alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-3469

___________________________

Craig L. Anderson

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

County of Jackson

 Defendant - Appellee

Margaret Salzwedal

 Defendant

Terry Whitman; Bruce Anderson; Darlene Anderson; Robert O'Connor; John

Morrison; Cynthia Burrell; John Doe; Jane Doe, jointly and severally

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: July 2, 2013

Filed: July 3, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Craig L. Anderson appeals following the district court’s1

 entry of judgment in

favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review of the

record, and careful consideration of Anderson’s arguments for reversal, we find no

basis for overturning the district court’s well-reasoned decision on the motions to

dismiss or for summary judgment. See Carmody v. Kansas City Bd. of Police

Comm’rs, 713 F.3d 401, 404 (8th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment); Laase v. County

of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for failure to state claim based

on res judicata). We also find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the other

rulings Anderson challenges, or appears to challenge, on appeal. See Wiles v. Capitol

Indem. Corp., 280 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2002) (leave to amend complaint); Parton v.

White, 203 F.3d 552, 556 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion). The

judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 360.68

 360.45

 360.18

 359.98

 360.13

 360.30

 360.60

 360.54

 360.48

 360.43

 360.39

 360.35

 360.32

 360.27

 360.23

 360.18

 360.15

 360.14

 360.11

 360.07

 360.05

 360.01

 360.01

 359.98

 359.96

 359.96

 359.95

 359.92

 359.90

 359.89

 585

 569

 550

 536

 546

 558

 579

 575

 571

 567

 564

 562

 559

 556

 553

 550

 548

 547

 545

 542

 541

 538

 538

 536

 534

 534

 534

 531

 530

 529

STORAGE

-5

-16

-19

-14

+10

+12

+21

-4

-4

-4

-3

-2

-3

-3

-3

-3

-2

-1

-2

-3

-1

-3

+0

-2

-2

+0

+0

-3

-1

-1

CHANGE

 396

 351

 350

 366

 377

 376

 412

 412

 386

 353

 346

 357

 336

 311

 349

 363

 355

 377

 349

 364

 385

 403

 466

 364

 366

 388

 387

 400

 400

 412

 1,809

 1,380

 908

 529

 703

 980

 1,558

 1,481

 1,377

 1,277

 1,182

 1,105

 1,032

 954

 878

 804

 752

 703

 654

 602

 552

 504

 476

 453

 428

 404

 380

 351

 327

 305

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

TRI DAMS PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2018 GOODWIN RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: July 1, 2018

RES.

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -61 0 24,848 11,257

ACRE-FEET -61 0 49,286 22,328

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

JOINT MAIN CANAL 51,900

SOUTH MAIN CANAL 22,328

 123,514

 590

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

TULLOCH

RELEASE

 3,064

 2,557

 2,092

 1,614

 1,857

 2,142

 2,779

 2,725

 2,647

 2,522

 2,404

 2,338

 2,208

 2,086

 2,078

 2,026

 1,949

 1,848

 1,825

 1,821

 1,840

 1,847

 1,829

 1,676

 1,623

 1,593

 1,539

 1,527

 1,538

 1,560

 61,154

 121,299

JOINT MAIN OPERATED BY SSJID AND OID.

JOINT

MAIN

SOUTH

MAIN

SPILL 49,286

 892

 887

 850

 788

 834

 828

 853

 879

 931

 953

 934

 923

 893

 873

 881

 898

 893

 796

 863

 892

 922

 918

 903

 882

 854

 834

 822

 792

 840

 858

 26,166

 51,900

RIVER CANALS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00791-CV

Michael Thomas PAUL,

Appellant

v.

Greg 

Greg ABBOTT, Attorney General of the State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001-CI-16843

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 28, 2015

DISMISSED 

On November 10, 2014, appellant filed a purported notice of appeal and an affidavit of 

indigence in the trial court. On November 18, 2014, we issued an order explaining that the notice 

of appeal was defective and ordering appellant to file a notice of appeal that complied with Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d). See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d). On December 15, 2014, 

appellant filed an amended notice of appeal that complied with Rule 25.1(d). See id.

On December 3, 2014, the trial court signed an order sustaining the district clerk’s and the 

court reporter’s contests to appellant’s affidavit of indigence and ordering appellant to pay all costs 
04-14-00791-CV

on appeal including the costs charged by the district clerk for preparation of the clerk’s record. A 

motion seeking review of this order was not timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(j)(2). 

On December 31, 2014, we ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court within 

ten days of the date of our order that the fee for the clerk’s record had been paid or arrangements 

had been made to pay the clerk’s fee. We warned that if appellant failed to respond within the time 

provided, this appeal would be dismissed. See TEX.R. APP. P. 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal 

if clerk’s record is not filed due to appellant’s fault); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing 

dismissal of appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court). Appellant has failed to 

provide written proof that the fee for the clerk’s record has been paid or arrangements have been 

made to pay the clerk’s fee in accordance with our order. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

PER CURIAM

- 2 -
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO §906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the quarterly report of Spire Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert S. Lieberman, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
 Dated:   November 10, 2010
By:
/s/ Robert S. LiebermanRobert S. LiebermanChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 11
Case 20-34722-KLP Doc 23 Filed 12/22/20 Entered 12/22/20 10:54:22 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 11
(No. 5857

#### Garfield Park Moving and Storage Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

*Opinion filed August 3, 1972.*

Garfield Park Moving and Storage Company, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, *30Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent

Perlin, C.J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED June 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                               90,364
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     90,364
<PP&E>                                                3,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (2,694)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       91,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             17,888
<OTHER-SE>                                           73,354
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         91,242
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1,054
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      5,550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (4,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (4,496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (4,496)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.00)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 540 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 540

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, as the ``Louise and Bob 
                        Slaughter Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2019

Mr. Morelle (for himself, Mr. Zeldin, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Suozzi, 
    Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. 
  Jeffries, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Rose of New York, 
Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, 
  Mr. Serrano, Mr. Engel, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New 
York, Mr. Delgado, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
  Katko, and Mr. Higgins of New York) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, as the ``Louise and Bob 
                        Slaughter Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LOUISE AND BOB SLAUGHTER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 770 Ayrault Road in Fairport, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Louise and Bob Slaughter Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Louise and 
Bob Slaughter Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
1 Fallon, Gail
From: Jay Baker <jbaker@utah.gov> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:44 PM To: Fallon, Gail Subject: Re: Question about PacifiCorp BART reports
Gail, You are correct. That is the Five-Factor Analysis U pdate document that should be part of the June 2015 TSD submittal. I apologize for not getting it on the CD

. Jay Baker Utah Division of Air Quality (801) 536-4015 On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Fallon, Gail < fallon.gail@epa.gov > wrote: Hi Jay – The attached table of contents that was pr ovided on one of the SIP disks Utah submitted in Ju ne shows the below item in TSD Chapter 2 which is not included on the TSD disk:

“2.e) Utah Five-Factor BART Analysis Update”

I believe we received this from your office last Se ptember and have attached the document to this mess age. I assume Utah’s intention was to include this updated BART analysis with the June 2015 documents and tha t it was just inadvertently omitted from the disk. Pleas e confirm.

Thanks, Gail

Gail Fallon Environmental Engineer Air Quality Planning Unit US EPA, Region 8 Denver, CO (303) 312-62812
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                          $   346,800
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     6,824,900
<ALLOWANCES>                        (52,800)
<INVENTORY>                       6,136,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 14,594,900
<PP&E>                           37,374,700
<DEPRECIATION>                   (9,372,400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   46,208,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             8,905,900
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                            534,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     46,208,300
<SALES>                          47,755,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 47,755,300
<CGS>                            39,713,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    45,910,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     46,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,262,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     535,500
<INCOME-TAX>                        226,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        308,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.06
        

</TABLE>
#### Allen W. Turkia et al. *v.*Stanley P. Kendzierski et al.

Alcorn, C. J., House, Thim, Byan aad Shapiro, Js.

Argued February 2

decided March 3, 1971

*William F. Gallagher,*with whom, on the brief, was *James N. Scheibeler,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Juri E. Taalman,*with whom was *Align L. Brown, Jr.,*for the appellees (defendants).

Shapiro, J.

The plaintiffs, Lucille R. Turkia and her husband Allen W. Turkia, brought this action to recover damages resulting from an intersection accident involving two vehicles, the Turkia automobile and a truck owned by the defendant Pierce Feed Company and operated by the defendant Stanley P. Kendzierski. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged various specifications of negligence against the defendants. In their answer, the defendants denied these allegations of negligence and *481pleaded, by way of special defense, that the plaintiff Lucille W. Turkia, as operator of her husband’s automobile, was contributorily negligent. In their reply, the plaintiffs denied the allegations of the special defense.

This case was tried to the jury with two companion cases involving the same accident. In the case before us, the jury found the issues for the defendants and on the refusal of the court to set the verdict aside, the plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment rendered thereon.

The sole assignment of error relates to the court’s charge to the jury to which exception was taken, claiming that the court failed to give a definition of “entrance” to another highway, as it is used in General Statutes § 14-301. We have examined the court’s charge and it shows that the word “entrance” as used in the charge required no further explanation. It was applied by the court to the facts involved in its nontechnical and commonly accepted meaning. A reasonably intelligent and literate person would have no difficulty in understanding it and no further explanation was necessary. See *D’Addario*v. *American Automobile Ins. Co.,*142 Conn. 251, 256, 113 A.2d 361; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. § 81.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 2,512

 2,661

 2,874

 3,479

 3,308

 3,019

 2,993

 3,091

 3,039

 2,779

 2,861

 2,769

 2,568

 2,813

 2,818

 3,345

 3,543

 3,588

 3,610

 3,858

 3,780

 2,907

 2,151

 1,976

 1,930

 1,894

 2,020

 1,893

 1,846

 2,339

 2,108

 1,114

 1,127

 1,164

 1,197

 1,151

 1,199

 1,043

 1,022

 1,015

 967

 976

 965

 1,172

 997

 1,023

 1,122

 1,142

 1,150

 1,129

 1,094

 1,143

 1,097

 978

 786

 767

 831

 872

 834

 793

 781

 785

 1,566

 1,647

 1,729

 1,907

 1,805

 1,630

 1,556

 1,555

 1,555

 1,494

 1,461

 1,406

 1,897

 1,555

 1,620

 1,769

 1,841

 1,754

 1,769

 1,842

 1,863

 1,679

 1,463

 1,243

 1,183

 1,219

 1,274

 1,174

 1,056

 1,155

 1,132

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2001 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 5, 2001

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 22,896

 22,843

 22,823

 22,989

 23,085

 23,055

 22,927

 22,765

 22,713

 22,623

 22,461

 22,308

 22,712

 22,763

 22,817

 22,939

 23,051

 22,898

 22,862

 23,074

 23,381

 23,505

 23,413

 23,162

 22,884

 22,697

 22,074

 21,693

 21,129

 20,515

 19,806

 1,635

 1,632

 1,630

 1,642

 1,649

 1,647

 1,638

 1,626

 1,622

 1,616

 1,604

 1,593

 1,622

 1,626

 1,630

 1,639

 1,647

 1,636

 1,633

 1,648

 1,670

 1,679

 1,672

 1,654

 1,635

 1,621

 1,577

 1,550

 1,509

 1,465

 1,415

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

JERSEY POINT TOP ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 166

 169

 169

 163

 160

 159

 157

 155

 151

 144

 142

 139

 129

 124

 121

 117

 114

 113

 110

 108

 107

 106

 106

 106

 107

 107

 107

 108

 109

 110

 146

 154

 159

 156

 152

 145

 142

 142

 140

 136

 133

 125

 116

 116

 114

 110

 108

 107

 105

 103

 102

 102

 103

 103

 104

 104

 105

 106

 106

 107

 156

 160

 163

 160

 157

 153

 150

 146

 144

 140

 137

 131

 122

 119

 117

 114

 111

 110

 108

 105

 104

 104

 104

 104

 105

 106

 106

 107

 108

 109

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 1, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

HOLLAND TRACT ON OLD RIVER
exv10w2



 








Exhibit 10.2



Summary of employment arrangement between Registrant and Mr. B.M. Heck, effective May 23, 2007



As Executive Chair, Mr. Heck will be compensated at the rate of $20,000 per month and will receive
standard options and restrictive stock units granted to Company directors (8,000 Options and 5,000
restricted share units) and benefits similar to executive officers of the Company. This position is
expected to require less than 40 hours per week.
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear by T.D. ATF-477, 67 FR 18087 through 18090, Apr. 15, 2002.

#### § 28.253 Certificate by export carrier.

A certificate, executed under the penalties of perjury, by an agent or representative of the export carrier, showing actual exportation of the liquors (including specially denatured spirits) may be furnished by an exporter as evidence of exportation. The certificate shall contain a description of the shipment, including the serial number of the withdrawal form, or the claim and entry form, as the case may be, the name of the exporter, the name of the consignee, the date received, the place where received by such carrier, and the name of the carrier from which received.

(72 Stat. 1334, 1335, 1336, 1362, 1380; 26 U.S.C. 5053, 5055, 5062, 5214, 5362)
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**5 KA 11-01023**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC HINTZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered March 29, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the brief inquiry made by Supreme Court was “insufficient to establish that the court ‘engage[d] the defendant in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice’ ” ( People v Brown , 296 AD2d 860, 860, lv denied 98 NY2d 767; see People v Hamilton , 49 AD3d 1163, 1164). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: February 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court