alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued November 19,

affirmed December 24, 1969

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ROBERT L. GUTHERIE, *Appellant.*

462 P. 2d 702

*Jack E. Collier,*Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Glenn A. Geurts, Portland.

*Billy L. Williamson,*Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted in a trial by jury of “assault with a dangerous weapon.” He appeals on *387the grounds: (1) that the instruction given on self defense was not adequate, and (2) that neither he nor Ms counsel were permitted to see the pre-sentence report prepared by the Board of Parole and Probation.

These questions were not properly raised in the court below. We find nothing in the record wMch warrants departure from the rule that issues not properly raised and preserved in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. *State v. Avent,*209 Or 181, 302 P2d 549 (1956).

Affirmed.
#### M. D. C., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 1972.

Appeal from Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Palm Beach County; Louis Kapner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 741 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 741

Disapproving of the President's expression of intent to expand amnesty 
   to undocumented immigrants through Executive order after the 2014 
                    congressional midterm elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2014

Mr. Olson submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving of the President's expression of intent to expand amnesty 
   to undocumented immigrants through Executive order after the 2014 
                    congressional midterm elections.

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives disapproves of the 
President's expression of intent to expand amnesty to undocumented 
immigrants through Executive order after the 2014 congressional midterm 
elections.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 28, 2016

a0620 

# Order

Clerk June 28, 2016

151290(36)(39)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151290

COA: 325503

Jackson CC: 82

- 029906

- FC

MICHAEL DARNELL HARRIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 29,

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously. The motion for clarity on MCR 6.502(G)(1) is DENIED.
#### Kermit T. SANDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1834.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 30, 1978.

Kermit T. Sand§, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

*1190PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Kermit T. Sands, was found guilty of the sale of a controlled substance. On appeal, the judgment and sentence were affirmed. See *Sands v. State,*341 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The present appeal is from the denial of his motion to vacate pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. The motion was properly denied under the law as set forth in *Robinson v. Wainwright,*240 So.2d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). See also *Arizona v.*Washington, - U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 824, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978).

Affirmed.
#### Kenneth BURNSTEIN, Appellant, v. ATLANTIC ELECTRIC CONTRACTORS, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-342.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
;­

J. Harvey Alexander 

32 Passaic Avenue 

Roseland, NJ 07068-1618 

March 6, 2010 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from the U.S. to Tokyo's Haneda 

airport. As a retired employee ofDelta, I enthusiastically support this application. 

Under the new aviation agreement with Japan, Haneda will be reopened to u.S. carriers for the final time since 1976. 

Because ofits convenient location near central Tokyo, Haneda is the preferred airport for business travelers. 

Delta employees, and many of its retirees, have worked for many years to build Delta's business in Japan, and no 

U.S. airline has invested more in Tokyo than Delta. Delta has a strong record of competitive trans-Pacific service. 

But the reopening ofHaneda will put that investment and Delta jobs at risk if they are unable to compete. 

Delta's major competitors, the Star.and oneworld Alliances, have Japanese partners that dominate service at Haneda. 

Delta, which does not have a Japanese partner, would be at a serious disadvantage unless it is given the opportunity 

to compete at Haneda. 

If Delta is provided with the Haneda slots they need, all three of the major airline alliances - SkyTeam, Star and 

oneworld - will be able to compete on a level playing field. That new competition would provide tremendous 

benefits for Delta's customers and Delta's employees. 

I urge you to approve Delta's application and provide the frequencies proposed to serve Haneda from Seattle, Detroit, 

Los Angeles and Honolulu. 

Sincerely, 

1. Harvey Alexander 

973 226-2646
Exhibit 31.1



Section 302 Certification



I, Bradley J Carver, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GlycoGenesys, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) [Paragraph reserved pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238];



c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



d) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



Date: August 19, 2003



|By: /s/ Bradley J Carver                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bradley J Carver Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)



22
EX-10.13





 Exhibit 10.13 

 
 



 
 PROJECT PATRIOT BONUS AGREEMENT 

August 28, 2020 
 Dear Steve 

SkyWater Technology Foundry, Inc. is pleased to present you with this Project Patriot Bonus Agreement, which has the potential bonus earnings value of
$250,000 (subject to applicable tax withholdings), subject to all the terms and conditions detailed below. 
 The actual bonus earned shall depend on
completion of Project Patriot and your level of effort and performance in the 7 project phases as well as the successful refinancing/recapitalization of the Company. 

In addition to the overall Project Patriot success and completion of the project, you must remain an employee in good standing and on active payroll through
the payout date in order to receive a payout. The “payout date” shall be the date on which the President and Chief Financial Officer review and determine the performance results associated with the overall project success. Such
determination shall be documented on a Project Summary Evaluation. If you terminate employment (either voluntarily or “for cause”) with the Company prior to the payout date, you forfeit any bonus that would have been achieved. 

This letter is not intended to be constructed as an employment contract, it does not guarantee the length of your employment with the Company, nor does it
alter the at-will nature of your employment with SkyWater Technology Foundry, Inc. You agree to keep the existence, amount and terms of this Project Bonus Agreement set forth herein completely confidential.
You shall not publish or disclose to any third party any confidential or proprietary information concerning the Company that was acquired or learned during your employment with the Company. 

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota without reference to conflicts of law rules. 

 

									
	/s/ Steve Manko	 	8/28/2020	 		 	  
	 	  

	Steve Manko	 	Date	 		 		 	
					
	/s/ Steve Manko	 	8/28/2020	 		 	/s/ Tom Sonderman	 	8/28/2020
	Steve Manko, CFO	 	Date	 		 	Tom Sonderman, President	 	Date

  

					
	Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Milgrom, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 777]

—Appeal by the *493defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered December 18, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well established that “where the plea allocution demonstrates a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, intended comprehensively to cover all aspects of the case, and no constitutional or statutory mandate or public policy concern prohibits its acceptance, the waiver will be upheld completely even if the underlying claim has not yet reached full maturation” *(People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570, 575). Moreover, trial courts are not required to engage in any particular litany during an allocution in order to obtain a valid plea of guilty in which the defendant waives a plethora of rights *(see, People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909, 910-911).

The defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to appeal as part of a plea bargain. During the plea allocution, the court specifically told the defendant that he was giving up the right to appeal from the judgment as well as the adverse suppression ruling. Thus, there was a valid waiver of the right to appeal, which encompassed the denial of the suppression motion *(see, People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831; *People v Williams,*36 NY2d 829, *cert denied*423 US 873). Since the suppression issue is the only issue raised on appeal, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed *(see, People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 283-285). Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
#### Gerald J. TOBIN et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. LITTLE BEAVER THEATRE, INC., Respondent.

No. 42234.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 258 So.2d 30.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1619** 

RICHARD HAKA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. MECKLENBURG COUNTY , Defendant

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:12

- cv - 00100

- FDW

- DSC )

Submitted : June 21, 2012 Decided: June 25, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Richard Haka, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Richard Haka appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible er ror. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Haka v. Mecklenburg Cnty. , No. 3:12

- cv - 00100

- FDW

- D SC (W.D.N.C. May 1, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
#### Joseph Fershion ASHER, Jr. v. Oliver P. SCHULINGKAMP, Judge, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans.

No. 53260.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: Joseph Fershion Asher, Jr. applying for writs of mandamus, prohibition and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.
Exhibit 10.29

January 18, 2007

Dear Scott

We are pleased to
offer you a position with Exar Corporation as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, reporting to Roubik Gregorian, President and Chief Executive Officer. Your starting annual salary will be $285,000.00 paid bi-weekly.

You will be included in the FY2008 Executive Incentive Compensation Program, which is effective from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008. This incentive program is
currently under development, and we expect to be able to provide details of the program within 60 days. Your target award will be 50% of your annual base salary with a maximum payout of 100% of annual base salary.

You will be granted 87,500 stock options on the first trade date in the month following your date of hire. Stock options vest 25% per year over a four-year period
and the option price is established as the fair market value of the stock on the day of the grant. You will also be granted 29,167 restricted stock units (RSUs) which vest 25% per year over a fouryear period. In addition, as a
sign-on incentive, you will be granted 6,000 RSUs which will vest 100% on May 1, 2007.

In the event of Change of Control and your position is
eliminated or substantially reduced in responsibility, all of your options and RSUs will immediately vest. In addition, in the event of Change of Control and your position is eliminated or substantially reduced in responsibility, you will
receive a lump sum severance payment equal to the greater of (a) one years base salary or (b) one months base salary for each year of completed service, up to a maximum of two (2) times your annual base salary.

Exar Corporation has a very competitive fringe benefit package that includes a 401(k) Plan and other benefits. We are a progressive and innovative company and believe
that your association with us will be mutually beneficial.

If our offer is acceptable, please sign and date in the space provided below and return one
copy to Gene Robles, fax (510) 668-7011 by 5:00 pm on Friday, January 18, 2007. This offer is contingent upon satisfactory completion of our standard background investigation for Company officers and you providing documentation that
satisfies the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Sincerely,



|                     |  |  |  |                                           |  |                   |  |     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | ----
|Gene Robles Director |  |  |  | Agreed and Accepted: /s/
J. Scott Kamsler |  | January 18, 2007 
|Human Resources      |  |  |  | J. Scott Kamsler                          |  |                   |  | Date
|                     |  |  | 
|CC: Roubik Gregorian |  |  |  | Start Date:                               |  | February 19, 2007
#### NATIONAL AMERICAN BANK OF NEW ORLEANS v. Louis G. DAVIS and Emile G. Coci.

No. 4113.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 3, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1970.

Legier, McEnerny, Waguespack, Kuhner & Scoggin, Guy B. Scoggin, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Charles E. McHale, Jr., New Orleans, for Emile G. Coci, defendants-appellants.

Before CHASEZ, REDMANN and SWIFT, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Emile G. Coci appeals from a judgment against himself in this suit on a promissory note.

Coci’s original answer denied plaintiff’s allegation it was the “holder and owner for valuable consideration”. A supplemental and amended answer was allowed immediately prior to trial because Coci had newly-employed counsel; plaintiff’s entitlement to a continuance was suggested by the trial judge, see LSA-C.C.P. art. 1154, but declined by plaintiff. The amended answer asserted the note was not supported by consideration.

Because the note recited “for value received”, the trial court excluded testimony sought to be elicited relative to the question of consideration, under the parol evidence exclusionary rule. LSA-C.C. art. 2276; see also C.C. art. 2238.

The exclusion of parol was erroneous.

> “ * * * Article 2276 of the Civil Code and the authorities cited by plaintiff holding that written contracts are not subject to modification by parol evidence are inapplicable to the issue presented in this case. Negotiable paper is governed by laws peculiar to itself. The want, failure, or illegality of consideration may be established by parol testimony between the parties to a note. * * * ” (Citation of authorities omitted.) Belknap Hdw. & Mfg. Co. v. Hearn, 179 La. 909, 155 So. 396, 397 (1934).

LSA-R.S. 7:28 (N.I.L. § 28) provides “Absence or failure of consideration is a matter of defence as against any person not a holder in due course; * * * ” and *494plaintiff is the payee here, not a holder in due course.

The circumstance that Coci’s code-fendant, a co-maker, admitted consideration is not determinative of Coci’s plea.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and this matter remanded. Costs will await the final outcome.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Carmelo FERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1424.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 31, 1978.

Emilio De La Cal, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In separate counts of an information the appellant, defendant below, was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine, hashish, and cannabis. The evidence against the defendant upon which the charges were predicated resulted from a search made pri- or to arrest. Defendant moved to suppress such evidence challenging the legality of the search. The motion was denied. Defendant then pleaded nolo contendere, reserving right of appeal from said order. *State v. Ashby,*245 So.2d 225 (Fla.1971). This appeal by the defendant ensued. In lieu of a brief in response to appellant’s brief the State has filed a confession of error. Whereupon the conviction and sentence entered on said plea are hereby set aside, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with direction that the appellant be accorded the opportunity to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere. See: *Wallace*v. *State,*321 So.2d 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
#### Robert J. Isaacs, Jr., et al., Respondents, v Diane M. Tifiletti et al., Defendants, and Aetna Finance Company, Doing Business as ITT Financial Services, Appellant.

[654 NYS2d 903]

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint against defendant Aetna Finance Company dismissed. Memorandum: In this action, plaintiffs seek to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Robert J. Isaacs, Jr., when he was struck by an automobile and pinned against another automobile that was registered to defendant Mildred Traylor. Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Aetna Finance Company (Aetna) to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). At the time of the accident, Aetna was out of possession and had only a security interest in the Traylor vehicle. Aetna therefore cannot be held liable as an owner of that vehicle pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 *(see, Buehler v Bogino,*39 Misc 2d 1074; *see also,*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.— Dismiss Complaint.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Doerr, Balio and Fallon, JJ.