alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 4/4/13 P. v. Zamora CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR



### THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROY ALFONSO ZAMORA,

Defendant and Appellant. B242568

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA121372)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supe rior Court of Los Angeles County, Roger Ito, Judge. Affirm. Richard B. Lennon, under appointme nt by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Roy Alfonso Zamora. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________2 Defendant Roy Alfonso Zamora appeals from the judgment entered after his no contest plea to attempted murder. His appointed counsel filed a Wende brief. ( People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On November 30, 2012, we dire cted appointed counsel to send the record and a copy of counsel’s brief to defendant and notified defendant of his right to respond within 30 days . We received no response. Defendant’s notice of appeal states that it is based upon the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not aff ect its validity. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4).) We have review ed the whole record under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon th e sentence as that is the onl y matter that occurred after entry of the plea. Defendant was originally charged with two counts: 1) premeditated attempted murder (Pen.Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) 1 and 2) assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The information was later ame nded to include a thir d count of attempted murder. Use of a knife and infliction of gr eat bodily injury ( §§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a) were allege d as to counts 1 and 3. Defendant pled no contest to count 3, attempted murder, and admitted the enhancement allegations. Pursuant to a plea agreement, he was sent enced to 12 years in prison, consisting of a high term of nine ye ars for the attempted murder, plus three years for the great bodily in jury enhancement. The court stayed punishment on the weapon-use enhancement. The remaining charges were dismissed. De fendant was awarded 299 days of custody credit (260 days of actual credit a nd 39 days of conduct credit), and ordered to provide a DNA sample. The court imposed a restitution fine of $240 and an additional $240 suspended parole revocation fine. ( §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45). Additionally, the court assessed a $40 court security fee and a $30 criminal convicti on assessment fee. (§ 1465.8, Gov. Code, § 70373.) Having reviewed the record, we are satisf ied that no arguable issues for appeal

exist.

1 All subsequent references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

SUZUKAWA, J.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.

/S/ Charles S. ConoleyCharles S. Conoley
President and Chief Executive Officer

August 11, 2003
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Sarah Bertholf, App’lt, *v.*Alfred Carr, Ex’r, etc., Resp’t.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed July 9, 1889.)*

Costs—Successful claimant not entitled to disbursements as a matter OF RIGHT ON A REFERENCE OF A DISPUTED CLAIM.

Where a disputed claim, against the estate -of a deceased pers-m is referred under the statute, and the claimant recovers a judgment in his favor, he is not entitled, as a matter of right, to the disbursements necessarily made by him, but they, as well as the costs, are to be awarded or withheld by the court in its discretion. *Miller*v. *Miller,*83 Hun, 481, followed.

Appeal from special term order denying claimant’s motion to be allowed the fees of the referee, witnesses and other necessary disbursements.

*John*Townshend, for app’lt; *A. B. Carrington,*for resp’t.

Per Curiam.

The claim of the appellant against the respondent, as executor, was referred to a referee, under the statute. The claimant recovered a judgment. She concedes, on this appeal, that she was not entitled to costs, but insists that she should have been allowed the fees of the referee and witnesses and other necessary disbursements. The question thus raised has been passed upon adversely to the contention of the appellant by the general term of the third department, which held in the case of *Miller*v. *Miller*(32 Hun, 481) that section 3246 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a substitute for section 317 of the old Code, and withholds from the successful claimant the right tó disbursements which he had under the latter section.

There was no error in the action of the court below, and the order there made should be affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 10(ah)
 THE LAMSON & SESSION CO.
 NONQUALIFIED
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
(POST-2004)
 ARTICLE I
 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
   ARTICLE II
 DEFINITIONS




---



##### 



- 2 -




---



##### 




    
    an officer (as defined in Rule 16a-1(f) promulgated under the Exchange Act, or in
any successor to such rule) of the Company, or
    
    as determined by the Committee, a member of a select group of management or highly
compensated employees, within the meaning of Sections 201, 301 and 401 of ERISA,
      - 3 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
 ELECTIONS BY PARTICIPANTS
       - 4 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
 COMPANY CONTRIBUTIONS
   - 5 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
 ACCOUNTS AND INVESTMENTS
         - 6 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS
     Restriction On Key Employees
 Subsequent Elections
  - 7 -




---



##### 



Acceleration Prohibited
      - 8 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
 CREDITORS AND INSOLVENCY
   ARTICLE VIII
 ADMINISTRATION
  ARTICLE IX
 MISCELLANEOUS
  - 9 -




---



##### 



The Lamson & Sessions Co.By:  /s/ Eileen E. ClancyEileen E. ClancyTitle:
    
    Vice President
 - 10 -
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Spores for Breast and Prostate Cancer.                    

*Date:*                         June 13-15, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Doubletree Hotel Park Terrace on Embassy Row, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Brian E. Wojcik, Phd, Scientific Review Administrator, Grants Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8019, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-2785.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 16, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-12894 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 4003.22 Effective date of determinations. ( a ) *General rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an initial determination covered by this subpart will not become effective until the prescribed period of time for filing a request for reconsideration under subpart C of this part or an appeal under subpart D of this part, whichever is applicable, has elapsed. The filing of a request for review under subpart C or D of this part will automatically stay the effectiveness of an initial determination until a decision on the request for review has been issued by PBGC.
( b ) *Exception.* Except for initial determinations listed in § 4003.1(e)(2), (3), and (6), PBGC may, in its discretion, order that the initial determination in a case is effective on the date it is issued. When PBGC makes such an order, the initial determination will state that it constitutes the final agency action effective on the date of issuance, there is no right to request review under subparts C and D of this part, and any person aggrieved by the initial determination has exhausted all administrative remedies.
[61 FR 34012, July 1, 1996, as amended at 85 FR 10284, Feb. 24, 2020]
#### Elizabeth Pearl, Respondent, v Richard Pearl, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 160]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered June 19, 1998, which, *inter alia,*awarded the plaintiff former wife a 10% share in his accounting business and sole ownership of the marital residence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that a court has broad discretion in determining the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed where a party has refused to comply with discovery demands *(see,*CPLR 3126 [2]; *Robustelli v Robustelli,*262 AD2d 390; *Maillard v Maillard,*243 AD2d 448). Here, the record clearly establishes the defendant’s repeated failure to comply with prior orders of the Supreme Court for discovery was willful and contumacious. Thus, the defendant was properly precluded from submitting evidence relating to his finances and financial issues of fact were properly deemed to be resolved in favor of the plaintiff *(see, Brady v County of Nassau,*234 AD2d 408; *Reed v Reed,*93 AD2d 105).

In addition, contrary to the defendant’s contention, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court properly selected a date as close to trial as practicable for valuation of the marital property *(see, Sagarin v Sagarin,*251 AD2d 396; *Marcus v Marcus,*137 AD2d 131; *Wegman v Wegman,*123 AD2d 220).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
#### EDNA GARR v MACK GARR

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No. 898.

Decided July 3, 1929

Mr. C. J. Mattern, Dayton, for Edna Garr.

Mr. Chas. J. Brennan, Dayton, for Mack Garr.

ALLREAD, J.

One of the purposes sought by this proceedings in error is a review of that judgment. We have carefully considered the evidence. The testimony is in conflict, and we are unable to find sufficient evidence in conflict with the judgment to justify this court in reversing the same. The judgment as to the divorce will, therefore, be affirmed.

The court below refused to decide as to the custody of the child, which was asked for by both parties. We think in this the court w,as in error. It was his duty to decide as to the custody of the child. There was an agreement at the time of the separation between the husband and the wife as to the custody of the child, and as to the duty of the plaintiff, Mack Garr, to make a contribution to the wife and for the custody of the child.. This agreement is set up by the defendant, the wife, in her cross petition, and the court was asked to declare the validity thereof and fix the amount due from the defendant, and as to the custody of the child.

The court declined to pass upon this question, and we think fit was the duty of the Court of Domestic Relations to pass upon the validity of that contract, or at least to make an award of the amount due from the defendant in' error to the plaintiff in error for the custody of said child in case it should be awarded to her.

We think the failure of the trial court to pass upon these questions constitutes prejudicial error and calls for a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment, so far as it relates to the custody of the child, the validity of the contract of separation, and the award to plaintiff in case such award is made of the child, and of the amount of compensation to her for the support of said child, is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas, Doiflestic Relations Division, for further proceedings.

Judgment affirmed as to the decree of divorce, and reversed in other respects.

Kunkle and Hombeck. JJ, concur.
§ 37.87 What must the Director do if he or she determines that a complaint will be accepted? If the Director accepts the complaint for resolution, he or she must notify the complainant, the respondent, and the grantmaking agency. The notice must: ( a ) State that the complaint will be accepted,
( b ) Identify the issues over which CRC has accepted jurisdiction; and
( c ) Explain the reasons why any issues were rejected.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Crdentia Corp. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James J. TerBeest, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for thepurposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, thatto my knowledge:

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                       theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the datesand for the periods indicated.

ThisCertification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with theSecurities and Exchange Commission.
| Date: May 15, 2007 | By:    | /s/ James J. TerBeest |                    |
|--------------------|--------|-----------------------|-------------------------|
|               |   | James J. TerBeest     |
|               |   |                  | Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |        |                       |                         |  |  |

 

----
§ 1985.108 Role of Federal agencies. ( a ) ( 1 ) The complainant and the respondent will be parties in every proceeding and must be served with copies of all documents in the case. At the Assistant Secretary's discretion, the Assistant Secretary may participate as a party or as amicus curiae at any time at any stage of the proceeding. This right to participate includes, but is not limited to, the right to petition for review of a decision of an ALJ, including a decision approving or rejecting a settlement agreement between the complainant and the respondent.
( 2 ) Parties must send copies of documents to OSHA and to the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, only upon request of OSHA, or when OSHA is participating in the proceeding, or when service on OSHA and the Associate Solicitor is otherwise required by these rules.
( b ) The Bureau, if interested in a proceeding, may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceeding, at the Bureau's discretion. At the request of the Bureau, copies of all documents in a case must be sent to the Bureau, whether or not it is participating in the proceeding.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 results of operations of the Company as of the date and for
the periods expressed in the Report.
 By:
    
    /s/ John B. Gerlach, Jr.

  John B. Gerlach, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerAugust 28, 2007By:
    
    /s/ John L. Boylan

  John L. BoylanChief Financial OfficerAugust 28, 2007
  72
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, Po well and Senior Judge Clements

BARBARA J. GOODMAN MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1333-09-1 PER CURIAM OCTOBER 27, 2009 HOOVER UNIVERSA L, INC. AND ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Kevin L. Hubbard; Hubbard and Hartley, PC, on brief), for appellant.

(Audrey Marcello; Taylor & Walker, P.C., on brief), for appellees.

Barbara J. Goodman (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation

Commission finding that claimant failed to reasonably market her residual work capacity after

June 29, 2007. We have reviewed the record an d the commission’s opinion and find that this

appeal is without merit. Accord ingly, we affirm for the reason s stated by the commission in its

final opinion. See Goodman v. Hoover Universal, Inc. , VWC File No. 222-97-00 (May 18,

2009). We dispense with oral argument and su mmarily affirm because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before the Cour t and argument would not

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
§ 32.46 Procedure for effecting compliance. ( a ) *General.* If there appears to be a failure or threatened failure to comply with this regulation and if the noncompliance or threatened noncompliance cannot be corrected by informal means, the Department may suspend, terminate or refuse to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance or take any other means authorized by law. Such other means may include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) A referral to the Department of Justice with a recommendation that appropriate proceedings be brought to enforce any rights of the United States under any law of the United States or any assurance; and
( 2 ) Any applicable proceeding under state or local law.
( b ) *Noncompliance with the requirements of this part.* If a recipient fails or refuses to comply with a requirement imposed by or pursuant to this part, the Department may institute an administrative enforcement proceeding to compel compliance with the requirement, to seek appropriate relief, and or to terminate Federal financial assistance in accordance with the procedures of paragraph (c) of this section. The Department shall not be required to provide assistance in such a case during the pendency of the administrative proceedings under such paragraph if grants have not yet been approved or funds not yet committed to the recipient. However, the Department shall continue assistance during the pendency of such proceedings where such assistance is due and payable pursuant to an application therefor approved prior to the effective date of this part.
( c ) *Termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance.* No order suspending, terminating or refusing to grant or continue Federal financial assistance shall become effective until: ( 1 ) The Assistant Secretary has advised the applicant or recipient of its failure to comply and compliance has not been secured by voluntary means; and
( 2 ) There has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure by the applicant or recipient to comply with a requirement imposed by or pursuant to this part. Any action to suspend or terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other applicant or recipient as to whom such a finding has been made and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program or activity, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found.
( d ) *Other means authorized by law.* No action to effect compliance by any other means authorized by law shall be taken until: ( 1 ) The Assistant Secretary has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means;
( 2 ) The recipient or other person has been notified of its failure to comply and of the action to be taken to effect compliance; and
( 3 ) The expiration of at least 10 days from the mailing of such notice to the recipient or other person.
[45 FR 66709, Oct. 7, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51368, Aug. 26, 2003]