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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered September 14, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Contrary to defendant’s contentions, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea *(see, People v Franco,*145 AD2d 837, 837-838; *People v Lattmen,*101 AD2d 662, 663). First, a review of the minutes of the plea allocution indicates that defendant, who was provided with a Spanish interpreter, fully comprehended the nature of the proceedings and knowingly entered his plea. Defendant was fully advised of all of his rights and admitted to selling cocaine which he knew to be illegal. In response to the court’s questioning as to whether he was under the influence of any medication or drug, defendant indicated that he felt "well” and that his mind was clear. Further, the affidavit of defendant’s treating physician stated that none of the prescribed drugs that defendant was taking directly affected cognition, nor was there any other evidence presented that he suffered from any side effects from the medication which would impair his ability in any way. Under the circumstances, defendant’s conviction must be affirmed *(see, People v Seger,*171 AD2d 892; *People v Gosso,*130 AD2d 683, *lv denied*70 NY2d 712). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit.

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Boston Edison Company on Form S-3 (File No. 33-57840) of our
report dated January 28, 1999 on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Boston Edison Company as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.



                                 By:  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                      ----------------------------------------
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
July 12, 1999
Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Program Supplemental Budget Guidance 

This document provides broad guidance on how a state or tribal government should structure their budget summary. The approach used to complete the 

budget proposal may vary depending on: 1) how the state or tribal government intends to carry out their program, and 2) the applicable accounting practices in 

a state or tribal government. Applicants should always provide sufficient detail to ensure that AMS can understand the calculations and exactly how much of the 

budget is being spent on food purchases versus other costs. 

Enter proposed direct costs for each expense category. Provide details 

in each corresponding breakout section of the budget proposal in the 

Project Narrative (pages 7 to 10). 

If subawarding any portion of funds, provide the total estimated 

subaward costs. In the Contractual breakout section on page 9, 

provide the funding and details for each proposed subaward, if 

known. Estimates are acceptable. 

Note: If subawarding for procurement of food, provide separate 

estimates for the cost of food, storage, transportation, and/or 

administrative, as applicable. Use the Contractual section on page 9 

of the Project Narrative to provide additional details. 

If the applicant organization is purchasing food directly, enter the 

proposed direct cost of food purchases. If the cost of storage and/or 

distribution will be included in the price of food, note this here. Other 

wise, enter the costs of food storage and/or transportation. 

Enter the subtotal of all direct costs (lines 1-10) here. 

If requesting indirect costs, place the total requested here. In the 

Indirect Costs breakout section, provide details about how indirect 

costs were calculated. 

Enter total of all budget categories. This should match the total 

requested funding for the agreement.
ANTHONY MINCEY,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-0746

Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition -- Original Jurisdiction.

Anthony Mincey, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. See Campbell v. Lungstrum, 732 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
**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**
  Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment
        Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
        undersigned, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
        of
        Directors of the Company, certifies 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.
  /s/
        David
        Lichtenstein
 David
        Lichtenstein
 Chairman,
        President, and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal
        Executive Officer)
 May
        15,
        2007
ACCEPTED

03-14-00816-CR

4796156

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/7/2015 4:24:04 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 03-14-00816-CR 

ARIANA OLIVEIRA § 

§ 

§ 

IN THE THIRD COURT 

v. OF APPEALS 

THE STATE OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 

SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

COMES NOW Ariana Oliveira, Appellant in the above-styled and numbered 

cause, by and through her undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Court to 

extend the time to file Appellant's brief. In support thereof, and pursuant toTEX. R. 

APP. PROC. 10.5(b), Appellant would show as follows: 

(A) Appellant's Brief is due onApril10, 2015; 

(B )Appellant seeks a second 3 0 day extension; 

(C)Undersigned counsel previously requested his first extension due to 

preparation for a sentencing on March 6, 2015 (State of Texas vs. Juan Jose 

Santos, Cause Number D-1-DC-13-900244 in the 403rd District Court of 

Travis County, Texas). However, onMarch6, 2015, Mr. Santos rejected the 

states Plea offer and his case of continuous sexual assault of a child is set to 

be tried April20, 2015. Undersigned counsel anticipates that he will have 

adequate time to research the law, and complete his brief if this Court grants 

a second 3 0-day extension; 

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/7/2015 4:24:04 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
(D) Only one previous extension has been requested and granted. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that the foregoing 

motion be GRANTED. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Is/ Joshua D. Saegert 

JOSHUA D. SAEGERT 

Law Office of Joshua D. Saegert 

609 W. 9th Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Phone: (512) 371-3477 

Fax: (512) 236-9287 

saegertlaw@yahoo.com 

State Bar No. 90001888 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Second Motion to 

Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief was emailed to the Travis County Attorney's 

Office, Appellate Division, 314 W. 11th St., Suite 400, Austin, Texas, 78701, on this 

the ih day of April, 20 15. 

2 

Is! Joshua D. Saegert 

JOSHUA D. SAEGERT
ACCEPTED

06-15-00057-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

4/14/2015 1:59:29 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/14/2015 1:59:29 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 18

February 5, 1999


Mr. Alfred J. Corso
Corporate Controller
Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Co.
200 Frenchtown Road
North Kingstown, RI 02852

Dear Mr. Corso:

Note 2 of Notes to consolidated financial statements of Brown & Sharpe 
Manufacturing Company included in its Annual Report to Shareholders (Form 10-K) 
for the year ended December 31, 1998, describes a change in the method of 
accounting for long-term contracts from the percentage of completion method to 
the completed contract method. You have advised us that you believe that the 
change is to a preferable method in your circumstances because it provides a 
better matching of cost and revenue and it is more practical to recognize 
revenues upon shipment as the Company's financial position and results of 
operations would not vary materially from those resulting from use of the 
percentage of completion method due to the short-term nature of the production 
cycle.

We conclude that the change in the method of accounting for long-term contracts 
is to an acceptable alternative method which, based on your business judgment to
make this change for the reasons cited above, is preferable in your 
circumstances.

                                       Very truly yours,


                                       Ernst & Young LLP
Formal Recommendation 

From: National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)

To: the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: October 29, 2015

Subject: Reclassification of Carnauba Wax to §205.606

NOSB Chair: Jean Richardson

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: X

Guidance Statement:

Other:

Statement of the Recommendation: 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation 

Evaluation Question #2 of the 2014 TR goes into detail on how carnauba wax is extracted from 

palm trees. The subcommittee compared this process with the Draft Guidance on Classification 

of Materials (NOP Guidance 5033) and determined that carnauba wax should be considered 

agricultural based on the definition of "agricultural product" at §205.2 of the Federal rule. 

Furthermore, there is some organically grown carnauba on the market.

NOSB Vote: 

Motion to classify carnauba wax as agricultural and move its listing to section §205.606

Motion by: Zea Sonnabend

Second: Tracy Favre

Yes: 12 No: 1 Abstain: 1 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

Outcome: Motion Passed
National Organic Standards Board

Handling Subcommittee Proposal

Re-classification of Carnauba Wax to §205.606

August 4, 2015

Introduction

In the course of the Sunset 2017 Review of Carnauba Wax, information from the Technical Report (TR) 

from 2014 indicates that this is an agricultural substance.

Background

During the creation of the National List, Carnauba was included in the review of "Fruit Waxes" under the 

Crops Committee because it was considered a post-harvest handling substance. It was never classified as 

either agricultural or non-agricultural at that time. When the rule came out it was on the Handling 

section of the National List at 205.601(a).

Carnauba wax is an exudate from the leaves and buds of the palm tree Copernicia cerifera, also known 

as Copernicia prunifera, which grows almost exclusively in northeastern Brazil. It is used to coat fruit and 

vegetables, candies and as a base for chewing gum.

Relevant areas in the Rule

§205.605(a) and §205.606.

Discussion

Evaluation Question #2 of the 2014 TR goes into detail on how the Carnauba wax is extracted from the 

palm trees. The subcommittee compared this process with the Draft Guidance on Classification of 

Materials (NOP Guidance 5033) and determined that carnauba wax could be considered agricultural 

based on the definition of "agricultural product" at §205.2 of the Federal rule. Furthermore, there is 

some organically grown carnauba on the market.

When the question of re-classification was posed in the first round of public comments, no comments 

were received that posed concerns about this change.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to classify Carnauba Wax as agricultural and move its listing to section §205.606

Motion by: Zea Sonnabend

Second: Tracy Favre

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0 

Approved by Tom Chapman, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 25, 2015
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:42 PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

FW: United Airlines application for service to Sioux City, lA 

From: durwardl@aol.com [mailto:durwardl@aol.com] 

Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 6:03 PM 

To: Adams, Kevin (OST); EAS (OST) 

Subject: United Airlines application for service to Sioux City, lA 

Dear Sir, 

I am writing in support of the application of United Airlines to resume service to Sioux City. United Airlines would have 

significant advantages for the population of "Siouxland" compared to the current airline, American, for several reasons: 

1. United Airlines has the ability to provide service from Sioux City not only to the East (Chicago), but if service were to 

expand, also to the West (Denver). American can only expand additional service to its hub in the South (Dallas). 

2. United provided long-standing service to Sioux City until 15 yrs ago. There remains a large contingent of flyers from 

Sioux City who continue to want to fly United Airlines and consequently do so from the Omaha and Sioux Falls airports, 

cities an hour and a half drive to the North and South of us. Service out of Sioux City will bring these passengers back 

immediately. American has no such base of long-standing loyal flyers. 

3. United's number of hubs (7) provides a significantly greater route network compared to American's, allowing increased 

access to cities domestically and worldwide. Given there will likely be only one provider at Sioux City airport for the 

foreseeable future, this is a huge advantage in my opinion. 

Thank-you for your consideration. 

Quentin Durward 

1
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ James A. CalderJames A. CalderChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 09, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 09, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0309. MICHAEL TURNER v. MARIA GRISSOM.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

13a058891 13A05889
Marketing and Regulatory Programs – Agricultural Marketing Service – Specialty Crops Program – Specialty Crops Inspection Division 1 of 2

 Inspection Aid No. 123

 Canned Plums Score Points - Whole - 25 Units July 2016

Factors Maximum Number of Defects Permitted for the Respective Grade

Color Grade A B C

Points 20 19 18 V

1 17 16 V1 152

 142 V

1

Reasonably Good "B” 0 1 2 2

Fairly Good “C” 0 0 0 0 1-2 3-4 2 - - -

Poor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-2 3-4 2

Uniformity Of Size Points 20 1

9

18 17 16 153 143

Weight 

Variation 

51-75% 0 0 1 1 - - - - - -

76-100% 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 - - -

over 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Defects Points 30 29 28 27 262 252 242 232 222 212

Peel 0 1/4 3/8 1/2 1/4 5/8 3/4 1 5/8 1-1/4 1-1/2 2 7/8

Crushed or Broken 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 3 2

Damaged & Seriously Damaged 0 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 5 5 5 3

Seriously Damaged 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

Loose Pits 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2

Harmless Extraneous Material 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ave. 0.2 1 1 Ave. 0.4 1

Small Stem 0 0 1 Ave. 

0.6

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

Character Points 30 29 28 27 262 252 242 232 222 212

B - Reasonably Good Units 0 0 1 2 2 - - - - - - - -

C - Fairly Good Units 0 0 0 0 0 1 2-3 4-5 3 - - - -

Poor Units 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 3

 

 

1 V columns are allowances for verification sample of 6 units 

2

Limiting Rule

3 Partial Limiting Rule
Marketing and Regulatory Programs – Agricultural Marketing Service – Specialty Crops Program – Specialty Crops Inspection Division 2 of 2

Canned Plums Score Points - Halved - 50 Units

Factors Maximum Number of Defects Permitted for the Respective Grade

Color Grade A V

1 B V4 C V4

POINTS 20 19 18 17 16 152 145

Reasonably Good "B"

Fairly Good “C”

Poor

1 2-3 4-5 3 - - - - - -

0 0 0 0 1-3 4-7 3 - - -

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-2 3-4 2

Uniformity of Size Points 20 19 18 17 16 155 143

Weight Variation 51-75% 0 1 2-3 2 - - - - - -

76-100% 0 0 0 0 1 2-3 2 - - -

 over 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-3 2

Defects Points 30 29 28 27 265 6 255 245 235 225 215

Crushed or Broken 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 4 5 3

Damaged & Seriously Damaged 1 2 3 4-5 3 6 6 7 3 8 9 10 4

Seriously 

Damaged

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 3

Pits 0 0 1 Ave. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

0.5

Harmless Extraneous Material 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ave. 0.2 1 1 Ave.0.

4

1

Small Stem 0 0 1 Ave. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

0.6

Character Points 30 29 28 27 265 6 255 245 235 225 215

B - Reasonably Good 1 2 3 4-5 3 - - - - - - - -

C - Fairly Good Poor 0 0 0 0 0 1-3 4-6 7-10 4 - - - -

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1-3 4-6 7-10 4

 

1 V columns are allowances for verification sample of 12 halves

2

Limiting Rule

3 Partial Limiting Rule

Inspection Aid No. 123

July 2016
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, E.
      Eugene Sharer, Interim Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of the operations of the
      Company.





/s/
      E.
      Eugene Sharer





E.
      Eugene
      Sharer


Interim
      Chief Financial Officer





September
      22, 2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CRUZ ALBERT LAFARGA, AKA Albert

Lafarga-Cruz,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10322

D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00085-JAD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015 **

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Cruz Albert Lafarga appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 126-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction

for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute

methamphetamine, and distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

FILED

APR 10 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846; and being an illegal alien in possession of a

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lafarga asserts that the district court’s sentence of 126 months is

substantively unreasonable in light of his strong family support and lack of

criminal history. To determine whether a sentence is substantively unreasonable,

we consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances.

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). We review for abuse of

discretion and “will provide relief only in rare cases.” United States v. Ressam,

679 F.3d 1069, 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

This is not the rare case where relief is appropriate. The district court fully

considered the mitigating factors urged by Lafarga in determining the appropriate

sentence. Indeed, the district court granted Lafarga a 25-month downward

variance based on those circumstances. The below-Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the

totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.

2 14-10322
Exhibit 32


Exhibit 32 to Form 10K





Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350





Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bowl America Incorporated (the "Company"), respectively, hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended July 3, 2011, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Leslie H. Goldberg


Leslie H. Goldberg


Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Cheryl A. Dragoo


Cheryl A. Dragoo


Chief Financial Officer





Date:  September 28, 2011