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

[860 NYS2d 711]

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered May 25, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of marihuana.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [former (4)]). Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because, inter alia, his attorney had a business relationship with codefendant’s attorney, and County Court failed to conduct a sufficient *Gomberg*inquiry after learning of that relationship. We reject that contention. “Defendant informed the court that he wanted defense counsel to continue to represent him, and it thus cannot be said that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel” *(People v Floyd,*45 AD3d 1457, 1459-1460 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 811 [2008]; *see People v Kopp,*33 AD3d 153, 158-159 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 849 [2006], *cert denied*549 US —, 127 S Ct 1296 [2007]; *People v Murphy,*224 AD2d 1023 [1996], *lv denied*87 NY2d 1022 [1996]; *see generally People v McDonald,*68 NY2d 1, 8-9 [1986], *rearg dismissed*69 NY2d 724 [1987]). We have reviewed *1260defendant’s contention with respect to the remaining alleged instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and conclude that it is without merit *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, “the verdict, based on the applicability of the automobile presumption . . . , is not against the weight of the evidence” *(People v Wilburn,*50 AD3d 1617, 1618 [2008]; *see People v Lesane,*284 AD2d 249, 250 [2001]; *People v Delvas,*181 AD2d 740 [1992]; *see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Finally, we note that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted following a jury trial, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convicted following a nonjury trial *(see generally People v Saxton,*32 AD3d 1286 [2006]). Present—Smith, J.P, Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Edward Suydam, the Chief Executive Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-Q of Nano Mask for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.  /s/ Edward Suydam Edward Suydam Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) Nano Mask, Inc.  August 14, 2012
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**DIGITAL
      DESCRIPTOR SYSTEMS, 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 Annual Report of Digital Descriptor Systems, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Michael Pellegrino, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:




(1)
      The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company 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
      Digital Descriptor Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Digital Descriptor
      Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.


Date:
                April 2, 2007/s/
                Michael PellegrinoMichael
                Pellegrino
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF ERNST AND YOUNG LLP,INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8Nos. 333-65549, 333-84331, 333-84341, 333-42670, 333-69376, 333-69376,333-69374, 333-101104, 333-101105, 333-109275, 333-109278, 333-111089,333-111090, 333-65551 and 333-65571) pertaining to amended and restatedStock Subscription Warrants, 1994 Stock Option Plan, 1995International Employee Stock Purchase Plan 1999 Stock Option Plan,2001 Stock Option Plan, Crystal Decisions, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Planand French Employee Savings Plan of Business Objects, S.A. of ourreport dated February 2, 2004 with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Business Objects, S.A. includedin the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2003.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
San Jose, California
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22760]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15352 and #15353; CALIFORNIA Disaster Number CA-
00279]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of California

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4344-DR), dated 10/12/
2017.
    Incident: Wildfires.
    Incident Period: 10/08/2017 and continuing.

DATES: Issued on 10/12/2017.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/11/2017.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/12/2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of California, dated 10/12/2017, is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Napa
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    California: Yolo

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Rafaela Monchek,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2017-22760 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1
                               ------------

                               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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (the
"Report") of AMCON Distributing Company (the "Company") for the fiscal year
ended September 24, 2004, I, William F. Wright, Chairman and Principal
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to my knowledge, 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: August 19, 2005        /s/ William F. Wright
                             ------------------------------
                             Title: Chairman and Principal
                             Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to AMCON Distributing Company and will be retained by AMCON
Distributing Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Gary Herman, certify that:

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Digital Creative Development Corporation for the quarter ending September 30, 2011 (the "Report"),the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the bestof his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; as amended; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: November 21, 2011
EXHIBIT 23.1


                      CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-87715, 333-39129, 333-59859, 33-85272,
33-94972, 333-41954, 333-54010, 333-63156 and 333-100094) and the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-86072) of Mattson Technology, Inc. of our reports
dated February 12, 2003, except as to Note 16, which is as of March 17, 2003
relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which
appear in this Form 10-K.





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California
March 31, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        2308
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3084
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                               18410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               70942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    (14785)
<OTHER-SE>                                   70942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                      71325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                66244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            8480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (3400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   742
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (3113)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 22
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3090)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.39)


</TABLE>
S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 1 

## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 07 - 41 5- CV J ANI CE CI M I NO AP P E L L ANT V . A N TH O N Y C . J. CI M I N O A PPELL EE

----- ----- FR O M THE 2 11 DI STRI CT CO URT O F DENTO N CO UN TY TH

----- ----- 

### M E M ORANDUM OP I NI ON AND J UDGME NT 1

----- ----- W e h a v e c o n s i d e re d “ A p p e l l a n t’s V o l u n ta ry M o ti o n T o D i s m i s s A p p e a l .” I t i s t h e c o u rt’so p i n i o n th a t th e m o ti o n s h o u l d b e g ra n te d ; th e re fo re , w e d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l . S eeT EX. R . A PP . P . 4 2 .1 (a )(1 ), 4 3 .2 (f). C os t s o f t he app ea l s hal l bepa i d byap pel l ant , f orw hi ch l etex ec ut i on i s s u e . S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 43. 4. P E R CU R I AM
PA N EL D : M C C O Y, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d L I V I N G STO N , J. DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 13, 2008
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2010

0621 

# Order

June 28, 2010

140159 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140159 COA: 292891 Wayne CC: 2004-004270 GREGORY CARL WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The
motion to remand is DENIED.
#### Buchanan *vs.*The State of Georgia.

The evidence is ample that the defendant was legally guilty of the crime of simple larceny, and a fine of fifty dollars, or three months’ imprisonment in the chain-gang, was very lenient against a chicken thief.

Judgment affirmed.

February 24, 1885.

Jackson, Chief Justice
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Certification of CFO



The undersigned hereby
certifies that, to his knowledge (i) the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed by KH Funding Company (the Issuer) for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the period presented therein



|                     |  |                                                 
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Dated April 15, 2005 |  | /s/ Louise B. Sehman                            
|                     |  | Louise B. Sehman                                
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
SCWC

- 1 9

- 0000 428

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I

STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I, Respondent / Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

vs.

WILSON KENZO KOIKE , Petitioner / Defendant

- Appell ant

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 1 9

- 0000 428 ; CASE NO. 1CPC

- 1 8

- 0 0 00 25 0 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, J J.,

and Circuit Judge Eddins , assigned by reason of vacancy)

Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellant’s Application for Writ

of Certiorari filed on Novem ber 2 , 2020, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, Decemb er 17, 2020

. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-19-0000428 17-DEC-2020 04:21 PM Dkt. 7 ODAC
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7854

CARL DWIGHT KNOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH P. SACCHET; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-01- 2047-MJG) Submitted: February 12, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Dwight Knott, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Carl Dwight Knott seeks to appeal the district court’s order extending the time in which the Respondents could respond to the order to show cause as to Knott’s petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See also Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3239 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3239

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
  Secretary of State, to submit a report on the effects of the Merida 
 Initiative on the border security of the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 2009

  Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona (for herself and Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the 
  Secretary of State, to submit a report on the effects of the Merida 
 Initiative on the border security of the United States, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPORT ON MERIDA INITIATIVE.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in 
consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to Congress a 
report on the effects of the Merida Initiative on the following:
            (1) Enhancing border security.
            (2) Reducing the potential for border violence.
            (3) Preventing the illicit flow of arms and bulk cash 
        across the border between the United States and Mexico.
    (b) Merida Initiative Defined.--In this section, the term ``Merida 
Initiative'' means the program announced by the United States and 
Mexico on October 22, 2007, to fight illicit narcotics trafficking and 
criminal organizations throughout the Western Hemisphere.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0045. BENJAMIN LICONA et al. v. JAY RIEMENSCHNEIDER at al.

Benjamin Licona andChristina Evelyn Tomasino-Licona (“the Liconas”) sued

Jay and Terri Riemenschneider in superior court, asserting claims for declaratory

judgment, unjust enrichment, injunction, and attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11.

The Liconas alleged that the Riemenschneiders had wrongfully initiated eviction

proceedings against themin violation of their lease agreement. The Riemenschneiders

filed an answer and counterclaimfor attorney fees under OCGA § 13-6-11. Following

a hearing, the superior court entered judgment and a writ of possession in favor of the

Riemenschneiders, but expressly reserved ruling on the issue of attorney fees “for

further disposition by the Court.” The Liconas appeal, but we lack jurisdiction. 

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals may generally be taken from “[a]ll final

judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below[.]”

When the case remains pending, the losing party is required to comply with the

interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), including obtaining a

certificate of immediate review. Islamkhan v. Khan, 299 Ga. 548, 551 (2) (787 SE2d

731) (2016). “[I]f the judgment reserves the issue of attorney fees under OCGA § 13-

6-11, then one cannot claim that ‘the case is no longer pending in the court below’ as

required by OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1).” Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 84 (727 SE2d

484) (2012). See also Edokpolor v. Grady Memorial Hosp. Corp., 302 Ga. 733,

734-735 (808 SE2d 653) (2017) (“[A] case remains pending in the trial court where

that court has explicitly reserved issues related to costs and attorney fees for future

judgment.”).

Thus, because the trial court’s order reserved the issue of attorney fees, the

August 19, 2022
order was not a final judgment, and the Linconas were required to comply with the

interlocutory appeal procedures to obtain appellate review at this juncture. See id.;

Islamkhan, 299 Ga. at 550 (1); Stump v. Young, 307 Ga. App. 583, 584 (705 SE2d

684) (2011). Their failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which

is hereby DISMISSED. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/19/2022