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

[824 NYS2d 123]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J), rendered March 9, 2004, convicting him of arson in the first degree, attempted murder in the second degree, conspiracy in the second degree, insurance fraud in the second degree, criminal solicitation in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and assault in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Further, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

To the extent that the defendant’s argument was preserved for appellate review, the prosecutor’s comments during summation did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Portalatin,*18 AD3d 673 [2005]).

The defendant’s argument that he was not present during the *Sandoval*hearing *(see People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is belied by the record, which reveals that no *Sandoval*hearing was held.

The defendant also asserts that significant portions of the trial transcript are missing or are out of order. However, the defendant’s remedy was to move before the trial court to resettle the transcript *(see People v Laracuente,*125 AD2d 705 [1986]; *People v Martinez,*115 AD2d 768 [1985]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). Ritter, J.E, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tasheem Goldston, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 299]

*923Crew III, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Lalor, J.), rendered January 27, 2004, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

While defendant was being transferred to a new housing unit at Coxsackie Correctional Facility in Greene County, an alarm sounded when he passed through a metal detector. As a consequence, defendant was strip-searched at which time he was found in possession of a metal shank. Defendant thereafter was indicted and charged with promoting prison contraband for which he was convicted following a jury trial. Defendant then was sentenced to a prison term of 20 to 60 months to be served consecutively to the sentence he was then serving. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his request for an adjournment after granting his request to substitute retained counsel for his assigned counsel. We disagree. A motion to substitute counsel and grant an adjournment is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse (see *e.g. People v Nelson, 1*AD3d 796, 797-798 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 631 [2004]). We find no such abuse present here. It should be noted that defendant’s request to substitute counsel and for adjournment came on the very day that the case was to proceed with jury selection. County Court afforded defendant the option of proceeding with assigned counsel or substituting retained counsel and proceeding with the trial as scheduled. Defendant chose the latter option. Clearly, County Court struck a “reasonable balance between defendant’s right to be represented by counsel of his own choice and the need to guard against unwarranted delay occasioned by . . . defendant’s frivolous request for substitution” *(People v Skaar,*225 AD2d 824, 825 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 854 [1996]). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them equally without merit.

Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
§ 814.9 Procedures for hearing and final decisions. ( a ) *Form of hearings* — ( 1 ) *General.* After the employee requests a hearing, the hearing official shall notify the employee of the form of the hearing. If the hearing will be oral, the notice shall set forth the date, time, and location of the hearing. If the hearing will be a review of the written record, the employee shall be notified that he or she should submit evidence and arguments in writing to the hearing official by a specified date, after which the record shall be closed. The date specified shall give the employee reasonable time to submit documentation.
( 2 ) *Oral hearing.* An employee who requests an oral hearing shall be provided an oral hearing, if the hearing official determines that the matter cannot be resolved by review of documentary evidence alone (*e.g.,* when an issue of credibility or veracity is involved). Where an oral hearing is appropriate, the hearing is not an adversarial adjudication and need not take the form of an evidentiary hearing, *e.g.,* the rules of evidence do not apply. Oral hearings may take the form of, but are not limited to: ( i ) Informal conferences with the hearing official in which the employee and agency representative will be given full opportunity to present evidence, witnesses, and arguments;
( ii ) Informal meetings in which the hearing official interviews the employee; or
( iii ) Formal written submissions with an opportunity for oral presentations.
( 3 ) *Paper (documentary) hearing.* If the hearing official determines that an oral hearing is not necessary, the hearing official will make the determination based upon a review of the available written record.
( 4 ) *Record.* The hearing official shall maintain a summary record of any hearing conducted under this part. Witnesses who testify in oral hearings will do so under oath or affirmation.
( b ) *Written decision* — ( 1 ) *Date of decision.* The hearing officer shall issue a written opinion stating his or her decision, based upon documentary evidence and information developed at the hearing, as soon as practicable after the hearing, but not later than sixty (60) days after the date on which the hearing petition was received by the creditor agency, unless the employee requested a delay in the proceedings, in which case the 60-day decision period shall be extended by the number of days by which the hearing was postponed.
( 2 ) *Content of decision.* The written decision shall include: ( i ) A statement of the facts presented to support the origin, nature, and amount of the debt;
( ii ) The hearing official's findings, analysis, and conclusions, including a determination whether the employee's petition for hearing was baseless and resulted from an intent to delay creditor agency collection activity; and
( iii ) The terms of any repayment schedule, if applicable.
#### Craig BOWERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wayne MONTGOMERY; Reginald Miller, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-2048.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 26, 2002.

Decided May 9, 2002.

Wm. Gary White, III, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donna Seegars Givens, Darra James Vallini, Woods & Givens, L.L.P., Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Craig Bowers appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in fa*117vor of Wayne Montgomery in this action filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 (West Supp.2001).* We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find that Bowers’ conduct was not protected by the First Amendment and there was probable cause to arrest. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.*

*

 Bowers also named Sergeant Reginald Miller as a defendant, but does not challenge on appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in Miller’s favor. Nor does Bowers appear to challenge the dismissal of his state law claim of false arrest. We therefore find that he has abandoned these claims on appeal. *Pleasurecraft Marine Engine Co. v. Thermo Power Corp.,*272 F.3d 654, 657 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that issues not raised in opening brief not preserved for appeal).
# Official Journal L 86/31 M

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 86 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5231 March 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 86

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5231 March 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 250/2009 of 11 March 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 295/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definitions of characteristics, the technical format for the transmission of data, the double reporting requirements for NACE Rev.1.1 and NACE Rev.2 and derogations to be granted for structural business statistics
   (1) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 251/2009 of 11 March 2009 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 295/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the series of data to be produced for structural business statistics and the adaptations necessary after the revision of the statistical classification of products by activity (CPA)
   (1) | 170 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 250/2009 of 11 March 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 295/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definitions of characteristics, the technical format for the transmission of data, the double reporting requirements for NACE Rev.1.1 and NACE Rev.2 and derogations to be granted for structural business statistics
   (1)

1

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 251/2009 of 11 March 2009 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 295/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the series of data to be produced for structural business statistics and the adaptations necessary after the revision of the statistical classification of products by activity (CPA)
   (1)

170

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.10


DATE:      10/4/96

TO:        MICHAEL POLICH


FROM:      ROGER BURTRAW


SUBJECT:   RETENTION BONUS


         This is a "special bonus" agreement to pay you the sum of $250,000
should the Doehler-Jarvis Division or the Power Train Division be sold
separately.

         To be eligible for this bonus, you must remain with Harvard Industries
throughout the effort to make such a sale and actively participate in the
process.  If a sale is consummated, you will receive this payment within ten
(10) business days following the closing.

         If you decide to remain with the buyer after such sale, this will be
considered a resignation not for good reason and would void your previously
agreed to Severance Agreement dated 9/17/96.

         Should the entire company be sold prior to the sale of the
Doehler-Jarvis Division or the Power Train Division, your Severance Agreement
will supersede this agreement to pay a "special bonus and this agreement will
be void.

         This agreement is not an agreement by the Company to retain your
services during this period.

         This agreement is effective on this date and will expire at the end of
one (1) year unless renewed by the Company thirty (30) calendar days prior to
its expiration.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of BlastGard International, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the companys financial condition and results of operations.



August 14, 2008





|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Gordon                     
|Michael J. Gordon, Chief Financial Officer
#### § 94.111 Eligible crime victim assistance programs.

SAAs may award VOCA funds only to crime victim assistance programs that meet the requirements of VOCA, at 34 U.S.C. 20103(b)(1), and this subpart. Each such program shall abide by any additional criteria or reporting requirements established by the SAA.

[81 FR 44528, July 8, 2016, as amended at 88 FR 3657, Jan. 20, 2023]
### §576. Reforestation; establishment of forest tree nurseries; tree planting; seed sowing and forest improvement work

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to establish forest tree nurseries and do all other things needful in preparation for planting on national forests on the scale possible under the appropriations authorized by section 576a of this title: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be deemed to restrict the authority of the said Secretary under other authority of law.

(June 9, 1930, ch. 416, §1, 46 Stat. 527.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

The act of June 9, 1930, ch. 416, 46 Stat. 527, as amended, which is classified to sections 576 to 576b of this title, is popularly known as the "Knutson-Vandenberg Act".
IIA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 29 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale 

to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 5, 2019 

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

LEAHY, Mr. YOUNG, and Mr. REED) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign 

Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia certain defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following proposed foreign military sale to the 

4 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is prohibited: 

5 (1) The sale of the following defense articles, 

6 including defense services and technical data, de7 scribed in Transmittal No. 19–01, submitted to Con8 gress pursuant to section 36(b) of the Arms Export 

9 Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)) and published in 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SJ 29 IS 

1 the Congressional Record on June 4, 2019: The pro2 posed sale of follow-on logistics support and service 

3 for the Royal Saudi Air Force aircraft, engines, and 

4 weapons; publications and technical documentation; 

5 support equipment; spare and repair parts; repair 

6 and return; calibration support and test equipment; 

7 personnel equipment; United States Government and 

8 contractor technical and logistics support; and other 

9 elements of program support. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
§ 29.12 Specified conditions under which stops may be authorized. A motor vehicle owner may voluntarily enroll his or her vehicle(s) and give written consent to law enforcement official to stop the vehicle if it is being operated under any or all the conditions set forth in this section. For each condition, the owner(s) must grant consent and affix a separate decal, device, or license plate. ( a ) *Time.* A motor vehicle owner may authorize law enforcement officers to stop the enrolled vehicle if it is being operated between the hours of 1:00 AM and 5:00 AM. By enrolling in a program with this condition, the owner must state that the vehicle is not normally operated between the specified hours, and that the owner understands that the operation of the vehicle between those hours provides sufficient grounds for a law enforcement officer to reasonably believe that the vehicle is not being operated by or with the consent of the owner, even if the law enforcement official has no other basis for believing that the vehicle is being operated unlawfully.
( b ) *Border crossing or port entry.* A motor vehicle owner may authorize law enforcement officers to stop the enrolled vehicle if it crosses, is about to cross or is about to be transported across a United States land border, or if it enters a United States port. For purposes of this section, the phrase “about to cross a United States land border” means the vehicle is operated or transported within one mile of a United States land border. Participating States or localities may implement this provision in accordance with local conditions, provided that a participating State or locality may not extend the applicable geographic area beyond one mile from the United States land border. By enrolling in a program with this condition, the owner must state that the vehicle is not normally driven across a border or into a port, and that the owner understands that the operation or transport of the vehicle within a mile of a United States land border or into a port provides sufficient grounds for a law enforcement officer to believe that the vehicle is not being operated by or with the consent of the owner even if the law enforcement officer has no other basis for believing that the vehicle is being operated unlawfully.
### §460nnn–81. Designation of mineral withdrawal area

#### (a) Designation

Subject to valid existing rights, the Federal lands and interests in lands included within the withdrawal boundary as depicted on the map referred to in section 460nnn–11(a) of this title are hereby withdrawn from—

(1) location, entry and patent under the mining laws; and

(2) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws and from the minerals materials laws and all amendments thereto except as specified in subsection (b).

#### (b) Road maintenance

If consistent with the purposes of this subchapter and the management plan for the Cooperative Management and Protection Area, the Secretary may permit the development of saleable mineral resources, for road maintenance use only, in those locations identified on the map referred to in section 460nnn–11(a) of this title as an existing "gravel pit" within the mineral withdrawal boundaries (excluding the Wilderness Area, wilderness study areas, and designated segments of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System) where such development was authorized before October 30, 2000.

(Pub. L. 106–399, title IV, §401, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1669.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 106–399, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1655, known as the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, which is classified generally to this subchapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 460nnn of this title and Tables.
# Official Journal C 259/8 Au

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 259 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 578 August 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 259

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 578 August 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 259/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under Union harmonisation legislation)
   (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 259/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under Union harmonisation legislation)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under Union harmonisation legislation)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAHER OMAR KUTKUT, AKA Maher Omar Abdel Majid Kutkut, AKA Maher Omar Abdelmajid Kutkut, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-70376 Agency No. A095-656-685
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 2, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Maher Omar Kutkut petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding, and relief under th e Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

# FILED
DEC 18 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.The asylum application was denied as untimely because it was filed fifteen months after the expiration of Petitioner’s le gal status. Moreover, it was filed after removal proceedings had been instituted. Petitioner contends that the delay should nevertheless be considered reasonable, likening his situation to the situation in Taslimi v. Holder , 590 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2010), where we held a delay of seven months was reasonable in light of petitioner’s uncertainties about the permanence of her religious conversion. Petitioner’s delay was twice as long, however, and prompted by no comparable change in the circumstances of his life affecting his eligibility for relief. Given the speculative nature of his c oncerns about how he would be treated on his return to Jordan, the evidence does not compel a conclusion that he had a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003). The denial of withholdi ng and relief under CAT must be upheld. In light of our disposition of the case in a nonprecedential memorandum, Petitioner’s pending motion is denied as moot. Petition DENIED
.

2