alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 7, 2016 D-42-16 

 

In the Matter of ATTORNEYS IN

VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW

§ 468-a.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STANDARDS, ON MOTION

Petitioner;

HASAN TUVAN YALIM,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 4347399)

 

Calendar Date: February 22, 2016

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.

 

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,

Albany, for petitioner.

Hasan Tuvan Yalim, Istanbul, Turkey, respondent pro se.

 

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in

2005, was suspended by this Court's order dated January 30, 2014

for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements

of Judiciary Law § 468-a (113 AD3d 1020 [2014]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he

has complied with the attorney registration requirements of

Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of

the Courts (see 22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object
-2- D-42-16 

to respondent's application.

Respondent's application is granted and he is ordered

reinstated, effective immediately.

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Clark, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that respondent's application is granted; and it is

further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and

counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 145

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Concerning the removal of Russian Armed Forces

from Moldova.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 145

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the United States Government has recognized and

continues to emphasize its commitment to the independence and territorial integrity of the sovereign nation of

Moldova;

Whereas units of the former Soviet 14th Army of the Russian

Federation continue to be deployed on the territory of the

sovereign nation of Moldova against the wishes of the

government and the majority of the people of Moldova;
2

•HCON 145 EH

Whereas the Prime Minister of Russia and the Prime Minister of Moldova signed an agreement on October 21,

1994, according to which Russia would withdraw its military forces from Moldova within three years;

Whereas in the period since the agreement was signed, there

have been negligible force reductions of the Russian

Army in Moldova;

Whereas the Organization on Security and Cooperation in

Europe has been engaged in efforts to resolve differences

between the Government of Moldova and the authorities

of the Transdniestria region where the Russian Army

continues to be deployed, and the Government of Ukraine

has offered to use its good offices to assist in these efforts; and

Whereas the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization on

Security and Cooperation in Europe has passed a resolution calling for the ‘‘most rapid, continuing, unconditional, and full withdrawal’’ of the 14th Army of the Russian Federation: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) calls upon the Government of the Russian

4 Federation to adhere to the provisions of the troop

5 withdrawal agreement signed on October 21, 1994;

6 (2) welcomes recent statements by the Adminis7 tration supporting Moldova’s territorial integrity,

8 and urges the Secretary of State to use every appro9 priate opportunity and means, including multilateral

10 and bilateral diplomacy, to secure removal of Rus-
3

•HCON 145 EH

1 sian military forces from Moldova in accordance with

2 the terms of the troop withdrawal agreement;

3 (3) urges all of Moldova’s neighboring countries

4 to recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity

5 of Moldova; and

6 (4) urges the Organization for Security and Co7 operation in Europe to continue its efforts in resolv8 ing differences between the government of Moldova

9 and the authorities of the Transdniestria region, and

10 welcomes the offer by the Government of Ukraine to

11 assist in these efforts.

Passed the House of Representatives September 26,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements for the six-month period ended June
30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                       398
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,221
<PP&E>                                          47,705
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,567
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,902
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,587
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   102
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 718
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    491
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                491
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       491
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
§ 1.59A-10 Applicability date. ( a ) *General applicability date.* Sections 1.59A-1 through 1.59A-9, other than the provisions described in the first sentence of paragraph (b) of this section, apply to taxable years ending on or after December 17, 2018. However, taxpayers may apply these regulations in their entirety for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and ending before December 17, 2018. In lieu of applying the regulations referred to in the first sentence of this paragraph, taxpayers may apply the provisions matching §§ 1.59A-1 through 1.59A-9 from the Internal Revenue Bulletin (IRB) 2019-02 (*https://www.irs.gov/irb/2019-02_IRB*) in their entirety for all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and ending on or before December 6, 2019.
( b ) *Exception.* Sections 1.59A-2(c)(2)(ii) and (c)(4) through (6), 1.59A-3(b)(3)(iii)(C), 1.59A-3(c)(5) and (6), and 1.59A-9(b)(4) apply to taxable years beginning on or after October 9, 2020, and §§ 1.59A-7(c)(5)(v) and 1.59A-9(b)(5) and (6) apply to taxable years ending on or after December 2, 2019. Taxpayers may apply those regulations in their entirety for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before their applicability date, provided that, once applied, taxpayers must continue to apply them in their entirety for all subsequent taxable years. Alternatively, taxpayers may apply only § 1.59A-3(c)(5) and (6) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before their applicability date, provided that, once applied, taxpayers must continue to apply § 1.59A-3(c)(5) and (6) in their entirety for all subsequent taxable years.
[T.D. 9910, 85 FR 64368, Oct. 9, 2020]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50199 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE SANTOS LOZANO-GUTIERREZ, ALSO KNOWN AS Santos Lozano, also known as Santos Lozano Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-99-CR-453-1-HG

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Santos Lozano-Gutierrez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after having been previously deported. His sentence was enhanced because his prior deportation occurred following a felony conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). For the first time on appeal, Lozano-Gutierrez argues that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362 (2000), the indictment in his case was deficient because it failed toNo. 00-50199 -2- allege that his prior deportation followed a conviction for an aggravated felony under § 1326(b). Lozano-Gutierrez’s argument is without merit given the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The Court in Apprendi did not overrule its holding in Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 120 S. Ct. at 2362- 63. Lozano-Gutierrez’s guilty-plea conviction is therefore
AFFIRMED.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 4, 2010

Decided November 23, 2010

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD

, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 10

‐ 1003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

ISAIAH SMITH,

Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 08

‐ CR

‐ 89

Lynn Adelman,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Isaiah Smith, a member of the Milwaukee street gang “Solid Over Concrete,” was

arrested after selling an informant 55 grams of crack for $1,700 during a police sting. Smith

was turned over to federal authorities and pleaded guilty to distributing crack. See 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). The district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment,

which at that time was the mandatory minimum for crack offenses involving 50 or more

grams. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2006).

Smith filed a notice to appeal, but his appointed counsel has concluded that the

appeal is frivolous and seeks permission to withdraw. See Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 10

‐ 1003 Page 2

(1967). Smith did not respond to our invitation to comment on counsel ʹ s motion. See C IR .R.

51(b). Because counsel’s supporting brief is facially adequate, we limit our review to the

one potential issue counsel discusses. See United States v. Schuh

, 289 F.3d 968, 973

‐ 74 (7th

Cir. 2002).

According to counsel, Smith does not want his guilty plea vacated. Thus counsel

appropriately omits discussion about the adequacy of the plea colloquy and the

voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2002).

Counsel evaluates only one potential argument: whether Smith could challenge the

reasonableness of his prison term. At sentencing the district court properly calculated a

guidelines imprisonment range of 120 to 150 months and imposed the 120

‐ month statutory

minimum. There are two exceptions permitting a district court to sentence below a

statutory minimum, but neither applied to Smith: the government did not move for a

reduced sentence based on substantial assistance, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), and Smith’s ten

criminal history points made him ineligible for “safety valve” relief, s ee id. § 3553(f);

see also United States v. Forman

, 553 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Simpson

, 337

F.3d 905, 909 (7th Cir. 2003). Because the district court was constrained from sentencing

Smith to anything less than the statutory minimum, we agree with counsel that a challenge

to the prison term would be frivolous.

Counsel ʹ s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
#### § 1.613-3 Gross income from the property.

*Oil and gas wells.* In the case of oil and gas wells, *gross income from the property,* as used in section 613(c)(1), means the amount for which the taxpayer sells the oil or gas in the immediate vicinity of the well. If the oil or gas is not sold on the premises but is manufactured or converted into a refined product prior to sale, or is transported from the premises prior to sale, the gross income from the property shall be assumed to be equivalent to the representative market or filed price of the oil or gas before conversion or transportation.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11737, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6965, 33 FR 10692, July 26, 1968; T.D. 8474, 58 FR 25557, Apr. 27, 1993]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LAW OFFICE OF KRUG, §

§ No. 106, 2019

Defendant

- Below, §

Appellant/Cross

- Appellee, § Court Below:

§ Court of Chancery

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

A&J CAPITAL, INC., § C.A. No. 2018

- 0240

- JRS

§

Plaintiff

- Below, §

Appellee/Cross

- Appellant. §

Submitted: October 30, 2019

Decided: November 1 , 2019

Before VALIHURA , Acting Chief Justice; * SEITZ and TRAYNOR , Justices.

O R D E R

This 1st day of November 2019, the co urt having considered this matter on the briefs

and oral arguments of the parties and the record below and having concluded that the same

should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Court of Chancery

in its Memorandum Opinion dat ed January 29, 2019 and its Final Order and Judgment

dated February 8, 2019 ;

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery

be and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Acting Chief Justice

* Pursuant to Del. Const. Art. IV §§ 2, 13.
#### Harry Kershaw, Jr. *v.*Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

*David M. Reilly, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

Submitted July 22

decided September 18, 1963

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
EE-RM-TP-99-470 COMMENT 01A
#### § 1.661(c)-1 Limitation on deduction.

An estate or trust is not allowed a deduction under section 661(a) for any amount which is treated under section 661(b) as consisting of any item of distributable net income which is not included in the gross income of the estate or trust. For example, if in 1962, a trust, which reports on the calendar year basis, has distributable net income of $20,000, which is deemed to consist of $10,000 of dividends and $10,000 of tax-exempt interest, and distributes $10,000 to beneficiary A, the deduction allowable under section 661(a) (computed without regard to section 661(c)) would amount to $10,000 consisting of $5,000 of dividends and $5,000 of tax-exempt interest. The deduction actually allowable under section 661(a) as limited by section 661(c) is $4,975, since no deduction is allowable for the $5,000 of tax-exempt interest and the $25 deemed distributed out of the $50 of dividends excluded under section 116, items of distributable net income which are not included in the gross income of the estate or trust.

[T.D. 6777, 29 FR 17809, Dec. 16, 1964]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7721
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TAWAYNE DEVONE LOVE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:03-cr-00187-1) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 10, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tawayne Devone Love, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tawayne Devone Love appeals the denial of his motion to reconsider the district court’s order denying various motions filed in his criminal proceeding. As noted by the district court, the relief Love seeks must be filed in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Love , No. 2:03-cr-00187-1 (S.D.W. Va. filed Oct. 10, 2007, entered Oct. 11, 2007). We deny Love’s motion for summary disposition and 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
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133054 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133054 

 COA: 273734 

Jackson CC: 05-006863-FH 

WALTER JAMES KYES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 7, 2006 

order 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 24, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 31.3
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Neenah Foundry Company pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or
Rule 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Neenah Foundry Company;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, 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 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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the
case of an 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 officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Robert E. Ostendorf, Jr.Robert E. Ostendorf, Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
STEPHEN ANTHONY HENR Y, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. PR ISON M EDIC AL PR OVIDER S OF C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR TM ENT OF C ORREC TION AND REHAB ILITATION; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16516 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00201-C RB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 25, 2015 ** B e fore : M c KEOW

N , C LIFTON, a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s. Ste phe n Anthony He nry , a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing de libe ra t e indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 

# FIL ED SEP 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo, Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir. 2004), a

nd we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use He nry

fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts we re de libe ra t e ly

indiffe re nt by

de l ay ing his re fe rra l to a

n e ar, nose and throa

t spe c ia list. Se e id. at 1057-60 (a

prison offic ia l a c t s with de l ibe rat e indiffe re n c e only if he or she knows of a

nd disre ga

rds a n e xc e ssive risk to theprisone r’ s he a lth; ne glige nc e and a m e re diffe re nc e in m e dic a l opinion a re insuffic ie nt); Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 746 (9th C ir. 2002) (whe re the prisone r is a lle ging tha t de la y of m e dic a l tre atm e n t e vinc e s de libe rate indiffe re nc e , the prisone r m ust show tha

t the de la y le d to furthe r injury ). AFFIRM E D.

1 4
- 1 6 5 1 6 2
#### Loring J. Whiteside *v.*William T. Burlant, Sheriff

*Loring J. Whiteside,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

*George B. Tiernan,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (defendant).

Argued October 4

decided October *4,*1963

The motion of the plaintiff to modify or vacate orders denying his motion to cite in a further party defendant is not properly before this court and will not be considered.