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

[987 NYS2d 445]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary, J.), rendered July 25, 2012, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and statements he made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*903The Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony. The evidence adduced at the *Wade*hearing (see *United States v Wade,*388 US 218 [1967]) established that the pretrial identification procedures were not unduly suggestive, as the people depicted in the computer-generated photo arrays viewed by the complainant and a witness were sufficiently similar in appearance to the defendant *(see People v Lago,*60 AD3d 784 [2009]; *People v Howard,*50 AD3d 823 [2008]).

The Supreme Court also did not err in denying that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials. When the defendant gave what a police officer suspected to be a false name, the officer warned him that giving a false name would result in an additional charge, as required by the false personation statute *(see*Penal Law § 190.23). The defendant then repeated the false name after being given a second warning. The officer’s warnings to the defendant did not require *Miranda*warnings *(see Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]). There is no basis for suppressing the defendant’s repeated use of a false name. Ascertaining an arrestee’s true name is a necessary part of the normal booking process, even if the response may have inculpatory connotations *(see People v Ligon,*66 AD3d 516, 517 [2009]; *People v McCloud,*50 AD3d 379, 380 [2008]). The false personation warnings were required by statute and were not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response *(see People v Ligon,*66 AD3d at 517; *People v King,*247 AD2d 490 [1998]). On the contrary, the defendant had already incriminated himself by giving a false name, and the warnings gave him an opportunity to retract his prior incriminating responses *(see People v Ligon,*66 AD3d at 517).

The Supreme Court’s *Sandoval*ruling *(see People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]) was proper. The court properly weighed the probative value of the defendant’s prior offenses against the possible prejudice to the defendant, and reached an appropriate compromise ruling *(see People v Rodriguez,*51 AD3d 950 [2008]; *People v Grier,*47 AD3d 729, 730 [2008]).

The defendant’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ATRIA COMMUNITIES,
INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          50,004
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      739
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (133)
<INVENTORY>                                        132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,652
<PP&E>                                         184,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (28,625)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 217,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,219
<BONDS>                                         98,817
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,583
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   217,099
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,217
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,777
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,625
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,047
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,578
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,578
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                    THRIFT MANAGEMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


          EXHIBIT 11 -- STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


The following table presents the computation of basic and diluted losses per
share:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     3 MONTHS ENDED                       6 MONTHS ENDED
                                            -----------------------------       -----------------------------
                                              JUNE 27,          JUNE 28,          JUNE 27,          JUNE 28,
                                                1999              1998              1999              1998
                                            -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
<S>                                         <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Numerator:
   Net (loss)                               $   (75,073)      $  (115,829)      $  (138,213)      $   (27,826)
                                            -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------

Denominator:
   Denominator for basic loss per
   share--weighted-average shares             2,185,700         2,155,000         2,185,700         2,150,000

Effect of dilutive securities:
   Employee stock options                       523,776            46,500           523,776            46,500
                                            -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
Denominator for diluted loss per share        2,709,476         2,201,500         2,709,476         2,196,500
                                            ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
(Loss) per share:
Basic                                       $     (0.03)      $     (0.05)      $     (0.06)      $     (0.01)
                                            ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========
Diluted                                     $     (0.03)      $     (0.05)      $     (0.05)      $     (0.01)
                                            ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Sandra I., a Person Alleged to be in Need of Supervision, Appellant. Peter S. Glaser, as Assistant Principal of Estee Middle School—Gloversville Enlarged School District, Respondent.

[665 NYS2d 117]

Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Fulton County (Jung, J.), entered January 31, 1997, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision.

In January 1997, petitioner, the Assistant Principal of the school at which respondent was enrolled, commenced this proceeding against respondent alleging that she had misbehaved at school on several occasions by acting insubordinately, defying school rules and leaving the premises without permission. Following fact-finding and dispositional hearings, respondent was adjudicated a person in need of supervision (hereinafter PINS) and was placed in a residential facility under the custody of the Department of Social Services for 18 months. Respondent now appeals.

Initially, we reject respondent’s contention that Family Court abused its discretion in refusing to substitute a neglect petition for the PINS petition pursuant to Family Court Act § 716. Although there was testimony that respondent’s stepfather slapped her on one occasion for misbehaving and swearing and *656that their relationship was strained, there was no indication that respondent’s misbehavior at school was related to any act of parental abuse or neglect (see, *Matter of Brittany H.,*184 AD2d 903, 903-904; *Matter of Jeanne TT.,*184 AD2d 895, 896).

We also conclude that the record supports Family Court’s disposition. The uncontroverted evidence tendered at the dispositional hearing disclosed that respondent continually disregarded rules and regulations both at school and at home. Respondent’s mother testified that she was unable to control respondent despite her efforts to impose rules and curfews, that respondent ran away from home on several occasions and had threatened to harm herself and her family. Respondent was also shown to have been suspended from school on three occasions for, *inter alia,*trespassing and slapping a fellow student. In reaching its conclusion that placement was appropriate, Family Court considered less restrictive alternatives but noted that previous attempts at probation had proven unsuccessful. The record clearly establishes respondent’s incorrigible behavior and hence that she is in need of a more structured and supervised environment *(see, Matter of Charles EE.,*195 AD2d 725, 726; *Matter of Angela G.,*188 AD2d 905). Lastly, we reject respondent’s contention that Family Court erred in failing to obtain a more current psychological report *(see, Matter of Hasan R.,*177 AD2d 817).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 31, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00094

- CV

CITY OF EAGLE PASS

, Appellant

v.

Isabel Velasquez PEREZ , individually and a/n/f of Vanessa Velasquez, minor, Appellee

From the 293rd Judicial District Court

, Maverick County, Texas
Trial Court No. 18

- 01

- 35130

- MCV
Honorable Maribel Flores , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This appeal was originally set for formal submission and oral argument before this Court on Thursday, October 21, 2021, at 10:00 AM, before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Beth Watkins, and Justice Liza A. Rodriguez in the Maverick County Commissioner’s Courtroom in Eagle Pass, Texas.

On its own motion, the panel WITHDRAWS this submission notice for in

- person oral argument in Eagle Pass, Texas and ORDERS this cause set for formal submission and oral argument before this Court on Thursday, October 21, 2021, at 10:00 AM, before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Beth Watkins, and Just ice Liza A. Rodriguez in the courtroom of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas.

While it is anticipated that oral argument will occur in the courtroom, as the COVID

- 19 situation continues to evolve, this is subject to change.

If circumsta nces permit, this courtroom proceeding will be streaming live and archive d

on the court’s YouTube Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/USiaWJQ7eW5OQIALdyLN6s3A

In the courtroom, the following social distancing protocols will be observed and are subject to change:Courtroom occupancy is limited to 27 persons, including three justices, one clerk, one staff attorney, and counsel of record for the appellant and appellee presenting ar gument (2 max. per side). For additional and necessary accommodations for any party on appeal, please contact the Clerk of Court. Counsel of record will sit at separate tables; additional attorneys or spectators (5 max. per side) may sit in the gallery a t available seating as marked, pursuant to current social distancing guidelines. All persons in the courtroom are required to wear a mask, unless presenting argument, and to maintain an appropriate social distance of at least six feet

from others. If you do not want to appear in person for oral argument, please contact the clerk immediately. Individuals entering the courtroom may be subject to a screening protocol, as recommended by the Office of Court of Administration.

The time for oral argument will be limited to twenty minutes for appellant’s opening argument, twenty minutes for appellee’s argument, and ten minutes for appellant’s rebuttal argument. For cases involving multiple parties per side that wish to participate in oral argument, please conta ct the Clerk’s office to make special arrangements or file an appropriate motion after the parties have conferred.

If any party no longer wishes to present argument, the party must notify this court in writing within seven days of receiving this notice.

Entered on this 31 st day of August, 2021.



### PER C U RIAM

At tested to:

__________________________ _________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit
      32





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**




I,
      Vincent De Lorenzo, certify that:





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Digital Creative Development
      Corporation. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September
      30, 2007 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:
                October 29, 2007/s/ Vincent
                De LorenzoVincent
                De LorenzoChief
                Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Gary Polite, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 94]

—Order unanimously vacated without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a determination that he violated inmate rule 105.12 (7 NYCRR 270.2 [B] [6] [iii]) by possessing the materials of an unauthorized organization. Supreme Court erred in transferring the proceeding to this Court without first requiring respondent to submit a complete record. Respondent failed to submit as part of its answer the papers considered by the Hearing Officer in reaching the determination of guilt *(see, Matter of Dupree v Scully,*100 AD2d 966). Thus, we vacate the *1110order of transfer and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings regarding the submission of a complete record. (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Green, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MEDIRISK, INC.
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND THE MEDIRISK, INC. CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER
31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,365
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                       466
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,402
<PP&E>                                           4,951
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,456
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,120
<SALES>                                         27,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,204
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,544)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,094)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,094)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.66)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Diversified Futures
                    Trust I and is qualified in its entirety
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>

<CIK>               0000926805
<NAME>              Diversified Futures Trust I
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1999

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          43,317,270

<SECURITIES>                    1,467,353

<RECEIVABLES>                   8,209

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                44,792,832

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  44,792,832

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4,228,890

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      40,563,942

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    44,792,832

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                (419,704)

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                6,576,170

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (6,995,874)

<EPS-BASIC>                   (25.53)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2913 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 3, 2009 

Received 

AUGUST 7, 2009 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 

Simonton Street in Key West, Florida, as the ‘‘Sidney 

M. Aronovitz United States Courthouse’’. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2913 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 301 

3 Simonton Street in Key West, Florida, shall be known and 

4 designated as the ‘‘Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 

5 Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Sidney M. Aronovitz United 

11 States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 31, 2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
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
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Joseph A. GarcíaName:
    
    Joseph A. GarcíaTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer,Senior Executive Vice President and Secretary
##### 



Jurisdiction ofName
    
    IncorporationCecil Bank
    
    MarylandCecil Bancorp Capital Trust I
    
    DelawareCecil Bancorp Capital Trust II
    
    DelawareCecil Properties, Inc.
    
    Maryland3106 Emmorton Road, LLC (99%)
    
    Maryland1223 Turkey Point Road, LLC (99%)
    
    MarylandSubsidiaries of Cecil Bank:Cecil Service Corporation
    
    MarylandCecil Financial Services Corporation
    
    MarylandCecil Ventures, LLC
    
    MarylandSubsidiaries of Cecil Properties, Inc.:3106 Emmorton Road, LLC (1%)
    
    Maryland1223 Turkey Point Road, LLC (1%)
    
    Maryland
June 27, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00782-CV V.

JOHN W. COOK AND MARC COOK, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal from 

the judgment signed by the court below on July 26, 2012. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc., Appellant, v Feige Teifelbaum, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[666 NYS2d 867]

—Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated December 3, 1996.

*540Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Owen at the Supreme Court. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.