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

[803 NYS2d 448]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chenango County (Sullivan, J.), rendered September 5, 2003, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree in satisfaction of a 12-count indictment and was sentenced to 10 years probation. County Court thereafter found that defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation, whereupon defendant’s probation was revoked and a sentence of lVs to 4 years in prison was imposed. On appeal, defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Our review of the record and defense counsel’s brief, however, reveals potential nonfrivolous issues of “arguable merit” *(People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]), including whether there was sufficient evidence warranting the revocation of defendant’s probation. Furthermore, we note that defendant’s original waiver of the right to appeal does not preclude a challenge to the sentence imposed following the revocation of his probation *(see People v Venable,*16 AD3d 771 [2005]; *People v Rowland,*11 AD3d 825 [2004]). Accordingly, we will grant defense counsel’s application to be relieved of his assignment and will assign new counsel to represent defendant on appeal to raise any issues that the record may reveal *(see People v Stokes, supra; People v Cruwys, supra).*

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.
#### §§ 1030.310-1030.315 [Reserved]
#### § 1022.200 General.

Money services businesses are subject to the program requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Money services businesses should also refer to subpart B of part 1010 of this chapter for program requirements contained in that subpart which apply to money services businesses.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of ASV Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2018 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, 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 financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: April 11, 2019 |   | By:    | /s/ Melissa How    |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   |   | Melissa How             |
|                 |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy Fick’s Travel to the Internet Governance Forum in Kyoto, Japan

# 									Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy Fick’s Travel to the Internet Governance Forum in Kyoto, Japan							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

October 5, 2023

Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy Nathaniel C. Fick and colleagues will travel to Kyoto, Japan for the UN’s 18th annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) from October 8 to 12, 2023.  The United States strongly supports the IGF as the preeminent global venue for bringing together stakeholders through a bottom-up process to discuss solutions to Internet-related public policy issues that are rights-respecting, innovative, and empowering.

The United States supports a global multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance that builds capacity for meaningful global connectivity and provides technical assistance and funding support for an inclusive, human-centric, and sustainable Internet.  The IGF is an opportunity to advance U.S. priorities and values on a broad range of digital policy issues and listen to the views and priorities of other stakeholders from around the world.  Ambassador Fick will meet with a range of partners to discuss how to take advantage of opportunities in the digital age while also mitigating risks.

Questions about the trip can be sent to CDP-Press@state.gov.  

​Follow the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy on LinkedIn and Twitter (@StateCDP) for more.

Tags

Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital PolicyBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsJapanOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International Travel

Back to Top
§ 58.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund. ( a ) *In general.* Each stock repurchase excise tax return required by § 58.6011-1(a) or claim for refund of tax under chapter 37 of the Internal Revenue Code prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers (as defined in § 301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter) must include the identifying number of the preparer required by § 1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the stock repurchase excise tax return or claim for refund in the manner stated in § 1.6109-2 of this chapter.
( b ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to stock repurchase excise tax returns and claims for refund required to be filed after June 28, 2024, and during taxable years ending after June 28, 2024.
#### Wolf et al. v. Lisker

*357
      *Skaroff & Skaroff,*for plaintiffs.

*George T. Steeley,*for defendant.

January 25, 1954.

Alessandroni, J.,

Petitioner is defendant in an action in equity brought by plaintiff to enforce a restrictive covenant, and to recover a sum of money due plaintiff from defendant. The matter is at issue; defendant filed this petition for a rule to produce and permit the inspection of the books, records, accounts, documents, financial statements, papers, copies of the partnership income tax returns, and a letter dated October 27, 1951; said inspection to be made before trial.

Plaintiff and defendant were for some time partners, trading as Hi-Grade Food Distributors. An agreement was executed on November 19, 1951, whereby plaintiff Wolf purchased defendant’s interest in the partnership. Defendant agreed not to engage for a period of two years and within 50 miles of Philadelphia in any similar business. On October 27, 1951, defendant agreed, by letter, to return “any and all monies that may be sent me, as a refund on taxes or allowances or credits as a result of the above mentioned [partnership] losses.” Defendant admits that he received a refund of $978.24 on his 1951 income tax.

The issues of this case are very basic: Is defendant in a similar business in violation of his agreement? Plaintiff’s books, records, etc., have no relevancy to this issue. Plaintiff will have to establish as a matter of fact, just what kind of a business it is engaged in.

With regard to the refund, defendant admits the refund. He admits that it.was the result of “carry-back” provisions of the Federal income tax statute. His answer admits the letter, but states that “there was no consideration for said letter ... or for de*358fendant’s promise set forth therein.” Defendant has a eopy of the letter.

Here again the relevancy of the partnership records is shrouded in mystery. Defendant’s defense is lack of consideration; if plaintiff proves consideration, then defendant must pay.

Defendant’s petition is within the scope of Pa. R. C. P. 4011 (c) (4), which denies inspection where it is not necessary to prepare the pleadings or prove a defense.

*Order*

And now, to wit, January 25, 1954, defendant’s rule to produce documents for inspection before trial is discharged.
ineffective for failing to cross-examine the victim about the distinctive 

markings on Franklin's body. Franklin argued that these markings were 

very noticeable during sexual activity and the victim's inability to describe 

them would have "decimated" his credibility. However, the district court 

found that trial counsel "extensively and thoroughly cross-examined the 

victim," the record on appeal supports the district court's finding, and we 

conclude that the record repels Franklin's claim that trial counsel's 

performance was deficient in this regard. 

Second, Franklin claims that the district court erred by failing 

to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his claim that trial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to call the victim's stepfather's roommate as a 

witness. Franklin argued that the roommate would have provided 

testimony that "negatively affected [the victim's] credibility regarding his 

version of events and times that said events took place." The district court 

found that "relying on this single witness would not have changed the 

outcome of the trial." We conclude that Franklin failed to provide specific 

factual allegations tending to demonstrate a reasonable probability that 

the outcome of the trial would have been different had this witness been 

called to testify. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (stating the test for 

establishing prejudice in an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim). 

Third, Franklin claims that the district court erred by failing 

to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his claim that appellate counsel was 

ineffective. Franklin argued that appellate counsel failed to pursue valid 

legal issues on direct appeal and failed to consult with him on issues that 

he believed were important. The district court found that Franklin failed 

to present any non-frivolous claims that he wanted appellate counsel to 

raise or demonstrate that these claims would have been successful on 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
J. 

J. 

direct appeal. We conclude that Franklin failed to provide specific 

allegations tending show that appellate counsel omitted issues that had a 

reasonable probability of success on appeal. See Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 998, 

923 P.2d at 1114 (stating the test for establishing prejudice in an 

ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim). 

Having concluded that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by determining that Franklin was not entitled to an evidentiary 

hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

t-&-47Zi 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Douglas E. Smith, District Judge 

The Kice Law Group, LLC 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Dennis E. Valentine, certify that: 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of JMAR Technologies, Inc.;  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report(based on such evaluation); and  c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         By: /s/ Dennis E. Valentine             Dennis E. Valentine      Chief Financial Officer         August11, 2006
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1199

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the fisheries

for the vessel ABORIGINAL.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 9, 1995

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the fisheries for the vessel ABORIGINAL.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding section 12108 of title 46, United

4 States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue

5 a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorse6 ment for employment in the fisheries for the vessel AB7 ORIGINAL (United States official number 942118).

Æ
www.gpo.gov

### §282c. Congressional authorization needed for certain actions

Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, neither the President nor any person or agency shall on behalf of the United States (a) subscribe to additional shares of stock under article II, section 3, of the Articles of Agreement of the Corporation; (b) accept any amendment under article VII of the Articles of Agreement of the Corporation; (c) make any loan to the Corporation. The United States Governor of the Corporation is authorized to agree to an amendment to article III of the articles of agreement of the Corporation to authorize the Corporation to make investments of its funds in capital stock and to limit the exercise of voting rights by the Corporation unless exercise of such rights is deemed necessary by the Corporation to protect its interests, as proposed in the resolution submitted by the Board of Directors on February 20, 1961. Unless Congress by law authorizes such action, no governor or alternate representing the United States shall vote for an increase of capital stock of the Corporation under article II, section 2(c)(ii), of the Articles of Agreement of the Corporation.

(Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 788, §5, 69 Stat. 669; Pub. L. 87–185, Aug. 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 413.)

#### Amendments

1961—Pub. L. 87–185 authorized acceptance of an amendment to the articles of agreement of the Corporation to permit investment in capital stock and to limit the exercise of voting rights.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                 CERTIFICATIONS
I, John Venette, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Discovery
Technologies, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



(Date)                              November 9, 2007


BY(Signature)                       /s/ John Venette
(Name and Title)                    John Venette
                                    Treasurer, Secretary and Chief
                                    Financial Officer
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors, PNCFinancial Services Group, Inc.:

 

We have examined management’s assertion,included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with RegulationAB Servicing Criteria, that Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank,National Association (“Midland” or the “Company”) complied with the servicingcriteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission'sRegulation AB for all transactions serviced on the *Enterprise!* LoanManagement System (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2016 and for the yearthen 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 notapplicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to thePlatform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with theservicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management'sassertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backedtransactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that Midland complied with the aforementioned applicable servicingcriteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platform isfairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

February 17, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106*

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816)218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*

* *
H. R. 1253

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To rename the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge as the Don Edwards

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SAN FRANCISCO BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

RENAMED AS DON EDWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

(a) REFUGE RENAMED.—The San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (established by the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide

for the establishment of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife

Refuge’’, approved June 30, 1972 (86 Stat. 399 et seq.)), is hereby

renamed and shall be known as ‘‘the Don Edwards San Francisco

Bay National Wildlife Refuge’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any statute, rule, regulation, Executive order, publication, map, or paper or other document

of the United States to the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife

Refuge is deemed to refer to the Don Edwards San Francisco

Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to

provide for the establishment of the San Francisco Bay National

Wildlife Refuge’’, approved June 30, 1972 (86 Stat. 399 et seq.),

is amended by striking ‘‘San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.