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

[814 NYS2d 813]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court (Smith, J.), rendered January 10, 2005 in Broome County, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant was convicted in 1999 of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced to four months of intermittent incarceration and five *1175years of probation. In July 2000, he was charged with violating the terms of his probation, but after he admitted to the violation his probation was restored. At that time, County Court warned defendant that he would be sentenced to serve time in prison if he committed a further violation. In August 2004, defendant was charged with a second probation violation based upon his arrest for rape in the first degree and a positive drug test. He admitted to violating his probation by testing positive for drug use. Consequently, County Court revoked defendant’s probation and resentenced him to 2 to 6 years in prison. He now appeals.

We find no merit to defendant’s claim that the sentence imposed by County Court is harsh and excessive. Defendant has a lengthy criminal record and was specifically informed by County Court at the time of his first probation violation that any further violation would result in a significant period of incarceration. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, we do not find that the dismissal of the rape charge constitutes an extraordinary circumstance warranting a reduction of the sentence nor do we find that County Court abused its discretion in the sentence it imposed *(see People v Johnson,*20 AD3d 591, 592 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 807 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000761895
<NAME>     StarTronix International Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>     1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               56500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5259563
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                    650
<COMMON>                                     47216
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 56500
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               130484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (130484)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (137984)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (137984)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
Order entered June 27, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00278-CV

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V.

MILLWEE-JACKSON JOINT VENTURE, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 04-07287-E

ORDER

We GRANT appellees’ June 25, 2013 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file 

a brief. Appellees shall file their brief on or before July 5, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
[ DO NOT PUBLISH ]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 10562

________________________ D.C. Docket No s . 1:11

- cv - 00102

- JRH

- WLB ; 1:09

- cr - 00171

- JRH

- WLB

- 1

JEREMY ALFONZIE JONES, Petitioner

- Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from th e United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________ (November 13, 2014) Case: 12-10562 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 Page: 1 of 32 Before TJOFLAT and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and SCOLA, ∗ District Judge. PER CURIAM: On October 14, 2014, the United States Department of Justice issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors regarding the enforcement of appeal waivers in which defendants waive claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal and/or collateral attack. See Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General, to All Federal Prosecutors (Oct. 14, 2014), available at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/DOJ_Ineffective_Assistance_Counsel.pdf (“For cases in which a defendant’s ineffective assistance claim would be barred by a previously executed waiver, prosecutors sho uld decline to enforce the waiver when defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance resulting in prejudice or when the defendant’s ineffective assistance claim raises a serious debatable issue that a court should resolve.”). In light of this new policy , and in response to our directive asking the United States Attorney to address its impact on the instant case, the Government has withdrawn its reliance on Jeremey Jones’s collateral

- attack waiver.

∗ Honorable Robert N. Scola, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 12-10562 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 Page: 2 of 33 As a result, the judgment of the District Court is VACA TED and the case is REMANDED to the District Court with the instruction to afford Jones an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective

- assistance

- of

- counsel claim. VACATED and REMANDED , with instruction
. Case: 12-10562 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 Page: 3 of 3
#### § 966.123 Denial and appeal.

The committee may rescind a Certificate of Privilege issued to a handler, or deny a Certificate of Privilege to a handler, upon proof satisfactory to such committee, that such handler has shipped tomatoes contrary to the provisions of this part. Such committee action denying a Certificate of Privilege shall apply to and not exceed a reasonable period of time as determined by such committee. Any handler who has been denied a Certificate of Privilege, or who has had a Certificate of Privilege rescinded, may appeal to the committee for reconsideration. Such appeal shall be in writing.
# Subpart 5230.2 - CAS PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

**Parent topic:**Part 5230 - COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION

## 5230.201 Contract requirements.

### 5230.201-5 Waiver.

 (b) and (d) Submit waiver requests to DASN(P) at          least 60 days prior to anticipated contract award by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] DFARS 230.201-5 – CAS Waiver Request.” Include the estimated date of          contract award. 

 (e) Submit reports via DASN(P) no later than          November 15 by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] DFARS 230.201-5(e) – Granted CAS Waivers Report.”

## 5230.202 Disclosure requirements.

### 5230.202-2 Impracticability of submission.

 Submit requests for impracticability          determinations to DASN(P) at least 60 days prior to anticipated contract award by email at             usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] DFARS 230.202-2 – Impracticability Determination.” Include the estimated          date of contract award.
#### § 966.86 Effect of termination or amendment.

Unless otherwise expressly provided by the Secretary, the termination of this subpart or of any regulation issued pursuant to this subpart, or the issuance of any amendments to either thereof, shall not (a) affect or waive any right, duty, obligation, or liability which shall have arisen or which may thereafter arise in connection with any provision of this subpart or any regulation issued under this subpart, or (b) release or extinguish any violation of this subpart or of any regulations issued under this subpart, or (c) affect or impair any rights or remedies of the Secretary or of any other person with respect to any such violations.
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 52 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:06-cv-00715-MHT-TFM Document 52 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 5 of 5
§ 900.113 Submission. ( a ) ( 1 ) Within a reasonable time after the receipt of the Administrator's consent to arbitrate, the parties to the dispute shall file with the Administrator a formal submission, which shall contain the following information: ( i ) Names in full of the parties;
( ii ) Addresses of the parties to whom all notifications and communications concerning the arbitration shall be sent;
( iii ) Description of the organization and businesses of all parties to the dispute, including sufficient information to show that the cooperative is a bona fide one, and that the parties are engaged in activities in the current of interstate or foreign commerce;
( iv ) Concise statement of the specific questions submitted and a brief outline of the contentions of each party to the dispute, and a statement as to the period of time during which the award shall be in effect, said period to be not less than thirty days from the effective date of the award;
( v ) Name of arbitrator;
( vi ) Time and place of arbitration, including street address;
( vii ) Stipulation by the parties that they will produce any books, records, and correspondence required by the arbitrator as being necessary to a fair determination of the dispute;
( viii ) Agreement by the parties that they will consider the award as final and will comply therewith;
( ix ) Stipulation by the parties that arbitration is to take place under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary, and that any such rules and regulations pertaining to mediation and arbitration shall be considered a part of the submission;
( x ) Stipulation that a stenographic report of the proceedings must be made.
( 2 ) The submission shall be signed by each party before a notary public, and when the signature is that of an agent of a corporation or cooperative association, the same shall be accompanied by evidence of the authority to sign.
( 3 ) A submission may be withdrawn at any time before the award, and any question held by the arbitrator to be a separable question may be withdrawn before award by agreement of all parties. When any question is so withdrawn, the parties shall file with the arbitrator the agreement on that question reached by the parties, showing all the details thereof, and the arbitrator shall include it in the record of the arbitration.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### § 920.40 Expenses.

The committee is authorized to incur such expenses as the Secretary finds are reasonable and likely to be incurred by the committee for its maintenance and functioning and to enable it to exercise its powers and perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of this part. The funds to cover such expenses shall be acquired in the manner prescribed in § 920.41.
kmg-ex102_148.htm



Exhibit 10.2

 

Amendment No. 1 to the

KMG Chemicals, Inc.

2016 Long Term Incentive Plan

 

 

The following constitutes Amendment No. 1 to the KMG Chemicals, Inc. 2016 Long Term Incentive Plan originally effective as of November 30, 2015 (the “Plan”) adopted in accordance with Section 8.7 of the Plan.

 

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2017, the Board of Directors of KMG Chemicals, Inc. (the “Company”) approved increasing the number of shares issuable under the Plan by 250,000 shares of common stock of the Company (the “Share Increase”);

 

WHEREAS, at the annual meeting of the shareholders of the Company on December 5, 2017, the shareholders approved the Share Increase;

 

NOW, THEREFORE:

 

Effective as of December 5, 2017, the first sentence of Section 1.4 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:

 

“Subject to adjustment under Section 7.6, there shall be available for Incentive Awards that are granted wholly or partly in Common Stock (including rights or Stock Options that may be exercised for or settled in Common Stock) Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand (750,000) Shares of Common Stock.”   

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 1 to the Plan to be duly executed in its name and on its behalf by its duly authorized officer, on this 23rd day of February, 2018.


		
	
 

ATTEST:

 

 

By:  /s/ Roger C. Jackson

 

Name:  Roger C. Jackson

 

Title:  Vice President & General Counsel

 

 
	
 

KMG Chemicals, Inc.

 

 

By:  /s/ Christopher T. Fraser

 

Name:  Christopher T. Fraser

 

Title:  President & Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Community Financial Corporation, (the Company) for the period ended September
30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James R. McLaughlin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the
operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                                     
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ James R. McLaughlin             
|                        |  |     |  | James R. McLaughlin, President & CEO



22
§ 97.14 Joint applicants. ( a ) Joint owners shall file a joint application by signing as joint applicants.
( b ) If an application for certificate is made by two or more persons as joint owners, when they were not in fact joint owners, the application shall be amended prior to issuance of a certificate by filing a corrected application, together with a written explanation signed by the original applicants. Such statement shall also be signed by the assignee, if any.
( c ) If an application has been made by less than all the actual joint owners, the application shall be amended by filing a corrected application, together with a written explanation, signed by all of the joint owners. Such statement shall also be signed by the assignee, if any.
( d ) If a joint owner refuses to join in an application or cannot be found after diligent effort, the remaining owner may file an application on behalf of him or herself and the missing owner. Such application shall be accompanied by a written explanation and shall state the last known address of the missing owner. Notice of the filing of the application shall be forwarded by the Office to the missing owner at the last known address. If such notice is returned to the Office undelivered, or if the address of the missing owner is unknown, notice of the filing of the application shall be published once on the Plant Variety Protection Office website (*https://www.ams.usda.gov/PVPO*). Prior to the issuance of the certificate, a missing owner may join in an application by filing a written explanation. A certificate obtained by fewer than all of the joint owners under this paragraph conveys the same rights and privileges to said owners as though all of the original owners had joined in an application.
[58 FR 42435, Aug. 9, 1993, as amended at 85 FR 431, Jan. 6, 2020]
§ 981.38 Powers. The Board shall have the following powers: ( a ) To administer the provisions of this part in accordance with its terms;
( b ) To make rules and regulations to effectuate the terms and provisions of this part;
( c ) To receive, investigate and report to the Secretary complaints of violations of this part; and
( d ) To recommend to the Secretary amendments to this part.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Community Financial Corporation, (the
Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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. To my knowledge, the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |     |  |                                            
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard R. Leitzel                     
|                   |  |     |  | Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 959.51 Recommendations for regulations.

Upon complying with the requirements of § 959.50 the committee may recommend regulations to the Secretary whenever it finds that such regulations as are provided for in this subpart will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act.
APPENDIX C  - RESERVED Table Of          Contents           **Parent topic:** Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No: 5:88cr5040/RV 

 5:10cv284/RV/EMT

KUNTA MUWWAKILL,

____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated August 4, 2011 (doc. 299). The parties have been furnished a copy of the

Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely

filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by 

reference in this order.

2. The Government’s motion to dismiss (doc. 296) is GRANTED, and Defendant’s

amended motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 293), is DENIED and DISMISSED,

as this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion absent permission from the Eleventh

Circuit.

3. Defendant’s alternative motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (doc. 298) is DENIED

without prejudice to its refiling when and if Amendment 750 takes effect. 

Case 5:88-cr-05040-RV-EMT Document 300 Filed 09/20/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2011.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 5:88cr5040/RV & 5:10cv284/RV/EMT

Case 5:88-cr-05040-RV-EMT Document 300 Filed 09/20/11 Page 2 of 2
158 So.2d 612

#### William H. LINDSEY v. MICHIGAN MUTUAL LIABILITY COMPANY and Dr. Malter A. Salatich.

No. 47001.

Dec. 16, 1963.

In re: William H. Lindsey applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 156 So.2d 313.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.330 Guarantee fee.

In cases of Leveraged Applications, the Applicant must pay to the Agency an issuance fee for each grant or debenture guarantee. The Agency may charge such fees as the Agency considers appropriate, so long as those fees are proportionally equal for each rural business investment company, with respect to any guarantee or grant issued under this subchapter.

[85 FR 16523, Mar. 24, 2020]
# 52.246-14 Inspection of Transportation.

As prescribed in 46.314, insert the following clause in *solicitations* and contracts for *freight* transportation services (including local drayage) by rail, motor (including bus), domestic *freight* forwarder, and domestic water carriers (including inland, coastwise, and intercoastal). The *contracting officer**shall* not use the clause for the *acquisition* of transportation services by domestic or international air carriers or by international ocean carriers, or to *freight* services provided under bills of lading or to those negotiated for reduced rates under 49 U.S.C.10721or 1 3712. (See part  47, Transportation.)

*Inspection* of Transportation (Apr 1984)

The Government has the right to inspect and test the Contractor’s services, facilities, and equipment at all reasonable times. The Contractor *shall* furnish Government representatives with the free access and reasonable facilities and assistance required to accomplish their *inspections* and tests.

(End of clause)

**Parent topic:**52.246 [Reserved]