alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *529Ramon Vega, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.), rendered on August 18, 1988, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.
#### MIDLAND TERMINAL RY. CO. v. WARD, County Treasurer, et al.

No. 1886.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1939.

David P. Strickler and Thomas M. Burgess, both of Colorado Springs Colo., for appellant.

Byron G. Rogers, Atty. Gen. of Colorado, and Henry E. Lutz, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellees.

Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.

BRATTON, Circuit Judge.

This is an action brought by Midland Terminal Railway C.ompany, a corporation organized under the laws of Colorado, against the respective treasurers of El Paso and Teller Counties, Colorado, the members of the State Board of Equalization, and the members of the State Tax Commission of that state, to enjoin'the collection of that portion of the ad valorem taxes levied against the property of plaintiff in such counties for the year 1937, attributable to an increase in value of twenty per cent directed by the State Board of Equalization over the value fixed by the State Tax Commission, to expunge such taxes from the records, and to remove cloud from title arising out of the levy of such taxes. Defendants moved to dismiss the cause for the reason that plaintiff had a full, adequate, complete and efficient remedy at law in the state_ courts of Colorado, or if such remedy was inadequate or inefficient, plaintiff had a plain, speedy and efficient remedy in equity in such courts; that as between plaintiff and defendant treasurer of El Paso County, less than three thousand dollars was in controversy; and that as between plaintiff and all defendants there was lack of diversity of citizenship. The court sustained the motion, and dismissed the action. Plaintiff appealed.

The questions relating to lack of jurisdiction of the United States Court in Colorado to entertain the suit for the reason that plaintiff has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law in the state courts, or if no such remedy at law exists, then plaintiff has a plain, speedy and efficient remedy in equity in the courts of that state, are identical with those which we considered and decided in Baker v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, 10 Cir., 106 F.2d 525. It would not serve any useful purpose to discuss such questions anew. For the reasons stated at length in that case, the judgment is affirmed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-10938

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00113-SCB-AAS-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

RONY EFREN QUINONES MONTANO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(March 18, 2021)

Before JORDAN, GRANT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-10938 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 1 of 2
2

Jose Rafael Rodriguez, appointed counsel for Rony Quinones Montano in 

this direct criminal appeal, 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 issues of arguable merit, counsel’s 

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Montano’s conviction and sentence are 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-10938 Date Filed: 03/18/2021 Page: 2 of 2
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
RADISHES 

U.S. No. 1 U.S. No. 1 

Maximum allowed for damage by air cracks or growth cracks. Maximum allowed for damage b

Damage by Ab

September 1990 (Previo
# C_2012326EN.01033701.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

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

19.   Declaration on Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Declaration on Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference agrees that, in its general efforts to eliminate inequalities between women and men, the Union will aim in its different policies to combat all kinds of domestic violence. The Member States should take all necessary measures to prevent and punish these criminal acts and to support and protect the victims.

---
Exhibit 99.1

       Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                 of Title 18 of the United States Code


I, Joseph F. Kruy, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
Cambex Corporation, certify that

(i) This annual report on Form 10KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

(ii) The information contained in this annual report on Form 10KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Cambex Corporation.


Dated: March 31, 2003        /s/ Joseph F. Kruy
                             Joseph F. Kruy
                             President and Treasurer
                             [principal executive officer and
                              principal financial officer]


This certification accompanies this annual report pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Compny
for purposes of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification Pursuant to 

18U.S.C. Section 1350, 

As Adopted Pursuant to 

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

In connection with the Annual Report of LUB Liquidating Trust (the “Liquidating Trust”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned Trustees hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge: 

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

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

 
Date: March 22, 2024  By: 
/s/ Gerald Bodzy
   **Gerald Bodzy, Trustee**Date: March 22, 2024  By: 
/s/ John Garilli
   **John Garilli, Trustee**Date: March 22, 2024  By: 
/s/ Joe C. McKinney
   **Joe C. McKinney, Trustee****
Order entered April 15, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01180-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.A.A., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 01-09-843

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s April 13, 2015 motion to amend her brief. We ORDER the 

amended brief tendered to this Court by appellant on April 13, 2015 filed as of the date of this 

order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE VII

GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER

GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER

Article 52

Scope and interpretation of rights and principles

1.   Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

2.   Rights recognised by this Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties.

3.   In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection.

4.   In so far as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions.

5.   The provisions of this Charter which contain principles may be implemented by legislative and executive acts taken by institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, and by acts of Member States when they are implementing Union law, in the exercise of their respective powers. They shall be judicially cognisable only in the interpretation of such acts and in the ruling on their legality.

6.   Full account shall be taken of national laws and practices as specified in this Charter.

7.   The explanations drawn up as a way of providing guidance in the interpretation of this Charter shall be given due regard by the courts of the Union and of the Member States.

---
Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

 

Date: October 28, 2010 

Subject: Sunset review of glycerides on National List 

Chair: Daniel G. Giacomini 

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X 

 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

In an organic processing context, mono- and di-glycerides are used only in 

drum drying of foods. The NOSB makes the following recommendation to re-list 

mono- and di-glycerides on 7 CFR §205.605(b): 

Glycerides (mono and di)—for use only in drum drying of food. 

 

The NOSB unanimously passed the motion to relist mono- and di-glycerides by 

a vote of 14-0. This is a reaffirmation of the previous vote to relist this material 

at the Spring 2010 NOSB meeting. 

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

 

The recommendation to re-list mono- and di-glycerides in 7 CFR §205.605(b) 

was made in accordance with the National Organic Program and the NOSB’s 

Policy & Procedures Manual. The substance is consistent with OFPA 1990 and 

NOP regulations and evaluation criteria. 

 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: John Foster Second: Tina Ellor

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0 
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Sunset Recommendation – 2012 

Glycerides (Mono and Di) 

August 30, 2010 

List: 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in 

or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified 

ingredients or food group(s)).” 

(b) Synthetics allowed: 

Glycerides (mono and di)—for use only in drum drying of food. 

Committee Summary 

Federal register notice of the sunset of these materials brought forth public comment 

against re-listing mono- and di-glycerides in favor of a certified organic alternative. This 

comment was provided by the manufacturer of the proposed alternative substance. At 

that time and since that time, no documentation has been provided (such as 

testimonials from food manufacturers using the proposed alternate) to demonstrate the 

utility of the proposed alternate in applications of mono- and di-glycerides. Several 

commenters supported re-listing this material during in April-May of 2010. 

In an organic processing context, mono- and di-glycerides are used only in drum drying 

of foods. 

Review of the original recommendations, historical documents, and public comments 

does not reveal unacceptable risks to the environment, human, or animal health as a 

result of the use or manufacture of these materials. There is no new information 

contradicting the original recommendation which were the basis for the previous NOSB 

decisions to list and re-list these materials. 

Committee Recommendation(s)

The handling committee recommends the renewal of the following substance in this use 

category as published in the final rule: 

Glycerides (mono and di)—for use only in drum drying of food. 

Committee Vote 

Motion: John Foster Second: Joe Smillie 

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Riley, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.), rendered April 11, 1988, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury *699verdict, 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 statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the night of June 6, 1987, the defendant forced his way into his 80-year-old landlord’s apartment. After demanding money from the elderly man, the 26-year-old defendant struck him several times with a small baseball bat or wooden stick. When the victim attempted to reach the telephone to call for assistance, the defendant grabbed the phone, tore it apart, and hit the victim in the head with the telephone receiver. He then removed cash from the victim’s pocket, and dragged him through the apartment in a chokehold in an effort to find more money. The defendant was apprehended a few minutes later when police, summoned by the victim’s roommate who had witnessed part of the attack, arrived at the scene. The officers noted that the victim’s face was covered with blood, that one of his eyes was swollen shut, and that he appeared to be in an extremely weakened condition.

On appeal the defendant contends that the People failed to establish his guilt of burglary in the first degree because the victim and his roommate offered inconsistent testimony concerning the wooden stick or bat which he allegedly used during the commission of the crime. We disagree. Initially, we note that since the defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree under Penal Law § 140.30 (2), which requires proof that a person who was not a participant in the crime sustain “physical injury”, the issue of whether the defendant used a dangerous instrument during the commission of the crime is irrelevant. In any event, 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, as we have repeatedly held, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to 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 should not be disturbed unless it is clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Upon exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, *700and find that they are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7400

GERALD DEAN DAVIS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PAULA A. BREWSTER; JOYCE L. HUFF; EDGAR V.

GUTHRO; TONY FISHER, Chief, Spartanburg Public

Safety Department,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA04-1711-3-HFF)

Submitted: February 8, 2006 Decided: February 16, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Dean Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donna Seegars Givens,

WOODS & GIVENS, L.L.P., Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Dean Davis, Jr. appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Davis’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. Brewster, No. CA-04-

1711-3-HFF (D.S.C. Aug. 19, 2005). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<page>

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS - Moore Stephens Frost, PLC

The Board of Directors
Cagle's, Inc. and Subsidiary:

We consent to the inclusion of our report dated May 8, 2002, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheet of Cagle's, Inc. and Subsidiary as of March
30, 2002 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report has been
included in the Annual Report to Stockholders and incorporated by reference
in the Form 10-K Annual Report of Cagle's, Inc. and Subsidiary.

/s/ Moore Stephens Frost, PLC
Moore Stephens Frost, PLC
Little Rock, Arkansas
June 27, 2002

</page>
<page>

LETTER REGARDING REQUEST FROM INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS - ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

We have received your request regarding our consent for inclusion of our
reports on the March 31,2001 and April 1, 2000 financial statements of
Cagle's, Inc. dated May 9, 2001 and May 11, 2000, respectively, In your
annual report on Form 10-k.  Please be advised that our firm has been
informed by the SEC staff that the SEC will not accept consents issued by
Andersen after the engagement team leaders have left the firm.  As a result,
we will not be able to issue the requested consent. However, the SEC has
provided relief for registrant's use in these circumstances.  Please refer
to the SEC's March 2002 release "Requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP
Auditing Clients" (Release #33-8070).

We regret any inconvenience that this causes you or the company.  Thank you
for your understanding.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
/S/ John G. Sample Jr.
John G. Sample Jr.
Atlanta, Georgia
June 20, 2002

</page>
# C_2016202EN.01035401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/354 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/354

---

50.   Declaration concerning Article 10 of the Protocol on transitional provisions

Declaration concerning Article 10 of the Protocol on transitional provisions

The Conference invites the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, within their respective powers, to seek to adopt, in appropriate cases and as far as possible within the five-year period referred to in Article 10(3) of the Protocol on transitional provisions, legal acts amending or replacing the acts referred to in Article 10(1) of that Protocol.

---
297 Ga. 37

FINAL COPY

S15A0507. BADEN v. OCHOA-HERNANDEZ.

THOMPSON, Chief Justice.

The trial court granted relief in this habeas corpus case pursuant to an

order which reads, in its entirety: 

After hearing evidence in the above-styled case, it is hereby

ordered that the guilty plea in this case, which was in the Superior

Court of Gwinnett County, be withdrawn and the conviction

associated therewith be vacated and set aside. [Appellee] shall be

remanded toGwinnett County for further proceedings in accordance

with this order.

The warden appeals.

Because the order granting habeas relief does not contain written findings

of facts and conclusions of law upon which the judgment is based, it fails to

meet the requirements of OCGA § 9-14-49. Accordingly, the judgment of the
habeas court is vacated and the case remanded for issuance of an order in

compliance with OCGA § 9-14-49. See Thomas v. State, 284 Ga. 327, 328 (2)

(667 SE2d 375) (2008), overruled on other grounds, Crosson v. Conway, 291

Ga. 220, 222 (728 SE2d 617) (2012).

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. All the Justices

concur. 

Decided April 20, 2015.

Habeas corpus. Calhoun Superior Court. Before Judge Cato.

Samuel S. Olens, Attorney General, Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Deputy

Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Meghan

H. Hill, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

McArthur Law Firm, Caleb F. Walker; Sarah L. Gerwig-Moore, Mattie

L. Hardin, Marlene Otero, Dorothy Paul, for appellee.

2
3