alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00300-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1532383D

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

BRODERICK J. BERRY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After a jury found Broderick J. Berry guilty of failing to comply with sexoffender-registration requirements,1 he entered into a plea bargain with the State for a 

ten-year sentence. The plea paperwork included a waiver of the right of appeal. The 

trial judge sentenced Berry in accordance with the plea bargain. Although Berry was 

represented by appointed counsel, he filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial 

court’s judgment.

The trial court’s certification of Berry’s right of appeal shows that the case “is a 

plea-bargain case” with “NO right of appeal” and that Berry waived the right of 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s judgment states, “APPEAL 

WAIVED, NO PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED.”

After a defendant has been found guilty of committing an offense, he may 

waive his right to appeal in exchange for a recommended sentence. See Blanco v. State, 

18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Such a waiver warrants dismissal of 

any appeal. See id. Although we informed Berry and his trial counsel of our concern 

that the judgment is not appealable, we have received no response. Thus, we dismiss 

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f); see also Blanco, 18 S.W.3d at 219–20;

Brundage v. State, No. 04-19-00060-CR, 2019 WL 2194077, at *1 (Tex. App.—

1

The offense is a third degree felony with a punishment range of two to ten 

years’ confinement, but Berry had pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph, so the 

maximum punishment he faced was twenty years’ confinement. See Tex. Code Crim. 

Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(b)(2); Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33(a), 12.34(a), 12.42(a).
3

San Antonio May 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(per curiam); Andrews v. State, Nos. 02-12-00136-CR, 02-12-00137-CR, 2012 WL 

1868736, at *1 & n.2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 24, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (per curiam).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: April 9, 2020
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jack B. Solerwitz, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.), both rendered May 11, 1990, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree under Indictment No. 72895, and grand larceny in the second degree under Indictment No. 73428, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his guilty pleas were induced by *781an unfulfilled sentencing promise is unpreserved for appellate review as he neither moved to withdraw his pleas nor to vacate the judgments upon this ground *(see,*CPL 470.05; *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Kendall,*159 AD2d 727). In any event, the defendant’s claim that his pleas were induced by the court’s promise to impose concurrent sentences of no more than 4 to 12 years imprisonment is contradicted by the record, which establishes that all sentencing commitments were withdrawn prior to his change of pleas.

We further reject the defendant’s contention that the court exceeded its statutory authority by directing him to make restitution of certain agreed-upon sums to those victims who were named in the indictments or who had filed criminal complaints against him. It is well settled that restitution may be imposed for related offenses which are part of the same criminal transaction, as well as for offenses which are satisfied "by any plea of guilty by the defendant to an offense” (Penal Law § 60.27 [4]; *People v Bresciano,*165 AD2d 815; *People v Palella,*148 AD2d 838; *People v Prewett,*126 AD2d 86). Since the restitution imposed by the court was expressly consented to by the defendant, and was in satisfaction of other criminal charges, we find no basis to disturb this aspect of the sentence *(see, People v Bresciano, supra).*

We find that the term of imprisonment imposed upon the defendant was neither unduly harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### Robert J. NAGLE, Petitioner, v. The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, etc., Respondent.

No. 42456.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 25, 1972.

Certiorari dismissed. 261 So.2d 870.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
----

----

I Comunicaciones

Comisión

----

Tipo de cambio del euro (1)

15 de marzo de 2005

(2005/C 64/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fuente: tipo de cambio de referencia publicado por el Banco Central Europeo.

----

----

Documentos COM distintos de las propuestas legislativas adoptadas por la Comisión

(2005/C 64/02)

Estos textos se encuentran disponibles en EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

----

----

Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 87 y 88 del Tratado CE

Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones

(2005/C 64/03)

(Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE)

Fecha de la decisión: 

Estado miembro: Alemania (Sajonia-Anhalt)

Ayuda no: N 611/2003

Denominación: Importante ayuda a la inversión con arreglo al Marco multisectorial de 1998 sobre ayudas regionales para grandes proyectos de inversión a favor de e-glass AG

Objetivo: Realización de un amplio proyecto de inversión referente a la construcción de una fábrica para la producción de vidrio flotado

Fundamento jurídico: Regímenes de ayudas aprobados: Gemeinschaftsaufgabe «Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur»; Investitionszulagengesetz 1999, o régimen de seguimiento (en caso de haber sido aprobado); Programm für unmittelbare Bürgschaften des Bundes und der Länder in den neuen Bundesländern und Berlin Ost

Presupuesto: € 121 millones

Intensidad o importe de la ayuda: 35 % bruto

Duración: 15 de abril de 2003-31 de diciembre de 2005

Otros datos: Alemania se ha comprometido a cumplir las obligaciones relativas al control ex post con arreglo al punto 6 del Marco multisectorial sobre ayudas regionales para grandes proyectos de inversión.

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

----

II Actos jurídicos preparatorios

Comisión

----

Propuestas legislativas adoptadas por la Comisión

(2005/C 64/04)

Estos textos se encuentran disponibles en EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

----
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 September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Klamka, 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 nine months ending September 30 2012, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and September 30, 2012 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of WTTJ Corp.



|                 |     |                                                               | 
|---------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|January 31, 2013 | By: | /s/ Peter Klamka                                              | 
|                 |     | Peter Klamka                                                  | 
|                 |     | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer               | 
|                 |     | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Dove, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), rendered March 14, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By order of this court dated October 30, 1989, the case was remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, to hear and report concerning the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges, and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim *(see, People v Dove,*154 AD2d 705). The County Court (Orenstein, J.), has now complied.

*769Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

When this case was initially before us, the defendant argued that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges were racially motivated. In response, the People argued that the matter should be remitted to the County Court to give the prosecutor the opportunity to fully explain his peremptory challenges. This amounted to a concession that a prima facie case of racial discrimination had been made out, and it then fell to the People to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges. The People now argue that the defendant did not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination at the trial. We reject this argument because it was not made when the case was initially before us.

At the hearing, the prosecutor was unable to recall his specific reasons for challenging four black prospective jurors, and gave only a statement as to his general practice regarding jury selection. As such, his testimony "amounted to little more than a denial of discriminatory purpose and a general assertion of good faith” *(People v Bozella,*161 AD2d 775, 776) and failed to satisfy the People’s burden of overcoming the presumption of discrimination found by this court *(see, People v Bozella, supra; People v Sandy,*164 AD2d 898; *People v Mims,*149 AD2d 948). We have considered the defendant’s contention regarding the lineup procedure, and find it to be without merit. The defendant’s contention regarding his sentence is rendered academic by our determination requiring a new trial. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 560 

To provide that the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act shall not be construed as a tax. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2013 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To provide that the individual mandate under the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act shall not be construed as a tax. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds that on June 28, 2012, the Supreme 

5 Court ruled that the individual mandate imposed by sec6 tion 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

7 Act (Public Law 111–148) and amended by section 10106 

8 of such Act and sections 1002 and 1004 of the Health 

9 Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public 

10 Law 111–152), has certain functional characteristics of a 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 560 IS

1 tax and could be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s 

2 power to tax under article I, section 8, clause 1 of the 

3 Constitution. 

4 SEC. 2. CLASSIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL MANDATE AS NON5 TAX. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1501 of the Patient Pro7 tection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) 

8 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 section: 

10 ‘‘(e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in the 

11 amendments made by this section shall be construed as 

12 imposing any tax or as an exercise of any power of Con13 gress enumerated in article I, section 8, clause 1 of, or 

14 the 16th amendment to, the Constitution.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 this section shall apply as if included in the enactment 

17 of section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

18 Care Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

138804 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138804 

 COA: 290099 

Wayne CC: 08-001672-FC 

RICHARD MERLO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 18, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Increasing the employment of older workers and delaying the exit from the labour market

(2005/C 43/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication to the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Increasing the employment of older workers and delaying the exit from the labour market (COM(2004) 146 final);

having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 3 March 2004 to consult the Committee on this text under Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

having regard to the decision taken by the CoR President on 27 January 2004 to instruct the Commission for Economic and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on the subject;

having regard to the Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (report requested by the Stockholm European Council): Increasing labour force participation and promoting active ageing (COM(2002) 9 final);

having regard to the CoR opinion on the Commission Report entitled Increasing labour force participation and promoting active ageing (CdR 94/2002 fin) (1);

having regard to the Commission communication: Supporting national strategies for safe and sustainable pensions through an integrated approach (COM(2001) 362 final);

having regard to the conclusions of the Stockholm European Council, 2001;

having regard to the conclusions of the Barcelona European Council, 2002;

having regard to the Report from the Commission to the Council: Delivering Lisbon-reforms for the enlarged Union (COM(2004) 29 final/2);

having regard to the Commission's working document on The Stockholm and Barcelona targets: Increasing employment of older workers and delaying the exit from the labour market (SEC(2003) 429);

having regard to the report by the Employment Taskforce chaired by Wim Kok: Jobs, jobs, jobs: creating more employment in Europe, November 2003;

having regard to the Joint report 2003-2004, Employment policies in the EU and in the Member States, 2004;

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 151/2004 rev.1) adopted by the Commission for Economic and Social Policy on 6 July 2004 (rapporteur: Alvaro Ancisi, member of the municipal council of Ravenna (IT/EPP));

Whereas:

adopted the following opinion at its 56th plenary session on 29 and 30 September 2004 (session of 29 September)

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2.   Recommendations by the Committee of the Regions

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

FINALLY, THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Brussels, 29 September 2004

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 287 of 22.11.2002, p.1

----
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 19 October 2004

in Case C-31/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Pharmacia Italia SpA (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Medicinal products - Supplementary protection certificate - Transitional arrangements - Successive authorisations as a veterinary medicinal product and a medicinal product for human use)

(2004/C 300/34)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-31/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 17 December 2002, received at the Court on 27 January 2003, in the proceedings brought by Pharmacia Italia SpA, formerly Pharmacia & Upjohn SpA — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

The grant of a supplementary protection certificate in a Member State of the Community on the basis of a medicinal product for human use authorised in that Member State is precluded by an authorisation to place the product on the market as a veterinary medicinal product granted in another Member State of the Community before the date specified in Article 19(1) of Council Regulation No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products.

----

(1)OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

----
#### LENETT, INC., and City National Bank of Miami, Appellants, v. Doyle GRAF, d/b/a Lauderhill Mall Barber Shop, Appellee.

No. 72-956.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1973.

E. Hugh Chappell, Jr., Walsh, Dolan & Krupnick, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant-Lenett, Inc.

Henry M. Schmerer, Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Schuster & Schmerer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant-City National Bank of Miami.

Harry G. Carratt, Morgan, Carratt & O’Connor, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon a review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the briefs and oral argument of the parties, we are of the opinion that the partial final judgment should be modified by deleting from the numerically numbered paragraph 1 the words:

> “whose . . . has been described as short or of moderate lengths. This shall not be construed to prevent Defendant, Lenett, Inc., from cutting and styling the hair of men who have long hair which is in the nature of the style known as afro or mini-lion or a like style.”

and by further deleting numerically numbered paragraph 2 in its entirety.

In all other respects the partial final judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed, as modified.

CROSS and OWEN, JJ., and SHOLTS, THOMAS E., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Marisol Pantoja, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Gregoria Ortiz, et al., Respondents, v Robert Held, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for medical malpractice, the defendant Robert Held, M.D., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), dated November 22, 1988, which denied his motion to change the venue of the action from Kings County to Suffolk County.

*600Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion for a change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) based upon the convenience of witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony *(see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.,*150 AD2d 742, 743; *Jansen v Bernhang,*149 AD2d 468, 469; *Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp.,*130 AD2d 621). Apart from identifying two witnesses, the appellant complied with none of the other requirements, and so failed to satisfy his burden. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Attachment F 

Work Sheet used to Calculate State and Applicator Labor Costs

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0884 and is 

part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement

NAICS: 999200 

State Government 

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical 

Unloaded Hourly Rate1 = W $36.98 $25.88 $17.33 

Benefits Percentage2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $16.10 $11.26 $7.54 

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B = 

W(1+Lb) 

$53.08 $37.14 $24.87 

Overhead Percentage3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $26.54 $18.57 $12.44 

Fully Loaded Hourly 

Rate 

Wf = Wb + OH

 = W + B + OH 

$79.61 $55.72 $37.31 

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_999200.htm May 2008 data 

 NAICS 999200 - State Government 

 Standard Occupational Codes: 

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations 

 Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 

 Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
# Az Európai Unió C 88A/2005

| | ISSN 1725-518X |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 88A |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 48. évfolyam2005. április 12. |

ISSN 1725-518X

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 88A

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

48. évfolyam2005. április 12.

---

| Közleményszám | Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Közlemények |
| | Tanács |
| 2005/C 088A/1 | Állásajánlat ideiglenes alkalmazásra — Ref. B/018 — A szociális szolgálat munkatársa | 1 |

Közleményszám

Tartalom

Oldal

III   Közlemények

Tanács

2005/C 088A/1

Állásajánlat ideiglenes alkalmazásra — Ref. B/018 — A szociális szolgálat munkatársa

1

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

III Közlemények

Tanács

| 12.4.2005 | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | CA 88/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2005

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

CA 88/1

---

ÁLLÁSAJÁNLAT IDEIGLENES ALKALMAZÁSRA

Ref. B/018

A SZOCIÁLIS SZOLGÁLAT MUNKATÁRSA

(2005/C 88 A/01)

Az Európai Unió Tanácsának Főtitkársága pályázatot hirdet a Személyzeti és Igazgatási A 1B igazgatóságán betöltendő B* besorolási osztályú és 5. besorolási fokozatú, brüsszeli munkavégzési helyű ideiglenes állásra.

Az Európai Unió Tanácsa Főtitkárságának Szociális Szolgálata a tisztviselők és családjuk, valamint a nyugdíjazott tisztviselők számára nyújt segítséget és támogatást a nehéz helyzetekben. Fő feladatai közé tartozik továbbá az új tisztviselők és családjuk beilleszkedésének, a munka és a magánélet összehangolásának, valamint a nyugdíjazott munkatársakkal való szoros kapcsolat kialakításának megkönnyítése.

További információ, valamint a pályázati formanyomtatvány a személyzeti felvételi szolgálat következő e-mail címén szerezhető be:

service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int

illetve annak alábbi honlapján:

http://ue.eu.int/concours

Határidő: 2005.5.10., amelyet a postai bélyegző hitelesít.

---