alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**694 KA 14-00064**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSE G. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (SYDNEY V. PROBST OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered October 28, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress the handgun seized from him as he stood on the porch of his cousin’s residence. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the police conduct “was justified in its inception and at every subsequent stage of the encounter” ( People v Nicodemus , 247 AD2d 833, 835, lv denied 92 NY2d 858). The officer had an “objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality,” to approach defendant to request information ( People v Moore , 6 NY3d 496, 498; see People v DeBour , 40 NY2d 210, 223; People v Bracy , 91 AD3d 1296, 1297, lv denied 20 NY3d 1060). The officer’s level of suspicion and the justification for increasingly intrusive police action escalated when defendant turned and the officer observed the outline of a handgun in the pocket of defendant’s windbreaker jacket. Based on that observation, the officer had at least a “founded suspicion that criminal activity [was] afoot” to support his common-law right to inquire whether the object was a gun ( DeBour , 40 NY2d at 223; see People v Hollman , 79 NY2d 181, 184-185). When defendant gave an affirmative response, the officer was entitled to pat down defendant, seize the handgun ( see People v Trott , 105 AD3d 1416, 1417, lv denied 21 NY3d 1020), and arrest defendant ( see People**-2- 694 KA 14-00064** 

v Forbes , 244 AD2d 954, 954, lv denied 91 NY2d 941).

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o . 0 9

- 4 1 1 1 8 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v . L E O N I C I O C A S T A N E D A

- A L F A R O , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o . 5 : 0 9

- C R

- 1 5 1 7

- 1

B e f o r e S M I T H , D E N N I S , a n d C L E M E N T , C i r c u i t J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M : * L e o n i c i o C a s t a n e d a - A l f a r o a p p e a l s t h e s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d f o l l o w i n g h i s

c o n v i c t i o n f

o r u n l a w f

u l r e e n t r y p u r s u a n t t o 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 2 6

. H e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d b y i m p o s i n g a c r i m e o f v i o l e n c e e n h a n c e m e n t b a s e d o n h i s c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r T e x a s P e n a l C o d e § 2 1

. 1 1 f o r i n d e c e n c y w i t h a c h i l d u n d e r 1 7 y e a r s o f a g e . A s C a s t a n e d a - A l f a r o c o n c e d e s , h i s a r g u m e n t i s f o r e c l o s e d b y c i r c u i t
p r e c e d e n t

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . A y a l a , 5 4 2 F

. 3 d 4 9 4 , 4 9 5 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ; U n i t e d U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 26 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-41118 Document: 00511274458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010N o . 0 9

- 4 1 1 1 8

S t a t e s v . Z a v a l a - S u s t a i t a , 2 1 4 F

. 3 d 6 0 1 , 6 0 7

- 0 8 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s A F F I R M E D

.

2 Case: 09-41118 Document: 00511274458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
173 P.3d 611

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

December 24, 2007

28326

#### K-F Children, In re

Affirmed
# L_2004349EN.01007003.xml

| 25.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 349/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 349/70

---

Corrigendum to Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 91/2003 of 11 July 2003 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 272 of 23 October 2003
  )

On page 27, after the second recital, a third recital shall be added as follows:

| ‘(3) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 980/2002 is not to apply to Iceland,’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 980/2002 is not to apply to Iceland,’.

In Article 2 of the Decision,

for:

‘... in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages,’

read:

‘... in the Norwegian language,’.

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40915

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STAFFORD DEWAYNE PATTERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC Nos. 3:00-CV-56

 3:97-CR-4-13

--------------------

January 22, 2003

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Stafford Dewayne Patterson, federal prisoner #06408-078, has

filed a motion and brief to expand the district court’s grant of

a certificate of appealability (COA) to include the claims that

the district court constructively amended his indictment by

instructing the jury that it was to determine the amount of drugs

involved in his offense, which he contends violates Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and that counsel was ineffective
No. 02-40915

-2-

for depriving him of his right to testify. He also challenges

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claim that

his indictment, conviction, and sentence were in violation of

Apprendi. The district court granted COA on the issue whether

Apprendi applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. 

We herein address all of Patterson’s claims as opposed to

first determining whether to expand the grant of COA and then

subsequently addressing Patterson’s appeal on the issue for which

COA was granted by the district court. See United States v.

Kimler, 150 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Kimler,

167 F.3d 889 (5th Cir. 1999). 

To obtain a COA, Patterson must make a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

Patterson’s conclusory assertion that his testimony would have

resulted in an acquittal had he been allowed to testify is

insufficient to demonstrate ineffective assistance. See Sayre v.

Anderson, 238 F.3d 631, 634 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Apprendi is

not retroactively applicable, see United States v. Brown,

305 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2002), Patterson’s constructiveamendment claim likewise fails. Accordingly, Patterson’s motion

to expand COA is DENIED. 

Because Apprendi does not apply to cases on collateral

review, the district court’s denial of Patterson’s claim that his

indictment, conviction, and sentence violated Apprendi is

AFFIRMED. See id. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO EXPAND COA DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS

Appellate case name: Clelia De La Cruz v. Jose Luis Duran

Appellate case number: 01-15-00002-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-09053

Trial court: 245th District Court of Harris County

On February 17, 2014, appellant filed a Notice of Nonsuit stating that she “no longer 

desires to prosecute this suit” against appellee.

Although no motion to dismiss has been filed in compliance with Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42.1, the filing by appellant of the Notice of Nonsuit leads the Court to 

believe this appeal is now moot.

Unless any party responds within 10 days of the date of this order explaining why this 

appeal is not moot, the appeal may be dismissed. TEX. R. CIV. P. 42.3(c).

Clerk’s signature: 

 Clerk of the Court

Date: April 21, 2015
##### 



Exhibit 10.1
 T-3 ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT
     1. Grant of Common Stock
  2. Transfer Restrictions; Vesting




---



##### 



3. Vesting in Certain Circumstances
 4. Forfeiture
 (a) Termination of Service.
 (b) Forfeited Shares
 5. Issuance of Certificate
 (a)
 The transferability of this certificate and the shares of stock
represented hereby are subject to the restrictions, terms and
conditions (including forfeiture and restrictions against transfer)
contained in the restricted stock agreement entered into between the
registered owner of such shares and T-3 Energy Services, Inc.
copies of the restricted stock agreement are on file in the office
of the secretary of T-3 Energy Services, Inc., located at 7135
Ardmore, Houston, TX 77054.
  (b)
 2




---



##### 



6. Miscellaneous
 (a) Certain Transfers Void
 (b) No Fractional Shares
 (c) Not an Agreement for Continued Employment or Services
 (d) Notices
 (e) Amendment and Waiver
 (f) Independent Legal and Tax Advice
 3




---



##### 



(g) Governing Law and Severability
 (h) Successors and Assigns
 (i) Community Property
 (j) Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations
 (k) Tax Requirements.
 Tax Withholding
 Share Withholding
 (l) Grantees Address
 Grantees address of record is:
 4




---



##### 



(m)
    
    Affiliate.For purposes of this Agreement, employment with the Company
includes employment with any affiliate of the Company.
  [Signature page follows]
 5




---



##### 



COMPANY:T-3 ENERGY SERVICES, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Michael T. MinoName:
    
    Michael T. MinoTitle:
    
    VP - CFO
 Address:
    
    T-3 Energy Services, Inc.7135 ArdmoreHouston, TX 77054Facsimile: (713) 996-4123Attention: Secretary
 GRANTEE:/s/ Gus D. HalasGus D. Halas 6




---



##### 



APPENDIX A TO  RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT
 Grantees
Name: Gus D. Halas
 Grant Date:
    
    
    September 14, 2007Number of Restricted Shares Granted:
    
    
    10,000Vesting Dates and Schedule:September 14, 2008
    
    
    100%
[GRAPHIC SEAL OMITTED]
                                                  UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
                                                     WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED and DECREED that the below
described is SO ORDERED.


Dated: October 19, 2004

                                             /s/    FRANK R. MONROE
                                             ----------------------------------
                                                    FRANK R. MONROE
                                             UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
                        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                 AUSTIN DIVISION


IN RE:                    )
                          )             CASE NO. 03-12387-FM
ECLICKMD, INC.,           )
                          )             CHAPTER 11
DEBTOR                    )


                              ORDER OF FINAL DECREE
                              ---------------------

         On the date shown below came on for consideration the Application of
the Debtor for Entry of Final Decree and the Court finds that the Debtor's Plan
of Reorganization has been substantially consummated, that this case is in a
position to be closed, and that good cause exists, IT IS THEREFORE:

         ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the estate herein and the above
captioned case be and the same is hereby closed.

                                      # # #
# L_2004376EN.01005301.xml

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 376/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 376/53

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 114/2004

of 9 July 2004

amending Annex XXI (Statistics) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XXI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 86/2004 of 8 June 2004 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XXI to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 86/2004 of 8 June 2004 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 210/2004 of 23 December 2003 establishing for 2004 the ‘Prodcom list’ of industrial products provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 210/2004 of 23 December 2003 establishing for 2004 the ‘Prodcom list’ of industrial products provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91 (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 4aa (Commission Regulation (EC) No 347/2003) of Annex XXI to the Agreement:

| ‘4ab. | 32004 R 0210: Commission Regulation (EC) No 210/2004 of 23 December 2003 establishing for 2004 the “Prodcom list” of industrial products provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91 (OJ L 45, 14.2.2004, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘4ab.

32004 R 0210: Commission Regulation (EC) No 210/2004 of 23 December 2003 establishing for 2004 the “Prodcom list” of industrial products provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91 (OJ L 45, 14.2.2004, p. 1).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 210/2004 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 10 July 2004, provided that all the notifications under Article 103 (1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

KJARTAN JÓHANNSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 46.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 45, 14.2.2004, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20053

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TIMOTHY DASHUN WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-399-ALL

_________________________________________

August 7, 2001

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Timothy Dashun White appeals his conviction of one count of being a felon in

possession of a firearm. He maintains that the factual basis tendered was
1United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 315 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc) pet. for cert. filed,

69 USLW 3673 (Apr. 4, 2001)(No. 00-1526). 

2Marek, 238 F.3d at 315.

3United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). 

4United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993).

2

insufficient to support his conviction on the federal firearms charge because his prior

state felony conviction was not final at the time he committed the instant offense,

and because the interstate commerce nexus required by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) was

not established. White did not preserve these issues by “making [his] plea

conditional pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) or by objecting thereafter, such as at [his]

sentencing.”1 Accordingly, our review is limited to plain error.2

Under the plain-error standard, we may correct forfeited errors only when the

appellant establishes the existence of an error, which was clear or obvious, and

affected his substantial rights.3 When these factors are established, we will exercise

our discretion to correct a forfeited error only if we find that it seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.4

The plain-error standard is not met as to either of the issues raised by White. 

As respects his contention that his Texas conviction was not final when he

committed the instant offense, the parties do not cite, nor are we aware of, any case

directly addressing this issue. At best this is an unresolved issue. It is therefore
5United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 863

(1999). 

3

manifest that White has not established the required “clear or obvious” error in the

district court’s rejection of his position on this issue. 

Further, White’s contention regarding the sufficiency of the factual basis and

his challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is likewise unavailing. “This court has

repeatedly emphasized that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to

question.”5 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 10.3**
**Payment of Deferred Compensation**
     This Agreement is entered into as of April 2, 2004, by and between ARINetwork Services, Inc. (“ARI”) and the undersigned participant (the“Participant”) in ARI’s 1999 Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”).
     WHEREAS, effective January 1, 1999, Participant was granted a SalaryIncrease (as defined in the Plan), which Salary Increase was required to bedeferred under the Plan until the Payment Date (as defined in the Plan).
     WHEREAS, through March 20, 2004, the aggregate Deferred Amount (as definedin the Plan) payable by ARI to Participant under the Plan with respect to suchSalary Increase is set forth below the Participant’s signature;
     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of ARI has authorized the payout of theDeferred Amount, half in cash and half in stock;
     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
      1. Payouts by ARI. Promptly following the effective date hereof, ARIshall pay to Participant, in cash, one-half of the Deferred Amount.Participant agrees to accept, in lieu of cash, and ARI agrees to deliver toParticipant, shares of ARI common stock for the remaining half of the DeferredAmount. The number of whole shares of stock that ARI shall issue toParticipant shall be one-half of the Deferred Amount divided by the average ofthe closing bid and asked prices of ARI common stock on April 2, 2004. ARIshall pay cash in lieu of fractional shares. Upon such payouts, ARI shall bereleased from any further liability or obligation owed to Participant under thePlan.
      2. Termination of Further Deferrals. Effective with the beginning of thecurrent pay period, March 21, 2004, the Salary Increase granted to Participantin 1999 shall no longer be deferred under the Plan and Participant’s cashcompensation will increase as a result.
      3. Investment Representations. Participant represents that he isacquiring the ARI common stock issued pursuant to paragraph 1 for his ownaccount for investment purposes only and not with a present intent toward thepublic sale or distribution thereof. Participant agrees that the shares maynot be transferred unless such transaction is exempt in ARI’s sole judgementfrom registration under applicable federal and state securities laws, and thecertificates representing the shares will bear a customary restrictive legend.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have exercised this Agreement as ofthe date first above written.     ARI Network Services, Inc. /s/ Michael McGurk   Participant Signature     By: /s/ Timothy Sherlock Michael McGurk Timothy Sherlock,
20255

#### State v. Tucker

Affirmed
## CONSUMER MARGINAL ENERGY RATES James E.McMahon, LBNL DOE Workshop November 9-10, 1998 1 f06 

## *

### Economic Justification: Two ofSeven Factors Are Affected by Marginal Energy Rates * Economic impact on manufacturers & consumers * Lifetime operating costsavings compared to increased price * Total projected energysavings * Lessening of utility or performance * Impact ofany lessening ofcompetition * Need for national energy conservation * Otherfactors the Secretary considers relevant (e.g., oil security, environment) 2

## What's changing?

· PREVIOUSLY: Consumer energy bill savings were estimated using average energy prices (national or by utility). · NEW APPROACH: Estimated consumer marginal energy rates will be used in calculating energy bill savingsfor households or buildings. Inotherwords, the energy savings will be valued atthe margin, notat average energy prices. 3

### Consumer Marginal Energy Rates: Method * Obtain database of individual customers or buildings · Design nationally representative sample of customers · Collect tariff information · Develop and test method for matching tariffswith customers (buildings) · Calculate marginal ratesforsample buildings · Use sample marginal rates as estimates of population marginal rates

### Extract consumer marginal energy rates * Each sample building has baseline energy use data and can be assigned to atariff * Calculate monthly energy bills (baseline) for sample * Calculate annual energy savings dueto standards. * Distribute annual energy savingsto months * Calculate monthly energy billsforsample under standards. (Hourlyfortime-of-use customers.) * Use sample marginal rates as estimates of national marginal rates. Calculate bill savings.

## Data Sources Buildings database (MAISY)

- ca. 90,000commercial; 60,000 residential - stratified by state - provides energy-related customer characteristics - household load profiles * Tariffs - web-sites (APPA,EEI,NRECA utilities) - commercial vendors - public utility commissions - utilities * Monthly end use load profiles

- published literature - utilitystudies
20993

#### O'Connor v. Muramoto

Affirmed