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

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 383]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Although defense counsel made inappropriate remarks during the *Huntley*hearing, viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of the case, in totality and as of the time of representation, we conclude that defendant’s attorney provided meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147).

The court did not err in accepting defendant’s guilty plea to attempted manslaughter in the first degree. Although attempted manslaughter in the first degree is a nonexistent crime and a jury verdict convicting a person of that crime would be invalid *(see, People v Martinez,*81 NY2d 810), the negotiated plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. We conclude, therefore, that the court properly accepted the plea *(see, People v Foster,*19 NY2d 150).

According great weight to the determination of the suppression court, as we must *(see, People v Klumbach,*202 AD2d 1009, *lv denied*83 NY2d 912, citing *People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761; *People v Hill,*175 AD2d 603), we conclude that the court did not err in refusing to suppress statements made by defendant to the . State police. Although the record establishes that defendant was intoxicated, self-induced intoxication does not *1019in and of itself render the statements inadmissible *(see, People v Adams,*26 NY2d 129, 137, *cert denied*399 US 931; *People v Klumbach, supra).*The record establishes that defendant was able to respond intelligently to the State Troopers, and ultimately stated that he did not want to give a statement and asked for an attorney. Under the circumstances, the court’s determination was not clearly erroneous *(see, People v Klumbach, supra).*(Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Bradstreet, J.—Attempted Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7409
JAMES CURTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JAMES VENABLE; DONALD POWELL; PAUL HICKMAN; JOHN ALDRIDGE; MARK A. ADKINS; BOBBY WIDENER; TERRELL C. WADE, Plaintiffs, versus L. M. SAUNDERS; V. GRANT, MRS.; DAY, Warden; L. M. HUFFMAN, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-538-7) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2James Curtis, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:James Curtis appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Curtis v. Saunders , No. CA-98-538-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 15, 1999). 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
Exhibit








Aflac Incorporated 3rd Quarter 2016 10-Q
EXHIBIT 10.3


THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE 
AMERICAN FAMILY CORPORATION 
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR SENIOR OFFICERS


THIS THIRD AMENDMENT to the American Family Corporation Retirement Plan for Senior Officers (the “Plan”) is made on the date set forth below the signature line, by the Aflac Incorporated (as the successor to American Family Corporation; the “Company”).


WITNESSETH:


WHEREAS, the Company has previously established the Plan for the benefit of its eligible employees and their beneficiaries; and 


WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) is authorized to amend the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee has adopted and approved this Third Amendment, which amends the definition of “total compensation” under the Plan to change the determination period for such compensation.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan hereby is amended as follows:


		
	1.
	Section IV.A(1) of the Plan hereby is amended by deleting the first sentence thereof and by substituting in lieu thereof, the following:




Participant shall be paid, at the same pay intervals as active employees of the Company, at the rate of sixty (60) percent of the total compensation received from the Company or its subsidiaries for either (a) the last 12 months of active employment with the Company, or (b) the highest compensation received in any calendar year of the last ten (10) years preceding the date of retirement, whichever is higher; such retirement compensation to be paid for the lifetime of the Participant and to terminate at the end of the calendar month in which Participant’s death occurs.
2.This Amendment is effective as of January 1, 2016.


		
	3.
	Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, an officer of Aflac Incorporated has executed this Amendment on the date written below.
	
					
	 
	 
	 
	AFLAC INCORPORATED

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Date:
	October 18, 2016
	 
	By:
	/s/ Audrey B. Tillman
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHAN SAGE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2015 DFL KJM P

vs.

STEVE KURSE,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On November 18, 2005, two orders issued by the court were served upon

plaintiff’s address of record. The orders was returned to the court by the U. S. Postal Service as

undeliverable; one on May 23, 2005 and the other on May 24, 2005. Under Local Rule 83-

183(b), plaintiff must keep the court apprised of his current address. Because mail directed to

plaintiff was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, and plaintiff failed to notify

the court within sixty days thereafter of his current address, the court will recommend that this

action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See id.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:04-cv-02015-DFL -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/27/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 27, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/kf

hedr1021.fifp

Case 2:04-cv-02015-DFL -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/27/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT  32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Stephen M. Siedow, the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer of MNS EAGLE EQUITY GROUP, INC. (the "Company"),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, that:

     1.   The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
          31, 2003 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) 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.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 17th day of February, 2004.


                                            By:  /s/  Stephen M. Siedow
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Stephen M. Siedow
                                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                                      President and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to MNS EAGLE EQUITY GROUP, INC. and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it staff upon
request.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

39 40 41 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/04 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
No. 51443.

#### Protests 108207-K, etc., of Jos. Markovits, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 47912.

#### Protests 36799-K, etc., of V. W. Davis (Duluth).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391) the protests claiming that no addition should have been made for planing, tonguing, and/or grooving were sustained.
Exhibit 10.61


 


Summary Translation of 2013 Purchase
and Sale Contract


 


Buyer: An’kang Longevity Pharmaceutical
(Group) Traditional Chinese Medicine Decoction Pieces Co., Ltd. (Party A)


 


Supplier: Bozhou Guolong Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd. (Party B)


 


Party A shall purchase 111 kinds of herbs
from Party B.


 


Party B shall ensure the quality of the
herbs sold to Party A.


 


Party A shall inform Party B monthly via
telephone regarding the varieties and quantity of the herbs and as well as the unit price set by both parties.


 


Duration of the contract: 2013-01-01 to
2013-12-31. If a renewal is necessary, a 30-day- in-advance notice shall be submitted.


 


Party A shall adjust the purchase order
to be in line with production needs.


 


Party B will deliver any order to the site
indicated by Party A via auto transport; Party B is responsible for transportation fee and insurance.


 


Party A shall inspect within 15 days of
receiving any order.


 


Party B shall respond to any quality challenge
from Party A within 3 days or it will be considered that Party B accepts the treatment advice from Party A.


 


Party A shall settle payment within 90
days via cash or wire.


 


Party B, when it fails to deliver any order,
shall compensate Party A for the loss along with 5% of the missing order as liquidated damages.


 


Party B shall communicate with Party A
when it fails to deliver any order on time; Party B shall agree to pay delayed fee, 0.1% for each delayed day.


 


Party A shall agree to accept any unqualified
orders with lowered price when applicable; non applicable unqualified goods shall be returned to Party B who will be responsible
for any loss caused by such return.


 


Party A’s breach of contract shall
follow “Contract Law”.


 


During the supply period, the unit price
will follow the agreement here in this Contract without changing with the market.


 


Any dispute shall be brought to arbitration
committee in Xi’an City, any related fee will be borne by the losing party.


 


Signed date: 2013-01-01
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4354 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4354

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 107 North Hoyne Avenue in Fritch, Texas, as the ``Chief Zeb Smith 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2024

 Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 107 North Hoyne Avenue in Fritch, Texas, as the ``Chief Zeb Smith 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CHIEF ZEB SMITH POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 107 North Hoyne Avenue in Fritch, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Chief Zeb Smith Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Chief Zeb 
Smith Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
      23.1





CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 333-78709, 33-60443, and 33-60449) of Katy Industries, Inc. of our
      report dated February 20, 2004, except for Note 6 is as of March 18, 2004 and
      Note 12 is as of January 10, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance
      sheet of Sahlman Holding Company, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and the related
      statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2003, which appears
      in
      this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1.





/s/
      Dwight, Darby, and Company


Certified
      Public Accountants


Tampa,
      Florida


October
      18, 2006
(Reap. Dec. 10111)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., or Los Angeles et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 474, etc.

(Decided December 5,1961)

*Stein & Shostak*for the plaintiffs.

*William H. Orrich, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof have been submitted upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, that, at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States were the appraised values less additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in . similar cases covering the non-dutiable so-called f.o.b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage, petties, etc., added by the importer on entry.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there were no higher foreign values for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise covered by the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases, at the time of exportation thereof.

> ' IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals for Reap-praisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the values of the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached schedule of cases and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable so-called f.o.b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage, petties, etc., added by the importer on entry.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 10.34 Calpine Agreement Amendment
















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Third Amendment to be duly executed by their respective officers duly authorized thereto as of the date first written above.




RANCH CORP:


TEJON RANCHCORP,
a California corporation


By: /s/ Allen Lyda
Name: Allen Lyda
Title: Chief Financial Officer


PEF:


PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company


By: /s/ Jack Fusco
Name: Jack Fusco
Title: President
















































IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Fourth Amendment as of the day and year first written above.


RANCHCORP:


TEJON RANCHCORP,
a California corporation


By: /s/ Allen Lyda
Name: Allen Lyda
Title: Chief Financial Officer


PEF:


PASTORIA ENERGY FACILITY L.L.C.,
a Delaware limited liability company


By: /s/ Thad Hill
Name: Thad Hill
Title: President












1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGG MICHAEL REITAN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2746 FCD GGH P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 9, 2005, the court recommended that this

action be dismissed for petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies. On March 25, 2005,

the court granted petitioner a thirty day extension of time to file objections.

On April 4, 2005, petitioner filed an amended petition containing proof of

exhaustion. Good cause appearing, the February 9, 2005, findings and recommendations are

vacated.

In this action, petitioner seeks relief pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct.

2531 (2004). Petitioner was convicted in 1995. According to the amended petition, the

California Court of Appeal denied his direct appeal on January 27, 1997. Although petitioner has

not identified the date the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review, it is fair to

Case 2:04-cv-02746-FCD-GGH Document 11 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

assume that it was several years ago. Because the Supreme Court has not made Blakely

retroactive to cases on collateral review, no relief is available to petitioner on that basis. Cook v.

United States, 386 F.3d 949, 950 (9th Cir. 2004)(order). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the February 9, 2005, findings and

recommendations are vacated; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 4/18/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

rei2746.dis

Case 2:04-cv-02746-FCD-GGH Document 11 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 2
# C_2007034EN.01001201.xml

| 16.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/12

---

Planned closure of complaint 2002/5081

(2007/C 34/05)

Further to the Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 6.4 § 2 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, concerning the ‘Request by the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the construction project of the new port of Granadilla (Tenerife)’, the Commission services intend to close the investigation of mass complaint case 2002/5081.

The full text of the above Opinion has been published on the Internet:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/nature_conservation/eu_nature_legislation/specific_articles/art6/index_en.htm in 19 languages.

---
Exhibit (13) a. 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

 

AS ENACTED BY 

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Komatsu, Ltd. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Masahiro Sakane, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (s) 1350, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange 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. 

 

Date: July 31, 2006