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

[666 NYS2d 463]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered December 7, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that the court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of justification pursuant to Penal Law §§35.15 and 35.20. The evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in a light most favorable to the defense *(see, People v Padgett,*60 NY2d 142; *People v Watts,*57 NY2d 299), did not support the defendant’s claim that he shot the victim while the latter was committing or attempting to commit a burglary *(see,*Penal Law § 35.20; *People v Bertone,*213 AD2d 417; *see also, People v Goetz,*68 NY2d 96).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Hobot,*84 NY2d 1021, 1022).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit *(People v Tate,*200 AD2d 602, 603; *People v Miller,*39 NY2d 543). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Joy and Lerner, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6625

RICHARD A. CAROLINA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; C.

J. CEPAK, Warden, Broad River Correctional

Institution; WILLIAM M. WHITE, Associate

Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution;

TIMOTHY RILEY, Captain, Broad River Correctional Institution; PAULA WOODLIEF, School

Teacher, Broad River Correctional Institution;

LINDA ALLEN, Corporal, Broad River Correctional Institution,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-1312-6-17AK)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 5, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Carolina, Appellant Pro Se. Holly Saleeby Atkins,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Richard A. Carolina appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint

and declining to reconsider that order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no

reversible error. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in declining to reconsider its order. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Carolina v.

Department of Corrections, No. CA-97-1312-6-17AK (D.S.C. Feb. 10,

1998; Mar. 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The
undersigned, David C. Nolan, is the Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of Rome Bancorp, Inc. (the Registrant). This statement is
being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the
Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2010 (the Report).

By
execution of this statement, I certify that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | A) | 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(a) or 78o(d)) and                                                                 
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
| | B) | the information
 contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
 financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of the
 dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.

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

|      |                  |                                                      | 
|----- | ---------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: | November 8, 2010 | /s/ David C. Nolan                                   | 
|      |                  |                                                      | 
|      |                  | David C. Nolan                                       | 
|      |                  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 

---
#### Robert Luzzi, Respondent, v Bridge Tower Place Condominium, Appellant.

[860 NYS2d 45]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. De-Grasse, J.), entered May 24, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant’s motion to enforce a stipulation of settlement without the permanent injunction contained therein, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff unit owner commenced an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief so as to prevent defendant from accessing his unit and hanging scaffolding from his wraparound terrace to facilitate washing the building’s exterior windows, on the *291ground that such action was not authorized by defendant’s declaration and bylaws. The action was resolved by a “so ordered” stipulation which provided, inter alia, that “[defendant is permanently enjoined from erecting scaffolding or any other form of access to the [pjremises utilizing, obstructing or interfering with plaintiff’s [ujnit, including the terrace surrounding plaintiff’s [ujnit, for purposes of exterior window washing in or about the [pjremises.” Defendant subsequently amended its bylaws to allow itself access to plaintiffs premises for the window-cleaning purposes that had been enjoined by the stipulation.

We agree with the motion court that the unambiguous stipulation is valid and enforceable according to its plain meaning, and consequently construe the stipulation’s permanent injunction as surviving defendant’s subsequent amendment to its bylaws *(see Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co.,*86 NY2d 543, 548 [1995]; *Sharp v Stavisky,*221 AD2d 216 [1995], *lv dismissed*87 NY2d 968 [1996]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Nardelli, Catterson and McGuire, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 31324(U).]
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Kirk C. Saylor, 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.

| |     |                                                        
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Kirk C. Saylor                                     
| |     |                                                        
| |     | Kirk C. Saylor, Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3057 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3057

To require that household cleaning products and similar products bear a 
 label that contains a complete and accurate list of all the product's 
                              ingredients.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2009

  Mr. Israel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that household cleaning products and similar products bear a 
 label that contains a complete and accurate list of all the product's 
                              ingredients.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Household Product Labeling Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. LABELING REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS.

    (a) Labeling Requirement.--Any household cleaning product or 
similar product shall bear a label on the product's container or 
packaging that contains a complete and accurate list of all the 
product's ingredients. Beginning on the date that is 1 year after the 
date of enactment of this Act, any household cleaning product or 
similar product that is manufactured for sale, offered for sale, 
distributed in commerce, or imported to the United States without such 
a label shall be treated as a misbranded hazardous substance within the 
meaning of section 2(p) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 
U.S.C. 1261(p)).
    (b) Definition of Household Cleaning Product or Similar Product.--
As used in this Act, the term ``household cleaning product or similar 
product'' means any substance which is customarily produced and 
distributed for use in or about a household as a cleaning agent, 
pesticide, epoxy, paint or stain, or similar substance.
    (c) Rulemaking Authority.--The Consumer Product Safety Commission 
may issue such regulations as it determines necessary to provide for 
the effective enforcement of this Act, including regulations which 
expand on or exempt from the definition in subsection (b) any product 
or product category.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Teshwari Baksh, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[987 NYS2d 273]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 26, 2013, which ruled that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.

By initial decision dated September 12, 2012, claimant was denied unemployment insurance benefits upon a finding that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Although claimant admits to receiving the decision shortly after it was mailed, she did not request a hearing until January 14, 2013. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, which sustained the timeliness objection by the Commissioner of Labor. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. Pursuant to Labor Law § 620 (1) (a), a claimant who is dissatisfied with an initial determination must request a hearing within 30 days unless a physical condition or mental incapacity prevents him or her from doing so *(see Matter of*
      *1215
      *Desani [Commissioner of Labor],*78 AD3d 1403, 1403 [2010]; *see also*12 NYCRR 461.1 [a]). Here, the record establishes that claimant was aware that she had 30 days to request a hearing but offered no acceptable excuse for the delay.

McCarthy, J.E, Garry, Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### UNITED STATES v. SMITH.

(District Court, D. Minnesota, Sixth Division.

October 1, 1895.)

Criminal Law—Mailing Threatening Letter—Act Cong. Sept. 26, 1888.

A postal card, sent by a creditor to liis debtor, demanding payment or a note, and atlding: “You have been fighting time all along. * * * I will garnishee and foreclose. But I do so dislike to do this if you will only be half white,”—is of such a threatening and defamatory character as to render the same nonmailable, within the purview of the act of congress of September 26, 1888 (Supp. Rev. St. p. 621).

This was an indictment against A. J. Smith under the act of congress of September 28, 1888, for depositing in the mail a defamatory and threatening postal card. Defendant demurred to the indictment.

E. C. Stringer, U. S. Díst. A tty.

David T. Calhoun, for defendant.

NELSON, District Judge.

This is an indictment framed under the act of September 26, 1888, found in Supp. Eev. St. LT. S. p. 621. The defendant is charged with depositing in the mail a postal card upon which terms and language of a defamatory and tinea toning character were written, calculated, by the terais, manner, and style of display, and obviously intended, to reflect injuriously upon the character and conduct of one A. B. Darling. The ■ postal card is in the words following:

> “Nov. 16-93.

> “A. B. Darling, Herman, Minnesota—Gentlemen: You must do something on your note. I wish you 1o jiay the int. and one hundred dollars of the principal. You have been fighting time all along, and now at the end you remit nothing. If I do not hear from you, I must be around. I will garnishee and foreclose. But I do so dislike to do this if you'will only be hall' white. Iiep.,

> “Andrew J. Smith, Citizens’ Bank of Sauk Centre, Sauk Centre, Minn.”

If the defendant had merely requested payment of a part of the debt, and stated that, if not complied with, he would take legal steps by garnishee process or foreclosure to secure it, there would be some doubt about the language used being of such a threatening character as to render the postal card nonmailable, and within the purview of the law. But the latter part of the postal card contains an expression which manifestly was intended to reflect injuriously upon the character of Mr. Darling, when taken in connection with the preceding language used. No other construction can be put upon the following paragraph: “But I do so dislike to do this [garnishee and foreclose] if you will only be half white.” The writer thus indicates that the person addressed was dishonest, and his reputation not spotless. Such imputation upon his character, expressed upon a postal card deposited in the mail, is a reflection prohibited by lav/. Demurrer overruled.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Awards and Facilities Committee, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference on short notice for the transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

# TIME AND DATE:

 October 17, 2017, from 1:00-2:00 p.m. EDT.

# STATUS:

 Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

 (1) Committee Chair's opening remarks; (2) Update on Arecibo.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

                         This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*                         for additional information. You can find meeting information and updates (time, place, subject or status of meeting) at                         *https://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​meetings/​notices.jsp#sunshine.*                         The point of contact for this meeting is: Elise Lipkowitz,                         *elipkowi@nsf.gov,*                         telephone: (703) 292-7000.                    

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the NSB Office.

[FR Doc. 2017-22260 Filed 10-11-17; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit 10.1

                                LEASE AGREEMENT

We have signed the lease agreement on September 14, 2014 with

CRISTI MATACHE,  Bucharest,  Romania,  where we have located our machine, on the
one hand

AND SLAV SERGHEI, represented by Director of Tapioca Corp., on the other hand,

THE MAIN CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT:

                                  1. LOCATION:

Leased  premises  area  covers  approximately  10 (ten)  square  meters.  Leased
premises are located on the first floor of the  building at Magurele,  Bucharest
-Ilfov, Muntenia, Romania.

                            2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT

Term of Agreement makes two (2) years,  starting March 01, 2015 and ending March
01, 2017 TAPIOCA  CORP.  is given an option to renew the Lease for an additional
term of one year by giving the lesser  written  notice  ninety  (90) days before
expiration  of the primary term of this lease.  The renewal  lease is to be upon
the same terms and conditions contained in the primary Lease Agreement.

                                  3. PAYMENTS:

For the first  year of the  Agreement,  the  annual  rental  fee will be $6,000.
($500/ month) For the second year of the  Agreement,  the annual rental fee will
be  $5,400.  ($400/  month)  Default  interest  of $10 per day  shall be paid an
additional  payment for any rental fee delivered or received more than three (3)
days after the first day of any  calendar  month  during the term of this lease.
Lesser agrees to provide at his expense for the premises electricity, water, air
conditioning,  ventilation,  light tubes replacement,  trash removal service and
sewage  disposal  service in such quantities and at such times necessary for the
Lessee's comfortable and reasonable use of the premises.  Any holding over after
the  expiration  of the lease term shall be deemed to  constitute a tenancy from
month to month only and shall be on the same terms and  conditions  as specified
in this Lease Agreement.

                                  4. CONFIDENCE

Both  parties  acknowledge  that during the course of this  Agreement,  each may
obtain  confidential  information  regarding  the other party's  business;
<PAGE>
Both parties agree to treat all such  information and the term of this Agreement
as confidential  and to take all reasonable  precautions  against  disclosure of
such information to unauthorized third parties during and after the term of this
Lease Agreement.

                                    5. OTHERS

This Lease Agreement supersedes any prior written or oral agreements. This Lease
Agreement  may be  modified or amended if the  amendment  is made in writing and
signed by both parties.

                                                       Dated: September 14, 2014

Tapioca Corp.


/s/ Slav Serghei
---------------------------------
By: Slav Serghei



/s/ Cristi Matache
---------------------------------
Cristi Matache
[No. 67539-7-I.

Division One.

October 15, 2012.]

#### Financial Pacific Leasing, LLC, *Respondent,*v. Law Offices of David A. Sharp, PA, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 10-2-30494-1, J. Wesley Saint Clair, J., entered July 29, 2011. *Reversed*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per

Lau, J.,

-concurred in by Grosse and Becker, JJ.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 24

- 0200 LT Case No. 2003

- CF

- 00918

_____________________________
D AVID L. F ARIES , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

3.801 appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County

. Joel Fritton , Judge

. David L. Faries, Jr., East Palatka , pro se

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

February 27, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

E DWARDS , C.J.
, S OUD , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
**Exhibit 10.62**July 18, 2005Margaret JulierDear Maggie,**RE: Employee Share Incentive Plan and Employee Share Option Plan**In accordance with the Employee Share Incentive Plan (“the Preference Share Plan”), you are herebyadvised that the Grant Date is July 14, 2005 for benefits you have accrued during the year ended 31December 2004.Accordingly you are granted 95 Preference Shares in the Company. You have the option to purchasean equal number of Preference Shares at a price of US$18.31 or CI$15.26 each, which has beencalculated in accordance to the terms of the Preference Share Plan. If you intend to exercise thisoption, then payment must be received in full no later than the close of business on **August 15,2005**.As a member of the Employee Share Option Plan (“the Option Plan”), you will also be granted, as ofJuly 14, 2005, the option to purchase 475 Ordinary Shares in the Company. These options areexercisable in accordance to the terms of the Option Plan. You furthermore have the opportunity toobtain an equal amount of options to purchase Ordinary Shares of the Company, in accordance to theterms of the Option Plan, if you exercise your right to purchase the above additional PreferenceShares before **August 15, 2005**.Your continued dedication and hard work have contributed to another successful year forConsolidated Water, and I look forward to a very bright future.Yours sincerely,