alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**99 KA 11-01945** 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRENT NELSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Jeffrey R. Merrill, A.J.), rendered September 20, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law by vacating the amount of restitution ordered and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Onondaga County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [5]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the incarceration component of the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Although defendant’s contention with respect to the restitution component of the sentence is not properly before us ( see People v
Lawson [appeal No. 7], ___ AD3d ___, ___ [Jan. 2, 2015]; see generally People v Callahan , 80 NY2d 273, 281), we nevertheless exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Upon that review, we agree with defendant that “the record ‘does not contain sufficient evidence to establish the amount [of restitution to be imposed]’ ” ( Lawson , ___ AD3d at ___). We thus conclude that County Court “ ‘erred in determining the amount of restitution without holding a hearing’ ” ( id. ). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the amount of restitution ordered, and we remit the matter to County Court for a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to be paid by defendant.

Entered: February 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
----

**Citizens        Financial Corp.**

**Certification        Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley **

**Act        of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

| 1. | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the company for the quarterly                  period                  ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission                  on the date hereof (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                  the                  company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | 8/8/06 |   | /s/                  Thomas K. Derbyshire    |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   | Thomas                  K. Derbyshire        |
|   |   |   | Vice                  President, Treasurer   |
|   |   |   | Principal                  Financial Officer |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0511

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRADLEY ALAN STOKES,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 7, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 3 2022

08/03/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0511
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133685 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133685 

 COA: 263429 

Wayne CC: 04-007133-01

KHALIL TALAL CHAHINE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27, 2007 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0416 

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. 

April 23, 2008 

 Clerk
- 1 -

Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

June 4, 2014

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc.

For MSP-ZLO Service

Dockets DOT-OST-2014-0094

Dear Mr. Kruger:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

 Bob Finamore, DOT

 info@airlineinfo.com
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50434

Conference Calendar

 

KEVIN DEWAYNE GRANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RANDALL BRUTON,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CV-147

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kevin Dewayne Grant, #441812, an inmate of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, moves for leave to appeal in

forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s grant of the

defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Because his

appeal fails to present a nonfrivolous issue, the motion for IFP

is DENIED. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Grant’s motion for a copy of
No. 96-50434

- 2 -

his trial transcript at Government expense is also DENIED. The

appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution appellant

that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite

the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, appellant is

further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
#### § 110.102 Hearing docket.

For each hearing, the Secretary will maintain a docket which will include the hearing transcript, exhibits and all papers filed or issued pursuant to the hearing.
#### Jack Notrica et al., Appellants, v North Hills Holding Company, LLC, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 167]

In an action, inter alia, in effect, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), dated September 23, 2004, as granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action and so much of the fifth cause of action as sought to recover interest in the sum of $32,591.35.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action as sought to recover interest in the sum of $32,591.35, and substituting therefor a provision denying in its entirety that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it constructed the residence which is the subject of this dispute in accordance with the terms of the contract and the filed building plans. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment *656dismissing the first cause of action *(see Trinity Petroleum Sys. v Wenger Contr. Co.,*270 AD2d 251 [2000]; *see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

In response to the defendant’s showing of its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing so much of the fifth cause of action as sought to recover interest in the sum of $32,591.35, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether they were entitled to so recover *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra*at 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied in its entirety that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the fifth cause of action.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Miller, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 68 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 68 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 68 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 68 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 68 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 68 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 6 of 6
Order entered July 24, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00845-CR

CARLOS NAVARRO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-59312-X

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On May 7, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the 

appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel; (3) in working on 

the brief, counsel determined that the records of two pretrial hearings had not been filed; (4) the 

trial court determined that the missing pretrial hearings were conducted on February 25, 2013 

and May 31, 2013; (5) counsel had filed a request on June 20, 2013 seeking preparation of the 

reporter’s record, including all pretrial hearings; (6) Kelly Simmons is the court reporter who 

recorded the February 25, 2013 and May 31, 2013 hearings; (7) Ms. Simmons indicated that 

once she “locates” the hearings in her files, it should take no more than two weeks to prepare and 
file the records; (8) the court recommended that Ms. Simmons be granted twenty days from the 

July 15, 2014 hearing to file the supplemental records; and (9) the court recommended that 

counsel be given an additional fifteen days after the supplemental records are filed to file 

appellant’s brief.

We ORDER court reporter Kelly Simmons to file the reporter’s records of the February 

25, 2013 and May 31, 2013 within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of the date of this order.

We DENY as moot appellant’s July 9, 2014 motion to supplement the record and hold 

the briefing schedule in abeyance.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief within FORTY-FIVE DAYS of the date of this 

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to court 

reporter Kelly Simmons, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Subpart 644.3—Contractors' Purchasing

Systems Reviews

Parent topic: PART 644—SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

644.302 Requirements.

(a) The Procurement Executive is the head of the agency for the purpose of FAR 44.302(a).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. )

)

JOSEPH LEE STRINGER ) CR. NO. 2:06cr203-MHT

O R D E R

The defendant by consent has appeared before a United States Magistrate Judge and has entered

a plea of guilty. The Magistrate Judge has accepted the plea of guilty and has adjudicated the defendant

guilty. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. That sentencing of the defendant be, and the same is, hereby set on January 31, 2007, at 10:00

a.m. in the Frank M.Johnson,Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery,

Alabama.

2. That in accordance with Rule 32(f)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, on or before

January 10, 2007, counsel for the defendant and the Government shall communicate in writing to the

probation officer, and to each other, any objections they have as to any material information, sentencing

classifications, sentencing guideline ranges, and policy statements contained in or omitted from the

presentence report.

3. That, unless excused in writing by the Chief U.S. Probation Officer of this district, counsel

for the parties shall be available for a conference with the probation officer on January 17, 2007, at 9:00

a.m., to discuss and resolve, if possible, factual and legal issues contained in the presentence report. If

the probation officer determines or if any of the parties request that a personal meeting be held to resolve

the issues, such meeting shall be at the U.S. Probation Office, One Church Street, Montgomery, AL,

on the above date and time. Such request for a personal conference shall be made to the probation officer

within five (5) calendar days after receipt of the presentence report. Otherwise, the conference shall be

held telephonically. Any motion for downward departure shall be filed on or before the conference date

with the probation officer, unless based on unknown and unforseen circumstances arising after that date,

in which case the motion must be filed promptly upon discovery of such circumstances.

Nothing contained in this Order shall be construed as impairing the rights of any party as

established in the Constitution or laws of the United States.

DONE this 25th day of October , 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00203-MHT-CSC Document 20 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
FINAL January 10, 2002 Page of INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Case Number: P020161 Assessor: Bangs ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites: Release Activity: Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) Release Days/yr: Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) Remarks:INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page of CASE NUMBER:P020161INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page of CASE NUMBER: P020161INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page of CASE NUMBER:P020161Page of INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT

Case Number: P020161 Assessor: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: 2 Number of Release Sites: Release Activity: Release Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) Release Days/yr: Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) Remarks:INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page of CASE NUMBER:P020161INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page of CASE NUMBER: P020161
pwc
 Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 To the
Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.: 
We
have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Report on Assessment of 
Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan
Services, a division of PNC Bank, 
National
Association ("Midland" or the "Company") complied with the servicing
criteria set forth in 
Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
for the commercial 
mortgage-backed securities transactions (the "Platform"), as of
December 31, 2013 and for the year 
then
ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i)(B),
1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 
1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv),
which the Company has determined 
are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with
respect to the Platform. Management 
is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.
Our responsibility is to express 
an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination. 
Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of
the Public Company 
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, 
evidence
about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria
and performing such 
other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our
examination included testing 
of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the
Platform, testing of selected 
servicing
activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company
processed those 
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in
compliance with the applicable 
servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities 
performed
by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures
were not 
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have
occurred prior to or subsequent to 
our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or
reported by the Company during 
the
period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides
a reasonable basis for our 
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with 
the servicing criteria. 
In our
opinion, management's assertion that Midland complied with the
aforementioned applicable 
servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 for
the Platform is fairly stated, in all 
material
respects. 
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 
February
24, 2014
  PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, 1100 Walnut, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106 
T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890, www.pwc.com/us
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7030

MAMADOU BAILO DIALLO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MELANIE PERREIRA, Director of Howard County

Detention Center; CALVIN MCCORMICK, District

Director of Homeland Security and bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DOUGLAS

RIPPE, Supervisor of DHS/BICE Field Detention

of Baltimore,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(8:07-cv-00348-AW)

Submitted: December 19, 2007 Decided: January 8, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mamadou Bailo Diallo, Appellant Pro Se. George William Maugans,

III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mamadou Bailo Diallo appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Diallo v.

Perreira, No. 8:07-cv-00348-AW (D. Md. June 29, 2007). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 12 Filed 08/03/2006 Page 1 of 1
Subpart 1913.5 - Purchase Orders

Parent topic: PART 1913 - SMALL PURCHASES AND OTHER SIMPLIFIED PURCHASE

PROCEDURES

1913.505 Purchase order and related forms.

1913.505-2 Board order forms in lieu of Optional and

Standard Forms.

(a) Optional Forms 347 and 348 shall be used as prescribed in FAR 13.505 unless an equivalent form

has been authorized for use by the Board Procurement Executive (or Designee). Exceptions may be

granted, on a case-by-case basis, in order to accommodate computer-generated purchase order

forms. Exception approval for over printing (FAR 53.104) is not needed.

(b) The Broadcasting Board of Governors Form IA-44 (see 1953.370-44) is authorized for use when

obtaining nonpersonal services on an intermittent basis for such services as script writers,

translators, narrators, etc.