alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S M I WASHINGTON , D.C
. 

# ^^^-^IVE D

I n th e Matte r

o f Harriso n Yach t

Sales , Inc . 2009EA70044 6 CP10EA000 6 Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A
. Yode r WASHINGTON , D.C
. 

## v G

C O 

### V 7 7 U J 

# s m
' JCKE T

--'S^z a m-wr n 

# 5^ 5 oo o C O •4a

- COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS E T O NOTIC E O F PREHEARIN G CONFERENC E COME S NOW th e Complainant , b y an dthroug h it s designate drepresentative , th e Regiona l Counse l for

th e Eastern Regio n an dhe r designate dan dauthorize dagents , an d respond s t o Chie f

Administrativ e Law Judg e Ronni e Yoder' s Octobe r 12 , 2010 , Notic e o f Prehearin g Conference
. I n hi s Order , Judg e Yode r ordere dth e partie s t o provid e t o hi mal l document s that hav e bee n exchange dan dtha t hav e no t alread y bee n provide dt o him
. N o document s hav e bee n exchange dbetwee n th e partie s i n th e Matte r o f Harriso n Yach t Sales , Inc .
Alfre dR . Johnson , Jr . Regiona l Counse l By : (YIOAII
. fnnJi' W l\]rC(M^h aDate : fXlf

- 3^3 ; ;?^/ 6 Mary M^elin e McCarth y ( j Deputy Regiona l Counse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 1 Aviatio n Plaz aJamaica , N Y 1143 4 Telephone : 71 8 553-326 7 Facsimile : 71 8 995-569 9

### CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereby certif

y tha t th e foregoing Complainant' s Respons e to Notic e o f Prehearing Conference ha s bee

n servedaddresse da s follows : FEDERA L EXPRES S MAI L Th e Honorable Ronni e A
. Yode r Administrativ e La

w Jiidg e Offic e of Hearings , M-20 U.S
. Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse

y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Building Groun

dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C
. 2059 0 FEDERAL EXPRES S MAI L Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (Origina l an don e copy ) 600 Independenc e Avenue , SW Wilbu r Wrigh t Building - Roo

m201 4 Washington , DC 2059 1 Attn : Hearing Docke

t Clerk , AGC-43 0 CERTIFIE D MAI L RETURN RECEIP T REQUESTE D Presiden t Harrison Yach

t Sales , Inc . 10 6 Well s Cove Roa

d P O Box 9 8 Grasonville , M

D 2163 8 

# /dj^^hp i ^ \>^ ^ J^:^L/L Date : J o ^ Mahe r lanagemen t & Progra mAnalys t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e of Regiona l Counsel 1 Aviation Plaz a Jamaica , NY 1143 4
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Baron Betancourt, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (O’Brien, J.), rendered November 6, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At the scene of the defendant’s arrest, the defendant was advised of his *Miranda*rights, to which he responded, "I *482didn’t do nothing”. Approximately an hour later at the police station, the defendant was again advised of his *Miranda*rights, whereupon he indicated that he understood them but that he was not willing to answer any questions. At that point, the arresting officer began processing arrest papers, including a property voucher for the recovered gun and a request for ballistics analysis. The defendant was handcuffed to a bar and seated near the arresting officer while the gun was on a desk a short distance from both the defendant and the arresting officer. The arresting officer testified that he needed the gun to fill out the paperwork. The arresting officer then engaged in a brief conversation with three or four other officers about what had occurred and the exact charges he was going to file. One of the other officers asked, "What did you get him for?”, to which the arresting officer responded, "a weapon and resisting arrest, he ran, and robbery”. At that point, the defendant interrupted the conversation and said, "the gun is mine, but I’m not copping out to no robbery. I didn’t rob no one”. The substance of the defendant’s statement was later admitted at trial. The defendant was never charged with robbery.

We reject the defendant’s argument that his statement should have been suppressed. The hearing court properly concluded that an objective observer with the same knowledge concerning the suspect as the police had would not conclude that the remarks or conduct of the police was reasonably likely to elicit a response *(cf., People v Ferro,*63 NY2d 316, *cert denied*472 US 1007). The conversation of the police officers was brief. It was not directed at the defendant, and their entire conduct was in accordance with proper procedure and undertaken in furtherance of their administrative duties as police officers. Further, the record clearly establishes that the police were not seeking a response from the defendant by leaving the gun in the defendant’s view *(see, Rhode Is. v Innis,*446 US 291; *People v Bryant,*87 AD2d 873, *affd*59 NY2d 786; *cf., People v Ferro, supra).*

Finally, we find that the summation comments to which the defendant objects were either unpreserved for appellate review or constituted fair response to the defense counsel’s summation *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Haile M.,*160 AD2d 1027, 1028; *People v Bartolomeo,*126 AD2d 375, 390). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Jose Hoffman, Petitioner, v Steven Fisher et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel the respondents to reinstate *827the petitioner’s plea of guilty to assault in the third degree under Queens County Indictment Number 932/91.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of compelling the respondent Fisher to vacate his order setting aside the petitioner’s plea of guilty to assault in the third degree under Indictment Number 932/91 over the petitioner’s objection, and the plea is reinstated.

In the absence of fraud, a court has no inherent power to set aside a guilty plea without the defendant’s consent *(see, People v Gamble,*128 AD2d 724; *People v Harris,*118 AD2d 583, *affd*69 NY2d 850). As no fraud was alleged here, the People were not entitled to vacatur of the plea. Further, there is no authority for the trial court to vacate a plea should it determine that it cannot honor the agreement as to the sentence to be imposed. Instead, it must allow the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea, or face an enhanced sentence. The matter must therefore be remitted to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court determines that it should not impose the sentence previously agreed upon, it should afford the petitioner the opportunity to withdraw his plea *(see, Matter of Fernandez v Silbowitz,*59 AD2d 837). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350  I, Louis J. Brothers, Chief Executive Officer of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. (the Corporation), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that: 1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.  Date: August 16, 2010 By:  /s/ Louis J. Brothers Louis J. Brothers President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Chairman of the Board   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The information contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of TransPro, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-80871) of our reports dated
February 12, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of TransPro, Inc., as of December 31, 1998 and
1997, and for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, which reports
are incorporated by reference from the 1998 Annual Report to Stockholders, and
included, respectively, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
-------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers


Hartford, Connecticut
March 26, 1999
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Albert Mathews, Also Known as Albert Matthews, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), rendered June 5, 1989, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that, given the inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the reasonableness of his testimony and that of his codefendant, his conviction of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree is against the weight of the credible evidence. We disagree. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and *566should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that reversal of his conviction is required because the trial court failed to impose a sanction for the People’s violation of *People v Rosario*(9 NY2d 286) is without merit. At trial, one of the detectives involved in the investigation testified that he submitted to a police administrative aide to be typed a handwritten version of the so-called "61” report of his initial encounter with the complainants, but that neither the typed version nor his handwritten version was returned to him. The defendant voiced no objection at this point, nor did he make any requests of the trial court. Thereafter, at the precharge conference, the defendant’s attorney indicated that she was going to prepare over the ensuing weekend an adverse inference charge based on the detective’s testimony. On the following Monday counsel indicated, in response to the court’s inquiry, that she had looked the charge up and it was not really what she wanted. No further requests were made. In light of the foregoing, the defendant cannot now claim that he is entitled to a new trial based upon the trial court’s failure to impose any sanctions *(see, People v Rashid,*164 AD2d 951; *see also, People v Best,*145 AD2d 499).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

MISHA SANDERS, DOC# K53694, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3321

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, 

Judge.

Misha Sanders, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, KHOUZAM, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
EX-10.4



 






Exhibit 10.4




THIRD AMENDMENT TO

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT




     WHEREAS, the Connecticut Water Company (hereinafter referred to as “Employer”) and
                     (hereinafter referred to as the “Employee”) entered into a Supplement Executive
Retirement Agreement dated as of                     
 (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”);
and



     WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section
6.A. thereof;



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:



     The second and third unnumbered paragraphs of Section 1.a. and the second and third unnumbered
paragraphs of Section 1.b. of the Agreement, both as added by the Second Amendment, are deleted and
the following two paragraphs are substituted in each place in lieu thereof:



     “For purposes of the foregoing, ‘Average Earnings’ shall have the meaning set forth in the
Retirement Plan, except that in determining Average Earnings, Annual Earnings (as defined in the
Retirement Plan) shall not be limited to the OBRA ’93 annual compensation limit, the annual
compensation limit imposed under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
(“EGTRRA”), or any similar limit on annual compensation under Section 401(a)(17) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), imposed by any future legislation.



     In determining Average Earnings, if the Employee retires under this Agreement on or after
attainment of age 62, Annual Earnings shall also include the value of all of the following: (1)
Cash Units; (2) Restricted Stock; and (3) Performance Shares awarded to the Participant under the
Connecticut Water Service, Inc. Performance Stock Program (the “Program”) for any year in which
such awards are made, including awards made prior to the time the change in the definition of
Average Earnings was adopted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall awards which are
long-term awards or PARSAs be taken into account in determining Average Earnings. The value of
such awards (other than long-term awards or PARSAs) shall be included within Annual Earnings in the
year in which such amounts are finally determined and actually awarded. Such amounts, if credited
to a Performance Share Account, shall not be counted a second time when payment is made from such
account.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer and the Employee have executed this Amendment as of
                                        , 2007.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	EMPLOYEE	 	 	 	THE CONNECTICUT WATER COMPANY	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 






-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1825 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1825

   To extend the authority for relocation expenses test programs for 
               Federal employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 21, 2009

 Mr. Lieberman (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the authority for relocation expenses test programs for 
               Federal employees, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RELOCATION EXPENSES TEST PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 5739 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3);
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by inserting ``or extended'' after 
                ``approved''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``or extension'' after ``of the 
                program'';
            (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
    ``(c)(1) An agency authorized to conduct a test program under 
subsection (a) shall annually submit a report on the results of the 
program to date to the Administrator.
    ``(2) Not later than 3 months after completion of a test program, 
the agency conducting the program shall submit a final report on the 
results of the program to the Administrator and the appropriate 
committees of Congress.'';
            (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
        ``12''; and
            (5) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
    ``(e)(1) The Administrator may not approve any test program for an 
initial period of more than 4 years.
    ``(2)(A) Upon the request of the agency administering a test 
program, the Administrator may extend the program.
    ``(B) An extension under subparagraph (A) may not exceed 4 years.
    ``(C) The Administrator may exercise more than 1 extension under 
subparagraph (A) with respect to any test program.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on October 31, 
2009.
                                 <all>
```
Summary of Compensation for Executive Officers


 Exhibit 10.1 
 Summary of Compensation for Named Executive Officers 
 All of the executive officers of Cheniere Energy,
Inc. (“Cheniere”) are “at will” employees and none of them has an employment or severance agreement, other than as provided under the Cheniere Energy, Inc. Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan. The unwritten
arrangements under which Cheniere’s executive officers are compensated include: 
  

	 	•	 	a salary, reviewed annually by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Cheniere; 

  

	 	•	 	eligibility for a discretionary annual cash bonus, as determined by the Compensation Committee; 

  

	 	•	 	eligibility for awards under Cheniere’s Amended and Restated 2003 Stock Incentive Plan, as determined by the Compensation Committee; 

  

	 	•	 	health, life, disability and other insurance and/or benefits; and 

  

	 	•	 	vacation, paid sick leave and all other employee benefits. 

 On January 5, 2007, Cheniere’s Compensation Committee approved base salary increases for all of Cheniere’s executive officers, effective as of January 1, 2007. In addition, the Compensation Committee approved a bonus
payment for each executive officer with respect to the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “2006 Bonus Amount”). The 2006 Bonus Amount will be paid in restricted shares of Cheniere’s common stock to be issued on January 12,
2007 (the “Date of Grant”). The number of restricted shares to be issued will be determined based on a 25% discount to the closing price of the Company’s common stock as reported on the American Stock Exchange on the Date of Grant.
Vesting will occur for one-third of the restricted shares on each anniversary of the Date of Grant beginning on the first anniversary of the Date of Grant. The following table sets forth the 2007 annual base salary and the 2006 Bonus Amounts for
each of Cheniere’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer and the other executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table in our Proxy Statement filed in 2006: 
  

							
	 Executive Officer
	  	 2007 Annual
 Base Salary
	  	2006 Bonus
Amount
	 Charif Souki
 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	577,500	  	$	1,718,750
	 Stanley C. Horton
 President and Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	446,250	  	$	1,062,500
	 Walter L. Williams
 Vice Chairman
	  	$	262,500	  	$	468,750
	 Don A. Turkleson
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	262,500	  	$	468,750
	 Keith M. Meyer
 Senior Vice President, Marketing
	  	$	262,500	  	$	468,750
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 the Quarterly Report of Resource Capital Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jonathan Z. Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 May 10, 2011
/s/ Jonathan Z. CohenJonathan Z. CohenChief Executive Officer
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      (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 report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(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 fourth fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  (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.
  /s/ BRIAN C. HENRYBrian C. HenryChief Financial Officer