alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Andrew C. HORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 2646.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Aug. 11, 1976.

*485David Shimek, Anchorage, for appellant.

Glen C. Anderson and Joseph D. Balfe, Anchorage, Avrum M. Gross, Atty.Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RA-BINOWITZ, ERWIN, CONNOR and BURKE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Following his conviction 1 for the crime of burglary not in a dwelling,2 appellant Andrew C. Horton was sentenced to a five year term of imprisonment with two years suspended.3 Horton appeals his sentence, claiming that it is excessive.4

It is clear that the superior court, in sentencing Horton, gave thorough consideration to each of the sentencing goals enunciated by this court in *State v. Chaney, 477*P.2d 441, 444 (Alaska 1970). Our independent examination of the record fails to persuade us that the court below was clearly mistaken.5 Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.6

1

. Appellant was convicted upon his plea of guilty.

2

. AS 11.20.100.

3

. The crime of burglary not in a dwelling is punishable by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than five years. AS 11.20.100.

4

. AS 12.55.120(a) provides in part:

A sentence of imprisonment lawfully imposed by the superior court for a term or for aggregate terms exceeding one year may be appealed to the supreme court by the defendant on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

5

. This case represents Horton’s third felony conviction. In 1961 he was convicted on another charge of burglary not in a dwelling and sentenced to three years with two suspended. After he was placed on probation, his probation was revoked and he was required to serve the balance of the three year sentence. In 1965 he was again convicted of burglary not in a dwelling and given a three year sentence. Later placed on parole, his parole was revoked and once more he was required to serve the balance of his sentence. He remained in custody from late 1967 to 1971. Horton was also convicted of two misdemeanor liquor violations in 1961 and 1962.

In a number of cases, this court has summarily approved long term sentences for repeat offenders, “evidencing a recognition that the incidence of repeated offenses greatly enhances the likelihood of continued autisocial behavior and the concomitant need to protect society therefrom.” Erwin, *Five Years of Sentence Review in Alaska,*5 UCLA-Alaska L.Rev. 1, 18 (1975), citing *Whitton v. State,*533 P.2d 266 (Alaska 1975); *Crow v. State,*517 P.2d 756 (Alaska 1973); *Kriska v. State,*501 P.2d 159 (Alaska 1972); *Griggs v. State,*494 P.2d 795 (Alaska 1972).

6

*. McClain v. State,*519 P.2d 811 (Alaska 1974).
**EXHIBIT 99.1**
**AUDITORS ASSURANCE LETTER**
To The Board of Directors and Stockholders of Butler Manufacturing Company
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We represent that this audit was subject to our quality control system for theU.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that theengagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that therewas appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the auditand availability of national office consultation, and availability of personnelat foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen to conduct the relevant portions ofthe audit.
/S/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLPARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Kansas City, Missouri,March 26, 2002
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VIII

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

CHAPTER 4

PROVISIONS SPECIFIC TO MEMBER STATES WHOSE CURRENCY IS THE EURO

Article 136

1.   In order to ensure the proper functioning of economic and monetary union, and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties, the Council shall, in accordance with the relevant procedure from among those referred to in Articles 121 and 126, with the exception of the procedure set out in Article 126(14), adopt measures specific to those Member States whose currency is the euro:

| (a) | to strengthen the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

to strengthen the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline;

| (b) | to set out economic policy guidelines for them, while ensuring that they are compatible with those adopted for the whole of the Union and are kept under surveillance. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

to set out economic policy guidelines for them, while ensuring that they are compatible with those adopted for the whole of the Union and are kept under surveillance.

2.   For those measures set out in paragraph 1, only members of the Council representing Member States whose currency is the euro shall take part in the vote.

A qualified majority of the said members shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(a).

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12699

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE CESPEDES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cr-00208-SCB-AEP-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-12699 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12699

Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Shehnoor Kaur Grewal, appointed counsel for Dwayne 

Cespedes in this appeal from the revocation of supervised release, 

has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. 

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no 

arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Cespedes’s revocation of supervised release and 

sentence imposed upon revocation are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-12699 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 2 of 2
#### Gerald Flynn et al., Appellants, v New York Life Insurance Company, Defendant, and Charles White, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

—Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Same Memorandum as in *Flynn v New York Life Ins. Co.*([appeal No. 1] 174 AD2d 1032 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Boehm, J. —Breach of Contract.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                            5,397,042
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       200,502
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  6,317,595
<PP&E>                              553,272
<DEPRECIATION>                      396,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    7,087,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               428,877
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                            554,991
<OTHER-SE>                        2,656,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      7,087,177
<SALES>                             331,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    331,368
<CGS>                               144,818
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (24,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (24,378)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (24,378)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (0.01)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      17,589,862
<SECURITIES>                                 6,350,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,409,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                   143,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,523,597
<PP&E>                                      15,162,820
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,740,910
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              68,965,346
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,403,154
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,148,737
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,993,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                68,965,346
<SALES>                                     47,400,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            47,400,589
<CGS>                                        4,170,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,170,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            36,099,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,063
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,165,554
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,461,094
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,704,460
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,704,460
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.51
        

</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Keith Russell Judd, * From the County Court at Law No. 2

of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. CC2-20,222.

Vs. No. 11-14-00049-CV * April 16, 2015

Karen Y. Corey-Steele * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Gilmer GREGORY, Appellant, v. Frank SAUSER, Acting Superintendent, Southeast Correctional Center, and William H. Huston, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellees.

No. 3411.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Margaret W. Berck and Howard J. Goldman, Alaska Legal Services Corp., Juneau, for appellant.

Jonathan Tillinghast, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellees.

OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice, and RABINOWITZ, CONNOR, BURKE, and MATTHEWS, Justices.

CONNOR, Justice.

In this case Alaska Legal Services Corporation represented appellant Gregory in an action arising out of an alleged violation of Gregory’s due process rights. The case was resolved in Gregory’s favor, and Gregory filed a motion in the superior court requesting attorney’s fees pursuant to Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 82. The superior court denied the motion on the basis of our opinion in *Continental Ins. Company v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,*552 P.2d 1122 (Alaska 1976). The superior court read that opinion as standing for the principle that attorney’s fees should not be awarded to a party in the absence of the party’s obligation to pay the attorney for the legal services rendered in connection with the litigation.

What we have said in the companion case of *Greater Anchorage Area Borough v. Sisters of Charity,*Alaska, 573 P.2d 862 (Opinion No. 1550 January 27,1978), is dispositive here. We believe that any further distinction, based upon whether the client has an obligation to pay for the legal services rendered, is untenable. *See, e. g., Thompson*v. *Madison County Board of Education,*496 F.2d 682, 689 (5th Cir. 1974); *Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp.,*444 F.2d 143, 147 n.3 (5th Cir. 1971); *Miller v. Amusement Enterprises, Inc.,*426 F.2d 534, 539 (5th Cir. 1970); *Palmer v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.,*375 F.Supp. 634, 636 (N.D.Ohio 1974). Accordingly, we must reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
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 Sun Network Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, T. Joseph Coleman, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

      Dated: May 23, 2004



                                                       /s/ T. Joseph Coleman
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       T. Joseph Coleman
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
#### William L. Buchwald, Appellant, v Jay F. Waldron, Respondent.

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Dier, J.), entered May 10, 1990 in Warren County, upon a decision of the court in favor of plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s only contention on appeal is that, based on the evidence presented at the nonjury trial, Supreme Court’s award of $300 in damages for defendant’s breach of contract was inadequate. Supreme Court has failed to indicate the rationale and factual basis for its determination of damages *(see,*CPLR 4213 [b]), thereby precluding effective appellate review. Consequently, we must remit for a detailed finding as to how the court arrived at its calculation of damages *(see, Woodruff v Castaldo,*110 AD2d 1040, 1041-1042; *Novak & Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp.,*109 AD2d 1013, 1014).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, and matter *896remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1373 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1373

    To protect, for current and future generations, the watershed, 
  ecosystem, and cultural heritage of the Grand Canyon region in the 
               State of Arizona, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2019

    Mr. Grijalva (for himself, Mr. O'Halleran, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. 
   Lowenthal, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Cox of California, Ms. 
   Haaland, Mr. Levin of California, Mr. Quigley, Mr. McNerney, Mr. 
  Sablan, Mr. Carbajal, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Gallego, Mr. 
    McEachin, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Casten of Illinois, and Mr. Cohen) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To protect, for current and future generations, the watershed, 
  ecosystem, and cultural heritage of the Grand Canyon region in the 
               State of Arizona, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Grand Canyon Centennial Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL LAND FROM MINING LAWS.

    (a) Definition of Map.--In this Act, the term ``Map'' means the 
Bureau of Land Management map entitled ``Grand Canyon Centennial 
Protection Act'' and dated February 26, 2019.
    (b) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
approximately 1,006,545 acres of Federal lands in the State of Arizona 
within the area depicted on the Map, including any land or interest in 
land that is acquired by the United States after the date of enactment 
of this Act, are hereby withdrawn from--
            (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under 
        the public land laws;
            (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and
            (3) operation of the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing 
        laws and mineral materials laws.
    (c) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be kept on file and made 
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Perez, Appellant.

—Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered June 7, 1988, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first and second degrees, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him to two concurrent prison terms of 12 Vi to 25 years for the attempted murder and first degree robbery counts, a consecutive term of 7 Vi to 15 years for the second degree robbery count and a concurrent definite term of 1 year for the possession count, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to vacate so much of the sentence imposed upon defendant which directs that the sentence for his conviction of robbery in the second degree be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for his conviction of the crime of robbery in the first degree and to direct that all sentences rendered be served concurrently, and otherwise affirmed.

The order of the same court dated March 20, 1989, denying defendant’s *pro se*CPL 440.10 motion, is unanimously affirmed.

The jury’s findings are adequately supported by the record and will not be disturbed. The testimony reveals that defendant and his accomplices were identified by the complainant as his assailants several minutes after the armed robbery which was perpetrated under favorable lighting conditions.

Contrary to defendant’s claims in his *pro se*supplemental brief, the record sufficiently demonstrates that trial counsel provided competent and effective representation *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Further, the "no inference” charge was not so extensive as to draw the jury’s attention to defendant’s failure to testify *(People v Tirado,*158 AD2d 564).

*534As conceded by the People, under the circumstances, the sentence imposed upon defendant as a result of his conviction for the crime of robbery in the second degree may not run consecutively to the sentence imposed for his conviction for the crime of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 70.25). Further, in the exercise of discretion, we direct that all the sentences imposed herein run concurrently.

We have considered defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 10.21.2

AMENDED  EXHIBIT "A"    To The    GAS PURCHASE CONTRACT    As Of: October 1, 1994    Between    CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION ("BUYER")    and
   IGI RESOURCES, INC. ("SELLER")

Effective
Date of this Exhibit "A":  October 1, 2002

Ending
Date of this Exhibit "A":  March 31, 2003

DELIVERY POINT

As defined in Section 1.01(g) of the Contract noted aboveMAXIMUM DAILY CONTRACT QUANTITY(MMBtu)

7,446DELIVERY POINT SELLING PRICE

1/


---



| |  | "BUYER"
CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
| |  | ---------------------------------------
| |  |                                        
| |  | By:                                    
| |  | Name:                                  
| |  | Title:                                 
| |  |                                        
| |  |                                        
| |  | "SELLER"
IGI RESOURCES, INC.           
| |  |                                        
| |  | By:                                    
| |  | Name:                                  
| |  | Title:                                 

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,938
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,181
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,127
<INVENTORY>                                    103,108
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,524
<PP&E>                                         421,467
<DEPRECIATION>                                 256,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,532
<BONDS>                                         17,905
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,481
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,330
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   403,690
<SALES>                                        409,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               409,892
<CGS>                                          325,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  398,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   205
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,249
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,430)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,132)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,132)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.44)
        

</TABLE>