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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered November 3, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined for the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 86, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed on appeal 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]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292; *People v Roberts,*163 AD2d 120; *People v Wright,*112 AD2d 179, 180; *cf., People v Brown,*157 AD2d 790, 791; *see also, People v Duffy,*36 NY2d 258, 262-263, *amended on other grounds*36 NY2d 857, *cert denied*423 US 861). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40651

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARTIN OSVALDO JURADO-MOLINA, also known as Anastacio TorresBanda,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1729-1

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Osvaldo Jurado-Molina appeals the 77-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that his 

sentence, which is within the applicable guidelines range of imprisonment, is 

substantively unreasonable. Jurado-Molina maintains that the district court 

placed undue weight on the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40651 Document: 00513009469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2015
No. 14-40651

from further crimes committed by him. We need not decide whether JuradoMolina properly preserved an objection to the substantive reasonableness of 

his sentence because his argument fails even under an abuse-of-discretion 

standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008).

The record reflects that the district court’s sentencing decision was based 

on an individualized assessment of the facts in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). The district 

court’s determination of the proper sentence is entitled to deference, and we 

may not reweigh the § 3553(a) factors or reverse a sentence because we might 

reasonably conclude that a different sentence is appropriate. Id. at 51-52. 

Jurado-Molina’s assertion that the district court should have given less weight 

to the need to protect the public from further crimes committed by him reflects 

his disagreement with the propriety of his sentence, which does not justify 

reversal. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). He has 

set forth no other reason for us to disturb the presumption of reasonableness 

that applies to his sentence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-40651 Document: 00513009469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2015
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 16, 2019

No. 04-19-00023-CR

Murjan Issack ABDI,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR8191B

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant pled guilty to two counts: capital murder and aggravated robbery with a deadly 

weapon. On April 6, 2018, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the offenses, and it 

sentenced him on each count to confinement for thirty-five years in the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice—Institutional Division, with the sentences to run concurrently.

The record does not show that Appellant filed a motion for new trial or any other 

postjudgment motion that would extend the appellate timetable. See TEX. R. APP. P. 22.5, 

26.2(a)(2). Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on May 7, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.2(a)(1). On January 8, 2019, Appellant filed a notice of appeal—which was about eight

months late.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Olivo v. 

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a timely motion for new trial, a 

defendant’s notice of appeal is timely filed if it is filed within thirty days after (1) the day 

sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or (2) the day the trial court enters an appealable 

order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. In this case, the appellate record 

does not show that Appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed.

A late notice of appeal may be considered timely and invoke a court of appeals’ 

jurisdiction if it meets the following requirements:

(1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing,
(2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen 

days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and 

(3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. 

Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991) (stating that an out-of-time appeal from a final felony conviction may be 

sought by filing a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure). 

We ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within TWENTY DAYS of the date of 

this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 

S.W.2d at 522; Ater, 802 S.W.2d at 243.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, Paul A. Ormond, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Manor
Care, Inc. (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 to the best of
my knowledge:

      (1)   The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the period
            ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
            Commission on the date hereof (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 as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

/s/ Paul A. Ormond

Paul A. Ormond
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
September 27, 2005
Filed 4/30/09 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2009 ND 69

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Kenneth Lee Mitchell, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20080293

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Robert O. Wefald, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jeffrey R. Ubben, Assistant State's Attorney, Courthouse, 514 E. Thayer Ave., Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for plaintiff and appellee; on brief.

Susan R. Schmidt, 400 East Broadway Ave., Ste. 27, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for defendant and appellant; on brief.

State v. Mitchell

No. 20080293

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Kenneth Lee Mitchell appealed from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of terrorizing.  On appeal, Mitchell argues insufficient evidence exists to support the guilty verdict.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crops Program, Specialty Crops Inspection Division

This PATCH represents official guidance. This PATCH is scheduled to be incorporated into the 

document listed above. After incorporation into the document listed above this PATCH will 

become obsolete. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

PATCH # 072 Recording Hourly Premium Time in FEIRS (September 28, 2021)

SCI Division Inspection Series

Page 1 of 2

PATCH # 072

DOCUMENT: Fresh Electronic Inspection Reporting/Resource System (FEIRS) electronic 

programs revision.

REMARKS: The following procedure will be followed for recording Premium Time (overtime 

and Federal Holiday) charges for hourly based inspections in FEIRS. Please refer to the General 

Market Manual (GMM), Fees section, for guidance on calculating these charges. All current 

rates are found in Appendix II: Schedule of Fees of the GMM.

Examples of hourly based inspections would be inspections performed under an hourly contract, 

requests to determine net weight, temperature only requests, or requests to witness a dump, etc.

As a reminder, Premium Time (overtime and Federal Holiday) fees are charged in addition to the 

hourly-based inspection service fee.

FV-E300 and FV-E301

Overtime (OT) for Hourly Based Inspections

The On-site Hours fields in FEIRS (below) are for lot-based inspections only and will not be 

used to record on-site OT hours for hourly based inspections.
This PATCH represents official guidance. This PATCH is scheduled to be incorporated into the 

document listed on the first page. After incorporation into the document listed above this 

PATCH will become obsolete.

PATCH #072 Recording Hourly Premium Time in FEIRS (September 28, 2021)

SCI Division Inspection Series

Page 2 of 2

Instead, enter the total dollar amount for on-site hours of OT for hourly based inspections into 

the “Other” field located under Additional Fees (below). Be sure to record an explanation as 

indicated.

Federal Holiday for Hourly Based Inspections

Enter the total dollar amount for on-site hours of the Federal Holiday rate for hourly inspections 

into the “Other” field under Additional Fees. (below) Be sure to record an explanation as 

indicated.
Exhibit 11.1

WIRELESS TELECOM GROUP,
INC.COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS(Unaudited)

|                                         | For
      the Three Months |  | For
      the Nine Months
|---------------------------------------- | -------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|                                         | Ended September
      30,  |  | Ended September
      30,
|                                         | 2007                       |  | 2006                     
|Net Income                               | $
      941,937            |  | $
      1,127,637        
|                                         |                            |  |                          
|BASIC EARNINGS:                          |                            |  |                          
|                                         |                            |  |                          
|Weighted average number of common shares |                            |  |                          
|outstanding                              | 25,914,099                 |  | 25,853,851               
|                                         |                            |  |                          
|Basic earnings per common share          | $
      0.04               |  | $
      0.04             
|                                         |                            |  |                          
|DILUTED EARNINGS:                        |                            |  |                          
|                                         |                            |  |                          
|Weighted average number of common shares |                            |  |                          
|outstanding                              | 25,914,099                 |  | 25,853,851               
|Assumed exercise of stock options        | 128,088                    |  | 54,350                   
|                                         |                            |  |                          
|Weighted average number of common shares |                            |  |                          
|outstanding, as adjusted                 | 26,042,187                 |  | 25,908,201               
|                                         |                            |  |                          
|Diluted earnings per common share        | $
      0.04               |  | $
      0.04             

---
# 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 SEVEN

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 357

(ex Article 313 TEC)

(ex Article 313 TEC)

This Treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic.

This Treaty shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the deposit of the Instrument of ratification by the last signatory State to take this step. If, however, such deposit is made less than 15 days before the beginning of the following month, this Treaty shall not enter into force until the first day of the second month after the date of such deposit.

---
8

Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0961 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NE-22-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspect 3rd and 4th 

stage wheels at 

1,750 hours when 

the turbine is 

already 

disassembled.

2.0 $ 170.00 $ 170.00 3,769 $640,730.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $640,730

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
9

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): The majority of 

turbine wheel inspections will occur at the schedued gas producer turbine overhaul at 1,750 hours. 

In that case, the total time to inspect the wheels will be 2.0 hours.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
# C_2016203EN.01003801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/38

---

Article 103

Member States shall communicate to the Commission draft agreements or contracts with a third State, an international organisation or a national of a third State to the extent that such agreements or contracts concern matters within the purview of this Treaty.

If a draft agreement or contract contains clauses which impede the application of this Treaty, the Commission shall, within one month of receipt of such communication, make its comments known to the State concerned.

The State shall not conclude the proposed agreement or contract until it has satisfied the objections of the Commission or complied with a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, adjudicating urgently upon an application from the State, on the compatibility of the proposed clauses with the provisions of this Treaty. An application may be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union at any time after the State has received the comments of the Commission.

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION 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 quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly 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(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants second 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/ Joseph F. Furlong, IIIJoseph F. Furlong, IIIChief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-99407, 333-58730,
333-105754, 333-106737, and 333-114438)
and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-60544, 333-60536,
333-60546, 333-60548, 333-60542, and 333-103292) of White Electronic Designs
Corporation of our report dated December 14, 2004 relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
December 16, 2004
# C_2016202EN.01015501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/155 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/155

---

Article 244

In accordance with Article 17(5) of the Treaty on European Union, the Members of the Commission shall be chosen on the basis of a system of rotation established unanimously by the European Council and on the basis of the following principles:

| (a) | Member States shall be treated on a strictly equal footing as regards determination of the sequence of, and the time spent by, their nationals as members of the Commission; consequently, the difference between the total number of terms of office held by nationals of any given pair of Member States may never be more than one; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Member States shall be treated on a strictly equal footing as regards determination of the sequence of, and the time spent by, their nationals as members of the Commission; consequently, the difference between the total number of terms of office held by nationals of any given pair of Member States may never be more than one;

| (b) | subject to point (a), each successive Commission shall be so composed as to reflect satisfactorily the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

subject to point (a), each successive Commission shall be so composed as to reflect satisfactorily the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States.

---