alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Metz, Also Known as Stanford White, Appellant.

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), both rendered March 16, 1983, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (seven counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree (two counts), criminal use of a firearm in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (two counts), under indictment No. 2538/82, and sodomy in the first degree (three counts) and sexual abuse in the first degree, under indictment No. 2539/82, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals bring up for review the denial (Dufficy, J.), after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The hearing court properly determined that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search and seizure of the car *516in which he was found sleeping at the time of his arrest. The hearing record shows that on July 22, 1982, the defendant and codefendant, after robbing and injuring a New York City public school teacher and her friend, drove off in the friend’s car. On the following day, a Pennsylvania State Trooper received a radio broadcast that a car bearing a New York registration number was spotted moving erratically on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The Trooper later discovered the car, with the defendant and the codefendant, parked in a rest area off the Turnpike, and, prior to carrying out any search or seizure, ascertained from official sources that the car had been reported stolen. Neither the defendant nor the codefendant could produce an ownership registration. The defendant stated that the car belonged to a friend. A subsequent search of the car revealed weapons, ammunition, and money. It is settled that a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure is required to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy *(see, People v Wesley,*73 NY2d 351, 356-360; *People v Ponder,*54 NY2d 160; *People v Finley,*145 AD2d 434). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record amply demonstrates the absence of any legitimate expectation of privacy in the car which he had stolen *(see, People v Finley, supra; People v Gonzalez,*115 AD2d 73, 78, *affd*68 NY2d 950).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnnie N. Earl, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered October 2, 1989, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to preclude the trial testimony of certain witnesses who had testified at the first Grand Jury proceeding, for the reason that the minutes of their Grand Jury testimony had been lost. Although the loss by the stenographer of the Grand Jury minutes rendered it impossible to comply with the *Rosario*rule *(see, People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937), the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to preclude the witnesses from testifying at trial. The loss of the minutes was not intentional and any prejudice to the defendant in cross-examining these witnesses was eliminated by the accelerated offering of all other *Rosario*material to the defendant and the adverse inference charge given to the jury. Further, the minutes of the witnesses’s testimony at the second Grand Jury proceeding and at the pretrial hearings, as well as their statements to the police, were available to the defendant *(see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Haupt,*71 NY2d 929; *People v Kelly,*62 NY2d 516; *People v Aviles,*89 Misc 2d 1).

The defendant also argues that his guilt was not proven *511beyond a reasonable doubt. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
----

----

|   | In connection with the Annual Report of Golden Eagle International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K, Amendment No. 2 for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tracy A. Madsen, Principal Financial Officer, 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Date: September 13, 2011 |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  /s/ Tracy A. MadsenTracy A. MadsenPrincipal Financial Officer |

----

----
First Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.7 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of September 1, 2004, by and between Worldwide Wynn, LLC (“Employer”) and Matt Maddox (“Employee”). Capitalized terms that are not defined
herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement (as defined below). 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS,
Employer and Employee have entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of March 14, 2003 (the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Employer is willing and Employee desires to modify certain terms and conditions to the Agreement as more fully set forth herein; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the respective
representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 1. Amendment. The Employer and Employee desire to extend the Term of the Agreement by an additional two years. Accordingly, Section 5 of the
Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 “5. TERM. Unless sooner terminated as provided in this Agreement, the term of this Agreement (the “Term”) shall consist of six (6) years commencing on the Effective Date of this Agreement and
terminating on the sixth Anniversary of the Effective Date.” 
  
 Employer and Employee acknowledge and agree that the extension of the Term of the Agreement does not constitute a commitment by Employee or a requirement of Employer that Employee continue to be based in SAR after March 14, 2007.

  
 2. Salary. Effective September 1, 2004, the term
“Base Salary” shall mean Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00) per annum. Employee’s Base Salary shall be increase to Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) per annum concurrent with the opening to the public of the
resort and casino to be known as “Wynn Macau” and operated by Wynn Macau in SAR. 
  
 3. Stock Option Grant. Subject to and effective upon the approval of the Compensation Committee of Wynn Resorts, Limited, Employee shall, at the earliest possible time after the date of the Amendment, be
granted 50,000 options of Wynn Resorts, Limited common stock under the Wynn Resorts, Limited 2002 Stock Incentive Plan. The option grant described herein is in addition to any other option grants previously granted by the Company to the Employee.

  









 4. Other Provisions of Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the Agreement is being modified
only as stated herein, and agree that nothing else in the Agreement shall be affected by this Amendment. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above. 
  

							
	WORLDWIDE WYNN, LLC	 	 	 	EMPLOYEE
				
	By:	 	 /s/ Marc D. Schorr
	 	 	 	 /s/ Matt Maddox

	 	 	 Marc D. Schorr
	 	 	 	 Matt Maddox

	 	 	 President
	 	 	 	 

  

 - 2 -
#### BUTLER v. STATE (four cases).

Nos. 21088, 21090-21092.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 29, *1940.*

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1940.

M. H. Barton, of Overton, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet at October 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Income for the Nine
Months Ended October 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,667
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               28,638,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                   469,658
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,793,496
<PP&E>                                       2,743,999
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,656,889
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,658,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,161,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,106
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,126,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,458,560
<SALES>                                     11,136,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,136,199
<CGS>                                        4,797,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,832,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (13,076)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             264,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,254,421
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,778,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,476,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,476,421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the
requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code and shall not be relied on by any person for any other purpose.

The undersigned, who is the President and Chief Executive Officer of CCF Holding Company (the registrant), hereby certifies as follows:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the registrant (the Report), which accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

Dated this 2nd day of June, 2006.



/s/ David B. TurnerDavid B. Turner, President and Chief Executive
Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund V, L.P., Series 4 (the “Partnership”) for the quarters
ended December 31, 2007, September 30, 2007 and June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, except to the extent that such provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership financial statements
to refer to the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for the Partnership’s annual financial
statements and except that the Report is a cumulative report covering each of the quarters ended December 31, September 30 and
June 30, 2007 and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Partnership.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/Melanie
    R. Wenk                                               | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Melanie R. Wenk                                                      | 
|Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
|                                                                    
|Date: November 4, 2013                                               |
Exhibit 32.1



US Oncology, Inc



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 US Oncology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, R.
Dale Ross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ R. Dale Ross                            
|R. Dale Ross                                
|Chief Executive Officer of US Oncology, Inc.
|                                            
|May 10, 2005
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BOOKER T. TRAVIS JR.

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 601

[ June 14, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; William W. Haury Jr

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 73

- 2431CF10A

.

Booker T. Travis Jr, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10KSB FOR THE YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                           21724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 21724
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   21724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              407
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                       21027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     21724
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3542
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (1808)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1808)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (1808)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1808)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1808)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.001)
        

</TABLE>
Draft Proposal CA-21 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Increase Visible Transmittance (VT) Requirements (CA-21) 

Objective: Increase VT requirements to improve daylighting effectiveness. 

Suggested Code Change Proposal 

Revise Table C402.3 and Section C402.3.3 as follows: 

TABLE C402.3 

BUILDING ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS: FENESTRATION

CLIMATE ZONE 1 2 3 

4 EXCEPT 

MARINE 

5 AND 

MARINE 4 6 7 8 

Vertical fenestration 

U-factor 

Fixed fenestration 0.5 0.5 0.46 0.38 0.38 0.36 0.29 0.29 

Operable fenestration 0.65 0.65 0.6 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.37 0.37 

Entrance doors 1.1 0.83 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 

SHGC 

SHGC 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.45 0.45 

VT 

VT 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4

Skylights 

U-factor 0.75 0.65 0.55 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 

SHGC 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4 NR NR 

VT 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.4

NR = No requirement. 

C402.3.3 Maximum U-factor and SHGC and minimum VT. For vertical fenestration, the maximum 

U-factor and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) and minimum visible transmittance (VT) shall be as 

specified in Table C402.3, based on the window projection factor. For skylights, the maximum U-factor 
and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) and minimum visible transmittance (VT) shall be as specified in 

Table C402.3. The window projection factor shall be determined in accordance with Equation 4-2. 

(Equation 4-2 not changed).

Reason: The higher the VT, the higher the visible light admitted to the space, and the more 

benefit received from daylighting. More daylighting will result in less artificial lighting operation, 

saving energy. VT does vary by climate zone based on availability with the SHGCrequired in 

each climate zone. 

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change because a survey 

of available fenestration found that in general there was no added cost for higher VT.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Michelle Leigh Leinneweber, * From the County Court at Law No. 2

of Taylor County

Trial Court No. 2

- 1384

- 14.

Vs. No. 11

- 16

- 00 222

- CR * August 23 , 2018

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.