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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from his conviction of assault in the third degree, defendant argues that he was denied his consti*1007tutional right to be present at a critical stage of his trial when the court entertained his *Sandoval*motion *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371) in chambers. Following the discussion in chambers in which defendant’s attorney participated, the court placed its *Sandoval*ruling on the record and, although defendant objected to the ruling, defendant raised no objection to the court’s discussing the motion in chambers without his presence.

Because defendant neither requested to be present for the discussion of his *Sandoval*motion nor objected to the procedure utilized by the court, defendant has failed to preserve this issue for review as a matter of law *(see, People v Howard,*167 AD2d 922; *People v Dunlap,*161 AD2d 1114; *People v Blake,*158 AD2d 979, *lv denied*75 NY2d 964). In the absence of a showing of prejudice to defendant by the court’s taking up defendant’s *Sandoval*motion in chambers *(cf., People v Jenkins,*157 AD2d 854, 855 [where defendant could have assisted counsel concerning a discrepancy in defendant’s NYSID report]), we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice.

Defendant’s challenges to the trial court’s justification charge are not preserved for review and, in any event, we conclude that the charge as given adequately conveyed to the jury the principles of justification. Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the court’s inadvertent reference to his prior burglary conviction. The court instructed the jury to disregard the reference and further instructed the jury that the fact that defendant had a prior conviction should have no bearing on its determination of his guilt or innocence. Defendant’s remaining arguments are not preserved for review and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Friedlander, J.—Assault, 3rd Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 4-lll


 







 


STATE OF DELAWARE

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT


 


	1.	Name of Limited Liability Company:	 
	 	Morgan Stanley Finance, LLC
	 	 
	2.	The Certificate of Formation of the limited liability company is hereby amended as follows:
	 	The name of the company is Morgan Stanley Finance LLC.

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this Certificate on the 12th       day of January             ,
A.D. 2016.


 





	 	By:	/s/ Aaron Guth
	 	 	Authorized Person(s)
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Name:	Aaron Guth
	 	 	Print or Type
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 830 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify and confirm 

the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to deny or restrict 

the use of defined areas as disposal sites for the discharge of dredged 

or fill material. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2013 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. 

HOEVEN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. PORTMAN, and Mr. VITTER) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify 

and confirm the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to deny or restrict the use of defined areas 

as disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill 

material. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EPA Fair Play Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 830 IS

1 SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 404(c) of the Federal 

3 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(c)) is 

4 amended in the first sentence by striking ‘‘The Adminis5 trator’’ and inserting ‘‘Until such time as a permit under 

6 this section has been issued by the Secretary, the Adminis7 trator’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) takes effect on October 18, 1972. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2759

___________

William Eugene Dunn; Sherry Lyn *

Steffens Cavaness, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri

Louis Dewayne Helton; Curtis Davis; *

Frank Ciliberto, * {UNPUBLISHED}

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 6, 1998

 Filed: April 16, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Eugene Dunn and Sherry Lyn Steffens Cavaness appeal from the final

judgment entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri following 1

an adverse jury verdict in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon a careful review of the

record and the parties& submissions on appeal, we believe the district court did not err
-2-

in granting defendant Louis Dewayne Helton&s motion in limine, in denying Dunn&s and

Cavaness&s motion in limine, in granting judgment as a matter of law to defendants

Curtis Davis and Frank Ciliberto on Dunn&s and Cavaness&s “failure to intervene”

claim, and in denying Dunn&s and Cavaness&s motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we

affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers
of Coherus BioSciences, Inc. (the Registrant) certify that the Quarterly Report of Coherus BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.



|                    |  |  |  |        |  |                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: June 29, 2015 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Dennis M. Lanfear                
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Dennis M. Lanfear                    
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: June 29, 2015 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Jean-Frédéric Viret              
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Jean-Frédéric Viret                  
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer              

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10(l-8)








SIXTH AMENDMENT
TO THE
LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
OF EMCOR GROUP, INC.




WHEREAS, the EMCOR Group, Inc. Long Term Incentive Plan was adopted in 2005 and has since been amended (the aforesaid plan, as amended, the “LTIP”); 


WHEREAS, Section 8.1 of the LTIP provides that the Board of Directors of EMCOR Group, Inc. (the “Board”) may amend the LTIP, subject to the terms of Section 8.1; and


WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the LTIP should be further amended as provided below;


NOW, THEREFORE, the LTIP is hereby amended as follows:


1.    Effective January 1, 2016 new Section 9.14 is added to read as follows:


“9.14.  Recoupment of Awards.  All Performance Based Target Bonus awards, that may be granted with respect to Applicable Three Year Periods commencing on or after January 1, 2016, whether or not vested, will be subject to the Company’s Executive Compensation Recoupment Policy, as such policy may be amended and in effect from time to time (the “Clawback Policy”).  By participating in the Plan, including by receiving any award benefit or payment under the Plan, a Participant will be deemed to have agreed to comply promptly and in full with all terms and conditions of the Clawback Policy with respect to such award.”  


2.      Except as hereinabove amended, the LTIP, as previously amended, shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment as of the 1st  day of January 2016.
 
EMCOR GROUP, INC.




By:  ______/s/ Anthony J. Guzzi_________
        President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of John Jones, Petitioner, v Sterling Johnson, Jr., et al., Respondents.

Application for a writ of prohibition unanimously denied, the cross-motion granted, and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. *(See, Matter of Haynes v Johnson,*165 AD2d 406.) No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.33 MB)

Tags:CFC, combined federal campaign, DLA L&M, Culture L&M, Command L&M

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

DALE B. GREEN , Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 815 LT Case No. 2008

- CF

- 1908 STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed July 29, 2022 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County , Howard O. McGillin, Jr. , Judge. Dale B. Green, Graceville, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGui gan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

. Due to Appellant’s apparent abuse of the legal process by his abusive, repetitive, malicious, or frivolous pro se filings attacking his judgment and
sentence in Putnam County Circuit Court Case Number 2008

- CF

- 1908 , this2 Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why he should not be prohibited from future pro se filings. See State v. Spencer , 751 So. 2d 47, 48 (Fla. 1999). Having carefully considered the response and finding it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, we conclude that Appellant is abusing the judicial process and should be barred from further pro se filings.
In o rder to conserve judicial resources, Appellant is prohibited from filing with this Court any further pro se filings concerning Putnam County Circuit Court Case No. 2008

- CF

- 1908

. The Clerk of this Court is directed not to accept any further pro se filings concerning the referenced case. The Clerk will summarily reject any future filings regarding the referenced case unless filed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. See Isley v. State , 652 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“Enough is enough. ”). The Clerk is further directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary proceedings. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2019)

. APPELLANT PROHIBITED. LAMBERT, C.J., EISNAUGLE and NARDELLA , JJ., concu r.
#### Sidney R. HERTZ, Appellant, v. Dan W. CAROTHERS, Superintendent, Lemon Creek Correctional Center, Alaska Department of Corrections, Appellees.

No. S-2527.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Jan. 5, 1990.

*660Sidney R. Hertz, Seward, pro se.

Larry McKinstry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Grace Berg Schaible, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellees.

Before MATTHEWS, C.J., and RABINO WITZ, BURKE, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On August 26, 1987, Sidney Hertz filed an appeal with the superior court seeking review of a Department of Corrections’ determination to purchase prisoner commissary items from a local store that charged a five percent handling fee for preparing individual inmate orders.1 On November 12, 1987, the superior court held that the case was frivolous and that the court lacked both appellate and subject matter jurisdiction.

Hertz’ appeal requires this court interpret AS 22.10.020(d), the statute defining the superior court’s jurisdiction. On questions of statutory interpretation this court exercises its independent judgment. *Barcott v. Dep*'t *of Public Safety,*741 P.2d 226 (Alaska 1987).

Alaska Statute 22.10.020(d) states that: “[t]he superior court has jurisdiction in all matters appealed to it from an ... administrative agency when appeal is *provided by law.”*(Emphasis added). There is no law, either statutory or common law, which gives the superior court jurisdiction over Hertz’ appeal.

The Alaska Administrative Procedures Act (APA) specifies the agencies which are bound by the administrative adjudication procedures of APA. AS 44.62.330. The Department of Corrections is not specified. *Id.*Accordingly, an inmate may not appeal an administrative decision made by the Department of Corrections under the APA. Neither could we find, upon examination, any other statute providing for superior court review of administrative decisions made by the Department of Corrections.

Turning our analysis to relevant common law, this court considered the question of judicial review of prison disciplinary proceedings in *McGinnis v. Stevens,*543 P.2d 1221 (Alaska 1975). There, we held that, while “the inmate has no automatic right of appeal to the courts of Alaska,” *McGinnis,*543 P.2d at 1236, an inmate did have a right to judicial review of major disciplinary proceedings where issues of constitutional magnitude are raised. *Id.*at 1236 n. 45. In *Department of Corrections v. Kraus,*759 P.2d 539, 540 (Alaska 1988) we reaffirmed the holding in *McGinnis*and determined that the judicial review of inmate disciplinary proceedings, when constitutionally required, must be conducted as an appeal rather than any other type of proceeding.

Hertz’ appeal does not fall under *McGin-nis*and *Kraus*because it does not concern a disciplinary proceeding. Nor does it raise an issue of constitutional magnitude. The decision of the superior court is AFFIRMED.

1

. The store agreed to give the inmates a ten percent discount and then charge a five percent handling fee on commissary items. The net effect is that the store is providing a five percent discount.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.1 MB)

Tags:Battle Creek, fort belvoir, dla, NATIONAL, Process excellence, INSPECTION, NARA, Records, MANAGEMENT

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-23-00782-CR, 04-23-00783-CR

Juan Isabel MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 21-01-0006-CRA, 21-01-0007-CRA

Honorable Jennifer Dillingham, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 27, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of a court of appeals. 

Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “A defendant’s notice of appeal is 

timely if filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended, or within ninety 

days after sentencing if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial.” Id. (citing TEX. R. APP.

P. 26.2(a)(1)).

The trial court imposed sentences in the underlying causes on February 27, 2023. Because 

appellant did not file a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on March 29, 
04-23-00782-CR; 04-23-00783-CR

- 2 -

2023. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was 

due on April 13, 2023. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant, however, did not file his notice of appeal 

until July 31, 2023, and did not file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. 

Thus, appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely.

On September 13, 2023, we ordered appellant to show cause why these appeals should not 

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In his response, appellant concedes the notice of appeal is 

untimely. Further, the response does not establish that we have jurisdiction over these appeals. 

Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish