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

[833 NYS2d 504]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J., at uncompleted plea proceeding; Edwin Torres, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered August 5, 2004, convicting defen*376dant of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that he had a statutory right to plead guilty to the entire indictment *(see*CPL 220.10 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Defendant’s unsuccessful effort to plead guilty to the indictment did not, by itself, preserve the issue, since he did not alert the court to his statutory claim. Moreover, following the uncompleted plea proceedings before the suppression hearing court, the case appeared on many occasions before other justices, and defendant made no new attempts to plead guilty to the indictment. Indeed, after refusing to accept the plea, the hearing court specifically invited defendant to make the same offer to plead guilty before another justice, to whom the case was being reassigned.

Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. The court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to accept defendant’s plea, since defendant’s factual recitations did not comport with the charges in the indictment and the evidence known to the court *(see People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227, 235 [1974], *cert denied*419 US 1122 [1975]; *People v Wongshing,*245 AD2d 186 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 978 [1998]; *compare People v Rosebeck,*109 AD2d 915 [1985]). In any event, were we to find any error, we would find that defendant is not entitled to vacatur of his otherwise valid conviction after trial of the charges to which he had attempted to plead guilty, or to reduction of his sentence to the term offered by the court at the time of the uncompleted plea proceedings. Even assuming that the hearing court was obligated by statute to accept the plea, it was not also obligated to impose the sentence it had offered. The court could have revoked its sentencing promise, provided it then permitted defendant to withdraw the plea *(see People v Schultz,*73 NY2d 757, 758 [1988]; *People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d at 239).

Defendant’s claim of improper delegation of judicial authority is similar to a claim rejected by this Court on the codefendant’s appeal *(People v Branch,*35 AD3d 228 [2006]), and we find no basis for a different result.

On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards at the uncompleted plea and at sentencing (see *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see *also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.
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 Quarterly Report
of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief
Executive Officer of Duke Energy Carolinas, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy Carolinas.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS 
|James E. Rogers        
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 14, 2008
#### Mary Quigley, appellee, v. W. N. Macqueen & Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,048.

Action on a contract for the exchange of mortgages for stock. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Wells M. Cook, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 11, 1925.

J. S. Dudley, for appellant.

Mather & Hutson, for appellee; Lawrence C. Traeger and Helmer Brandell, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Florence De Forte, Appellant, v Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion granted. Memorandum: While driving home from a hardware store, plaintiff, Florence De Forte, was stopped as a result of radar detection. When she opened her car door to get out, her dog jumped out and bit the arresting police officer. The officer sued Mrs. De Forte in March, 1973. The papers were forwarded to respondent, Allstate Insurance Company, her homeowner’s liability insurance carrier whose policy included coverage of Mrs. De Forte’s automobile. Following its disclaimer, plaintiff commenced a declaratory judgment action against Allstate in July, 1975. In October, 1975 the City of Buffalo also sued Mrs. De Forte. Its claim was for the lost time and wages it had paid the police officer as a result of his injuries. When the declaratory judgment action came to trial in April, 1977 an attempt was made to introduce evidence regarding the claim of the City of Buffalo. Allstate contended that this claim was not included in plaintiff’s complaint. As a result, the trial was suspended in order for plaintiff to move to serve a supplemental complaint. Plaintiff moved for this relief and it is from its denial at Special Term that plaintiff appeals. A party may move at any time to amend or supplement a pleading and "Leave shall be freely given” (CPLR 3025, subd [b]). The purpose of CPLR 3025 (subd [b]) is to ensure full litigation of a controversy and this section is to be liberally construed to permit pleadings to be amended or supplemented, absent real prejudice or surprise and upon such terms as may be just under the circumstances *(Rife v Union Coll.,*30 AD2d 504, 505; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3025.11; Siegel, New York Practice, § 237). Plainly there is no surprise to respondent in the assertion of what is a derivative claim respecting damages only in a claim of which Allstate already had full notice. Under these circumstances, there is no prejudice. Upon consideration of the motion, Special Term should not examine the merits or legal sufficiency of the proposed amended or supplemental pleadings unless the proposed pleading is clearly and patently insufficient on its face *(Leutloff v Leutloff,*47 Misc 2d 458, 459). Respondent’s contention here that the pleadings were palpably insufficient in failing to allege compliance with a condition precedent to coverage under the terms of the insurance contract is without merit since "The performance or occurrence of a condition precedent in a contract need not be pleaded” (CPLR 3015, subd [a]). We conclude, therefore, that it was an abuse of Special Term’s discretion to deny plaintiff’s motion to supplement her complaint *(Fahey v County of Ontario,*44 NY2d 934, 935). (Appeal from order of Erie Supreme Court-supplemental complaint.) Present, Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

**UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Hickory Tech Corporation on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Christensen, SeniorVice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of HickoryTech.

 
| Date: March 5,  2009 | /s/ David A.  Christensen                          |   |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | David A. Christensen                               |   |
|                      | Senior Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
### SUBCHAPTER I—SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
### §178d. Research and development program by Secretary of Commerce

The Secretary of Commerce is authorized and directed to initiate and carry out research, technology development, technology transfer, and demonstration projects to test and demonstrate the economic feasibility of the manufacture and commercialization of natural rubber from Parthenium or other hydrocarbon-containing plants or the manufacture and commercialization of other critical agricultural materials from native agricultural crops having strategic and industrial importance. Such research shall include but not be limited to—

(a) conducting research and development on extraction and processing techniques;

(b) economic analysis of the production of native latex, including usable byproducts;

(c) studying the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the commercial development of native latex;

(d) evaluating the commercial marketability of Parthenium and rubber derived from other hydrocarbon-containing plants;

(e) further refining present extraction and manufacturing technologies and future extraction and manufacturing technologies, including technologies which utilize solar energy;

(f) developing pertinent material and records on manufacturing of natural rubber which shall be available to other Federal and State agencies and private persons who are interested in or involved in natural rubber development, or manufacture; and

(g) to the extent appropriate, carrying out research activities with respect to native agricultural crops (other than Parthenium and other hydrocarbon-containing plants) that would supply critical agricultural materials for strategic and industrial purposes, in the manner specified in clauses (a) through (f).

(Pub. L. 95–592, §6, Nov. 4, 1978, 92 Stat. 2531; Pub. L. 98–284, §6, May 16, 1984, 98 Stat. 183.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–284, §6(1), (2), inserted in provisions preceding cl. (a) reference to the manufacture and commercialization of other critical agricultural materials from native agricultural crops having strategic and industrial importance, and struck out "may be carried out through the Regional Commissions or otherwise and" after "Such research".

Cl. (g). Pub. L. 98–284, §6(5), added cl. (g).
371 A.2d 590.

#### Claire M. Ring *vs.*Ira Cook, Jr.

MARCH 28, 1977.

Present: Bevilacqua, C.J., Paolino, Joslin, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Upon reviewing the record and the trial justice’s order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal in the instant case, we are satisfied that this case comes within the rule as enunciated in *Goulet*v. *Dalton,*117 R.I. 304, 366 A.2d 537 (1976) and *10
      *Plastic Merchandisers, Inc.*v. *Royal Moulding Co.,*57 R. I. 510, 190 A. 788 (1937).

*Aram K. Berberian,*for the plaintiff.

*Biagio L. Longo,*Assistant Solicitor, for the defendant.

The plaintiff’s appeal is sustained, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the case is remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

Current Report

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):November 30, 2005



First Albany Companies Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)



|New York(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation) | 0-14140(Commission FileNumber) | 22-2655804(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)
|----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------



677 Broadway, Albany, New York 12207

(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:(518) 447-8500

N/A

(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)



Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):

oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))





---







|Item 5.04 | Temporary Suspension of Trading Under Registrants Employee Benefit Plans.
|--------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



As required by Section 306 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Section 245.104 of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation BTR, First Albany Companies Inc. sent a notice to its executive officers and directors notifying them of a blackout with respect to the First Albany Capital Employees Retirement and Savings Plan.  The blackout period is expected to begin January 6, 2006 and end on or before  January 13, 2006.  A copy of the notice is attached as Exhibit 99.1 hereto and is incorporated herein by reference.





|Item 9.01 | Financial Statements and Exhibits.
|--------- | ----------------------------------



| | (c) | Exhibits
| | --- | --------



|Exhibit Number | Description                                                            
|-------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|99.1           | Announcement of Investment Changes and Formal Notice of Blackout Period







---





SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



FIRST ALBANY COMPANIES INC.



By:/s/ Alan P. Goldberg

| | Name:  | Alan P. Goldberg        | 
| | ------ | ----------------------- | 
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer





Date: November 30, 2005









---







Exhibit Index



|99.1 | Announcement of Investment Changes and Formal Notice of Blackout Period
|---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

















---
Exhibit 31.1


I, Keith S. Walters, certify that:

1.I  have  reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of  Ennis,
  Inc.;

2.Based  on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not  contain
  any  untrue  statement of a material fact or omit  to  state  a
  material  fact necessary to make the statements made, in  light
  of  the  circumstances under which such statements  were  made,
  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered  by  this
  quarterly report;

3.Based  on  my  knowledge, the financial statements,  and  other
  financial  information  included  in  this  quarterly   report,
  fairly   present  in  all  material  respects   the   financial
  condition,  results  of  operations  and  cash  flows  of   the
  registrant  as  of,  and  for, the periods  presented  in  this
  quarterly report;

4.The   registrant's  other  certifying  officers   and   I   are
  responsible   for   establishing  and  maintaining   disclosure
  controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules  13a-
  15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

     a)    Designed  such disclosure controls and  procedures  to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
     including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
     by  others  within those entities, particularly  during  the
     period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

     b)     Evaluated   the  effectiveness  of  the  registrant's
     disclosure  controls and procedures and  presented  in  this
     report  our  conclusions  about  the  effectiveness  of  the
     disclosure  controls and procedures, as of the  end  of  the
     period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
     internal  control  over  financial reporting  that  occurred
     during  the  registrant's most recent  fiscal  quarter  (the
     registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual
     report)  that  has  materially affected,  or  is  reasonably
     likely  to  materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal
     control over financial reporting; and

5.The   registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and   I   have
  disclosed,  based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation,  to   the
  registrant's  auditors and the audit committee of  registrant's
  board  of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent
  function):

     a)   All significant deficiencies in the design or operation
     of  internal  controls  over which  financial  reporting  is
     reasonably  likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's
     ability  to record, process, summarize and report  financial
     data; and

     b)    Any  fraud,  whether  or not material,  that  involves
     management or other employees who have a significant role in
     the registrant's internal controls.




/s/ Keith S. Walters

Keith S. Walters
Chief Executive Officer
June 15, 2005

<PAGE>
§ 536.141 Composition of Foreign Claims Commissions. ( a ) Normally, an FCC will be composed of either one or three members. Alternate members of three-member FCCs may be appointed when circumstances require, and may be substituted for regular members on specific cases by order of the appointing authority. The appointing orders will clearly designate the president of a three-member FCC. Two members of a three-member FCC will constitute a quorum, and the FCC's decision will be determined by majority vote.
( b ) Upon approval by the Commander USARCS and the appropriate authority of another uniformed service, the membership may be composed of one or more members of another uniformed service. If another service has single-service responsibility over the foreign country in which the claim arose, that service is responsible for the claim. If requested, the Commander USARCS may furnish a JAG officer or claims attorney to be a member of another service's FCC.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Accident-Record Manual for Industrial Plants

              																	Kossoris, Max D. (Max Davis)					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Accident-Record Manual for Industrial Plants : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 772*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										1944,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4252,			accessed on September 17, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, John S. Chen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sybase, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regardingthe reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.   Date: March 15, 2006       /s/ JOHN S. CHEN     John S. Chen  Chief Executive Officer and President