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

[813 NYS2d 313]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered June 18, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s allegedly improper comments during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to raise any objection to the comments at trial *(see People v Anderson,*
      *60224 AD3d 460 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 831 [2006]; *People v Williams,*303 AD2d 772 [2003]). In any event, the challenged remarks either constituted fair comment on the evidence or were permissive responses to the defense counsel’s summation *{see People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; *People v Ingram,*205 AD2d 801 [1994]; *People v Johnson,*154 AD2d 618 [1989]). Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-92,584-01

EX PARTE WILLIE BRADY, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. D-1-DC-15-206960-A IN THE 450 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault/family violence and was sentenced to twentyfive years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a

writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that plea was involuntary because trial counsel failed to inform him of

a plea offer of 15 years, failed to properly inform him of the law regarding enhancements, failed to

challenge the discrepancy between the name of the complainant on the indictment and the name

presented by prosecutors at trial, failed to discuss the law on self-defense, failed to properly

investigate, and failed to inform him that by pleading guilty he was waiving his right to appeal. 
2

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52

(1985); Ex parte Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Accordingly, the record should

be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. In

developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial

court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is

indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him

at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the trial

court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whethertrial counsel’s

performance was deficient and Applicant would have insisted on a trial but for counsel’s alleged

deficient performance. The trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems

appropriate in response to Applicant’s claims.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: May12, 2021

Do not publish
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 1, 2013

t0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

145948

GEORGE R. PAIGE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145948

COA: 304300

Wayne CC: 10-012694-CH

EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY and

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with Warner Chilcott Limiteds Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) for the purpose of complying
with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Roger M. Boissonneault, the Chief Executive Officer and Paul Herendeen, the Chief Financial Officer of Warner Chilcott Limited, each certifies that, to
the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Warner Chilcott Limited.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 11, 2007



/s/ Roger M. BoissonneaultName: Roger M. Boissonneault President &
Chief Executive Officer/s/ Paul HerendeenName: Paul Herendeen Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Otilio Mendez, Appellant.

of”the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered November 9, 1979, affirmed. No opinion. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1

             CONSENTS OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL


James E. Slayton, CPA
3867 West Market Street
Suite 208
Akron, Ohio 44333

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT
Board of Directors
April 10, 2001

Nutek, Inc. (The Company)
Las Vegas, Nevada 89104


To Whom It May Concern:                         April 10, 2001


I James E. Slayton Certified Public Accountant consents to the inclusion of our
report of April , 2001 on the Financial Statements of Nutek Inc., as of December
31, 2000, in any filings that are necessary now or in the near future with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Very Truly yours,

/s/ James E. Slayton
------------------------------------
James E. Slayton, CPA
Certified Public Accountant
Ohio License ID# 04-1-15582
EXHIBIT 32 

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James E. Keenan, as Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael Pungello, as Interim Chief Financial Officer and Interim Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operations of the Company. 

 

|                              |                                                       |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                  |
| /s/ James E. Keenan

   |
| Name:                        | James E. Keenan                                       |
| Title:                       | Interim Chief Executive Officer                       |
| Date:                        | May 2, 2018                                           |
|                         |
| /s/ Michael Pungello

  |
| Name:                        | Michael Pungello                                      |
| Title:                       | Interim Chief Financial Officer and Interim Treasurer |
| Date:                        | May 2, 2018                                           |
97- 740.

#### Tongren v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 96-991-GA-UNC. On motion for leave to intervene of East Ohio Gas Company, motion to consolidate for oral argument with 97-1294, *infra,*and motion to extend time for oral argument. Motions granted and each side shall have twenty minutes.

Douglas, J., would grant the motion for leave to intervene but deny the motions to consolidate and to extend time.

Cook, J., not participating.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

Mr. David K. Paylor 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

629 East Main Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Dear Director Paylor: 

OCT 0 6 2015 

On September 18, 2015 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to 

the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) revising the definition of volatile organic compound (VOC) to add 2-amino-2-methyl-1-

propanol (also known as AMP) to the list of substances not considered to be VOCs. EPA has 

determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing the 

submittal to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking (DFR) action. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Irene Shandruk, Office 

of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-2166 or shandruk.i.rene@epa.gov. She is the principal contact for 

this rulemaking. 

cc: Michael Dowd, Air Division Director 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

Sincerely, 

~ t:::. ~ FDt< 

Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

.,. 

'..~ Printed onlOO% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2005
- 0161 FROM : Scott Christian, Environmental Engineer, OAR/OTAQ/CI SD SUBJEC T: Meeting notes for cellulosic biofuel waiver credits discussion DATE: November 30, 2009 Location : EPA offices Attendees : In person On phone John Weihrauch, EPA David Korotney , EPA Scott Christian , EPA Paul Argy ropoulos , EPA Pascal Dedjinou , EPA Jim Redding , Renewable Fuels Assn Karl Simon, EPA Samantha Slater, Renewable Fuels Assn Loula Merkel, Coskata Amy Eh l ers , BI O Chris Hessler, representing Iogen
We discussed the invitees comments that were provided to the docket on the cellulosic biofuel waiver credits provision
.
Exhibit 10.4 to Department 56, Inc. Form 10-K dated January 1, 2005





EXHIBIT 10.4 




SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE 



This Second Amendment to Lease, dated as of January 23, 2003 (Second
Amendment), between Ryan Rogers, LLC (Landlord) and D56, Inc. (Tenant). 



WITNESSETH, that:  



        WHEREAS, Ryan Companies US,
Inc. (“Ryan”), the predecessor in interest to Landlord, and Tenant have entered into a Lease dated April 14, 1999 (Lease), whereby
Landlord has leased to Tenant certain Premises located at Wilfred Lane North and Commerce Boulevard in the City of Rogers, County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, consisting of the Premises, as such Premises are defined in the Lease; and  



        WHEREAS, Ryan and Tenant have
entered into Lease Amendment One dated April 28, 2000, amending the Lease; and  



        NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and
Tenant desire and intend hereby to further amend the Lease as specifically hereinafter set forth and provided:  



	1.  	  	In Section 5, on the bottom of page 13, in the subsection that
begins with: 






	  	      “The following shall be excluded from Operating Costs:”







	  	Item A. shall be eliminated in its entirety and replaced with the
following: 






	  	      “A. Landlord’s costs and obligations under Section 7.A.” 







        EXCEPT as expressly
amended or supplemented herein, the Lease shall remain as amended by Lease Amendment One, and continue in full force and effect in
all respects.  



        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Second Amendment is hereby executed and delivered effective as of the date and year first above written.  





	LANDLORD:  	   	     Ryan Rogers, LLC 	 
	 
	 	BY:    	     /s/   [NAME ILLEGIBLE] 	 
	 	

	 	   	     Its Manager 	 
	 
	 
	TENANT  	   	     D56, Inc. 	 
	 
	 	BY:    	     /s/   Timothy J. Schugel 	 
	 	

	 	Its:    	     EVP & CFO 	 
	 	




















Consent by Guarantor 





The undersigned, being the guarantor
of the obligations of the Tenant under the Lease described above, does hereby consent to
the foregoing Second Amendment to Lease. 


	    	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Department 56, Inc. 
	 
	 	By:   	 	/s/   Timothy J. Schugel 
	 	

	 	Its:   	EVP & CFO
DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

94-1375.

#### Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Wolosin.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing on July 17,1998, by the Clients’ Security Fund of a motion for order to show cause why respondent should not be found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of April 4,1997. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*that Gary E. Wolosin, Attorney Registration No. 0008072, last known address in Cincinnati, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court's order of April 4, 1997. It is further ordered that this cause be referred to the Office of the Attorney General for collection.
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amalgamated Pictures Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Avery Pack, President, 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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: May 20, 2012

| /s/ Avery Pack                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
| Avery Pack, President and          Chief Executive Officer          (Principal Executive Officer) and          Acting Chief Financial Officer          (Principal Financial Officer and          Principal Accounting Officer) |
Exhibit 21


                            Subsidiary of Registrant


                        Avesis of Washington, D.C., Inc.

                  State of Incorporation: District of Columbia
       Name under which business is done: Avesis of Washington, D.C., Inc.



                         Avesis Reinsurance Incorporated

                         State of Incorporation: Arizona
       Name under which business is done: Avesis Reinsurance Incorporated



                     Avesis Third Party Administrators, Inc.

                         State of Incorporation: Arizona
   Name under which business is done: Avesis Third Party Administrators, Inc.



                            Avesis of New York, Inc.

                        State of Incorporation: New York
           Name under which business is done: Avesis of New York, Inc.



                               AbsoluteCare, Inc.

                        State of Incorporation: Delaware
              Name under which business is done: AbsoluteCare, Inc.
§ 3431.13 Terms of loan repayment and length of service requirements. ( a ) *Loan repayment.* For each year of obligated service in a veterinary shortage situation, as determined by the Secretary, with a minimum of 3 years (and maximum of 4 years) of obligated service, the Secretary may pay: ( 1 ) An amount not exceeding $25,000 per year of a program participant's qualifying loans; and
( 2 ) An additional amount not exceeding $5,000 per year of a program participant's qualifying loans, if the program participant has already been selected for participation in the VMLRP and agrees to enter into a one-year agreement for each year of service to provide up to 60 days of obligated service to the Federal government in animal health emergency situations, as determined by the Secretary, provided the shortage situation in which the participant has agreed to serve has been designated as suitable for the Federal obligated service.
( b ) To maximize the number of agreements and to encourage qualified veterinarians to participate in the VMLRP, the Secretary may establish a loan repayment cap that differs from the cap established under paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section when it is in the best interest of VMLRP. This will be identified in the RFA.
( c ) The Secretary will determine the debt threshold in the RFA.
( d ) Loan repayments will be made directly to the loan provider on a quarterly basis, starting with the end of the first quarter after the program eligibility date of the service agreement. Tax payments equal to 39 percent of the loan repayments will be credited directly to the participant's IRS (Federal tax) account simultaneously with each loan repayment.
( e ) Once a service agreement has been signed by both parties, the Secretary will obligate such funds as will be necessary to ensure that sufficient funds will be available to make loan repayments and tax payments, as specified in the service agreement, for the duration of the period of obligated service. Reimbursements for tax liabilities in excess of the amount provided (not to exceed 39 percent of the amount of loan repayment or any other cap established by the Secretary) will be subject to the availability of funds. These additional tax payments, if available to the VMLRP participants, will be identified in the RFA and in the participant service agreement.
( f ) Participants are required to keep payments current on all qualifying VMLRP loans.
( g ) *Travel expenditures.* The VMLRP will not reimburse a program participant for expenses associated with traveling from the program participant's residence to the prospective practice site for the purpose of evaluating such site or the expenses of relocating from the program participant's temporary or permanent residence to a practice site.
First Amendment to the Amended and Restated 2003 Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 BJ SERVICES COMPANY AMENDED AND RESTATED 2003 INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, BJ Services Company (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the Amended and Restated BJ Services Company 2003 Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain additional respects; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of March 19, 2009: 
  

	1.	Article II, Paragraph 4 shall be amended as follows, effective for Awards made on or after March 19, 2009: 

 “The Committee may, with the consent of the person or persons entitled to exercise any outstanding Option granted under Article II, amend such
Option. The Committee may at any time or from time to time, in its discretion, in the case of any Option previously granted under Article II which is not then immediately exercisable in full, accelerate the time or times at which such Option may be
exercised to any earlier time or times. The Committee may only accelerate such Options under this provision in an amount not to exceed 5% of the total shares authorized under the Plan.” 
  

	2.	Article III, Paragraph 4 shall be amended as follows, effective for Awards made on or after March 19, 2009: 

 “The Committee may, with the consent of the person or persons entitled to exercise any outstanding Incentive Stock Option granted under Article III,
amend such Incentive Stock Option. The Committee may at any time or from time to time, in its discretion, in the case of any Incentive Stock Option previously granted under Article III which is not then immediately exercisable in full, accelerate
the time or times at which such Incentive Stock Option may be exercised to any earlier time or times. The Committee may only accelerate such Incentive Stock Options under this provision in an amount not to exceed 5% of the total shares authorized
under the Plan.” 
  

	3.	As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.