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

[633 NYS2d 855]

—Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Lomanto, J.), rendered September 9, 1993, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

On July 24, 1991, an undercover police officer and his confidential informant purchased seven grams of cocaine from defendant and Vincent Estepa in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County, as a consequence of which both defendant and Estepa were indicted and charged with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. Prior to defendant’s trial, Estepa pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of the indictment containing said charges and the indictment charging him with the July 24, 1991 sale. At the time of his plea, Estepa apparently conceded under oath his and defendant’s involvement in the July 24, 1991 sale.

At defendant’s trial Estepa, testifying on behalf of the People, denied being in Schenectady in July 1991 and claimed that he did not become acquainted with defendant until August of that year. The prosecutor then undertook to impeach Estepa with a prior written statement he had given to law enforcement officials. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that County Court erred in permitting the People to impeach Estepa. We disagree.

CPL 60.35 (1) provides that when the People call a witness on their direct case who gives testimony upon a material issue which tends to affirmatively disprove the People’s position, the People may introduce evidence that the witness has previously made a written statement or oral statement under oath contradictory to such testimony. Estepa’s testimony that he was not in Schenectady in July 1991 and did not make defendant’s acquaintance until August of that year tended to affirmatively disprove that Estepa and defendant sold cocaine to the undercover officer on July 24, 1991 in Schenectady.

*813There is merit to defendant’s claim that the manner in which the People impeached Estepa violated County Court’s *Ventimiglia*ruling. Instead of questioning Estepa concerning the July 24, 1991 sale, the prosecutor asked him if he had previously stated that in June or early July 1991 he began selling drugs for defendant. However, given the overwhelming proof of guilt and County Court’s admonition that the jury was to disregard the testimony and that it should play no part in their deliberations, any error in respect to the impeachment evidence was rendered harmless *(see, People v Rios,*166 AD2d 616, 617, *lv denied*77 NY2d 842).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Before the First Division,

January 2, 1942

No. 46763.

#### Petition 6168-R of Kresge Department Store (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

From the testimony the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that found upon final appraisement *429was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value. The petition was therefore granted.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 7, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-11-00885-CR

DANIEL GARCIA ESCALANTE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1303094

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal, personally signed by appellant, 

has been filed with this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not 

issued an opinion, we grant appellant’s request.
2

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the Clerk of the court to 

issue the mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher and Jamison.

Do not publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Cause No. DA 22-0700

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN THE MATTER OF:

JEREMY LOOK, 

ORDER FOR 

Cross-Claimant EXTENSION OF TIME

And Appellant TO FILE PETITION

FOR REHEARING

v.

CASEY McGOWAN, 

MEGAN McGOWAN AND

KAREN SPAWN McGOWAN

Appellees.

On Appeal from the Montana Ninth Judicial District Court, 

Glacier County, Cause No. DV-21-60

The Honorable Robert G. Olson Presiding

Upon consideration of Appellant’s Motion for Extension to File Petition for 

Rehearing and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant shall have up to and including

October 26th, 2023, within which to file a Petition for Rehearing. No further extensions 

will be granted.

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 11th, 2023

10/10/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0700
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jeremy Look, hereby certify that I have served true and accurate copies of the foregoing 

Rulings - Commissions to the following on 10-10-2023:

Jason Trinity Holden (Attorney)

1314 CENTRAL AVE

P.O. BOX 2466

Montana

GREAT FALLS MT 59403

Representing: Casey McGowan, Megan McGowan, Karen Spawn McGowan

Service Method: eService

Katie Rose Ranta (Attorney)

Faure Holden, Attorneys at Law, P.C.

1314 Central Avenue

P.O. Box 2466

GREAT FALLS MT 59403

Representing: Casey McGowan, Megan McGowan, Karen Spawn McGowan

Service Method: eService

Jeremy Look (Appellant)

18924 Blackhawk Street

Porter Ranch CA 91326

Service Method: Conventional

 Electronically Signed By: Jeremy Look

Dated: 10-10-2023
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Michael J. Ricketts, certify that:

 

1.          I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cano Petroleum, 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 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.          The small business issuer’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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer is made known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

             (b)        evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s  disclosure controls 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.          The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

May 16, 2005

 
| /s/ Michael J. Ricketts |
|-------------------------|
| Michael J. Ricketts     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Gracie Darlene Grant, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00187

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.
1323432 ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Gracie Darlene Grant, has adequately indicated h er inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 6, 2019
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Oliver W. Marvin, *Appellant, v.*Augustus Prentice, *Respondent.*

Order setting aside verdict for plaintiff and directing judgment for defendant and judgment thereon affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., dissenting.
No. 58985.

protest 170263-K (Duluth).

#### Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 52338.

protests 519857-G, etc. (New York).

#### L. Robison & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ttlson, J.

Following the authorities cited, in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FARAH ELIAS AKELL,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 17

- 00034

- CR

Appeal from the

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20140D01224)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER , 2018.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Exhibit






September 13, 2016
Jennifer Wong 
641 Fifth Avenue 
New York, NY 10022
Dear Jen:
You and Time Inc. (the "Company") are parties to an employment agreement, dated December 11, 2015, which establishes the terms and conditions of your employment with the Company (the “Agreement”). This letter amends certain provisions of that Agreement, effective as of September 19, 2016, in the manner set forth below.  
1.    Section 1 of the Agreement is amended to change the expiration date of the term of the Agreement from March 31, 2018 to September 30, 2019.
2.    The first sentence of Section 2 of the Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following two sentences:
During the Term of Employment, the Company will employ you as Chief Operating Officer, with responsibility for (i) all digital operations and business development, (ii) all product development and engineering, (iii)  the Foundry division, and (iv) the Consumer Marketing and Revenue division.  The Company may employ you in additional or other capacities at the Company and/or its affiliates without additional compensation to you consistent with your senior position.
3.    Section 3.1 of the Agreement is amended to change your stated annual base salary from $500,000 to $750,000.  Such change in the rate of your base salary shall be given effect starting September 19, 2016.
4.    Section 3.2(b) of the Agreement is amended to change your annual long-term target incentive value from $400,000 to $500,000.  Such change shall be effective with respect to the annual long-term incentive awards that will be granted starting in 2017. 
5.    Section 5.4 of the Agreement is amended to change the Severance Period from 12 months to 18 months. 
6.    Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
If the foregoing correctly sets forth the understanding between you and the Company, please sign and date below and return this Agreement to the Company.


TIME INC.:                    CONFIRMED AND AGREED:    
By: _/s/_ Greg Giangrande _____        __/s/ Jennifer Wong______________ 
Greg Giangrande, EVP & Chief                     Jennifer Wong      
  Resources Officer                
Dated: _9/13/16______________        Dated: __9/13/16________________
EXHIBIT 31.2

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Alfed Fernandez, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, 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 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: April 11, 2008       By: /s/ Alfred Fernandez
                               --------------------
                               Alfred Fernandez,
                               Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

            SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The undersigned, Chairman, President and Treasurer, of Jaco Electronics, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year
ended June 30, 2004 (the "Annual Report") accompanying this certification fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the information contained in the
Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
presented as required by such report. The foregoing certification is based upon,
among other things, my responsibilities as principal executive officer of the
Company, my own due diligence and representations made by certain other members
of the Company's senior management.

Date: September 28, 2004

                                              /s/ Joel H. Girsky
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Joel H. Girsky
                                              Chairman, President and Treasurer
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Crawford, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 556]

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), rendered July 1, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 4773/92, upon a jury verdict, and (2) a judgment of the same court, rendered July 12, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 3817/92, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

It is well settled that a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant when he or she has probable cause to believe that such person has committed a crime, and probable cause may be supplied, in whole or in part, through hearsay information *(see, People v Johnson,.*66 NY2d 398). However, before probable cause based on hearsay can be found, it must appear "that the informant has some basis of knowledge for the information he transmitted to the police and that the information is reliable” *(People v Johnson, supra,*at 402). Statements against penal interest have been deemed sufficient to assure reliability "when assessing hearsay information necessary to support a probable cause determination” *(People v Johnson, supra,*at 403; *see, People v Comforto,*62 NY2d 725). Here, the informant provided information that was contrary to his own penal interests as his knowledge was based upon his own prior involvement with the instant criminal enterprise *(see, People v Delarosa,*215 AD2d 496; *People v Messina,*209 AD2d 642; *cf, People v Cassella,*143 AD2d 192). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly held that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant. Additionally, once the defendant was lawfully arrested, "it was proper for the police to place him in a lineup for a separate, unrelated crime” *(People v Griffin,*161 AD2d 799, 800; *see, People v Whitaker,*64 NY2d 347, *463
      *cert denied*474 US 830; *cf, People v Carrouthers,*131 AD2d 770).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Russell Ingledew, as Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of IPEX, 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 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer is made
known to us by others, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls 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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

November 15, 2005

/s/ Russell Ingledew
--------------------
Russell Ingledew
Chief Financial Officer