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

[633 NYS2d 380]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Robinson, J.), rendered March 3, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court’s actions in questioning, at a sidebar, one prospective juror concerning her ability to weigh evidence objectively and impartially during jury selection in the defendant’s absence does not require reversal since the voir dire proceedings predated the holding of the Court of Appeals in *People v Antommarchi*(80 NY2d 247; *see, People v Mitchell,*80 NY2d 519).

*365The court properly denied the defendant’s request for a missing witness charge since the defendant failed to meet his initial burden of establishing that the uncalled witness was knowledgeable about a material issue pending in the case and that the witness would naturally be expected to provide testimony favorable to the People who had not called him *(see, People v Kitehing,*78 NY2d 532, 536).

Furthermore, viewing the representation afforded the defendant in light of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances presented here, the defendant received meaningful assistance from his trial counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147).

Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245), or without merit. Joy, J. P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 850 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 850

 To direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on the efficacy of 
extreme risk protection orders on reducing gun violence, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2023

    Mr. Torres of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on the efficacy of 
extreme risk protection orders on reducing gun violence, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY ON EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS.

    Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General, acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
Justice Assistance, shall conduct a study on the efficacy of extreme 
risk protection orders on reducing gun violence.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the No. 51775-2-II

Post-Sentence Review of

SHELDON MARTELL MOREN.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

LEE, J. — The Department of Corrections (DOC) petitions this court under RCW 

9.94A.585(7) to review the sentence imposed by the trial court in State v. Sheldon Martell Moren, 

Lewis County Superior Court Cause No. 17-1-00637-21. In its judgment and sentence, the trial 

court sentenced Moren to 12 months and 1 day of confinement and gave him credit for 109 days 

of presentencing jail time. But Moren spent 25 of those days in jail on DOC sanctions. 

Under RCW 9.94A.505(6), the trial court shall give offenders credit for presentencing jail 

time but only “if that confinement was solely in regard to the offense for which the offender is 

being sentenced.” Thus, DOC asks that we remand Moren’s judgment and sentence to the trial 

court to reduce his credit for presentencing jail time to 84 days. Moren and the State concede that 

DOC’s calculation is correct but urge us to deny DOC’s petition because the 25 days of credit for 

time served was a negotiated element of the plea agreement and because the issue of credit for 

time served is a factual issue, as to which DOC cannot seek review under RCW 9.94A.585(7).

Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

October 16, 2018
No. 51775-2-II

2

But there is no issue of fact here, only the application of RCW 9.94A.505(6). DOC’s 

interpretation of RCW 9.94A.505(6) is correct. In re Post-Sentence Review of Combs, 176 Wn. 

App. 112, 119, 308 P.3d 763 (2013). And the parties cannot enter into an illegal plea agreement. 

State v. Barber, 170 Wn.2d 854, 872-73, 248 P.3d 494 (2011). While we grant DOC’s petition, 

we cannot simply remand Moren’s judgment and sentence to the trial court to remove the credit 

for presentencing jail time given for the 25 days Moren served on DOC sanctions. Because this 

was a negotiated plea agreement, the proper remedy is to remand to the trial court for further 

proceedings, including the possibility of Moren moving to withdraw his plea. Barber, 170 Wn.2d 

at 872-73.

We grant DOC’s petition and remand Moren’s judgment and sentence for further proceedings.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, 

it is so ordered.

LEE, J.

We concur:

JOHANSON, J.

MAXA, C.J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13822-13823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5386]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated November 28, 2006, and published in the Federal 
Register on December 7, 2006, (71 FR 70985), Cayman Chemical Company, 
1180 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108, made application 
by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be 
registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed in schedule I:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marihuana (7360)...........................  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 13823]]

    The company plans to manufacture small quantities of marihuana 
derivatives for research purposes. In reference to drug code 7360 
(Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol. In 
reference to drug code 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company will 
manufacture a synthetic THC. No other activity for this drug code is 
authorized for this registration.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Cayman Chemical Company to manufacture the listed basic classes of 
controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this 
time. DEA has investigated Cayman Chemical Company to ensure that the 
company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The 
investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 
21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a 
bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: March 8, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E7-5386 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

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

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Ronald B Kalich, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FastenTech, 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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 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 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: May 14, 2007 |  |  |  |                                      
|                   |  |  |  | /s/ Ronald B. Kalich                 
|                   |  |  |  | Ronald B. Kalich                     
|                   |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |  |  | FastenTech, Inc.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Clifford M. Gross, Chief Executive Officer of UTEK Corporation, certifythat:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of UTEK Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and
          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
          (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Dated this 17th day of March, 2004.         By:  Clifford M. Gross   Clifford M. Gross    Chief Executive Officer
#### I. Magnin & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7308.

Invoice dated London, England, April 11, 1946.

Certified April 12, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 8, 1946.

Entry No. 759463.

(Decided June 23, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This^appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Famous Fixins, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), S. Michael Rudolph, theDirector of the Company, and the Company’s Acting Chief Executive Officerand Acting Financial Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to and for purposes of18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 results of operations of the Company. |  |

Dated:  September 13, 2002

/s/ S. Michael Rudolph                                       Director, and Acting Chief Executive Officerand Acting Financial Officer
#### TOWN OF KEARNY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JEAN SEGAL, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS AND DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DIVISION OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Mr. Arthur E. Dienst*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Robert J. McOurrie, Mr. Arthur J. Sills*and *Mr. Edwin Stallman*for the respondents.

March 26, 1968.

Denied.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Clinton Ryan Ward, Appellant

No. 06-19-00149-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of 

Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 114-1506-

18). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss 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, Clinton Ryan Ward, has adequately indicated his inability to 

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

RENDERED DECEMBER 31, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
No. 47440.

#### Protest 63910-K of Rolls Razor, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with the stipulated facts and on the authority of Abstract 44312 the protest was sustained.
No. 60917.

#### H. W. St. John & Co. (Corp.) *v.*United States,

protest 278747-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
#### Agata Cattano, Respondent, v Nicolo Cattano, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 30]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered June 20, 1994, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a money judgment for arrears in maintenance, and denied defendant’s cross motion for, *inter alia,*a downward modification of maintenance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s loss of his job and consequent need to pay for medical insurance himself are circumstances that were considered in prior, unappealed orders, and, as such, should not have been raised again and did not warrant a hearing *(cf., Baynon v Baynon,*133 AD2d 387). Defendant’s belief that these *173prior orders were in error is hardly good cause for his unilateral decision to suspend his court-ordered maintenance *(see, Vogel v Vogel,*156 AD2d 671, 675). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2001
<CASH>                                         50,392
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  300,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               354,222
<PP&E>                                         2,240,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                 733,802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,860,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,469,925
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    3,268
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,860,942
<SALES>                                        240,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               240,456
<CGS>                                          202,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,742,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,576,645
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,281,619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,281,619)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.555)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.555)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7383

ROBERT L. NELSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia

Parole Board,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-1143-AM)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's motion for reconsideration of the district court's order

dismissing without prejudice Appellant's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)

action. 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. Nelson v. Tucker, No. CA-97-1143-

AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 4, 1997). 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
#### Carson Pirie Scott & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6623.

Entry No. 465, etc.

Invoices dated Godaiming, England, June 23, 1942, etc.

Certified July 21, 1942, etc.

Entered at Chicago, Ill., August 18, .1942, etc.

(Decided December 16, 1946)

*Wallace & Schwartz (Joseph Schwartz,*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olivbb, Presiding Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

' On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the'importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar eases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.