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

[735 NYS2d 824]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Berke, J.), rendered November 3, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminally negligent homicide.

In September 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide in satisfaction of an indictment charging him with that crime, as well as driving while ability impaired, and he was thereafter sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years in accordance with a plea bargain. He now appeals and we affirm.

Initially, inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate his judgment of conviction, he has not preserved for our review the issue that his plea was not voluntary *(see, People v Fuller,*245 AD2d 987, *lv denied*91 NY2d 941). Nevertheless, were we to consider such claim, we would find it to be without merit. A review of the minutes of the plea proceeding reveals that defendant answered all questions put to him by County Court, acknowledged that he had consulted with his attorney and was satisfied with counsel, stated that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, acknowledged that he had not been threatened into pleading, stated that he understood that he had the right to a trial, acknowledged the facts underlying his commission of the crime and stated that he was entering a guilty plea freely and voluntarily. As such, defendant’s plea was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently *(see, People v Dover,*227 AD2d 804, 805, *lv denied*88 NY2d 984).

We also reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in failing to order a competency hearing. We note initially that defendant is presumed to be competent and, absent reasonable grounds to believe that defendant was incapable of assisting in his defense or of understanding the proceedings *592against him, he was not entitled to a competency hearing (see, *People v Planty,*238 AD2d 806, 807, *lv denied*89 NY2d 1098). Certainly, defense counsel’s plea for leniency at sentencing based upon his statement that defendant is borderline mentally retarded and has limited cognitive abilities did not present such reasonable grounds, particularly in light of defendant’s responses to questioning at the plea allocution (see, *People v Charnock,*239 AD2d 933).

For the same reasons previously expressed, we find nothing in the record to substantiate appellate counsel’s assertion that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a competency hearing. Finally, we also reject defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                         607,609
<SECURITIES>                                 2,123,109
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,600,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                   138,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,569,448
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,477,798
<PP&E>                                      82,879,393
<DEPRECIATION>                              63,468,655
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,773,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,683,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,219,195
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,207,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,773,034
<SALES>                                     95,346,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            95,683,731
<CGS>                                       43,430,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               92,322,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                27,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,361,629
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,246,665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,114,964
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,114,964
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17


</TABLE>
#### Joaquin Alberto MENDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-852.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 29, 1974.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Steven Rappaport, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Wayne Ripley, Jr., Legal Intern, for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: City of Miami v. Albro, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 23.
#### THE TIANA. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. THE Motor Boat “TIANA,” etc., Stillman Delehanty Ferris Company, Appellee.

No. 267.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 1, 1937.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., and Mary R. Towle, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New York City, for the United States.

Burlingham, Veeder, Clark & Hupper, of New York City (Norman M. Barron, of Ney York City, of counsel), for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Decree (- F.Supp. -) affirmed on opinion below.
#### GENTILLY TIME PAY PLANS, INC. v. Joseph SIRAGUSA, a/k/a Joseph R. Siragusa.

No. 3967.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 3, 1969.

Donald N. Memmer, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Joseph R. Siragusa, in pro. per.

Before SAMUEL, HALL and RED-MANN, JJ.

SAMUEL, Judge.

This matter is before us on a plaintiff-appellee motion to dismiss an appeal taken by the defendant from a judgment of the First City Court for the City of New Orleans in the amount of $300, together with interest, attorney’s fees and costs. The motion is based on the contention that the application for appeal was not made timely.

In the trial court this case was consolidated with Gentilly Time Pay Plans, Inc. v. Siragusa, No. 3,966 of our docket handed down this day, La.App., 227 So.2d 768. Both cases involve only the same two litigants and were tried at the same time. Motions to dismiss the appeals were filed by the plaintiff in both cases and all of the facts pertinent to the motions, including the date of judgment, the date of denial of a new trial and the date of the filing of the petition for appeal, are identical.

For the reasons assigned in Gentilly Time Pay Plans, Inc. v. Siragusa, No. 3,966 of our docket handed down this day, La.App., 227 So.2d 768, the appeal taken herein by the defendant, Joseph R. Sira-gusa, is dismissed at his cost.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
 
                           Amendment No. 1 to Agreement           Exhibit 10.3
                           ----------------------------   


This Amendment No. 1 to Agreement is made by and between Crown Vantage Inc., a
Virginia corporation (the "Company") and ________________ (the "Executive"),
dated as of the 30th day of January 1998.

A. The parties hereto entered into an Agreement, made as of December 5, 1995,
   providing for certain arrangements in the event of a Change of Control of the
   Company (the "Agreement").

B. The parties hereto wish to amend the Agreement with respect to the definition
   of the "Annual Bonus" as used in the Agreement, to be the higher of actual
   bonuses paid or target bonuses.


IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The first sentence of Subparagraph 4(b)(ii) of the Agreement shall be amended
   in its entirety, and shall read as follows:


   "In addition to Annual Base Salary, the Executive shall be awarded, for each
   fiscal year ending during the Employment Period, an annual bonus (the "Annual
   Bonus") in cash at least equal to the Executive's highest bonus (such bonus
   being the higher of (A) actual earned bonus, or (B) target bonus at 100% of
   the target,) under the Company's Incentive Plans in effect for the Company or
   any of its affiliated companies immediately prior to the Effective Date, or
   any comparable bonus under any predecessor or successor plan, for the last
   three full fiscal years prior to the Effective Date (annualized in the event
   that the Executive was not employed by the Company for the whole of such
   fiscal year) (the "Recent Annual Bonus").

2. In all other respects, the Agreement is reaffirmed and remains in full force
   and effect.

   IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive has hereunto set the Executive's hand and,
   pursuant to the authorization from its Board of Directors, the Company has
   caused these presents to be executed in its name on its behalf, as of the day
   and year first above written.





______________________________
(the "Executive")



CROWN VANTAGE INC.



By:____________________________
   Ernest S. Leopold
   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14644]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, August 8, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(718) 834-2203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be held Wednesday, August 8, 2018, 
at 2:00 p.m., Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must 
be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact Robert 
Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 
Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us 
at the website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will include 
various IRS issues.

    Dated: July 2, 2018.
Terrie English,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2018-14644 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### SENTRY INSURANCE, a mutual company, a foreign corporation doing business in Florida, Appellant, v. Tina ROWELL, Individually, and as a minor, by her natural mother and legal guardian, Inez Rowell, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-496.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Hugh McMillan, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Victor P. Cukor, Plaintiff, *v.*Henry A. Rothman, Defendant.

(City Court of City of New York, Special Term,

December, 1912.)

Jurisdiction — City Court of city of New York — actions involving an accounting.

Where an accounting is necessary to determine the rights of tne parties to an agreement, whether ,to be interpreted as one of partnership or for the division of profits of the business in which they have embarked, the City Court of the city of New York has no jurisdiction of the cause of action.

Motion for judgment on the pleadings.

*589Henry Kuntz, for plaintiff.

Abraliam Landan, for defendant.

Green, J.

Pursuant to the stipulation made by counsel in open court I shall consider this motion as one for judgment on the pleadings instead of a motion to compel a reply to the first defense in the answer. The agreement set forth *in extenso*in the answer is concededly the agreement upon which plaintiff predicates his cause of action, and, whether that agreement be interpreted to be a partnership agreement between the parties to this action or an agreement for a division of the profits of the business in which they embarked, the fact, nevertheless, remains that an accounting is absolutely necessary to determine their respective rights therein. In view of such question necessarily arising this court has no jurisdiction of the cause of action, and I, therefore, grant the motion of defendant for judgment on the pleadings not upon the merits, but for want of jurisdiction in the court to try the issues herein involved.

Motion granted.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No.333-130579) and Form S-8 (No. 333-112098) of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation of our report datedMarch 10, 2006 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of the Reorganized Company and of our report dated March 9, 2004relating to the financial statements of the Predecessor Company, which appears in thisForm 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading “Selected Financial Data” inthis Form 10-K/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Slip-Op 02-15

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 

:

DA JIN (U.S.) TRADING COMPANY, :

INC., :

:

Plaintiff, :

: Before: WALLACH, Judge

v. : Court No.: 02-00155

:

THE UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

and :

:

ABC COKE, et al., :

:

Defendant-Intervenors :

:

 :

ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion

for a Preliminary Injunction; the Court having reviewed the pleadings and papers on file herein,

and having heard oral argument on Wednesday, February 20, 2002, with Plaintiff Da Jin (U.S.)

Trading Company, Inc., appearing by and through Jeffrey S. Neeley, Esq., Defendant, United

States of America, appearing by and through Lucius B. Lau, Esq., and Defendant-Intervenors

ABC Coke, et al., appearing by and through Roger B. Schagrin, Esq.; and good cause appearing

therefor, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be, and

hereby is, GRANTED on the grounds that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this

case under 28 U.S.C. §1581(i), the only basis for jurisdiction asserted by Plaintiff in its Amended

Complaint, since jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1581(c) is or could have been available,

Norcal/Crosetti Foods, Inc. v. United States, 963 F.2d 356, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1992); and on the

grounds that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust its available administrative remedies, Nippon Steel

Corp. v. United States, 219 F.3rd 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Sandvik Steel Co. v. United States,

164 F.3rd 596 (Fed. Cir. 1998); and it is further 
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Temporary Restraining Order

previously entered in this case in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant be, and hereby is,

dissolved, and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all other pending motions in the above

entitled matter be, and hereby are denied as moot; and it is further

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in the

above entitled matter be, and hereby is, DISMISSED

__________________________

 Evan J. Wallach, Judge

Dated: February 20, 2002

New York, New York
Exhibit 32.1  CEO Certification

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Electronic Systems Technology Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tom L. Kirchner, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ T. L. KIRCHNER

Tom L. Kirchner                                                                        
Chief Executive Officer                                                               
Date: March 22, 2011



This certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Annual Report and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing..



A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2022128EN.01000402.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 26 November 2021 — Provident Polska S.A. v VF

(Case C-717/21)

(2022/C 128/05)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Provident Polska S.A.

Defendant: VF

Question referred

Does Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which gives expression to a fundamental right protecting the place of residence, preclude an interpretation of Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, as amended), (1) and in particular an interpretation of the concept of a significant imbalance, under which a consumer credit contract may be performed by payment of instalments collected by the seller or supplier exclusively at the consumer’s place of residence?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, Special edition in Polish: Chapter 15 Volume 002 P. 288 — 293.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00343-CV

In re Sean O’Malley

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BLANCO COUNTY

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

Relator, Sean O’Malley, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see 

also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In his petition, O’Malley asks us to issue a writ of mandamus directed 

to the Honorable Randy Brodbeck, Justice of the Peace for Precinct 1 of Blanco County.

By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a 

judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of 

appeals district”), see Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(b)(1), and other writs as necessary to enforce 

our appellate jurisdiction, see id. § 22.221(a). A justice of the peace is not a party against whom 

we may issue a writ of mandamus. Nor has O’Malley demonstrated that the exercise of our writ 

power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. We have no jurisdiction to grant O’Malley 

any relief.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.
2

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Kelly and Smith

Filed: May 24, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BONTEX,
INC.'S UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998, AS SET FORTH IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORTS ON FORM
10-Q, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             807
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                       232
<INVENTORY>                                      6,886
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,890
<PP&E>                                          23,148
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,698
<BONDS>                                          2,466
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,702
<SALES>                                         32,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,121
<CGS>                                           22,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,376
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   131
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   170
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (152)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (36)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (116)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (116)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>