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

[666 NYS2d 533]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of conspiracy in the sixth degree (Penal Law § 105.00). We reject his contention that the issuance of the eavesdropping warrant was not supported by probable cause *(see, People v Bigelow,*66 NY2d 417, 423). The application was based on a two-year police investigation into the activities of defendant, who was a member of the Rochester Police Department, and included audio-video tape recordings of conversations between defendant and a private citizen wherein *1138defendant agreed to provide and did provide to the citizen information obtained by the improper use of police computers.

The evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). While there is no evidence of an express agreement between defendant and his co-conspirator, telephone conversations seized pursuant to the eavesdropping warrant provide ample evidence of an implied agreement *(see, People v Givens,*181 AD2d 1031, *lv denied*79 NY2d 1049). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Smith, J.—Conspiracy, 6th Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Hayes, Wisner and Boehm, JJ.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         October 12, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 367 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-4, CP2018-6.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-22037 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          14,833
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              98
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     33,270
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        102,458
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,058
<DEPOSITS>                                     159,802
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,787
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,868
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 181,058
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,255
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,805
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   167
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                13,227
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,534
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,694
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,533
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,740
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,740
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,008
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.45
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,301
<LOANS-PAST>                                        19
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    242
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,784
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      258
<RECOVERIES>                                        89
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,615
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,615


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2913 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2913

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton 
Street in Key West, Florida, as the ``Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2009

  Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (for herself, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Mack, Mr. 
Rooney, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, 
Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart 
 of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton 
Street in Key West, Florida, as the ``Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton Street in Key 
West, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Sidney M. 
Aronovitz United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sidney M. 
Aronovitz United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 12.2**

**302 CERTIFICATION**

I,Ramiro Alfonsín B. certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Empresa Nacional de ElectricidadS.A. (“Endesa Chile”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, 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 control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reportingto 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 company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour 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; and 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 29, 2015.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas April 25, 2022 No. 04-21-00586-CV Hamzah ANJUM, Appellant

v. Zeenat SHAMS-UL-QAMAR ,

Appellee From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-24053 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant’s brief was originally due April 22, 2022. On April 21, 2022, appellant filed a motion asking for a forty-five-day extension to file the brief. After consideration, we grantthe motion and order appellant to file his brief by June 6, 2022 . Counsel is advised no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed before the brief is due, (1) demonstrating extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advising the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) providing the court reasonable assurance the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of April, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   10-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Apr-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Apr-30-2000
<CASH>                                             285,583
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      339,037
<ALLOWANCES>                                        37,436
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   694,693
<PP&E>                                             275,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                      34,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,871,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,500,763
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,140,697
<COMMON>                                            19,854
<OTHER-SE>                                          79,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,871,093
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,689,170
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,411,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,059,374
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14,945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,796,899)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,796,899)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,796,899)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.22)



</TABLE>
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2877 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 76 Brookside Avenue in Chester, New York, 

as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Louis Allen Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2877 EH

1 SECTION 1. 1ST LIEUTENANT LOUIS ALLEN POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 76 Brookside Avenue in Chester, 

4 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘1st 

5 Lieutenant Louis Allen Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Louis 

10 Allen Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 13, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2877 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostAllen Post Office’’. Chester, New York, as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Louis al Service located at 76 Brookside Avenue in
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                              L Q CORPORATION, INC.
                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 L Q Corporation, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melvyn Brunt,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 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.

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.





Dated: May 19, 2006


                                                     /s/ Melvyn Brunt
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Melvyn Brunt
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
The Hon. David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the 1

District of Minnesota.

_____________

No. 95-3924MN

_____________

Music Cafes, Inc., doing *

business as Arnold's Hot Roxx *

Music Cafe, *

*

Appellant, *

* On Appeal from the United

v. * States District Court

* for the District

* of Minnesota.

City of Edina; Kenneth E. *

Rosland; Fred Richards; Peggy * [TO BE PUBLISHED.]

Kelly; Jane Paulus; Glenn *

Smith; and Jack Rice, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: October 23, 1996

 Filed: November 5, 1996

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which the plaintiff, the

operator of a combination food court and dance hall, claims that the

defendants, the City of Edina, Minnesota, and others, were motivated by

racial prejudice when they placed conditions upon the plaintiff's permit

to hold dances. The District Court granted summary judgment for the

1

defendants, and
-2-

the plaintiff appeals.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons given in the opinion of the

District Court. In our view, there is no substantial evidence in this

record of racial motivation on the part of those who made the decision to

subject plaintiff's permit to the conditions complained of - that no

smoking be allowed, and that patrons' hats be checked at the door.

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In the Matter of Zachary R. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Duane R., Appellant.

[988 NYS2d 810]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.) entered December 19, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, terminated the parental rights of respondent.

*1480It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights with respect to his son on the ground of mental illness. We conclude that petitioner met its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the father is “presently and for the foreseeable future unable, by reason of mental illness ... , to provide proper and adequate care for [the] child” (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; *see Matter of Christopher B., Jr. [Christopher B., Sr.],*104 AD3d 1188, 1188 [2013]; *Matter of Alberto C. [Tibet H.],*96 AD3d 1487, 1488 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 813 [2012]). Contrary to the father’s contention, petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence establishing that he is presently suffering from a mental illness that “is manifested by a disorder or disturbance in behavior, feeling, thinking or judgment to such an extent that if such child were placed in . . . the custody of the [father], the child would be in danger of becoming a neglected child” (§ 384-b [6] [a]; *see Matter of Destiny V. [Lynette V.],*106 AD3d 1495, 1495 [2013]).

The father’s contention that petitioner undermined his relationship with the child by limiting his visitation time and thus failed to establish that it made diligent efforts to strengthen and encourage his relationship with his child is of no moment. “[Ujnlike [a] case where parental rights are terminated due to permanent neglect ... , no such showing is required when the ground for termination is mental illness” *(Matter of Demetrius F.,*176 AD2d 940, 941 [1991]; *see Matter of Michael D.,*306 AD2d 938, 938 [2003]; *see generally Matter of Michael F.,*16 AD3d 1116, 1116 [2005]).

Present—Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Peradotto, Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.
Exhibit 23

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-04969) pertaining to the 1996 Key Employee
Stock Option Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66338) pertaining to the 2001 Polymer Group Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 15, 2002
(except for Note 17 as to which the date is April 2, 2002), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Polymer Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 29, 2001.



Greenville,
South Carolina
April 12, 2002

---

QuickLinks
#### Marie A. Bernier, Respondent, v Albert Staffenberg, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 479]

—In an action to recover damages for assault and battery, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated April 2, 1997, as denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

*479The plaintiff attempted to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) which requires, *inter alia,*delivery of the summons to the defendant’s actual place of business. In the instant action, the process server delivered the summons to Coney Island Hospital in Brooklyn on June 30, 1995. However, it is undisputed on this record that the defendant had not been employed in New York State after graduating from his residency on June 22, 1995. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction *(see, Continental Hosts v Levine,*170 AD2d 430).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.