alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 9/24 /15 P. v. Landaverde CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTONIO LAND AVERDE

,

Defendant and Appellant. B 2 61553

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA4 26685 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

David V. Herriford , Judge. Affirmed.

______

Athena Shudde , under appo intment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______2

An information, filed on August 5, 201 4 and later amended by interlineation

,

charged Antonio Landaverde with two counts of resisting an execu tive officer

(Pen. Code, § 69)

. T he jury found Landaverde guilty of both counts . The trial court

suspended imposition of sentence and placed Landav erde on formal probation for

36 months. Landaverde appeal ed

.

We appointed counsel to represent Landaver de in t he matter. After examining

the record, counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues o n appeal and requesting that

we independently review the record. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal .3d 436.) On

June 11

, 201 5

, we sent a letter to Landaverde and t o counsel . In the letter

, we directed

counsel to immediately send the record on this appeal and a copy of the Wende brief to

Landaverde and informed Landaverde that he had 30 days to submit by letter or brief any

ground of appeal, contention or argument h e wished us to consider. We did not receive a

response from him.

We have review ed the entire record on appeal. E vidence shows that Landaverde

grabbed the open end of a handcuff

, swung at a police officer and reached for the

officer’s gun during his det ention in response to a call of shots fired at an apartment.

A t the time, the officer believed that Landaverde matched the description of the suspect

provided in the dispatch call. Landaverde also struggled with the officer’s partner

, who

attempted to as sist with the detention based on Landaverde’s conduct

. This evidence

sufficiently supports his conviction of two counts of resisting an executive officer

.

( People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578 [s ubstantial evidence is that which is

“reasonable, cr edible, and of solid value

— such that a reasonable trier of fact could find

the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” ].) W e are satisfied that Landaverde’s

counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issue

exis ts. ( People v. Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th

106, 110.)3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY

, J.

LUI , J.
EX-10.5



 






Exhibit 10.5




SECOND EXTENSION OF AMENDED STUDIO LEASE AGREEMENT




          THIS SECOND EXTENSION OF THE AMENDED STUDIO LEASE AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made as of August
29, 2004 by and between THE HEARST CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (“Hearst”), and
HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).




W I T N E S S E T H




     WHEREAS, Hearst and the Company entered into a Studio Lease Agreement dated as of August 29,
1997 (the “Studio Lease Agreement”), pursuant to which the Company leased to Hearst the Leased
Premises (as defined in the Studio Lease Agreement);



          WHEREAS, Hearst and the Company entered into an Amendment to Studio Lease Agreement dated as
of August 29, 2000 (the “Amended Studio Lease Agreement”);




          WHEREAS, Hearst and the Company entered into an Extension of the Amended Studio Lease
Agreement dated as of August 29, 2003; and




          WHEREAS, Hearst and the Company mutually desire to further extend the term of the Amended
Studio Lease Agreement, as set forth hereinafter;




          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Amended Studio Lease Agreement as so amended is hereby extended by substituting
the date of December 31, 2005 for the date of August 31, 2004 in paragraph 2 (Term of Lease) in the
Studio Lease Agreement as so amended.




          Except as expressly set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the Studio Lease Agreement
as so amended shall continue in full force and effect.




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this extension of the Studio Lease Agreement as
so amended as of the date first above written.




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this extension of the Studio Lease Agreement as
so amended as of the date first above written.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	THE HEARST CORPORATION	 	 	 	HEARST-ARGYLE TELEVISION, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Ronald J. Doerfler
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Jonathan C. Mintzer
	

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	Name: Ronald J. Doerfler
	 	 	 	 	 	Name: Jonathan C. Mintzer
	

	 	Title: Senior Vice President
	 	 	 	 	 	Title: Vice President, General Counsel and
	

	 	and Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 	 	 	Secretary
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	

	 	Dated: March 29, 2005
	 	 	 	 	 	Dated: March 29, 2005
# Roberston - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Buffalo Trace Area Development District Executive Director Amy Kennedy Email ake&#110;&#110;&#101;&#x64;&#x79;&#x40;&#x62;&#x74;&#x61;dd&#46;&#99;&#111;&#109;The post Buffalo Trace Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 092 -CR

Ri c c i R e ne e Ro bbins , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 04- 1128 -K 26 , HO NORAB LE B ILLY RAY STUB B LEF IELD , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N
In Nov e mbe r 200 5, a

pp e lla nt Ric c i Ren e e Rob bin s ple a de d g uil ty to int e rf e ri ngwi th child custody
. SeeTex. P enal Code Ann. § 25.03 (West Supp. 2007). The trial court de fer red
a dju dic atio n a

nd pla c e d a pp e lla nt o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on . T he State su

bs e qu entl y

mov e d to adjudicate . Followinga hea ringon Fe bruar

y 6, 2007, the cour

t f o u n d t h at appellant ha d violated the terms of he r super

vision, adjudicate d her guilty , and sentenced her to two y ear s in state j ail and a $1,000 fine
. In h e r on ly po in t of e rr or , a pp e lla nt c on te nd s th at th e e vid e nc e wa s in su ff ic ie nt t o support the dec ision to adjudicate. Sh e re lies on article 42.12, se ction 5(b), whic h, as ame nded eff ective June 15, 2007, provides that the decision to adjudicate is appea lable in the same ma nner as the de cision to revoke community supervision in case s in which adjudication was not defe rre d. Te x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . Ann . a rt . 4 2. 12 , § 5( b) (We st Su pp . 2 00 7) . T he ame nd e d s e c tio n 5 (b ) o nly2

applies, howe ver, to a djudication hear ings held on or af ter the e ffe ctive date of the amendment. Act of May 28 , 2 00 7, 80 th L e g ., R.S. , ch . 130 8, § 5 3, 20 07 Te x. Se ss. L aw Se rv . 4 40 4, 44 21 . B e c a us e the adjudication hearingin this cause wa s conducte d befor e June 15, 2007, no a ppeal may

be take n from the de cision to adjudicate. SeeAct of Ma y 29, 1989, 71st L eg ., R.S., ch. 785, § 4.17, 1989 Te x. Ge n. L aws 34 71 , 3 50 1; Olowo su k o v . S tate , 82 6 S
. W .2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Be cause the point of err or pre sents nothing f or re view, it is overrule d. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: De cembe r 20, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
# C_2013313EN.01001601.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-380/08) (1)

1

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Request seeking to obtain access to certain confidential passages of the final decision of the Commission relating to a cartel - Refusal of access - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to carry out a specific, individual examination - Exception concerning the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Exception concerning the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - Overriding public interest - Sincere cooperation)

2013/C 313/28

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, M. de Mol and M. de Ree, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and P. Costa de Oliveira, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 30 June 2008 refusing access to certain confidential passages of Decision C(2006) 4090 final (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)),

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.

1

---
ORDER OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)

20 January 2009

Case C-38/08 P

**Jörn Sack**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Appeal – Civil service – Remuneration – Non-application of the increment provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 – Principle of equal treatment)

**Appeal:**against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-66/05 *Sack* v *Commission*, by which the Court of First Instance rejected the application for the annulment of the decisions relating to the setting
of the applicant’s monthly salary for the period from May 2004 to February 2005, application for that salary to be recalculated
and application for the annulment of the decision expressly rejecting the applicant’s complaint. Non-application of the increment
provided for heads of unit to a legal adviser of grade A*14 in the Commission’s legal service responsible for the coordination
of a working group. Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

**Held:**The appeal is dismissed. Mr Sack is ordered to bear his own costs and those of the Commission.

**Summary**

1.        *Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal – Inadmissibility*

*(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118)*

2.        *Officials – Equal treatment – Limits – Advantage unlawfully granted*

3.        *Officials – Organisation of departments – Unit*
EXHIBIT 32



                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Paul G. Laird, Chief Executive Officer and I, Les Bates, Chief Financial
Officer of New Frontier Energy, Inc. (the "Company") certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of New Frontier
Energy, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

Date:    September 22, 2005



/s/ Paul G. Laird
-----------------
Paul G. Laird,
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Les Bates
-------------
Les Bates,
Chief Financial Officer
# C_2008285EN.01005101.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/51

---

Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-378/08)

(2008/C 285/91)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L.Inez Fernandes and J. de Oliveira, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Principally, a declaration that the notice of payment MARKT/C2/PMS/bmgD(2008) 13692 issued by the Director-General of Directorate-General Internal Market and Services of 15 July 2008 under the heading ‘demand for payment of the periodic penalty payable by the Portuguese Republic in compliance with the judgment given in Case C-70/06 Commission v Portuguese Republic’ is invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

Principally, a declaration that the notice of payment MARKT/C2/PMS/bmgD(2008) 13692 issued by the Director-General of Directorate-General Internal Market and Services of 15 July 2008 under the heading ‘demand for payment of the periodic penalty payable by the Portuguese Republic in compliance with the judgment given in Case C-70/06 Commission v Portuguese Republic’ is invalid;

Commission

Portuguese Republic

| — | alternatively, a declaration that that notice is invalid, in so far as its effects extend beyond 29 January 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, a declaration that that notice is invalid, in so far as its effects extend beyond 29 January 2008;

| — | an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs or, if the Court of First Instance should reduce the amount of the periodic penalty, an order that each party should bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission of the European Communities should pay the costs or, if the Court of First Instance should reduce the amount of the periodic penalty, an order that each party should bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Portuguese Republic claims that it has fully complied with the judgments of the Court of Justice by adopting Law No 67/2007 expressly repealing Decree-Law No 48051.

The Portuguese Republic further claims that the Director-General of DG Internal Market and Services had no power to adopt the contested measure, which failed to have regard to the Portuguese Republic's rights of the defence, fails to state the reasons on which it is based and was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements.

---
# Gwinnett - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Atlanta Regional Commission Executive Director Anna Roach Email &#105;&#110;&#x66;&#x6f;&#99;&#101;&#x6e;&#x74;&#101;&#114;&#x40;&#x61;&#116;&#108;&#x61;&#x6e;&#116;&#97;&#x72;&#x65;&#103;&#105;&#x6f;&#x6e;&#97;&#108;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#114;&#103;The post Atlanta Regional Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF ULTRATECH, INC.

The following is a list of
Ultratech, Inc.s subsidiaries including their jurisdiction of incorporation as of December 31, 2010:



|                                       |  |                              
|-------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiaries                           |  | Jurisdiction of incorporation
|Ultratech CH                           |  | Korea                        
|Ultratech International, Inc.          |  | State of Delaware, USA       
|Ultratech GmbH                         |  | Germany                      
|Ultra-Tech Technologies Israel Ltd.    |  | Israel                       
|Ultratech Kabushiki Kaisha             |  | Japan                        
|Ultratech Stepper East, Inc.           |  | State of Delaware, USA       
|Surtek, Inc.                           |  | State of New York, USA       
|Ultratech Stepper (Thailand) Co. Ltd.  |  | Thailand                     
|Ultratech (Shanghai) Co. Ltd.          |  | Peoples Republic of China    
|Ultratech (Singapore) Pte, Ltd.        |  | Singapore                    
|Ultratech Corporation                  |  | State of Nevada, USA         
|Ultratech Holding B.V. (Netherlands)   |  | Netherlands                  
|Ultratech SE Asia PTE Ltd. (Singapore) |  | Singapore
#### Application of Charles L. PETTYJOHN for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-13001.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 15, 1961.

As Corrected. Feb. 16, 1961.

Charles L. Pettyjohn, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

The petitioner, Charles L. Pettyjohn, is confined in the State Penitentiary at Mc-Alister, after having entered a plea of guilty in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, to a charge of Burglary in the second degree in case number 25801. The court thereupon sentenced him to serve a term of seven years in the State Penitentiary. On October 19, 1960 the petitioner herein filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals an application for writ of habeas corpus. On the 30th day of November, 1960, this court entered an order dismissing said petition for the reason that said petition did not state a cause of action.

On January 10, 1961 the petitioner again filed the same petition as was presented in the application of October 19, 1960.

The writ of habeas corpus is a shield of individual liberty and its use cannot be perverted to collaterally attack a valid judgment and sentence. Its office is performed when it requires the release of a person detained in custody without authority of law.

The Court of Criminal Appeals is charged with the solemn obligation to carefully consider every application for release from unlawful restraint and once having passed upon the sufficiency of an application and made a determination thereon will not again evaluate the same application. To allow such repeated attacks upon the administration of justice would *740etnbroil this court in an endless review of baseless applications so that it would have little time to consider those with merit. For the reasons stated herein the writ is denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
| 1.   | The                Annual Report of SQM on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December                31,                2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents,                in all material respects, the financial condition and results of                operations of SQM. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                             |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Patricio              Contesse G.                       |   |   |   |
| Name:              Patricio Contesse G.                          |   |   |        |
| Title:                Chief Executive OfficerDate: June 30, 2006 |   |   |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Johnson, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered November 13, 1989, convicting him of rape in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smith Barney Tidewater Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Partnership.

/s/ Jerry Pascucci                            Jerry PascucciCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director     Date:    August 14, 2007

----
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5729-H5730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 COMMUNICATION FROM DISTRICT DIRECTOR, THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. BRADY, 
                           MEMBER OF CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from Ilene Jenofsky, District Director, the Honorable 
Robert A. Brady, Member of Congress:

                                         House of Representatives,

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                  August 15, 2012.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you formally, pursuant 
     to rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
     that I have been served with a subpoena for testimony issued 
     by the Philadelphia Municipal Court, Criminal Division, in 
     connection with a

[[Page H5730]]

     criminal prosecution currently pending before that court.
       After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I 
     have determined that compliance with the subpoena is 
     consistent with the privileges and precedents of the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ilene Jenofsky,
                                                District Director.

     

                          ____________________
```