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

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**131 KA 11-00929**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GREGORY T. JACKSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MULDOON & GETZ, ROCHESTER (MARTIN P. MCCARTHY, II, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA, FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered April 20, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third 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 criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. We reject that contention. Defendant has failed to demonstrate “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for the various allegations of ineffectiveness ( People v Rivera , 71 NY2d 705, 709). Further, viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that County Court violated CPL 310.10 by questioning individual jurors concerning their contact with defendant without explicitly instructing the remaining jurors not to deliberate until all 12 jurors were present ( see People v Kelly , 16 NY3d 803, 804), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, “there was no mode of proceedings error dispensing with the preservation requirement because the brief, momentary separation of the juror[s] from deliberations was not the type of violation contemplated by the ‘continuously kept together’**-2- 131 KA 11-00929** 

language of CPL 310.10” ( Kelly , 16 NY3d at 804).

Entered: February 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
### SERVED: AUGUST 26, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF ARCTIC AIRALASKA, INC. DOCKETNO. FAA 2014-0316 (Civil Penalty Action).

ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE The Federal AviationAdministration (hereinafter "Agency") has filed a Motion for Decision onthe Pleadings dated July 22, 2014. The Agency avers in its motion that Arctic Air Alaska, Inc., (hereinafter "Respondent") requested a hearing via letter sentto Agency's counsel on May 19, 2014. The Agency filed a Complaint dated May 22, 2014. We served our Procedural Order on June 12, 2014. Respondenthas failed to file an Answerto the Complaint. Respondent has failed to file a responseto our Procedural Order. Respondenthas failed to respond to the Agency's Motion for Decision on the Pleadings. WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Onorbefore September 15,2014, Respondent shall file a response to this Order stating why the reliefrequested in the Agency's Motion should not be granted; and 2. On orbefore September 15,2014, Respondent shall answer the Complaint; and 3. On orbefore September 15, 2014, Respondent shall fully comply with our Procedural Order; and
· 4. Absent full and completeresponses to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 hereinabove, Respondent maybe sanctioned including, but not limitedto, allegations in the Complaint may be deemed admitted; and/or Respondent may be precluded from introducing any evidence at thehearing otherthan his own testimony; and/or Respondent's Request for2 

### Hearing may be dismissed; and/or a Default Judgment may be entered against Respondent in the full amount ofthe fine requested by the Agency in its Complaint.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment

- Service List

### 3

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1


### James 

### I.Hamilton, President /CEO Arctic Air Alaska, Inc., Respondent 3540 University Ave. South Fairbanks, AK 99709 Peter Lynch, Complainant's Counsel Assistant Chief Counsel for Enforcement Office of

### the Chief Counsel, AGC-300 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

TEL: 202-267-7728 FAX: 202-267-5106 ONE COPY



### The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 Docket No. FAA-2014-0316 (Civil Penalty Action)

1Service vws by

# p.s. Mail. For service in personor by expedited courier, use the following

address: .t<

### edera Aviation Administration, 600 IndependenceAvenue, S.W., WilburWrightBuilding-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; .Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7586
JAMES EUGENE VENABLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusT. WILSON, JR., Lieutenant; G. L. BASS, Warden; MR. UNDERWOOD, Medical Administration, Defendants - Appellees, and JIMM WEBSTER, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-405) Submitted: August 27, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Eugene Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Leonard Taylor,Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district co urt's judgment entered in favor of Defendant Wilson on the verdict returned by a jury. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order does not dispose of all Defendants and is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6138

PETER OBRIEN SHELTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (CA-03-0314-02)

Submitted: March 29, 2004 Decided: April 9, 2004

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter Obrien Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher

Galanides, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Peter Obrien Shelton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Shelton that failure

to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive

appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Shelton failed to object to

the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Shelton has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,538
<SECURITIES>                                     4,107
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                       659
<INVENTORY>                                      5,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,320
<PP&E>                                           6,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,574
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,882
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,920
<SALES>                                         15,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,936
<CGS>                                            7,853
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (169)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    501
<INCOME-TAX>                                       201
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          13,149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,559
<INVENTORY>                                        881
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,606
<PP&E>                                          25,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,402
<BONDS>                                          5,368
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,487
<SALES>                                          1,870
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,124
<CGS>                                            1,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (218)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   261
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,321
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,024
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,024
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        

</TABLE>
To: File 

From: Elizabeth Kohl, DOE GC-71 

Date: June 26, 2009 

Re: Ex parte discussion on rare earth phosphors 

On April 30, 2009, Mahima Gupta and Robert Carmichael of Navigant Consulting spoke via 

phone with Jeff Hogan, Sales Manager, AMR Performance Materials, a rare earth supplier. Ms. 

Gupta and Mr. Carmichael asked Mr. Hogan about the supply of rare earth phosphors as it relates 

to the final rule for general service fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamps. 

Mr. Hogan said that there is “more than adequate” rare earth in the ground physically, but that 

may not be so in terms of economically viable projects right now outside of China, which 

produces 92% of rare earths globally. A few sites outside China had nearly started operations 

but have seen financing fall through, and, coupled with the recent decline in rare earth prices, 

have not been able to restart. In general, he said it could cost $700-$800 million dollars from 

start-up to supplying rare earths. If all those plants were to come online, then enough material 

would be available, but financing for those plants is an open question. The price of rare earths 

has to get higher to make that attractive for just rare earths. One problem is that miners need to 

find a home for everything they mine and refine, and with rare earths that’s going to be a lot of 

elements. Another question for prospective sites is how China reacts with their monopolistic 

position. In terms of demand, they are seeing double digits increases in terbium demand 

annually. The environmental impact depends on where the mining is occurring and who is doing 

the mining. 

As for prices, at 5-ton commercial 99.99% purity levels, Mr. Hogan said that terbium (Tb) is 

currently down drastically from last September at about $425 per kilo, from as high as $700; 

yttrium (Y) is about $7-to-$8 per kilo; and europium (Eu) has held fairly steady at around 

$500/kilo. Even higher purities of Y are can be $29-40/kilo, which are necessary for lamps. 

End of conversation. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 95
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 02-2201

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JOHN J. CONNOLLY, JR.,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court issued August 14, 2003, should be

amended as follows:

On page 14, line 16, replace "wiretaps" with "concealed

recorder".
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Nos. DA 22 - 0650 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AARON EUGENE MCLAUGHLIN ,

Defendant and Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________ **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 14 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 2 2024

05/02/2024
Case Number: DA 22-0650
Exhibit 99(a)

                            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 Coastal  Financial  Corporation,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Michael C.
Gerald,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18
U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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 Company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                                    /s/ Michael C. Gerald
                                                    -------------------------
                                                    Michael C. Gerald
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    August 14, 2002


                                        29
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection  with the amended  Quarterly  Report of MDSI Mobile Data Solutions
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Verne D.  Pecho,  the Vice  President  Finance  &  Administration  and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 Company.


                                    /s/ Verne D. Pecho
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Verne D. Pecho
                                    Vice President Finance & Administration
                                    and Chief Financial Officer
                                    March 30, 2004
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 Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ID-090-1020XQ] 

# AGENCY:

Lower Snake River District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Meeting Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Lower Snake River District Resource Advisory Council will meet in Boise. Potential agenda topics are Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Funds, Fire Management and Restoration Workplan, Revised Priorities for Allotment Assessment, Conservation planning for Slickspot Peppergrass (lepidium papilliferum) and other resource management issues. 

# DATES:

November 13, 2000. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Public comment period will be held at 9:30 a.m. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Lower Snake River District Office, located at 3948 Development Avenue, Boise, Idaho. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Jones, Lower Snake River District Office (208-384-3305). 

Katherine Kitchell, 

District Manager. 

[FR Doc. 00-27506 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
**Exhibit32.2**

 

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

 

The undersigned herebycertifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Annual Report of the Company onForm 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the periodcovered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for theperiod covered by the Report.

 

 
|   | By: /s/ Alan Goldstein                                                 |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Alan Goldstein                                                         |
|   | Vice President, Chief  Financial Officer and  Chief Accounting Officer |

 

 

Date:  March 31, 2005

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AmericanBank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank NoteHolographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----