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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1286 

KA 09-01499 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MYRON LUMPKIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TYSON BLUE, MACEDON, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

RICHARD M. HEALY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LYONS (MELVIN BRESSLER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Wayne County Court (Stephen R.

Sirkin, J.), rendered June 9, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree and gang assault

in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon a

jury verdict, of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1])

and gang assault in the second degree (§ 120.06), defendant contends

that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction. 

Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review both

because his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specifically

directed at the alleged deficiencies identified on appeal (see People

v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Adair, 84 AD3d 1752, 1753, lv

denied 17 NY3d 812), and because he failed to renew his motion after

presenting evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d 56, 61, rearg denied

97 NY2d 678). In any event, that contention is without merit (see

generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, County Court properly

denied, without conducting a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL

330.30 (1) to set aside the verdict (see generally People v Carter, 63

NY2d 530, 536; People v Morgan, 77 AD3d 1419, 1420, lv denied 15 NY3d

922). We also reject defendant’s contention that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54

NY2d 137, 147). Rather, we conclude that the “cumulative effect of

defense counsel’s alleged deficiencies, viewed in totality and as of

the time of the representation, did not deprive defendant of effective

assistance of counsel” (People v Marcial, 41 AD3d 1308, 1309, lv 
-2- 1286 

KA 09-01499 

denied 9 NY3d 878). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or

severe.

Entered: December 30, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 426 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 426

To authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish a memorial to 
  Martin Luther King, Jr., in the District of Columbia, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 15 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

  Mr. Sarbanes (for himself and Mr. Warner) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity to establish a memorial to 
  Martin Luther King, Jr., in the District of Columbia, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., MEMORIAL.

    (a) In General.--
            (1) Establishment.--Subject to subsection (b), the Alpha 
        Phi Alpha Fraternity is authorized to establish a memorial to 
        Martin Luther King, Jr., in the District of Columbia and its 
        environs in accordance with the Act entitled ``An Act to 
        provide standards for placement of commemorative works on 
        certain Federal lands in the District of Columbia and its 
        environs, and for other purposes'', approved November 14, 1986 
        (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.
            (2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term 
        ``the District of Columbia and its environs'' has the same 
        meaning given to the term by section 2(e) of the Act (40 U.S.C. 
        1002(e)).
    (b) No Expense to the United States.--The United States shall not 
pay any of the expenses of establishing the memorial under subsection 
(a).
                                 <all>
```
II

★(Star Print)

Calendar No. 94

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 359

[Report No. 104–71]

To provide for the extension of certain hydroelectric projects located in the

State of West Virginia.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 6 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Mr. BYRD (for himself and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, with amendments

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To provide for the extension of certain hydroelectric projects

located in the State of West Virginia.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period

5 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16
2

S 359 RS1S

1 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En2 ergy Regulatory Commission projects numbered 6901 and

3 6902, the Commission shall, upon the request of the li4 censee for those projects, in accordance with the good

5 faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of

6 that section, and the Commission’s procedures under that

7 section, and the procedures specified in that section, ex8 tend the time period during which the licensee is required

9 to commence construction of those projects so as to termi10 nate on October 3, 1999.

11 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall take effect

12 for the projects upon the expiration of the extension, is13 sued by the Commission under section 13 of the Federal

14 Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the period required for

15 commencement of construction of the projects.

16 (c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If a li17 cense for a project described in subsection (a) has expired

18 prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission

19 shall reinstate the license effective as of the date of its

20 expiration and extend the time required for commence21 ment of construction of the project until October 3, 1999.

Calendar No. 94

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 359

[Report No. 104–71]

A BILL

To provide for the extension of certain hydroelectric

projects located in the State of West Virginia.

APRIL 27 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1995

Reported with amendments
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MOTORVAC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,028
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,358,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                    68,395
<INVENTORY>                                  1,019,810
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,942,224
<PP&E>                                         488,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                 211,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,605,659
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,511,057
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,496
<COMMON>                                         9,480
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,995,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,605,659
<SALES>                                      1,347,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,347,529
<CGS>                                          732,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  732,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (491,997)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (491,997)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (491,997)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **Supplementary Information**                         section for effective date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OFAC: Bradley Smith, Director, tel.: 202-622-2490; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or Assistant Director for Sanctions Enforcement, Compliance & Analysis, tel.: 202-622-2490.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *ofac.treasury.gov*).                

## Notice of OFAC Action(s)

On January 31, 2024, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below. 
      ( print page 8275)          ( print page 8276)    

Dated: January 31, 2024.

Bradley T. Smith,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 2024-02274 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

I,  Javier O. Lamoso, thePresident of ClearComm, L.P., certify that (i) the December 31, 200410-K/A Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the December 31, 2004 10-K/A Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofClearComm, L.P.

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Javier O. Lamoso |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------|--------|
|   |   | Javier O. Lamoso     |
|   |   | President            |
|   |   | June 1, 2005         |

 

----
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 284

To restore the term of patents, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To restore the term of patents, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PATENT TERMS.

4 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 154 of title 35, United

5 States Code (as added by the Uruguay Round Agreements

6 Act), is amended—

7 (1) in paragraph (2) of subsection (a), by strik8 ing ‘‘and ending’’ and all that follows through the

9 end of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘and ending on

10 the later of—

11 ‘‘(A) 17 years from the date of the grant

12 of the patent; or
2

•S 284 IS

1 ‘‘(B) 20 years from the date on which the

2 application for the patent was filed in the

3 United States, except that if the application

4 contains a specific reference to an earlier filed

5 application or applications under section 120,

6 121, or 365(c) of this title, 20 years from the

7 date on which the earliest such patent applica8 tion was filed.’’;

9 (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as fol10 lows:

11 ‘‘(b) PATENT DISCLOSURE.—In the event that a con12 tinuing patent application is filed that claims the benefit

13 of the filing date of a prior application that was filed more

14 than 60 months earlier, notices of the original patent ap15 plication and of the continuing patent application shall be

16 published and the public shall be permitted to inspect and

17 copy the original patent application and the continuing

18 patent application.’’; and

19 (3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (c), by strik20 ing ‘‘shall be the greater of the 20-year term as pro21 vided in subsection (a), or 17 years from grant’’ and

22 inserting ‘‘shall be the term provided in subsection

23 (a)’’.
3

•S 284 IS

1 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 534(b) of the

2 Uruguay Round Agreements Act is amended by striking

3 paragraph (3).

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
RELATED ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,632
<SECURITIES>                                    38,186
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,352
<PP&E>                                           5,503
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,225
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,867
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,405
<OTHER-SE>                                        (651)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,000
<SALES>                                         24,235
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,235
<CGS>                                            3,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,407
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   281
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,339
<INCOME-TAX>                                       330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,009
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                       EXHIBIT 5


                                 LAW OFFICES OF
                      Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
       A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS

                              695 TOWN CENTER DRIVE
                        COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1924
                            TELEPHONE (714) 668-6200
                            FACSIMILE (714) 979-1921
                              INTERNET www.phjw.com




                                December 30, 1996

(714) 668-6200



SRS Labs, Inc.
2909 Daimler Street
Santa Ana, California 92705

          Re:     SRS Labs, Inc. Incentive Stock Option, Nonqualified
                  Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan - 1993

Ladies and Gentlemen:

                  We have acted as counsel for SRS Labs, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the SRS Labs, Inc. Incentive
Stock Option, Nonqualified Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan -
1993, as amended and restated (the "1993 Option Plan"). We have examined such
documents, records, and matters of law as we have deemed necessary for purposes
of this opinion, and based thereupon we are of the opinion that the shares of
the Company's common stock, $.001 par value per share (the "Common Stock"), that
may be issued and sold pursuant to the 1993 Option Plan will be, when issued 
and sold in accordance with the 1993 Option Plan, duly authorized, validly 
issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

                  We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as Exhibit 5
to the Registration Statement on Form S-8 to be filed by the Company on or about
December 30, 1996, to effect registration of the shares of Common Stock to be
issued and sold pursuant to the 1993 Option Plan under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.

                                     Very truly yours,



                                     /s/ Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
* 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

December 12, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-11344

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL SILLEMON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CR-92-1-H

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Sillemon appeals his conviction by a jury of armed

bank robbery and aiding and abetting, using and carrying a

firearm during a violent crime, and conspiracy to commit those

and other related crimes. He argues that the district court

abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance.

“This court will reverse a district court’s decision denying

a defendant’s motion for continuance only when the district court
No. 02-11344

-2-

has abused its discretion and the defendant can establish that he

suffered serious prejudice.” United States v. Scott, 48 F.3d

1389, 1393 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). Our review of the record and briefs of the parties

satisfies us that the district court’s decision was neither

arbitrary nor unreasonable because Sillemon changed retained

counsel shortly before trial, and he has failed to show that he

suffered serious prejudice as a result of the denial. See United

States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423, 431 (5th Cir. 1998); United

States v. Pollani, 146 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
*

 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 circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20300

(Summary Calendar)

In The Matter Of: YOAV HASSON

Debtor

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

YOAV HASSON,

Appellant,

versus

MARVIN W. LERNER,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(97-CV-3986)

August 26, 1998

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam*

In this appealfrom rulings of the bankruptcy court, which were affirmed by the district court,

Debtor-Appellant Yoav Hasson complains that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over an

adversary proceeding between him and Appellee Marvin W. Lerner, M.D. Hasson alternatively

argues that, even if the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction, it erred in entering a default judgment

against him, and that the bankruptcy court also erred in refusing to grant Hasson’s motion for relief

from that default judgment. Dischargeability is also an issue in this appeal.
2

Our review of the record and the facts revealed thereby, together with our consideration of

the arguments of able counsel set forth in their respect ive appellate briefs, satisfies us that the

bankruptcy court committed no reversible error in any of its rulings applicable to this appeal. More

specifically, we discern no problem in the bankruptcy court’s exercise of jurisdiction or in its grant

of the default judgment sought by Dr. Lerner; neither do we perceive erro r in the court’s denying

Hasson a new trial or reconsideration of any of its other rulings. And, inasmuch as the facts are not

in serious dispute and the issues of law neither unique nor res nova in this circuit, we conclude — as

did the district court before us — that the contested rulings of the bankruptcy court should be, and

therefore are, in all respects, 

AFFIRMED.