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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), *684rendered June 9, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is settled that the decision as to whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a previously entered plea of guilty rests within the sound discretion of the sentencing court *(see, People v Brownlee,*158 AD2d 610; *People v Hagzan,*155 AD2d 616). In the case at bar, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily made a complete plea allocution in the presence of competent counsel, after the court had apprised him of the consequences of his plea *(People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). The sole basis for the defendant’s application to withdraw his plea was that he expected "less time” than the sentence actually imposed. Under these circumstances it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion *(see, People v Hagzan, supra; People v Morris,*118 AD2d 595).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Order 2014

- 8

- 4

Served: August 7, 2014

U N I T E D S

T A T E S O F A

M E R I C A D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T

I O N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 7 th day of August

, 2014

Application of

USA JET AIRLINES , INC.

for a disclaimer of jurisdiction o r in the alternative approval of the transfer pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41105 Docket DOT

- OST

- 20 1 2

- 0220

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION

On December 28, 2012

, USA Jet Airlines , Inc. ( “ USAJ ” ) filed an application in D ocket DOT

OST

- 201 2

- 0 220 requestin g that the Department disclaim jurisdiction over the corporate reorganization of USAJ in which USAJ would be converted from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware limited liability company. Subsequently , the air carrier’s representative informed us

that the air carrier was no longer pursuing a corporate reorganization or its application for a disclaimer of jurisdiction.

In light of the above, the Department dismisses, without prejudice, the applicat ion filed in

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0 220 by USAJ . We invite U SAJ to refile its application when it is fully prepared to prosecute its application

.

ACCORDINGLY, Acting under authority assigned by the De partment in its regulations,

14 CFR 385.12:

1. We dismiss, without prejudice, the application filed by USA Jet Airlin es , Inc.

, in Docket

DOT

- OST

- 20 12

- 0 220 for a disclaimer of jurisdiction or in the alternative approval of the transfer pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41105.

2. We will serve a copy of this order on the persons listed in Attachment A.

Persons entitled to petition th e Department for review of this order under the Department’s Regulations, 14 CFR 385.30, may file their petitions within 10 days of the service date of this

order.2

This order shall become effective and become the final action of the Department of

Tran sportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review this order on its own motion.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director Office of Aviation Analysis

An electro nic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.regulations.govAttachment A

SERVICE LIST FOR USA JUET AIRLINES , INC.

DAVID SCHEMBRI

USA JET AIRLINES INC

2068 E STREET

BELLEVILLE MICHIGAN 48111 CSET ASSISTANT MANAGER

FE DERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

45005 AVIATION DRIVE AFS

- 900

SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

PETER LYNCH

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL

FOR ENFORCEMENT AGC

- 300

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591 NOLAN YALDO

HOWARD & HOWARD ATT ORNEYS PLLC

COUNSEL FOR USA JET AIRLINES INC

450 WEST FOURTH STREET

ROYAL OAK MICHIGAN 48067
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3925 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3925

   To authorize and request a posthumous commission in the Army for 
                       Johnson Chesnut Whittaker.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 1994

 Mr. Clyburn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize and request a posthumous commission in the Army for 
                       Johnson Chesnut Whittaker.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REQUEST FOR POSTHUMOUS APPOINTMENT AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER 
              IN THE ARMY.

    The President is authorized and requested to issue, or have issued, 
a posthumous commission in the name of Johnson Chesnut Whittaker of 
South Carolina in the grade of second lieutenant in the regular Army, 
as recompense for the unjust separation of Johnson Chesnut Whittaker 
from the Corps of Cadets of the United States Military Academy and the 
United States Army in the early 1880's.

SEC. 2. BENEFITS.

    Section 1523 of title 10, United States Code, shall apply to a 
commission issued as requested in section 1.

                                 <all>
```
#### In re Janet Rose HNAT, Appellant.

No. 69-612.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 7, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 14, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## NO. 12

- 23

- 00105

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

DAVID A. KELLY ,
RE LA TOR §
§
§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Davi d A. Kelly, acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to cha llenge Respondent ’ s failure to rule on his motion to withdraw plea of guilty

. 1 On May 18, 2023, Respondent signed an

or der denying R elator ’ s motion. Because Respondent ruled on Relator ’ s motion , Relator received the relief requested and this complaint is now moot. See In re Bonilla , 424 S.W.3d 528, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (there is nothing to manda m us when relief sought has become moot); see also In re Hays
, No. 12

- 19

- 00413

- CR, 2019 WL 7987970, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Feb. 19, 2019, orig. proceeding ) ( per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication ) ( dismissing as
moot mandamus proceeding chall e nging failure to rule on motion for judgment nunc pro tun c because respondent ruled on motion ) ; In re Andrews , No. 12

- 19

- 00015

- CR, 2019 WL 210815, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Jan. 16, 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publicati o n) ( mandamus proceeding challenging failure to rule on motion to compel dismissed as moot where respon dent ruled on motion ). Accordingl y, we dismiss the petition for writ of

ma ndamus as moot

. 2 Opinion delivered May 31, 2023. Panel c onsisted of Worthen, C. J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Respondent is the Honorable Eddie No rthcutt, Judge o f the 8th District Court in Rains County, Texas. The State of Texas is the Real Party in Interest.

2 Relator ’s mandamus petition failed to comply with certain app ellate ru les. This Court granted Relator an exten sion to June 22, 2023 , to c orrect t he defec ts. In the interim, howe ver, Respondent ruled on Relator ’s motion to withdraw guilty plea.

## COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 31 , 2023

NO. 12

- 23

- 00105

- CR

DAVID A. KELLY , Relator V.

HON. EDDIE NORTHCUTT , R espondent

O RIGI NAL P ROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by David A. Kelly ; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12

- 23

- 00105

- CR and the defendant
in trial court cause nu mbe r 6370 , pending on the docket o f the 8th Judici al District Court of
Rains County , Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on April 25,
2023 , and the same having been duly considered, because i t i s the opinion of this Court that the
writ should not issue , it i s therefore CONS IDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot

. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of W orthen, C. J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
Sanitized Operation Description
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 13 ) I V-E-08 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57:59 AM

Sheet 13 of 117P. 2 

# ft-*} 0-3- 7 NS R REFOR M DOCKETIN G FOR M NAME O F EXTERNAL GROUP : Bil l Tyndal l MEETIN G X SPEEC H PHONE CALL (chec k one ) DATE : Jun e 4,199 7 

### l-3t -*f t TIME : 11:3 0 a.m . LOCATIO N OF MEETING/SPEECH/PHON E CALL : Office o f Bill Tyndal l PURPOS E OF MEETING/SPEECH/PHON E CALL : T o discus s workgrou p history associate d wit h th e draftin g o

f th e NS R reformproposal . ATTENDEES : Ann aMari e Wood , To mEagle s an d Bil l Tyndal l COMMENTS : N

o ne w informatio n discusse d o r provided .
#### Sherman BANKS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1-206.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

April 20, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
251 La. 677

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Mrs. Shirley Jean Leger CLARK and Walter Clark, Jr., Applying For Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. 49047.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 17, 1968.

In re: Mr. and Mrs. Wiley Rist applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ refused. Applicants have an adequate remedy by appeal.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

CVB FINANCIAL CORP. 2008 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 3 (the “Amendment”) to the CVB Financial Corp. 2008 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), adopted by CVB Financial Corp., a California corporation (the “Company”), is effective as of
February 4, 2014. All capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as in the Plan. 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company may, in its sole
discretion, amend the Plan, or any part thereof, at any time and for any reason; provided that no such amendment alters or impairs any rights or obligations under any award previously granted to any participant in the Plan; 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has deemed it to be in the best interests of the Company to amend the
Plan to add language to the end of Section 7.5, and on February 4, 2014, adopted an amendment to the Plan in the form set forth below: 

NOW THEREFORE, in compliance with the terms of the Plan, the following sentence is added as the last sentence of Section 7.5: 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall be permitted to grant an Award or Awards in excess of 100,000 Shares in the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer in connection with his performance of services for the Company and its Subsidiaries.” 

Survival. Except as modified hereby, all of the provisions of the Plan remain in full force and effect. 

References. Any reference to the Plan contained in any document, instrument or agreement executed in connection with the
Agreement, shall be deemed to be a reference to the Plan as modified by this Amendment. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the
Plan is effective as of the date first above written. 
  

					
	CVB FINANCIAL CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ronald O. Kruse

		 	Name:	 	Ronald O. Kruse
		 	Title:	 	Chairman of the Board of Directors
EX-10.(e)(2)



 EXHIBIT 10(e)(2) 

Section 6(j) of the Snap-on Incorporated Directors’ 1993 Fee Plan was restated effective as of February 13, 2014 to read: 

 

	(j)	Account Transfers. 

 (i) Cash Account to Share Account. Subject to
any applicable corporate policies, from time to time a Director may convert all or a portion of any Cash Account balance of the Director into deferred shares of Common Stock credited to the Director’s corresponding Share Account by written
notice to the Company. In such event, and effective as of the date the Company receives such a notice, (i) there shall be credited to the Director’s Share Account a number of Share Units equal to the number of Share Units specified in the
notice or, if such notice specifies a dollar amount, a number of Share Units equal to such dollar amount divided by the Fair Market Value on the last trading business day immediately preceding the date the Company receives such notice and
(ii) the Director’s Cash Account shall be debited in an amount equal to the number of Share Units credited to the Share Account multiplied by the Fair Market Value on the same trading business day. 

(ii) Share Account to Cash Account. Subject to any applicable corporate policies, from time to time a Director with a
credit balance in a Share Account may convert all or a portion of such balance into an amount to be credited to the Director’s corresponding Cash Account by giving written notice to the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Director may not
convert the portion of his or her Share Account balance that is attributable to a Director’s Deferral Election with respect to an award of Common Stock prior to the date that is six (6) months and one (1) day after the date the
Director would have received such Common Stock in the absence of such Deferral Election. For avoidance of doubt, the foregoing waiting period shall not apply to any portion of a Director’s Share Account attributable to Fees that would have been
payable in cash but for a Director’s Share Election under Section 5(a). In the event a Director elects such a conversion, and effective as of the date the Company receives such a notice, (i) there shall be credited to the
Director’s Cash Account an amount equal to the number of Share Units specified in the notice multiplied by the Fair Market Value on the last trading business day immediately preceding the date the Company receives such notice and (ii) the
Director’s Share Account shall be debited by the number of Share Units specified in the notice.
#### Larry BOYD v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47803.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 11, 1974.

Rodney F. Simmons, John C. Ross, Jr., Corinth, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Ben H. Walley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Affirmed.
VRTX 10K_2013-Exhibit 10.40






Exhibit 10.40
 
Vertex Employee Compensation Plan


On an annual basis in the first quarter of the fiscal year the Management Development and Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors adopts an employee compensation plan for our officers and other employees, including our named executive officers, together with performance goals for that fiscal year. The plan addresses three components of employee compensation—base salary, performance bonuses which serve as short-term incentives and equity grants which serve as long-term incentives—that are designed to motivate, reward and retain employees by aligning compensation with the achievement of strategic corporate goals.


Upon completion of each performance period (usually a calendar year), our Board of Directors assigns a performance rating on the basis of achievement of goals for the company set by the Board, in consultation with our chief executive officer, early in the performance period. The amount available for payment of performance bonuses is established on the basis of this performance rating, and is allocated to employees on the basis of salary tier and individual performance rating. The base salaries of the executive officers are set based on market and other competitive factors. Merit increases to base salaries for other employees are made on the basis of individual performance rating. Annual equity grants, made in the form of stock options, restricted stock grants or units, or a combination of both are made on the basis of salary tier and individual performance.


The Board of Directors retains broad discretion to determine the appropriate form and level of compensation, particularly for our executives, on the basis of its assessment of our executives, the demand for talent, our performance and other factors. Key corporate performance factors generally include, among other things, achievement of regulatory and commercialization goals, research and development productivity, enhancements of organizational capabilities, maintenance of financial stability and other aspects of our performance. We reserve the right to modify the plan, and the key corporate performance factors and criteria under the plan, at any time.


On February 5, 2014, the Board of Directors determined the cash bonus awards related to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and annual salaries effective February 2014.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with this Quarterly Report of WTTJ Corp, on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending March 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kris Kottmeier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) Such Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ending March 31, 2015, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and March 31, 2015 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of WTTJ Corp.  July 27, 2015By:/s/ Kris KottmeierKris KottmeierChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of Monroe County Department of Social Services, On Behalf of Janice McMillon, Appellant, v Keith Pendleton, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court did not abuse its discretion in reducing, from $80 to $50 per week, the amount of support the Hearing Examiner directed to be paid pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act (Family Ct Act § 413). The court properly considered respondent’s debt obligations, significant non-monetary contributions towards the care and support of the child, voluntary assumption of medical insurance coverage for the child and the fact that the child resides with her maternal grandparents in reaching its conclusion that *1042imposition of the "basic child support obligation” derived by application of the child support guidelines or standards would be unjust and inappropriate in this case *(see,*Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [f]). (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Kohout, J.—Child Support.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
#### Capat Tavern, Inc., et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 13, 1990, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and severing the issue of attorney’s fees, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion is denied, without costs.

IAS misconstrued the memorandum decision and order of Hon. Karla Moskowitz entered herein on June 30, 1988, denying the motion of defendant City for summary judgment, *206as a determination that plaintiffs were entitled to that drastic relief in this contract claim to recover a tenant’s relocation expenses on the condemnation of the fee. At best, Justice Moskowitz’ order simply dismissed various defenses interposed by the City (e.g. failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, lack of consideration), and held that a triable cause of action was presented by plaintiffs. The decretal part of the order simply stated "defendant’s motion is denied”, a determination affirmed by this court in its order entered March 16, 1989 [148 AD2d 1019]. There is nothing to suggest that Justice Moskowitz’ decision searched the record (plaintiffs did not cross-move before her) and awarded final judgment to plaintiffs *(cf, Fertico Belgium v Phosphate Chems. Export Assn.,*100 AD2d 165, 171, *appeal dismissed*62 NY2d 802). If that had been the case, there would have been no need for plaintiffs to move a second time before a different Judge, who should not even have entertained this application, but instead should have referred it to the first Justice (CPLR 2221).

To conclude as IAS did here that "[t]he agreement had been held valid” [by Judge Moskowitz] could not support the ultimate and erroneous conclusion that defendant was liable to plaintiffs as a matter of law. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350**

 

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of theundersigned officers of Euro Disney S.C.A., (the “Company”), does herebycertify to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

TheAnnual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended September 30, 2005 (the “Form20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in theForm 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

DatedApril 4, 2006

 
|   | By:                                         | /s/ KARL L. HOLZ |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Karl L. Holz,                         |
|   | Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

DatedApril 4, 2006

 
|   | By:                            | /s/ IGNACE LAHOUD |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Ignace Lahoud            |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Euro Disney S.C.A. and will be retained by Euro Disney S.C.A. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (No. 333-85241) and S-8 (Nos. 333-95811 and 333-45826) and
related Prospectuses of Aames Financial Corporation of our report dated
August 24, 2000 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Aames Financial Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended June 30, 2000.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP



Los Angeles, California
September 28, 2000