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

County Court, Broome County,

June 25, 1952.

*47
      *Travis & Whiting*for appellant.

*Robert E. Fischer, District Attorney (Louis M. Qreenblott*of counsel), for respondent.

Babnes, Acting County Judge.

This is an appeal from the conviction under section 722 of the Penal Law. The defendant plead not guilty and was convicted by the Justice presiding, after a trial.

The jist of the appeal is that the testimony fails to prove any offense or crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence consists of two phases; the first being that the defendant, in the nighttime, stood by a tree looking across the street at two girls. Some significance is placed upon the fact that a tree apparently obstructed the visibility of the defendant, by the girls. The girls went their way and do not enter into the offense in any other manner. This, of course, is no offense, as it is the universal delight of men of all ages to look at girls; some even whistle.

The other phase of the charge is that the defendant, in the nighttime, in passing along the sidewalk, entered into the private walk which led from the sidewalk to the rear doors between two houses; the front room of each house being the living-room, and being lighted and being rooms in which there was no person, at the time. The defendant, according to the testimony, proceeded as far as the living rooms of these houses and then retreated to the sidewalk on two different occasions. There was no testimony that any living person was in the houses or on the sidewalk or anywhere in the locality (except the police officer who was operating his automobile on the highway). When accosted by the police officer, the defendant readily obeyed all his commands; made no attempt at flight or resistance. He gave an explanation of aimlessness.

The case comes within the precedent set forth in *People*v. *Perry*(265 N. Y. 362); *People*v. *Monnier*(280 N. Y. 77); *People*v. *Nixon*(248 N. Y. 182), and many others.

*48The District Attorney cites the recent case of *People*v. *Dioquardo*(303 N. Y. 514) as well as *People*v. *Adler*(174 App. Div. 301) and *People*v. *Dwyer*(160 App. Div. 542, affd. 215 N. Y. 46). In the recent case of *People*v. Dioquardo, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information charging *the*commission of a *‘ ‘*crime * * * by wrongfully * * * act in such a manner as to disturb the Public Peace ” etc. The plea of guilty was an admission that the acts were wrongful, etc.; while in the present case, the plea of not guilty controverts the wrongful intent and creates the presumption of innocence. This case is, therefore, distinguished from the *Dioquardo*case and requires proof of wrongful intent.

The acts proven may be called suspicious but fail to establish facts inconsistent with innocence. The judgment of conviction should be reversed and the information dismissed.
Exhibit 10.5

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO GRANDFATHERED SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT("Amendment"), dated effective as of August     , 2007 (the "Effective Date"), is
made by and between Forest Oil Corporation, a New York corporation (the "Company"), and                        ("Executive").

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have heretofore entered into that certain Severance Agreement
dated                        ,            ,
as amended (the "Severance Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Severance Agreement in certain respects;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual agreements set forth herein, the Company and Executive
hereby agree, effective as of the Effective Date, that the Severance Agreement shall be amended as hereafter provided:

1.     Paragraph 1(c) of
the Severance Agreement shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor:



---







2.     The
following new Paragraph 1(c)(1) shall be added immediately after Paragraph 1(c) of the Severance Agreement:



3.     The
following shall be added to the end of Paragraph 1(f) of the Severance Agreement:



4.     The
following shall be added to the end of each of Paragraph 3(b) and Paragraph 4(b) of the Severance Agreement:



5.     Clause (i) of
Paragraph 4(d) of the Severance Agreement shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor:



6.     The
following shall be added immediately after the word "due" in Paragraph 5 of the Severance Agreement:



2

---



7.     The
following shall be added immediately after the first sentence of Paragraph 6(a) of the Severance Agreement:



8.     The
following shall be added to the end of Paragraph 7(b) of the Severance Agreement:



9.     The
heading of Paragraph 7(i) of the Severance Agreement shall be changed to "Release, Covenant Not to Compete or Solicit, and Delayed Payment Restriction",
the current text of Paragraph 7(i) of the Severance Agreement shall be redesignated as subparagraph (1) of Paragraph 7(i) and the following new subparagraph
(2) shall be added to the end of Paragraph 7(i) of the Severance Agreement:



10.   This
Amendment (a) shall supersede any prior agreement between the Company and Executive relating to the subject matter of this Amendment and (b) shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and any successors to the Company and all persons lawfully claiming under Executive.

3

---



11.   As
amended hereby, the Severance Agreement is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the            day
of                        , 2007,
effective as of the Effective Date.

| |  | FOREST OIL CORPORATION
| |  | ----------------------
| |  | By:                   
| |  |                       
| |  |                       
| |  | EXECUTIVE             

4

---



QuickLinks
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

March 9, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Missouri, sitting by designation.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-11483

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00366-CR-ODE-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

MONIQUE SHERREE WHEAT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(March 9, 2006)

Before BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE , District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:
2

On appeal, Wheat raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was

sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Wheat’s guilt of conspiracy and

possession of document making implements with intent to produce false

identification documents; (2) whether Wheat’s right to a fair trial was violated by

the admission of evidence regarding nonpayment of state sales tax and federal and

state income taxes; (3) whether taking judicial notice and the admission of

testimony regarding state law concerning false identification documents

constituted prejudicial error; (4) whether admission of testimony regarding

purported profit margins was prejudicial error; (5) whether Wheat’s right to a fair

trial was violated by the jury instructions regarding intent and Counts 5 and 7; (6)

whether Wheat’s right to a fair trial was violated by failing to include her proposed

jury instructions as to her theory of the case; (7) whether application of the “role in

the offense” or “criminal livelihood” enhancements were proper in light of United

States v. Booker, 453 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 749 (2005); (8) whether the federal

statute regarding false identification documents, 18 U.S.C. § 1028, is facially

overbroad or vague; and (9) whether the “criminal livelihood” enhancement,

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.3, is vague either facially or as applied to Wheat. 

After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, and having

entertained oral argument, we discern no error in the judgment and rulings of the

district court, and, accordingly, we AFFIRM.
UATC 2013 10K Exhibit 4.8


Exhibit 4.8


AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this ___ day of November, 2013, by and between UNITED ARTISTS PROPERTIES I CORP., as landlord, (“Landlord”) and UNITED ARTISTS THEATER CIRCUIT, INC., as tenant, (“Tenant”).


WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant are parties to that certain Lease Agreement dated as of October 1, 1988 (together with any amendments, the “Lease”); and


WHEREAS, the term of the Lease is due to expire October 31, 2013; and 


WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant are desirous of extending the term of the Lease, subject to the terms hereof;


NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing recitals, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant covenant and agree as follows:


1.    Term.  The term of the Lease is hereby extended until December 31, 2016.


2.    Lease in Effect. All other terms and conditions of the Lease remain in full force and effect except as expressly amended by this Amendment, and Landlord and Tenant do hereby ratify and confirm the Lease, as further modified and amended herein. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between this Amendment and the Lease, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall control.


3.    Entire Agreement. This Amendment sets forth the entire understanding and agreement between Landlord and Tenant with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first stated above.


	
		
	LANDLORD:


	TENANT:



	UNITED ARTISTS PROPERTIES I CORP., a Colorado corporation




	UNITED ARTISTS THEATER CIRCUIT, INC., a Maryland corporation

	By: ________________________________
Name: Todd S. Boruff
Title: Vice President
	By: ________________________________
Name: Todd S. Boruff
Title:  Vice President
AGREEMENT

This Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of April
19, 2011, by and among Pam J. Halter ("PJH") and Reunion Sports
Group LLC ("Reunion").

WHEREAS on September 14, 2010 Reunion issued a Promissory Note
("Promissory Note") in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand dollars
($200,000.00) to Millennia, Inc. ("Millennia") due on January 28,
2011 ("Maturity Date"). Millennia in turn endorsed the note and
the attached collateral over to Pam J. Halter with full recourse.
A true copy of the original promissory note is attached as
Exhibit A; and

WHEREAS on February 7, 2011 the due date of the Promissory Note
was extended to March 7, 2011; and

WHEREAS Reunion did not make the required payment on March 7,
2011 and acknowledges herewith being in default; and

WHEREAS Reunion wishes for PJH to accept the collateral attached
to the Note (36,500,000 shares of Millennia, Inc.) in full
satisfaction of the unpaid balance due on the note.

NOW THEREFORE for and in consideration of the premises and the
respective covenants, agreements and obligation hereinafter set
forth, PJH and Reunion do hereby agree as follows:

     1. PJH hereby accepts the 36,500,000 shares of Millennia,
Inc. in full satisfaction of the unpaid balance due on the note.

     2. The current Board of Directors of Millennia, Inc. shall
tender their resignations effective as of April 19, 2011 as
officers and directors of Millennia and prior to their
resignation appoint Pam J. Halter  to become the sole director
and President and Chief Executive Officer of Millennia.

     3. Millennia's wholly owned subsidiary United League
Baseball, Inc. is hereby conveyed back to Reunion Sports Group
LLC who is assuming any and all liabilities said entity may have
incurred.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was duly executed as of the
date set forth above.

 Pam J. Halter                     Reunion Sports Group LLC


/s/ Pam J. Halter                  By: /s/ John Bryant
---------------------                   ----------------------
                                        John Bryant - President
The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1

for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2499

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Marty Linn Crafton, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 26, 1998

 Filed: April 15, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

An indictment charged Marty Linn Crafton with being a felon in possession of

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). After a jury found him

guilty, the district court sentenced him to 210 months in prison. Crafton appeals his 1

conviction, and his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
-2-

At trial, Crafton stipulated he had been convicted of a crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; a number of witnesses testified they

observed Crafton holding a gun one evening during a scuffle at an Arkansas bar; and

the bar owner testified he took the gun from Crafton and gave it to the police. In

addition, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms testified that the

gun had been manufactured in Massachusetts. Viewing this evidence in the light most

favorable to the verdict, we conclude the government met its burden of proof. See

United States v. Horsman, 114 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 1997) (elements of § 922(g)(1)

offense), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 702 (1998); United States v. Balanga, 109 F.3d 1299,

1301 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). After reviewing the record for any

nonfrivolous issues in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and

having found none, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
balance and number of pool assets serviced by the Servicer. During the reporting period certaininvestor reports contained errors that resulted in disclosures that were inconsistent with theterms set forth in the transaction agreements.In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described in the preceding paragraph, PNCBank, National Association, as successor to National City Bank, complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2010 for all asset-backsecurities transactions conducted by National City Credit Card Master Note Trust that wereregistered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 wherethe related asset-backed securities were outstanding at any one time during the period from January1, 2010 through December 31, 2010, in all material respects.**/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP**March 31, 2011
#### AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. McNallen J. REED et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 6048.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 18, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 21, 1977.

Writ Refused Nov. 11, 1977.

*953Yoorhies & Labbé by Mark D. Bienvenu, Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier & Roy, Richard C. Meaux, Lafayette, for defendants-appellants.

Donald Soileau, Mamou, for plaintiffs-ap-pellees.

Before HOOD, HEARD and ROGERS, JJ.

HOOD, Judge.

Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and ACF Industries, Inc., instituted this action against the Estate of Mr. and Mrs. Etley Reed. Their claims arose out of a motor vehicle collision which occurred on May 1, 1970. Aetna seeks to recover workmen’s compensation payments made to Thomas M. Jones for injuries sustained by Jones as a result of that accident. ACF Industries, the insured, seeks to recover property damages. Judgment was rendered by the trial court in favor of defendant, and plaintiffs appealed.

This is a companion to a suit which was instituted by McNallen J. Reed, and others, against American Motorists Insurance Company, ACF Industries and Aetna, arising out of the same accident. The cases were consolidated for trial, and we are rendering a separate judgment in each case. See *Reed, et al. v. American Motorists Insurance Company, et al.,*355 So.2d 948, (No. 6047 on the docket of this court).

In the companion suit, No. 6047, we held that Jones, the driver of one of the vehicles involved was negligent, and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. For the reasons which we assigned in that case, we conclude that in the instant suit Jones’ employer, ACF Industries, and its insurer, Aetna, are not entitled to recover against the Estate of the driver of the other vehicle.

The judgment appealed from in the instant suit is affirmed. The costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiffs-appellants.

AFFIRMED.
null

2015-06-18

124.232605

eng - Argued: 2015-06-18. Docket number: 3-14-0270WC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

In the Matter of 

SEBASTIAN M. RAINONE 

 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

 

 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 1164 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 

No. 60 DB 2004 

Attorney Registration No. 16046 

(Philadelphia) 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Reinstatement is 

denied. 

 Petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the 

investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement. See Pa.R.D.E. 218(f).
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 18, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 12, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Contract 38 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-172, CP2018-244.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-12959 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02536**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### 02536\02536_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 02536\02536_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 02536\02536_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 02536\02536_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02536\02536_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02536\02536_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02536\02536_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02536\02536_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02536\02536_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02536\02536_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02536\02536_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 02536\Supporting Documents\02536_ Part C - CAN NOT OPEN.xlsx Copy of plant submitted survey file 

### x 02536\Supporting Documents\02536_ Part E - CAN NOT OPEN.xlsx Copy of plant submitted survey file 

### x 02536\Supporting Documents\02536_ Part F - CAN NOT OPEN.xlsx Copy of plant submitted survey file 

### x 02536\Supporting Documents\02536_ Part G - CAN NOT OPEN.xlsx Copy of plant submitted survey file 

### x 02536\Supporting Documents\D-1 BWK 82410.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02536\Supporting Documents\D-2 BWK 82410.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x x 02536\Supporting Documents\Landfill Monitoring Well Locations BWK 090310.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x x 02536\Supporting Documents\MAP-1.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02536\Supporting Documents\SPD-1 Monitoring Well Locations BWK 90310.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02536\Supporting Documents\WB1- BWK 82010 .pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

.
3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 15

- 00364

- CR

Joe William MEURET Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- CRD

- 07

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 20, 2016.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          1,386
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,386
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  7,179,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           389,530
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     70,000
<COMMON>                        25,498
<OTHER-SE>                      6,694,304
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    7,179,332
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                30,424
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              16,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (46,846)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (46,846)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (46,846)
<EPS-BASIC>                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0



</TABLE>