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

[633 NYS2d 1017]

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.), rendered April 21, 1993, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Calabretta, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which *493could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Sullivan, J. P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Plorio, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000046 18-JUN-2013 10:31 AM
#### IRVING WHYNMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE MANHATTAN, INC., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Messrs. Harkavy & Lieb*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Kushinsky & Gans*for the respondent.

March 21, 1967.

Denied.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 10993 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:89

- cr - 00294

- KMM

- 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ABELARDO MUNERA

- CADAVID, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (September 17, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT , WILSON and BLACK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-10993 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 of 32 Abe lardo Munera

- Cadavid, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction, which he filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U
. S
. S
. G
. ) . The district court denied Cadavid relief under Amendment 782, but did not mention Amendment 591 in its order. Cadavid contends this Court should remand with instructions for the district court to consider his arguments under Amendment 591. There is n o need to remand because the record makes clear Cadavid was not entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 591. United States v. Chitwood , 676 F.3d 971, 975 (11th Cir. 2012) (“ [W] e may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not rel ied upon by the district court.” (quotation omitted)).

“ Amendment 591 requires that the initial selection of the offense guideline be based only on the statute or offense of conviction rather than on judicial findings of actual conduct not made by the jur y. ” United States v. Moreno , 421 F.3d 1217, 1219 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting U.S.S. G . App. C, amend. 591)). The amendment clarified that the enhanced penalties in § 2D1.2 ( Drug Offenses Occurring Near Protected Locations or Involving Underage or Pregnant I ndividuals) applied only where the defendant was “convicted of an offense referenced to § 2D1.2 ” and not where the defendant simply “engaged in conduct described by that guideline.” Id.

Case: 15-10993 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 2 of 33 Amendment 591 is inapposite to Cadavid’s case. Cadavid’s guideline range was based on § 2D1.1’s base offense level and a role enhancement, and not on any of the conduct that would increase the offense level under § 2D1.2
. See id. Accordingly , Amendment 591 did not lower Cadavid’s applicable guideline range, and Cadavid was not entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 591. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 (a)(2)(B) (explaining a sentence reduction “is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)” if the amendment “does not have the effect of lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range”). AFFIRMED

. Case: 15-10993 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket Nos. RP07-184-000 Through RP07-304-000] 

Take notice that Docket Numbers RP07-184-000 through RP07-304-000 were not assigned to any filing due to computer error. These docket numbers will not be assigned to any filings with the Commission. 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E7-5772 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
NO. 12-09-00154-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§

IN RE: SCOTT BROWN,

RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Relator Scott Brown is confined in the Smith County Jail after being found in contempt for

failure to pay child support, spousal maintenance, and contractual alimony. He seeks a writ of

habeas corpus ordering his release and, in a motion for emergency relief, seeks release on bail

pending disposition of his habeas petition. Based upon ourreview ofRelator’s petition, the response

of Shanna Brown, real party in interest, and the record presented, we conclude that Relator has failed

to show he is entitled to the relief requested. See TEX.R.APP.P. 52.8(a), (d). Accordingly, Relator's

motion for emergency relief and his petition for writ of habeas corpus are denied. All other pending

motions are denied as moot.

Opinion delivered May 29, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
April 23, 1945

No. 50141.

Suit 4501.

#### Crosse *& Blackwell Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 890. (Appeal dismissed March 5, 1945.)
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130122 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan DENNIS P. FRITZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130122 COA: 264378 WCAC: 04-000107 YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0320 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 27, 2006

Clerk
Q414 Exhibit 10.32












PROMISSORY NOTE
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, STRATUS LAKEWAY CENTER, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company ("Borrower"), hereby promises to pay to the order of  SOUTHSIDE BANK or registered assigns ("Lender") in accordance with the provisions of the Loan Agreement (as hereinafter defined) the principal amount of each advance of the Loan from time to time made by Lender to Borrower under that certain Construction Loan Agreement dated as of September 29, 2014 (as amended, restated, extended, supplemented or otherwise modified in writing from time to time, the "Loan Agreement;" the terms defined therein being used herein as therein defined), among Borrower, the Lenders from time to time party thereto, and PlainsCapital Bank, as Administrative Agent.
Borrower promises to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of each advance of the Loan from the date of such advance until such principal amount is paid in full, at such interest rates and at such times as provided in the Loan Agreement.  All payments of principal and interest shall be made to Administrative Agent for the account of Lender in Dollars in immediately available funds at Administrative Agent's Office.  If any amount is not paid in full when due hereunder, such unpaid amount shall bear interest, to be paid upon demand, from the due date thereof until the date of actual payment (and before as well as after judgment) computed at the per annum rate set forth in the Loan Agreement.
This Note is one of the Notes referred to in the Loan Agreement, is entitled to the benefits thereof and may be prepaid in whole or in part subject to the terms and conditions provided therein.  This Note is also entitled to the benefits of the Deed of Trust and is secured by the Project and the other collateral described in the Loan Agreement.  Upon the occurrence and continuation of one or more of the Events of Default specified in the Loan Agreement, all amounts then remaining unpaid on this Note shall become, or may be declared to be, immediately due and payable all as provided in the Loan Agreement.  Advances of the Loan made by Lender shall be evidenced by one or more loan accounts or records maintained by Lender in the ordinary course of business.  Lender may also attach schedules to this Note and endorse thereon the date, amount and maturity of its loans and payments with respect thereto.
Borrower, for itself, its successors and assigns, hereby waives diligence, presentment, protest and demand and notice of protest, demand, dishonor, notice of intent to accelerate, notice of acceleration and non-payment of this Note.
THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.


[The remainder of this page is left intentionally blank.  The signature page follows.]











STRATUS LAKEWAY CENTER, L.L.C.




By:__/s/ Erin D. Pickens______________________
      Erin D. Pickens
                                    Senior Vice President
#### STOCKTON v. EXCISE BOARD OF PAYNE COUNTY et al.

No. 23276.

Opinion Filed Feb. 16, 1932.

*121L. G. Lewis, for plaintiff.

Ernest F. Jenkins, for defendants.

HEFNER, J.

This is an original action in mandamus by Elze T. Stockton against the county excise board of Payne county, Okla., to compel it to approve an estimate for school teacher’s salary as certified to it bf the board of directors of school district No. 69, Payne county.

Plaintiff has a legal contract to teach school in school district No. 69 for the year 1931-1933. ,The board of directors certified an estimate in the sum of $800 for salary for its teacher for that year. The voters of the district, by a majority vote thereof at the annual school meeting held the last Tuesday of March, 1931, authorized an excess levy sufficient to meet the estimated needs of the district. The excise board reduced the estimate for teacher’s salary from $800 to $680, and refused to approve the estimate as certified to it by the directors of the district. It was its duty to approve the estimate as certified to it by the school district. See State ex rel. Board of Education v. Excise Board of Payne County, No. 23153, decided Jan. 26, 1932, 155 Okla. 227, 7 (2d) 473, and School Dist. No. 4, Garfield Co., v. Independent School Dist. No. 41⁄2 Garfield County, 153 Okla. 171, 4 P. (2d) 1031.

Defendants contend plaintiff is not the real party in interest and cannot, in his own name, maintain this action. This question has been decided adversely to them in the case of Excise Board of Creek Co. v. State ex rel. Kissick, 105 Okla. 102, 231 P. 862. Under this authority, plaintiff can maintain this action.

.The writ is granted .

RILEY, OULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, and McNBILL, JJ., concur. LESTER, O. J., concurs in the law as stated in syllabus No. 1, and dissents to syllabus No. 2.

CLARK, Y. C. J., dissents for the reason that it is his opinion that under the contract the teacher cannot maintain this action. KORNEGAY, J., dissents.
January 23, 1978

#### Citron v State Board of Law Examiners.

(Docket No. 59868.)

*Bellanca & Beattie*for plaintiff. *Robert K. Avery*for defendant.

Plaintiffs complaint for mandamus is considered, and is denied because GCR 1963, 851 does not provide for the filing of such a complaint. Plaintiffs complaint for mandamus is treated as a complaint for superintending control and, pursuant to GCR 1963, 862.5(c), the complaint is considered and is denied without prejudice.
No. 64236.

protests 305838-K, etc. (Honolulu).

#### American Customs Brokg. Company, for account of Asiatic Trading Company, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 63321, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. John M. McManus 

Vice President 

Environmental Services 

American Electric Power 

I Riverside Plaza 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-23 73 

Dear Mr. McManus: 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

APR 2 9 1U16 

I am responding to the American Electric Power petition for reconsideration of the final action, titled 

"Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," whi ch was published in the Federal Register on 

October 23, 2015 (80 FR 6451 0). 

Section 307( d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act sets forth the criteria for reconsideration. That section states 

that " [ o ]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the 

period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. If the 

person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impractical to raise such 

objection within such time or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment 

(but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and 

provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been avai lable at 

the time the rule was proposed." 

After careful consideration of the issues raised in the American Electric Power petition, I deny the 

petition in its entirety. None of the objections raised in the petition satisfy the cri teria for reconsideration 

set out in Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B). My reasons for this conclusion are full y set forth in an 

enclosed memorandum, "Basis for Denial of Petitions to Reconsider the CAA Section 111 (b) Standards 

of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuelfired Electric Utility Generating Units," which is also available in the rulemaking dockets. 

Enclosure 

This paper is printed with vegetable·o•l·based .nks and is 100·percent postconsumer recycled matenal. chlorine·free·processed and recyclable.
Skip to Content

        -   Log in            -  Log inEmailPassword Show Password	            Remember meAlready have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -            -  Forgot your password?Email Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -            -  Resend confirmation instructionsEmail Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -   Sign Up            -  Sign upEmail Password Passwords must be at least 6 characters and contain at least one lower-case letter, one upper-case letter, one number, and one punctuation mark or symbolPassword confirmation  Show Password            Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 

# Search Publications

- Home

#           Agricultural Prices Summary            NASSLog in or Sign Up to subscribe        

----

Frequency of Release:Annually

----

Category:Agriculture Economics and Management:Retail and Market Prices

Keywords:animalscommoditiescropsparity pricesprices

----

## Releases

            -  « Previous 
            -  Next » 
            -  1 
            -  2 
            -  3 
            -  4 
            -  5 
            -  6 

| Aug  5, 2009 | PDFTXTZIP | Aug  5, 2009: Agricultural Prices Summary detailsx                Aug  5, 2009: Agricultural Prices SummaryRelease datetime:Aug  5, 2009Close |
|--------------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Contact office name:National Agricultural Statistics Service

Contact email:nass@nass.usda.gov

##         Agency Announcements        
Do you also want to subscribe to all agency announcements from ?
NoYesFooter content with page navigation, site information, and copyright.-  Home 
-  Release Calendar 
×Release CalendarClose
-  About
-  Help 
-  Contact 
-  API 

The USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System (ESMIS) contains over 2,100 publications from five agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These materials cover U.S. and international agriculture and related      topics. Mann Library at Cornell University developed and maintains this site.

© 2024 USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System
USDA ESMIS partners list with links to their websites.Partners:- Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
- Economic Research Service (ERS)
- Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
- National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
- World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB)
- 
- Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University
- United States Department of Agriculture
Cornell development contact information.Developed & supported by:
**Albert R. Mann Library**Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853-4301 Phone: (607) 255-3296 Email: usda-help@cornell.edu
EXHIBIT 32





TIRE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INC.





CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Tire International Environmental Solutions Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jacqueline Danforth, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: March 30, 2010
By:
/s/Jacqueline DanforthName:
Jacqueline DanforthTitle:
Principal Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.)
**Exhibit 15.1**

**Letter Regarding Unaudited Interim Financial Information**

May 8, 2008 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of 

Tercica, Inc. 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-149455) pertaining to the 2004 Stock Plan and the 2004 Employee StockPurchase Plan of Tercica, Inc., Form S-8 (No. 333-142624) pertaining to the 2004 Stock Plan and the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Tercica, Inc., Form S-8 (No. 333-132534) pertaining to the 2004 Stock Plan and the 2004 Employee Stock PurchasePlan of Tercica, Inc., Form S-8 (No. 333-126307) pertaining to the 2004 Stock Plan and the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Tercica, Inc., Form S-8 (No. 333-113718) pertaining to the 2002 Stock Plan, the 2002 Executive Stock Plan, the 2004 StockPlan, and the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Tercica, Inc., Form S-3 (No. 333-129574) for the registration of 6,296,912 shares of its common stock, and Form S-3 (No. 333-128224) for the registration of up to $75,000,000 in shares of its commonand preferred stock, debt securities, warrants and units, of our report dated May 8, 2008 relating to the unaudited condensed interim financial statements of Tercica, Inc. that is included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2008. 

Very Truly Yours, 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Palo Alto, California
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION 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 on Form 10-Q of Incara Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard W. Reichow, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ RICHARD W. REICHOWRichard W. ReichowExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerMay 12, 2004
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

Inconnection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the“Report”), I, William S. Steckel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: May 11, 2009