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

[822 NYS2d 525]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J., at suppression hearing; Renee A. White, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 12, 2004, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

*478The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence and a statement. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). In challenging the hearing court’s rulings on the admissibility of the pistol recovered from his car and his statement to the police, defendant, who failed to make a proper renewal motion *(see*CPL 710.40 [4]), improperly relies on testimony that was adduced at his trial *(People v Abrew,*95 NY2d 806, 808 [2000]). In any event, even if we were authorized to consider trial testimony, and if we did so in this case, there would be no basis for suppression. Over a period of time, the police watched defendant and another person trying to enter a car, without the use of a key, by forcing the doors open. After finally entering the car, the men attempted to leave upon the approach of the police. Even assuming the police then detained defendant, they had reasonable suspicion of criminality upon which to do so *(see People v Martinez,*222 AD2d 262, 263 [1995]), and their ensuing discovery of a pistol in open view in the car provided probable cause to arrest. In addition, there was nothing in either the hearing or trial evidence that cast any doubt on the voluntariness of defendant’s statements.

To the extent that defendant is challenging the sufficiency or weight of the evidence, such claims are improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief, and are in any event without merit. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

Since defendant failed to request any remedy, he did not preserve his claims that the People violated their constitutional and statutory disclosure obligations, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.

The hearing and trial courts accorded defendant a full opportunity to be heard as to all legal issues. To the extent defendant is claiming that his trial counsel was misled into believing that certain bench conferences were being recorded, that claim is unreviewable *(see People v Kinchen,*60 NY2d 772 [1983]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00092-CR 

MONIQUE JANSSEN, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 137th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2009-424,501, Honorable John J. "Trey" McClendon III, Presiding 

 

July 23, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant Monique Janssen appealed the revocation of her community 

supervision. On July 21, 2015, appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal.

Because appellant’s motion to dismiss meets the requirements of Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), we have not issued a decision in the appeal, and appellant 

and her attorney have signed the motion, the Court grants the motion. The appeal is 

dismissed. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing 

will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
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. 

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the appellant’s unopposed 

motion to voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

Case: 22-1265 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 10/03/2022
2 MATTINGLY V. MCDONOUGH 

(2) Each side shall 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
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of POINTSTAR  ENTERTAINMENT  CORP. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended  January 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Rafeh Hulays,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                         /s/ Rafeh Hulays
                                         --------------------------------
Date: March 15, 2007                     Rafeh Hulays
                                         Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 Hon. Stanley R. Chesler
v. : Crim. No. 11-208 (SRC)
SIXING LIU : ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint
application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the
District of New Jersey (L. Judson Welle and Gurbir S. Grewal,
Assistant U.S. Attorneys, appearing), and defendant Sixing Liu
(James Tunick, Esq., appearing), for an order granting a
continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and
two continuances having previously been granted by the Court
pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7) (A),
and the defendant being aware that he has a right to have the
matter brought to trial within 70 days of the date of his
appearance before a judicial officer of this court pursuant to
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and the
defendant having consented to the continuance and waived such
right to the extent of the continuance appearing below, and for

good cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should
be continued for the following reasons:

(1) Counsel for defendant has requested additional time
to review discovery in this matter, which consists of, among

other things, a significant number of electronic files as well as



documents that have been translated from the Chinese language to
English;

(2) Counsel for the government has informed counsel for
the defendant that the government anticipates seeking the return
of a Superseding Indictment in this matter;

(3) The defendant and his counsel desire sufficient
time to investigate the charges contained in any Superseding
Indictment that may be returned prior to having to file pretrial
motions;

(4) Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
3161(h) (7), the ends of justice served by granting the
continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the
defendant in a speedy trial. Zz

IT IS, therefore, on this / Faay of December, 2011,

ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is,
continued from the date of this order until May 1, 2012; and
it is further

ORDERED that the period from the date of this order
until May 1, 2012 shall be excludable in computing time under the

Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

—HON. STANLEY R. “CHESLER
United States District Judge



Form and entry
consented to:

C
L. Judgorf Welle

Gurbir S. Grewal
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Case 3:11-cv-01142-JAP-TJB Document 15 Filed 03/14/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 165
Case 3:11-cv-01142-JAP-TJB Document 15 Filed 03/14/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 166
Case 3:11-cv-01142-JAP-TJB Document 15 Filed 03/14/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 167
Case 3:11-cv-01142-JAP-TJB Document 15 Filed 03/14/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 168
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-KSB
(the "Report") of SiteWorks Building & Development Co. (the "Company") for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, I, Carl M. Nurse, certify, pursuant to 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) 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.

Date: July 30, 2006                  /s/ Carl M. Nurse
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     Carl M. Nurse
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 13

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of PSi Technologies Holdings, Inc. (the
Company), does hereby certify to such officers knowledge that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year
ended December 31, 2006 (the Form 20-F/A) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F/A fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 14, 2008



|       |  |                                
|------ |  | -------------------------------
|By:    |  | /S/    ARTHUR J. YOUNG,
JR.    
|Name:  |  | Arthur J. Young, Jr.           
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer        
|       | 
|By:    |  | /S/    HILARION V. CAJUCOM,
JR.
|Name:  |  | Hilarion V. Cajucom, Jr.       
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ALEXANDER OCHOA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-189 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed November 1, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge. Alexander Ochoa, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 6 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk August 6 , 2021

163072 ( 64 )

PETERSEN FINANCIAL, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 163072

v COA: 350208

Kent CC: 16

- 011820

- CH

CITY OF KENTWOOD,

Defendant

- Appellant

and

KENT COUNTY TREASURER,

Defendant

- Appellee

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to file a response to

the brief amicus curiae filed by the Michigan Municipal League and the Government Law

Section of the State Bar of Michigan is GRANTED. The response submitted on August 4,

2021, is accepted for filing.
EXHIBIT 32.1

OFFICERS CERTIFICATIONS Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Douglas Emmett, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |     |  |                                                                            
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 9, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/    JORDAN L.
KAPLAN                                                    
|                  |  |     |  | Jordan L. Kaplan President and Chief Executive Officer Douglas Emmett, Inc.

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

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 13, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Edward J. GildeaEdward J. GildeaCEO, President and Director
(Principal Executive 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  Annual  Report  of TS  Electronics  Inc.  a  Delaware
corporation  (the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB  for the period  ending  December
31,2005,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof(the  "Report"),  Xinhua WU,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,
certifies  to the best of his  knowledge,  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.

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

 /s/ Xinhua WU
-----------------------
Xinhua WU
Chief Financial Officer
March 27, 2006
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5070 

For the relief of Ana Maria Moncayo-Gigax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 

Mr. MCKEON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Ana Maria Moncayo-Gigax. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ANA 

4 MARIA MONCAYO-GIGAX. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Ana Maria Moncayo-Gigax shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 
2 

•HR 5070 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Ana Maria 

2 Moncayo-Gigax enters the United States before the filing 

3 deadline specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered 

4 to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if other5 wise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under 

6 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Ana Maria Moncayo-Gigax, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 
3 

•HR 5070 IH 

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Ana Maria Moncayo2 Gigax shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 

3 any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 

4 Nationality Act. 

Æ
Exhibit 10.23 - 2012 10K Changes to Annual Retainer Fees






EXHIBIT 10.23


Changes to Annual Retainer Fees for Chairs of Certain Committees 
of the Board of Directors of AK Steel Holding Corporation


On January 24, 2013, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of AK Steel Holding Corporation (the “Company”), upon the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee, approved certain changes to the annual retainer fees for the Chairs of the Audit, Management Development and Compensation, and Finance Committees of the Board.  The Board approved a $5,000 increase for the Chair of the Audit Committee, from $15,000 to $20,000, a $5,000 increase for the Chair of the Finance Committee, from $5,000 to $10,000, and a $2,500 increase for the Chair of the Management Development and Compensation, from $12,500 to $15,000.  These changes were made effective January 1, 2013.  The annual retainer fees for the Chairs of the Nominating and Governance and the Public and Environmental Issues Committees and all other aspects of the non-employee Director compensation program remain as disclosed in the Company's Proxy Statement for its 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 9, 2012.
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT**

**** 

       Dann H. Bowman and Sandra F. Pender hereby certify as follows:

     1. They are the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Chino Commercial Bancorp.

     2. The Form 10-Q of Chino Commercial Bancorp for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 complies with the requirements pf Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78(m) or 78(d)) and the information contained in the report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Chino Commercial Bancorp.

Date: August 11, 2008

 By: /s/ Dann H. Bowman
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 69 Filed 04/04/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1334
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 69 Filed 04/04/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1335
#### In the Matter of Josephine R., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 344]

Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J), entered on or about May 20, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the second degree, and placed her on probation for a period of 13 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The evidence satisfied the element of physical injury *(see People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]), and appellant’s intent to cause such injury could be inferred from the circumstances. We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining arguments. Concur— Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.