alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 4 0 6 4 3 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. A N G E L M A R T I N E Z

- V E L A S Q U E Z , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 6 : 0 9

- C R

- 3

- 1

B e f o r e S M I T H , P R A D O , a n d H A Y N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t A n g e l M a r t i n e z V e l a s q u e z h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e

w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f

o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. M a r t i n e z - V e l a s q u e z h a s n o t f i l e d

a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d a n d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f d i s c l o s e s

n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o

w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n ,
a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 20 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-40643 Document: 00511085965 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2010
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-07-13T22:49:24-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Heather Dort, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 614]

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Barrett, J.), rendered November 26, 1997, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted forgery in the second degree.

*488Iru/satisfaction of an indictment charging defendant with, *inter ¡alia,*forgery, in the second degree, defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of attempted forgery in the second degree. Although defense counsel and the prosecutor jointly recommended a conditional discharge, the negotiated plea ¡agreement did not include a specific sentence commitment. County Court, having informed defendant of the maximum sentencing option, ultimately imposed a sentence of five years’ probation, $400 restitution and 200 hours of community service. Defendant now appeals.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her right to appeal as part of the negotiated plea agreement. In addition to the signed waiver of her right to appeal, defendant expressly waived her right to appeal during the plea colloquy and indicated that she understood the rights which she was forfeiting. While defendant’s waiver precludes our consideration of her challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see, People v Kwiatkowski,*263 AD2d 552, *lv denied*93 NY2d 1021), were we to address it we would nevertheless find no abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence imposed *(see generally, People v Buckner,*274 AD2d 832). Furthermore, we would find that the record provides sufficient evidence to support County Court’s imposition of $400 restitution. Finally, a review of the record and the presentence investigation report belies defendant’s contention that County Court improperly delegated its sentencing authority by relying strictly on the recommendation contained in the presentence investigation report. '

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 29, 2004.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Sue Costello, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:                

*1. Evan R. Marbin*, North Miami Beach, Florida, individually and as trustee of The SEE Trust, Miami, Florida, The SEE Trust, Miami, Florida, and Sherrie Marbin, North Miami Beach, Florida, to retain voting shares of Transatlantic Bank, Miami, Florida.                

**B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1. Charles W. Masner and Ella C. Masner*, both of Anthony, Kansas; to acquire control of Olathe Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire control of Olathe State Bank, both in Olathe, Colorado.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 9, 2004.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 04-27475 Filed 12-14-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### § 1424.8 Additional submissions to the Board.

The Board will not consider any submission filed by any party, whether supplemental or responsive in nature, other than those authorized under §§ 1424.2 through 1424.7 unless such submission is requested by the Board; or unless, upon written request by any party, a copy of which is served on all other parties, the Board in its discretion grants permission to file such submission.
### §§2678 to 2678d. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 2678 to 2678d were superseded in the general amendment of part D of title I of Pub. L. 88–164 (this subchapter) by Pub. L. 94–103, title I, §120, title III, §303, Oct. 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 495, 507, effective with respect to appropriations under Pub. L. 94–103 for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1975.

Section 2678, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §141, as added Pub. L. 90–170, §4, Dec. 4, 1967, 81 Stat. 528, related to authorization, duration, amount and limitation of grants for professional and technical personnel and determination of grants by Secretary.

Section 2678a, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §142, as added Pub. L. 90–170, §4, Dec. 4, 1967, 81 Stat. 529, related to applications and conditions for approval of grants, and limitations on the availability of grants.

Section 2678b, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §143, as added Pub. L. 90–170, §4, Dec. 4, 1967, 81 Stat. 529, related to payments of grants and adjustments.

Section 2678c, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §144, as added Pub. L. 90–170, §4, Dec. 4, 1967, 81 Stat. 529, related to regulations.

Section 2678d, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §145, as added Pub. L. 90–170, §4, Dec. 4, 1967, 81 Stat. 529, related to authorization of appropriations.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,076
<PP&E>                                           1,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,373
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,174
<SALES>                                         15,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,181
<CGS>                                            9,811
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,141)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (143)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,269)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,269)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (593)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,862)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Paul Harding, Appellant, v Katherine Wells et al., Respondents-Respondents, and Joseph J. Previte et al., Constituting the *637Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

In a proceeding to validate petitions designating Paul Harding as a candidate in the election to be held on May 3, 1977 for the public position of Member of the New York City Community School Board, District 23, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 7, 1977, which, after a hearing, (1) denied the application and (2) directed the board of elections to remove petitioner’s name from the appropriate ballot. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner-appellant contends that he was denied procedural due process when the matter was returned to the board of elections for a determination as to the validity of 26 disputed signatures. He claims that he was not given notice of the board’s review and was not afforded the right of representation, in direct contrast to the objectors, who allegedly were afforded such rights. Undoubtedly, had petitioner established his claim that he was denied his due process rights, he would have been entitled to some relief; however, the record of the instant proceeding belies the contention. Upon the record, it appears that, after the determination by the board of elections was made, the results were given to the petitioner to allow him an opportunity to return to the community and secure additional signatures. This fact clearly implies that petitioner and his counsel were aware of the actions of the board and yet failed and neglected to protest the procedure until *after*Special Term’s hearing. Indeed, counsel for petitioner stood *silent*when, at the hearing to confirm the referee’s report to strike the petition, the Special Referee stated, on *two*separate occasions, that opposing counsel knew of the actions of the board and that "these figures were all conceded by the attorneys at the time of the hearing.” Under such circumstances, petitioner has failed to establish a lack of notice and, hence, a denial of his procedural due process rights. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2


 


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	
  $12,500.00(U.S. Dollars)

  	
   

  	
  January 25, 2006

  



 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ProUroCare
Inc. (the “Debtor”) promises to pay to the order of David F. Koenig, or his
successors and assigns (the “Holder”), the principal sum of $12,500.00,
together with interest on all outstanding and unpaid amounts evidenced by this
Note at the rate of the US Prime Rate plus1.0% per year computed on the basis
of the actual number of days elapse in the payment period and a 365-day
year.  This Note is not secured.


 


1.                                       Payment
of Principal and Interest.  All
outstanding principal and interest under this Note will be due and payable ON
DEMAND.


 


2.                                       Demand
for Payment.  Upon request by the
Holder for payment hereunder, the then outstanding principal balance of this
Note and all accrued interest accrued thereon shall, at the option of the
Holder and without presentment, demand, protest, or further notice of any kind,
become immediately due and payable in full. 
All payments with respect to this Note will be applied to the reduction
of the principal or to the accrued interest as directed by the Debtor.


 


3.                                       Prepayments.
The indebtedness evidenced by this Note may be prepaid, in whole or in part, at
any time without penalty or premium.


 


4.                                       No
Waivers.  The Debtor agrees that no
failure on the part of the Holder to exercise any power, right or privilege
hereunder, or to insist upon prompt compliance with the terms of this Note,
will constitute a waiver of that power, right or privilege.


 


5.                                       Replacement
Note.  Upon receipt of evidence
reasonably satisfactory to the Debtor, of the loss, theft, destruction or
mutilation of this Note, the Debtor will make and deliver a new Note of like
tenor in lieu of this note.


 


6.                                       Governing
law.  This Note is governed in all
respects by the internal laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to the
conflicts of law principles of any jurisdiction.


 


7.                                       Collection
Costs.  In the event the Debtor fails
to timely pay any amount due under this Note, the Debtor will pay all of the
Holder’s reasonable out-of-pocket collection costs, including without
limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees and legal costs, whether or not any suit
or enforcement proceeding is commenced.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Debtor has caused this Note to be signed by a duly authorized
officer and dated as of the date first above written.


 


	
   

  	
  By:

  	
    /s/ Maurice R. Taylor II

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Maurice R. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
  ProUroCare, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.S., A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.P., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 276 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.F.S., A MINOR 

PETITION OF: L.P., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 277 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.P., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 278 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.A.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.P., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 279 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.P., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 280 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.A.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.P., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 281 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.P., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 282 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court
[276 EAL 2022, 277 EAL 2022, 278 EAL 2022, 279 EAL 2022, 280 EAL 2022, 281 EAL 

2022, 282 EAL 2022 and 283 EAL 2022] - 2

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.A.S., A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.S.P., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 283 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of December, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### William Mallin, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Joel M. Mallin, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Robert M. Milton et al., Appellants-Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 30, 1976, which is in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants, upon a jury verdict as to the infant plaintiff and upon a jury verdict as reduced by the trial court as to plaintiff Joel M. Mallín. Judgment modified by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision awarding judgment to plaintiff Joel M. Mallín against defendants in the amount of the jury verdict in his favor, to wit, $15,223.81, with interest thereon from the date of the *919rendition of the verdict. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The trial court should have denied the motion to reduce the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Joel M. Mallín. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gina Dodja, Also Known as Gina Vukdedaj, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 886]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered on or about July 23, 2004, unanimously affirmed.

*802Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
#### § 38.606 Financial regulatory services provided by a third party.

A designated contract market may comply with the requirements of § 38.604 (Financial Surveillance) and § 38.605 (Requirements for Financial Surveillance Program) of this part through the regulatory services of a registered futures association or a registered entity (collectively, “regulatory service provider”), as such terms are defined under the Act. A designated contract market must ensure that its regulatory service provider has the capacity and resources necessary to provide timely and effective regulatory services, including adequate staff and appropriate surveillance systems. A designated contract market will at all times remain responsible for compliance with its obligations under the Act and Commission regulations, and for the regulatory service provider's performance on its behalf. Regulatory services must be provided under a written agreement with a regulatory services provider that shall specifically document the services to be performed as well as the capacity and resources of the regulatory service provider with respect to the services to be performed.
No: 16-042 July 22, 2016

Contact: Maureen Conley, 301-415-8200

NRC Staff Seeks Public Input July 27 on Strategic Plan

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Wednesday, July 27, to gather input from the 

public to assist in developing the agency’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2018-2022.

The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. - 12 p.m. at agency headquarters in room T-2B1 of the 

Two White Flint North building, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. The staff will consider the 

views and perspectives of parties that could be affected by or are interested in the agency’s plan.

The current Strategic Plan covers 2014-2018 and provides a blueprint for the NRC to plan, 

implement and monitor the work needed to achieve its mission. It establishes strategic goals, strategies, 

and performance expectations, as well as providing a basis for the agency’s annual budget and 

performance plans. The 2018-2022 edition is due to Congress and the President by February 5, 2018.

Based on input from stakeholders, NRC staff will develop a draft plan that will be published for 

public comment before issuing a final plan. Managers and staff from a variety of NRC offices will be at 

the meeting.

Those planning to attend should leave plenty of time to allow for security screening and escort 

to the meeting room. The public may also participate through a webinar. More details are available in 

the NRC’s meeting notice.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Eugene Zicherman, Respondent, v. Ann Zicherman, Doing Business as Petit Four Cookie Shop, et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from an award for reduced earnings. The matter was *before*this court on a prior appeal (8 A D 2d 868). The accident happened on May 26, 1954 and the injuries resulted in restricting the work activities of the claimant. Upon remission, the board found that the average weekly wage of the claimant before the accident was $73.73 in the place of $102 per week in its prior award. The board further determined the amount of $35 per week paid claimant since September 9, 1954, reasonably represented his wage earning capacity. The appellants contest the finding of $35 per week and argue such determination conflicts with the prior finding of the board of an earning capacity after the accident of 70% of normal. We find the present decision justified. The board has found an average weekly wage before the accident within the framework of our prior decision. Upon remission there was testimony that the claimant’s earnings following his return to work were $35 per week and which the board has estimated as his actual earning capacity. This is a proper method of determining wage rates. *(Matter of Croce*v. *Ford Motor Co.,*307 N. Y. 125.) The board’s determination of the weekly compensation rate was supported by substantial evidence. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.