian tribal government issues between 
officials of the IRS and representatives of the above communities. The 
ACT also enables the IRS to receive regular input with respect to the 
development and implementation of IRS policy concerning these 
communities. ACT members present the interested public's observations 
about current or proposed IRS policies, programs, and procedures, as 
well as suggest improvements.

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Steven J. Pyrek,
Designated Federal Official, Tax Exempt and Government Entities 
Division, Internal Revenue Service.
[FR Doc. E9-14931 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.

|                       | MEDPRO SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC.
|---------------------- | ----------------------------
|                      
|                      
|Dated: August 13, 2008 | By:                         
|                       |                             
|                       |                             
|                       |                             

30

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


Greyhound Lines. Inc.
     Amarillo Trailways Bus Center Inc. (75%)
     Atlantic Greyhound Lines of Virginia, Inc. (100%)
     Continental Panhandle Lines, Inc. (50%)
     Gateway Ticketing Systems, Inc. (25%)
     GLI Holding Company (100%)
         ASI Associations, Inc.  (100%)
             Carolina Associates, Inc. (100%)
                Carolina Coach Company (100%)
                    Wilmington Union Bus Station Corporation (3%)
                Red Bus Systems, Inc. (100%)
                Seashore Transportation Company (100%)
                    Wilmington Union Bus Station Corporation (39.5%)
         PRB Acquisition, LLC  (99%)
         Texas New Mexico & Oklahoma Coaches, Inc. (100%)
             T.N.M.&O. Tours, Inc. (100%)
         Vermont Transit Co. Inc. (100%)
         Valley Garage Company (100%)
         Valley Transit Co., Inc. (100%)
     Greyhound de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (99.9%)
     PRB Acquisition, LLC  (1%)
     SET Acquisition Corp.  (100%)
     Sistema Internacional De Transporte de Autobuses, Inc. (100%)
         American Bus Sales Associates, Inc.  (100%)
         Americanos U.S.A., LLC  (51%)
         Autobus Leasing Co., LLC  (51%)
         Autobuses Americanos, S.A. de C. V. (49%)
         Autobuses Amigos, LLC  (51%)
         Autobuses Amigos, S.A. de C. V. (49%)
         Autobuses Crucero, S.A. de C. V. (49%)
         Gonzalez, Inc. d/b/a Golden State Transportation (51%)
         Grupo Centro, Inc. (100%)
         Los Buenos Leasing Co., Inc. (100%)
         Los Rapidos, Inc. (51%)
         Omnibus Americanos, S.A. de C. V. (49%)
     Transportation Reality Income Partners, L.P. (48.9%)
     Union Bus Station of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (40%)
     Wilmington Union Bus Station Corporation (24.6%)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HARRY DUNLEAVY,

Plaintiff,

v. 

EDWARD GANNON, ALAN

HANDLER, JOHN TONELLI,

CANDACE MOODY, LT. JAMES

MCINNESS, JOHN PALM, ROBERT

STOBER, CHARLES CENTINARO,

BARRY FRANK, JOHN BRESLIN,

GARY LIGHTMAN, JOHN

BARBARULA, LAURIE VEIGHT,

TIMOTHY MATTESON, PETER

ROMAINE, NEW JERSEY STATE

POLICE, NEW JERSEY BAR

ASSOCIATION, OFFICE OF

ATTORNEY ETHICS, LAKELAND

BANK,

 Defendants. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

ORDER

Civil Action 2:11-cv-0361(DMC)(MF)

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH, U.S.D.J.:

This matter comes before this Court on three motions by Defendants Frank, Breslin and

Gary Lightman for attorneys’ fees and costs owed. On June 12, 2012, William D. Sanders,

counsel from the McGivney & Klugler, PC firm representing Defendant Breslin, wrote to inform

the Court that their motion should be withdrawn, the parties having settled the matter (ECF No.

116). This Court terminated the motion on the same day. The only motions remaining in this

matter are motions for fees filed by Defendants Frank and Lightman (ECF Nos. 90 and 92). 

Case 2:11-cv-00361-DMC-MF Document 121 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2311
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 78, granting this Court the authority to resolve the motion on the

papers, no oral argument was heard. 

After considering all submissions, and for the reasons stated in this Court’s Opinion filed

this day;

IT IS on this 13th day of August, 2012;

ORDERED that Defendant Lightman’s motion for fees is denied (ECF No. 92);

and it is further,

ORDERED that Defendant Frank’s motion for fees is granted in an amount of

$28,233.27.

 S/ Dennis M. Cavanaugh 

Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J.

Orig.: Clerk

cc: All Counsel of Record

Honorable Mark Falk, U.S.M.J.

2

Case 2:11-cv-00361-DMC-MF Document 121 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2312
Exhibit 32.2

 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection with the accompanying amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Velocity Asset Management, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2004, I, James
J. Mastriani, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

1.   Such amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
     2004, 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 amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
     the year ended December 31, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Velocity
     Asset Management, Inc.


Dated: August 10, 2005                  /s/ JAMES J. MASTRIANI
                                        --------------------------------
                                        James J. Mastriani
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### Joseph P. Sawyer, Sr., et al., Appellants, v Kaleida Health, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 833]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John M. Curran, J.) entered November 13, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Joseph E Sawyer, Sr. (plaintiff) when one of defendant’s employees inserted a catheter into plaintiff in connection with defendant’s treatment of plaintiff. We conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant had “ ‘the initial burden of establishing the absence of any departure from good and accepted medical practice or that the plaintiff was not injured thereby’ ” *(Gagnon v St. Joseph’s Hosp.,*90 AD3d 1605, 1605 [2011]; *see Humphrey v Gardner,*81 AD3d 1257, 1258 [2011]). Although defendant’s expert, i.e., plaintiff’s treating nurse, averred that neither she nor any of defendant’s employees deviated from accepted medical practice, we agree with plaintiffs that the medical records submitted by defendant in support of the motion raise an issue of fact on that point with respect to plaintiff’s treating nurse *(see Valenti v Camins,*95 AD3d 519, 522 [2012]; *see generally Humphrey,*81 AD3d at 1258). In view of our determination, we do not consider the suf*1342ficiency of plaintiffs’ submissions in opposition to the motion *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
Case 2:11-cr-00117-SDW Document 16 Filed 03/01/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 32
Miscellaneous Issues:

Using 4-Interview CU’s vs. 

CU Interview Independen

Evan Hubener

Division of Consumer Expenditure Survey

CE Microdata User’s Workshop

July 14-16, 2015
Percentage Distribution of 

by Housing Tenure 

4-Interview CU’s vs. All CUs (2012 Q1 – 

0

1020304050

Owned w/ Mort Owned w/o

Mort

Rented Othe

4-Interview CUs All CUs
Percentage Distribution of C

Age of Reference Perso

4-Interview Cu’s vs. All CUs (2012 Q1 – 

05

10152025

Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 

4-Interview CUs All CUs
Percentage Distribution o

Interview CUs by Income Q

(2012 Q1-2014 Q1)

05

1015202530

Lowest quintile Second quintile Third quintile Fourth quintile Hig

11.5

17.49

20.42

23.28

2
Exhibit 10.23



 Exhibit 10.23 

 
 



 
 The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), has previously established the Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation Stock and Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which authorizes the grant of awards of shares of the Company’s common stock
(“Common Stock”) to Directors and Employees (as defined therein) of the Company. The Compensation Policy Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Committee”) is authorized to administer the Plan, including the authority to make
grants and establish the terms and conditions thereof. 
 An “Approved Retiree” is any awardee of an award who retires
from employment with the Company with the specific approval of the Committee on or after such date on which the awardee has attained age fifty-five (55) and completed ten (10) Years of Service, and has entered into and has not breached an
agreement to refrain from Engaging in Competition in form and substance satisfactory to the Committee. 
 “Engaging in
Competition” is defined in the Plan as (i) engaging, individually or as an employee, consultant, owner (more than five percent (5%)) or agent of any entity, in or on behalf of any business engaged in significant competition (or that
transacts or cooperates with another business in activities of significant competition) with any business operated by the Company or with interests adverse to those of the Company; (ii) soliciting and hiring a key employee of the Company in
another business, whether or not in significant competition with any business operated by the Company; or (iii) using or disclosing confidential or proprietary information, in each case, without the approval of the Company. Requests for
consideration will be made in writing to the attention of the CEO. Company approval will be granted or denied in writing by the Company within thirty (30) days after its receipt of a written request by the Approved Retiree. 

Your signature below confirms that you understand and agree not to engage in competition as outlined in the Plan document for the term
and under the conditions as set forth therein. 
  

					
		 	Agreed to and Accepted by:
			
		 	Date:	 	 December 6, 2012

			
		 	Signature:	 	 /s/ Robert A. Miller

			
		 	Name:	 	 Robert A. Miller