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

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Ulster County which denied the appellant’s application for a writ of error *coram nobis.*The appéllant, through his counsel, pleaded guilty on April 11, 1940 to the crime of grand larceny, first degree and was sentenced by the Ulster County Court as a second offender to from 10 to 20 years. In 1948 he made an *551application for a writ of error *coram nobis*based on lack of due process in that he was not accorded his rights respecting counsel, and was improperly sentenced as a second offender but this was denied without a hearing. The Appellate Division reversed on the ground that a plea must be put in by the defendant himself and not through counsel as here (275 App. Div. 260), but the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court holding that a plea of guilty through counsel was not grounds for reversal of the conviction and also noting that the allegations of the petition were without support in the record (300 N. T. 69). In 1958 the appellant made the present petition alleging as errors the failure to assign counsel, improper transfer of the case from Supreme Court to County Court, that a plea of not guilty had never been made in County Court, that he was not present when the plea was entered and that incompetent counsel was assigned him. The appellant was assigned an attorney and after hearing oral arguments the lower court denied the application. The appellant was originally arraigned in the Supreme Court which thereafter ordered the case removed to County Court as it had the power to do (Code Grim. Pro., § 22, subd. 6). The appellant complains that while he was originally arraigned in Supreme Court on February 28, 1940 he was not assigned counsel until April 8, 1940 by the County Court. However, he was advised by the Supreme Court on February 28 that he was entitled to a postponement to get a lawyer and he stated that he could get a lawyer. Counsel was assigned by the County Court on April 8, 1940 and as pointed out above this question was passed on by the courts in the previous application. The Court of Appeals also then noted that the appellant was present when the plea of guilty was entered by his attorney and this is clearly demonstrated by the stenographer’s minutes taken at the time. There is no merit in the appellant’s argument that he had never pleaded not guilty in the County Court so that he could not have withdrawn such a plea on April 11 when he pleaded guilty for in any event the plea of guilty was plainly entered. Finally there is the • allegation of incompetent counsel. The court assigned counsel on April 8 even though the appellant indicated that he desired to plead his own case. It appears that the assigned counsel was a former Assistant District Attorney and that a reasonable opportunity was provided for him to consult with the appellant (of. *People*v. *Tomaselli,*7 N Y 2d 350). We find no merit to any of appellant’s contentions. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                     EXHIBIT 3.1

                             CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                              ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

     JON D. TOMPKINS and CLAUDIA CASEY certify that:

     1.  They are the President and the Secretary, respectively, of TENCOR 
INSTRUMENTS, a California corporation.

     2.  Article Third of the Articles of Incorporation of this corporation 
is amended in its entirety to read as follows:

         THIRD:  This corporation is authorized to issue two classes of 
         shares which shall be known as Common Stock and Preferred Stock. The 
         total number of shares of Common Stock which this corporation is 
         authorized to issue is 60,000,000. The total number of shares of 
         Preferred Stock which this corporation is authorized to issue is 
         1,000,000. Upon the amendment of this article, each outstanding share 
         of Common Stock is split up and converted into two (2) shares of Common
         Stock.

     3.  The foregoing amendment of the Articles of Incorporation has been 
duly approved by the Board of Directors.

     4.  The corporation has only one class of shares outstanding and, in 
accordance with Section 902 of the California Corporations Code, the 
foregoing amendment of the Articles of Incorporation did not require the 
approval of the outstanding shares.

     We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State 
of California that the matters set forth in this Certificate are true and 
correct of our own knowledge.


Dated:  May 25, 1995



                                       /s/ Jon D. Tompkins
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       JON D. TOMPKINS, President



                                       /s/ Claudia Casey
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       CLAUDIA CASEY, Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income and statement of cash flows contained in
Form 10-Q of Canal Electric Company for the six months ended June 30, 1999 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016906
<NAME> CANAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          193,613
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          2,756
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              15,852
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            23,951
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     236,172
<COMMON>                            38,080
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            8,321
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 56,464
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     102,865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                     0
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                       0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>            0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         10,269
<LEASES-CURRENT>                       566
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     122,472
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      236,172
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           23,633
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 5,307
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          11,712
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          17,019
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              6,614
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                   8,287
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      14,901
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>               270
<NET-INCOME>                        14,631
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>       14,631
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>           200,132
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>            (137,694)
<EPS-BASIC>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0



</TABLE>
#### 22.1103 Policy, procedures, and solicitation provision.

All professional employees shall be compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, the contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, in solicitations for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed $750,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees. This provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. Plans indicating unrealistically low professional employee compensation may be assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an award.

[77 FR 75776, Dec. 21, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 38298, July 2, 2015; 85 FR 62489, Oct. 2, 2020]
§ 66.2 Applicability. This part applies to: ( a ) Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments (including the Coast Guard at all times, including when it is a Service in the Department of Homeland Security by agreement with that Department), the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as the “DoD Components”).
( b ) Applicants for initial enlistment into the Military Services Regular and Reserve Components.
( c ) Applicants for appointment as commissioned or warrant officers in the Regular and Reserve Components.
( d ) Applicants for reenlistment following release from active duty into subsequent Regular or Reserve Components (including the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States) after a period of more than 6 months has elapsed since discharge.
( e ) Applicants for contracting into the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and all other Military Services special officer personnel procurement programs, including the Military Service Academies.
( f ) All individuals being inducted into the Military Services.
The Memphis City School District submitted an  agreement to resolve a compliance review that OCR initiated that focused on whether the District was discriminating on the basis  of disability by not appropriately evaluating students with food allergies,  diabetes, asthma and other health impairments with Individual Health Care Plans  (IHCPs), and on whether the District was discriminating against students on the  basis of race by denying them the opportunity to receive related aids and  services.  

Prior  to the conclusion of the investigation, the district entered into a voluntary  resolution agreement with the district.   Under the terms of the agreement the district will contact the parents  or guardians of all students to inform them of the district's obligation to  evaluate students who, because of disability, need or are believed to need  special education or related services. If a student currently has an IHCP, the  district will provide parents or guardians with information regarding the  student's possible rights to evaluation, placement, and procedural safeguards.  An IHCP for a student who has a qualifying disability is insufficient if it does  not incorporate these rights.   Additionally, written communication will be provided to all parents  during fall 2012 registration explaining the district's obligation to evaluate  students with health related concerns, including students with IHCPs.  In both notifications, parents or guardians  are encouraged to address inquiries to their school counselor. Further, the  district will revise and implement policies and procedures to ensure  appropriate and prompt identification, evaluation, and placement of students  with disabilities, including students with health related concerns such as food  allergies, asthma and diabetes and other physical or mental conditions which  may impact major life activities. Finally, the district will provide mandatory  training to all district personnel involved in the referral, identification,  evaluation, and placement of students with disabilities under Section 504 and  Title II.***Read the Press Release*** | ***Read the Resolution Letter***PDF (191K) | ***Read the Compliance Agreement***PDF (109K)

Top
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:453
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:454
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:455
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:456
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:457
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:458
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:459
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:460
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:461
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:462
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:463
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:464
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:465
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:466
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:467
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:468
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:469
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:470
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:471
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:472
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:473
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:474
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:475
Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 41-2 Filed: 08/17/12 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:476
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

TRAVIS WAGNER FOWLER,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 566 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### William E. Nelson, Respondent, v. Cross *&*Brown Company, Defendant-Appellant and Interpleading Plaintiff. Donald Q. Devine, Interpleaded Defendant-Respondent.

Order, entered April 15,1960, denying motion to amend answer, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant, and motion granted permitting defendant to serve an amended answer within 20 days from service of a copy of the order herein, with notice of entry thereof, with $10 costs. Defendant is entitled to put its pleading in such form as will state the facts as it claims them to be. The possible use of such pleading on some future application, on which the court does not now pass, should not impair that right. Concur ■— Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        75,504,970
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                  86,978,369
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                3,415,803
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             165,899,142
<CASH>                                       5,211,943
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             275,675
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      12,141,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             207,430,244
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             38,809,728
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         41,328,110
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     7,595,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 102,280,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               207,430,244
<PREMIUMS>                                  56,098,839
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          5,260,704
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           2,590,704
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  81,992
<BENEFITS>                                  23,751,191
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 (2,912,593)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        21,372,398
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             21,146,848
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,106,336
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,040,512
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,040,512
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.04
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              38,584,084
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         11,647,654
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                           27,162,074
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          11,132,736
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            11,728,274
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                             38,809,728
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 21, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00753-CR

ROBERT CRAIG SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 183rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1628134

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered a guilty plea to the felony offense of driving while 

intoxicated with a child under 15 years old in the vehicle. In accordance with the 

terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court assessed 

punishment at confinement for 14 months in the State Jail Division of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice. We dismiss the appeal. 

The trial court signed a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in 

which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no 
2

right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is 

included in the record on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports 

the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). On November 17, 2020, this court notified the parties that the appeal 

would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless a party demonstrated that the 

court has jurisdiction. No response has been received. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Hassan, and Wilson. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Exhibit 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 Subsidiary name
    
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation or OrganizationAMCC (UK) Limited
    
    United KingdomApplied Micro Circuits Corporation France S.A.S.
    
    FranceAMCC Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyAMCC Japan Co., Ltd.
    
    JapanApplied Micro Circuits Corporation Canada
    
    CanadaAMCC Sales Corporation
    
    DelawareAMCC China, Inc.
    
    DelawareLaw 1111 Limited
    
    United KingdomAMCC Enterprise Corporation
    
    Delaware3Ware, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaApplied Micro Circuits Corporation (AMCC) Vietnam
    
    Vietnam
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,231

EX PARTE DARRELL WAYNE PARKER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 99009-A IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT 

FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual

assault of a child and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Parker v. State, No. 09-07-00480-CR (Tex. App. – Beaumont, October 15, 2008).

Applicant contends that his counsel retained to file a petition for discretionary review

rendered ineffective assistance because counsel failed to timely file the petition, thereby denying

Applicant his opportunity to seek discretionary review from this Court.
2

Counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court has

entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that counsel failed to timely file Applicant’s petition

for discretionary review. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956

S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity

to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Ninth Court of Appeals

in Cause No. 09-07-00480-CR that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 99009-A from the Criminal

District Court of JeffersonCounty. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the

Ninth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: September 23, 2009

Do not publish