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

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 5, 2015 106145 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TERRANCE F. NESBITT,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: December 2, 2014

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

__________

Jay L. Wilber, Public Defender, Binghamton (Michael A.

Vargha of counsel), for appellant.

Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton (Joann Rose

Parry of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County

(Cawley Jr., J.), rendered May 10, 2013, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a

controlled substance in the fifth degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant

pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance

in the fifth degree. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he

waived his right to appeal and was to be sentenced as a second

felony offender to 21⁄2 years in prison, to be followed by one year

of postrelease supervision. At defendant's request, County Court

adjourned the date of sentencing to allow defendant time to

attend his son's birthday party. The court, however, admonished

defendant that he was required to appear in court at 9:30 a.m. on

March 5, 2013 for sentencing and that, if he did not, the court
-2- 106145 

could impose a sentence greater than the agreed-upon sentence. 

Defendant failed to appear in court on the sentencing date at

9:30 a.m., but showed up at approximately 1:00 p.m. County Court

postponed sentencing to consider whether the sentence should be

enhanced, and the matter was adjourned further as a result of

defendant's motion to withdraw his plea. County Court denied the

motion and ultimately sentenced defendant to three years in

prison to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. 

Defendant now appeals.

Defendant asserts that County Court abused its discretion

in imposing the enhanced sentence. We disagree. County Court

went out of its way to accommodate defendant's request to have

sentencing adjourned so that he could attend his son's birthday

party and even gave defendant an extra day so that he would not

have to return on the date of the party. The court specifically

warned him of the consequences of failing to appear, including

the potentially longer sentence he faced, and indicated that bad

weather or other such issues were not legitimate excuses. 

Nevertheless, defendant failed to appear at the required time

and, when he finally came to court, claimed to have had

transportation problems. Under the circumstances presented here,

we cannot conclude that County Court abused its discretion in

imposing an enhanced sentence (see People v Goodman, 79 AD3d

1285, 1286 [2010]; People v Baez, 67 AD3d 1204 [2009], lv denied

14 NY3d 797 [2010]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.
-3- 106145 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
No. 58538.

protests 227624-K, etc. (New York).

#### Copeland & Thompson, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in Abstract 57915, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) As to the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption prior to May 28, 1950, at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a); and (2) as to the items entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption subsequent to May 28, 1950, at 10 percent under said paragraph 1547 (a), as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476).
Exhibit 31(a)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Chestnov, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Jaclyn, Inc.;

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
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; and

         (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal 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
functions):

         (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; and

         (b) 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.

Date: September 27, 2005            /s/ ROBERT CHESTNOV
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Robert Chestnov, Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Quarterly Report of Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacqueline Winwood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
4th day of March, 2010.


/s/ Jacqueline Winwood
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS EVERETT WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2428 MCE DAD P

vs.

M. KNOWLES, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s May 10, 2005 request

for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to a renewal of the motion at a later stage

of the proceedings.

DATED: May 17, 2005.

DAD/bb

will2428.110

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 1
---

---

Exhibit 4.(a).41

[FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY, NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSLATION]

[State
Emblem]

The
State of IsraelMinistry of Communications

General
License for Partner Communications Ltd. for the Provision of Mobile Radio Telephone
(MRT) Services using the Cellular Method

# Amendment No. 26

By virtue of the powers of the
Minister of Communications under Article 4 (e) of the Communications Law
(Telecommunications and Broadcasts), 5742-1982, that have been delegated to us, by all our
other powers under any law and after having considered the arguments of Partner
Communications Company Ltd. (hereinafter- Partner) we hereby amend the General
License for the provision of mobile radio telephone (MRT) services using the cellular
method granted to Partner on 7 April 1998, as follows:

# Amendment of the First
Annex

| | 1. | In
          the First Annex, at the end of Article 2.2 shall come:
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------

|45 | POC   (Push   to  talk
over Cellular) | Holding  a  conversation   by
the push of a  button  on the
MRT Terminal  Equipment.  The
call may be private  (between
Subscribers)  or a group call
on  the  data  communications
network | Exists | In   accordance   with  the
Service File | Based      on      a
temporary  provision
1
|-- | ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------

---

1Temporary Provision  The
Licensee will allow the activation of the Push to Talk service (hereinafter-
the  Service) for any Subscriber that is a legal entity (an individual or
corporation), provided that the number of users (the number of MRT Terminal Equipment
units that are designated for the Service, hereinafter- Terminal Units) that the
Subscriber has, does not exceed 20 during the first year from the beginning of the
Service. Notwithstanding the above, if a significant change shall happen in the MRT sector
that can affect the provision of the Service, the Ministry will consider shortening the
period.



---

---



| | Effect
| | ------

| | 2. | The
beginning of the Service shall not be before Sunday July 18, 2004.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

July 11, 2004

|/s/ Uri Olenik
Uri Olenik, Adv.Director-GeneralMinistry of Communications | /s/ Haim Giron
Haim Giron, Adv.Senior Deputy Director-General,Engineering and Licensing, Ministry ofCommunications
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GENE D. ROBERGE, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

*158No. 21,692

March 7, 1969

*Lieutenant V. L. Evans,*JAGO, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, and *Captain William S. Foss,*USMCR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Pursuant to his pleas of guilty, the accused was convicted of absence without leave, larceny (ten specifications), and housebreaking with intent to commit larceny (one specification), in violation of Articles 86, 121, and 130, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 886, 921, and 930, respectively. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hai’d labor for two years. The convening authority mitigated the dishonorable discharge to a bad-conduct discharge, but otherwise approved the findings and sentence. The board of review affirmed without opinion.

In our review of the record, we note that at the time the law officer inquired into the providence of the accused’s pleas, the latter disclaimed any intent to steal the property involved in specifications one through five, and seven through ten, alleging larceny. Only specification six was outside the ambit of his stated intention that the owners of the property would effect recovery thereof. According to the accused, he pawned the property in question, knowing the victims would report the theft, a check of the shops would be made, and the property returned. As he asserted, “if I didn’t want them to get it back I would have sold it.”

If an accused denies an element of the offense (as in this case, an intent *to permanently*deprive the owner of his property), or makes statements inconsistent with his pleas, the court must reject them and proceed as if he had pleaded not guilty. Article 45, Code, supra, 10 USC § 845; United States v Chancelor, 16 USCMA 297, 36 CMR 453; United States v Vaughn, 17 USCMA 520, 38 CMR 318. Failure to do so results in an improvident plea requiring reversal. United States v Vaughn, supra; United States v Vance, 17 USCMA 444, 38 CMR 242.

We find that the evidence in this case comes within the purview of Article 45, Code, supra, and the cited opinions. However, since the accused, by his testimony, admitted the offenses of wrongful appropriation and housebreaking with intent to commit wrongful appropriation, these offenses can be affirmed. United States v Patterson, 14 USCMA 441, 34 CMR 221.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review as to specifications one through five, and seven through ten, of the Charge of larceny and the Charge and specification of housebreaking with intent to commit larceny is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The board of review may affirm the lesser included offenses of wrongful appropriation as to the affected specifications and reassess the sentence, or a rehearing may be ordered.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Michael A. Sweet,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2703 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

O. C. O’Connor, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoJuly 8, 2005, plaintiff requested an extension of time to

file an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, the June 30,

2005, findings and recommendations are vacated, plaintiff’s

request is granted and time is extended until 30 days from the

date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: July 19, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 10 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES WHITTENBERG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2313 FCD JFM P

vs.

LT. L. ROLL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

On April 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a request to extend the time to file and serve

discovery requests. This court’s February 17, 2005 scheduling order required service of all

requests for discovery no later than sixty days prior to June 3, 2005, the discovery cut-off date. 

Good cause appearing, plaintiff will be granted one brief extension of time in which to serve his

discovery requests. The discovery cut-off will be extended to August 4, 2005. All other

deadlines contained in the court’s scheduling order remain the same.

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 14, 2005 request to

extend is partially granted. Plaintiff shall file and serve his discovery requests no later than May

20, 2005. The discovery cut-off is extended to August 4, 2005. 

DATED: April 22, 2005. 

/whit2313.dsc

Case 2:04-cv-02313-FCD-JFM Document 21 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner 

 v. 

MICHAEL STEVENS, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 43 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DISMISSED. Only final orders of the Superior Court may be challenged through 

allocatur review. See 42 Pa.C.S. §724(a). The Superior Court’s remand order, which 

specifically noted that jurisdiction was retained, was not final. See Pa.R.A.P. 1112(b) 

(defining a final order, for purposes of allocatur, as one which “concludes an appeal, 

including an order that remands an appeal, . . . unless the appellate court remands and 

retains jurisdiction”).
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0013 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0013

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Scientific and Technological Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Korea (COM(2006)0422 - C6-0438/2006 - 2006/0141(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 250 E , 25/10/2007 P. 0076 - 0076 *

P6_TA(2007)0013

EC-Korea Agreement on scientific and technological cooperation *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Scientific and Technological Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Korea (COM(2006)0422 — C6-0438/2006 — 2006/0141(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2006)0422) [1],

- having regard to the draft agreement on scientific and technological cooperation between the European Community and the Republic of Korea,

- having regard to Article 170 and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0438/2006),

- having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0470/2006),

1. Approves conclusion of the agreement;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Government of the Republic of Korea.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
EX-23
          2
              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

Exhibit 23

Bendinger & Company                         1850 Mount Diablo Blvd., Suite 610
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS                Walnut Creek, California 94596
                                            (925) 932-7808


Bendinger & Company
1850 Mount Diablo Blvd., Suite 610
Walnut Creek, California 94596



March 15, 2000


                                    Page 18

<PAGE>


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to use in this form 10-KSB/A of our report dated March 15,
2000, relating to the financial statements of e-bidd.com, Inc. for the years
ended December 31, 1999 and 1998.

                                                    /s/ Bendinger & Company
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    Bendinger & Company
                                                    Certified Public Accountants


                                    Page 19
No. 55273.

#### Pan American Import-Export Co. *v.*United States,

protest 140988-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues-herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested not found were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon the sisal handbags invoiced as contained in cases 320, 334, and 352, reported by the inspector as manifested not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 51009.

#### Protests 829172-G, etc., of Akawo & Co., Ltd., et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Hínchelos, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

CERTIFICATION

I,Morris B. Smith, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q/Aof Cano Petroleum, Inc.;

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.           The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)           designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)           disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

4.           The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a)           allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)           anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| December 26, 2006         |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
| /s/ Morris B.  Smith           |   |
| Morris B. Smith                |
| Chief Financial  Officer       |
| (Principal  Financial Officer) |

 

----