alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

582 

KA 16-00048 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DOUGLAS C. TATNER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Christopher S.

Ciaccio, J.), entered November 10, 2015. The order determined that

defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a

level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that reversal is

required because County Court applied the wrong burden of proof when

it determined that the People had “shown, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that an upward departure in the risk level classification

[was] warranted.” We agree with defendant that the court applied the

wrong standard inasmuch as it is well settled that “the People cannot

obtain an upward departure pursuant to the guidelines unless they

prove the existence of certain aggravating circumstances by clear and

convincing evidence” (People v Gillotti, 23 NY3d 841, 862). 

Nevertheless, “remittal is not required because the record is

sufficient to enable us to determine under the proper standard whether

the court erred” in granting the People’s request for an upward

departure (People v Loughlin, 145 AD3d 1426, 1427-1428).

We conclude that the court properly determined that an upward

departure was warranted. “A court may make an upward departure from a

presumptive risk level when, after consideration of the indicated

factors[,] . . . [the court determines that] there exists an

aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, not

otherwise adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment]

guidelines” (People v Abraham, 39 AD3d 1208, 1209 [internal quotation

marks omitted]). Here, the People established by clear and convincing
-2- 582 

KA 16-00048 

evidence the existence of numerous aggravating factors not adequately

taken into account by the risk assessment guidelines, including

defendant’s “constant masturbation,” which was “indicative of hypersexuality”; his “self-reported addiction” to child pornography; and

the nature of the images, i.e., the sadomasochistic images of child

pornography found on his computer (see People v Sczerbaniewicz, 126

AD3d 1348, 1349; see also People v Guyette, 140 AD3d 1555, 1556-1557;

People v Lashway, 66 AD3d 662, 662-663). 

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
(Reap. Dec. 9451)

#### New York Hanseatic Corporation P. W. Bellingall, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 15197; 25868; 28417.

(Decided June 9, 1959)

*Eugene R. Pichrell*for tbe plaintiffs.

*George Cochrcm Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain sodium trichloracetate exported from Western Germany and entered at the port of San Francisco, Calif.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the sodium trichloracetate in question, which is represented by the invoice items marked “A,” is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for the merchandise is $330.84 per 1,000 kilos, plus cost of packing and labor in packing, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 10.4

| 1.   | Section      4.1(c) of the Plan is hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2009 to      read in its entirety as follows: |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | “(c) | Notwithstanding      any other provision of this Plan to the contrary, the Accrued Benefit of a      Participant as determined under Section 4.1(b) shall not be less than the      Accrued Benefit of such Participant on December 31, 2003 as calculated      under the provisions of the Plan as in effect on December 31, 2003 prior      to this Amendment. |
|--------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| EG&G      Technical Services, Inc.                      |   |                          |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                                                        |   |                          |   |
| Dated:  September      17, 2009    | By:    | /s/ H.      Thomas Hicks |   |
|                                                        |   | Title:      Vice President    |   |
|                                                        |   |                          |   |
|                                                        |   |                          |   |

----
No. 53752.

protests 135302-K, etc. (New York).

#### American Rug & Carpet Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-102089, 333-102091, 333-64193 and 333-90361 on Form S-8,
Nos. 333-109116 and 333-68710 on Form S-3 and No. 333-90597 on Form S-4 of School Specialty, Inc. of our report dated June 29, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of School Specialty, Inc. for the year ended April 24, 2004.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|Milwaukee, Wisconsin     
|July 1, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          46,919
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                       403
<INVENTORY>                                     11,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,369
<PP&E>                                         121,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,852
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,361
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,901
<SALES>                                         89,018
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,018
<CGS>                                           41,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,401
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,697
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,704
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,704
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.18
        

</TABLE>
Telephone: 614 - 883 - 5700 Cell Phone: 614 - 595 - 5300 Fax: 614 - 883 - 5701

March 25, 2013 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M - 30 West Building - Ground Floor Room W12 - 140 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE Wa shington, D. C. 20590 Subject: REQUEST FOR RENEWALOF FAA EXEMPTI ON 9917 - A REGULATORY DOCUMENT NO. FAA - 2009 - 0373, ALLOWING SI NGLE PILOT OPERATION OF A CESSNA CI TAT ION. Sirs: Through this letter we request the FAA renew Exemption 9917 - A. This would allow Cessna Citations to fly

Single Pilot with some limitations. The terms and conditions of the original petition remain the same, except we are requesting the addition of the authorized check ride examiner to include PPE (Pilot Proficiency Examiner) . A ny

issues regarding public safet y and public interest remain the same. Thank y ou for y our support in this matter. I f there are an y questions please do not hesitate to call. Regards, Michael F. Riley Director, VUE Inc. "Global Flight Training" 6956 E. Broad Street Suite 239 Columbus, Ohio 43213
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9321]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL03-236-009 and EL04-121-004]


PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

May 8, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2007, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 
filed its Market Monitor's 2006 State of the Market Report, pursuant to 
Article VI of the settlement agreement filed on November 16, 2005 and 
approved by the Commission January 27, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#286e6d7a6b67464441464d7b5d5858475a5c684e4d5a4b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="32747760717d5c5e5b5c57614742425d404672545740511c555d44">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 18, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9321 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(Reap. Dec. 9585)

#### Henry A. Wess, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 703, etc.

(Decided January 27, 1960)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*George Goehr cm Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been limited to certain radios exported from Japan and entered at the port of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, established that the proper basis for appraisement of the radios in question, which are represented by the invoice items marked “A” and checked with the initials “LEM” or “JFJ” is cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is $5,835 each, net, packed, and I so hold.

The appeals for reappraisement having been abandoned so far as-they relate to the leather cases included in the shipments in question, are dismissed as to that merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 Chesapeake Funding LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three and six month periods ended June 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), George J. Kilroy, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Neil J. Cashen, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/ George J. KilroyGeorge J. Kilroy
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2003 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                             |  | 
|/s/ Neil J. CashenNeil J. Cashen
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2003     |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Chesapeake Funding LLC and will be retained by Chesapeake Funding LLC and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John L. Skibski, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ John L. SkibskiJohn
      L. SkibskiChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      5, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
MBT Financial Corp. and will be retained by MBT Financial Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
(V. D. 71)

#### Manufacturers Steel Corp. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 841418, etc.

(Decided April 3, 1958)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant. '

*632La WHENCE, Judge:

The causes of action enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of this decision, are presently before me on remand from a classification proceeding decided by the second division of this court in *Manufacturers Steel Oorp. et al.*v. *United States,*36 Oust. Ct. 482, Abstract 60048, wherein the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement, pursuant to the provisions of title 28, U. S. C. § 2636 (d).

The parties to these proceedings have stipulated and agreed as follows:

1. That the merchandise consists of instruments and cases which were held by the Court in Abstract 60048 to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of article.

2. That the market value or the price of the instruments and cases herein at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was as set forth below.

[Statistical listing of market values or prices was here set forth.]

3. That there was no higher foreign value.

4. That the instant case may be submitted ton *[sic]*the foregoing stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that export value, as that value is is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the calipers, micrometers, and so forth, with wooden or leather cases, covered by the remands of protests enumerated in the attached schedule, and that such value is as indicated in paragraph 2 of the above-quoted stipulation.

I further find such values to be the proper dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

TYPE
TEXT
ARTICLE  5
CIK   0001117705
NAME NOVAMEX USA LTD

<S>                      <C>
PERIOD-TYPE             03-MOS
FISCAL-YEAR-END                                 JUN-30-2000
PERIOD-END                                      SEP-30-2000
CASH                                                  5,711
SECURITIES                                                0
RECEIVABLES                                          24,575
ALLOWANCES                                                0
INVENTORY                                                 0
CURRENT-ASSETS                                       30,768
PP&E                                                 19,325
DEPRECIATION                                              0
TOTAL-ASSETS                                         50,094
CURRENT-LIABILITIES                                 356,170
BONDS                                                     0
PREFERRED-MANDATORY                                       0
PREFERRED                                                 0
COMMON                                                  332
OTHER-SE                                          (306,406)
TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY                           50,094
SALES                                                     0
TOTAL-REVENUES                                            0
CGS                                                       0
TOTAL-COSTS                                               0
OTHER-EXPENSES                                       23,271
LOSS-PROVISION                                            0
INTEREST-EXPENSES                                         0
INCOME-PRETAX                                        18,629
INCOME-TAX                                                0
INCOME-CONTINUING                                         0
DISCONTINUED                                              0
EXTRAORDINARY                                             0
CHANGES                                                   0
NET-INCOME                                           18,629
EPS-BASIC                                             0.002
EPS-DILUTED                                           0.002
No. 48779.

#### Protests 931405-G, etc., of Armour & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 29, 2021 No. 04-20-00326-CR Leonard CHARGUALAF , Appellant
v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-1243-CR-A Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R In this Anders case, Appellant is preparing his pro se response but currently has no access to legal resources. He requests more time to prepare his response while he waits for transfer from a transient prison unit to a permanent one where he will have access to the unit’s legal department. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s pro se response is due on March 15, 2021.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of January, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of InterCept, Inc.**

 

InterCept Communications Technologies, Inc., a Georgia corporation 

InterCept Data Services, Inc., an Alabama corporation 

DPSC Acquisition Corp., a Georgia corporation (d/b/a InterCept) 

C-TEQ, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, (d/b/a InterCept)

ICPT Acquisition I, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, (d/b/a InterCept) 

InterCept Services, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company 

InterCept TX I, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company 

InterCept Output Solutions, LP, a Texas limitedpartnership 

InterCept Supply, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

ProImage, Inc., a Georgia corporation, (d/b/a InterCept) 

InterCept Payment Solutions, LLC, a Delawarelimited liability company 

Internet Billing Company, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company 

iBill Europe, Ltd., a Gibraltar company
#### Stone & Downer Co. *v.*United States

No. 6816.

Entry No. 7370, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 14, 1942, etc.

Certified May 14, 1942, etc.

Entered at Boston, Mass., June 23, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 28, 1947)

*Joseph F. Lockett*for the plaintiff.

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

Olivek, Presiding Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement 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 cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1   Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  1. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of  Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated. Date: November 7, 2008/s/ Hugo Rodier
Hugo Rodier
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer