alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alberto Toro, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.), rendered on March 2, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from *4Vi*to 9 years, and judgment which denied his *pro se*motion to vacate the judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant’s conviction arises out of a buy-and-bust operation. It is submitted that defendant has failed to prepare an adequate record upon which to review his *Rosario*violation claims. *(People v Marcano,*157 AD2d 533.) No application for a mistrial was made on the basis of a *Rosario*violation. *(People v Hentley,*155 AD2d 392, *lv denied*75 NY2d 919.) When the officer first referred to a DD-5 in his testimony, defense counsel made no request for it at that time. Where a defense counsel’s inattention results in failing to obtain a police report, this does not constitute a withholding of *Rosario*material. *(People v Rogelio,*160 AD2d 359.)

Defendant is not prejudiced by the loss on appeal of defendant’s arrest photograph. This goes to identification which is properly left for the jury’s resolution. *(People v Jamison,*155 AD2d 369.)

*401The totality of the circumstances indicate that defendant was afforded meaningful representation. *(People v Baldi, 54*NY2d 137, 146 [1981].) Defense counsel presented a viable defense of misidentification, repeatedly attempted to impeach the officers’ credibility by their failure to provide a more detailed description and highlighted the absence of any additional incriminating evidence such as additional drugs or prerecorded buy money.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
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 of LeCroy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Sean B. O'Connor, Chief Financial 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 my knowledge:


         (1)      The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.



Date: May 10, 2006
                                                      /s/ Sean B. O'Connor
                                                      --------------------------
                                                          Sean B. O'Connor
                                                      Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

THE RYLAND GROUP, INC.

SENIOR EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN

 

The Ryland Group, Inc. (the “Company”) wishes to terminate and liquidate The Ryland Group, Inc. Senior Executive Supplemental Retirement Plan (the “Plan”).

 

Accordingly, in accordance with Section 4.1 of the Plan and Treas. Reg. section 409A-3(j)(4)(ix)(B), the Plan is terminated effective on September 28, 2015. Each Participant’s vested SERP Benefit (determined in accordance with Article 3 of the Plan) shall be paid to the Participant in a lump sum on September 28, 2015.

 

For purposes of clarification, with respect to Participants who consented to Amendment No. 1 to the Plan, “Lump Sum” shall mean “Lump Sum” as defined in Amendment No. 1 (i.e., the present value equivalent of a Participant’s remaining unpaid Vested SERP Benefit using as the discount rate the Cost of Money for 2015 or the year in which the Participant’s distribution in accordance with this Plan termination Amendment is made, as determined by the Administrator). With respect to Participants who did not consent to Amendment No. 1 to the Plan, “Lump Sum” shall mean “Lump Sum” as defined in the Plan prior to the effective date of Amendment No. 1 (i.e., the present value equivalent of a Participant’s remaining unpaid Vested SERP Benefit using an 8% discount rate). Notwithstanding the preceding or anything to the contrary in the Plan as amended, no Participant’s vested SERP Benefit shall be discounted to a date that is earlier than the Participant’s 60th birthday, regardless of the Participant’s actual age at the time of distribution in accordance with this Plan termination Amendment.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed, effective as specified herein.

 

 

	
 
    	
THE RYLAND GROUP, INC.,
    
	
 
    	
a Maryland Corporation
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Larry Nicholson
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
     Larry   Nicholson, President and Chief
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
     Executive   Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Timothy J. Geckle
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
     Timothy   J. Geckle, Senior Vice President,
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
     General   Counsel and Secretary
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 14

- 00179

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2012

- 07156

Style: Victor Kareh M.D.

v

. T racy Windrum, Individually, as R epresentative of the Es tate of Lancer Windrum, and

on Behalf of her Minor C hildren B. W. , J. W. , and H. W.

Date motion filed * : January 9, 2015

Type of motion: M otion for Extension of Time to F ile Reply Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Reply Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes N o

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: January 20 , 2015

Number of previous extensions granted: 1

Date Requested: February 4, 2015

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: February 4 , 2015

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time.

Denied

Dismis sed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: January 13, 2015
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SEBASTIAN BARRIENTOS-VELEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-10569

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00657-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Sebastian Barrientos-Velez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 51-

month sentence imposed for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Barrientos-Velez’s counsel

FILED

JUL 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-10569

has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to

withdraw as counsel of record. Appellant has filed a pro se brief. No answering

brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80-81 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Ronco Corporation
(the "Company") for the period from October 15, 2004 (Date of Inception) to June
30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard F. Allen, Sr., 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 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.

                            /s/ Richard F. Allen, Sr.
                           -------------------------
                           Richard F. Allen, Sr.

November 15, 2005

The foregoing certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U. S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT

Commercial
Sexual Exploitation ana
Sex Trafficking of Minors

in the United States

MYTH © Sex trafficking only happens overseas to young girls.

sking occur every day in the United States.
all towns across America.

FACT © Commercial sexual exploitation and sex traffi
Its victims—both male and fentede—live in cities and s

MYTH © Minors who are commercially sexually exploited or trafficked for sex are recognized
as victims of crime and abuse.

FACT © Sexual exploitation and sex trafficking are forms of child abuse, but the children and
adolescents who are victims can still be arrested for prostitution, detained or incarcerated,
and subject to permanent records as offenders in most states.

MYTH © People who buy sex with minors or engage in the sale of sex with minors are caught
and punished for these crimes.

FACT © Despite laws in every state that enable the prose
the hard work of prosecutors and law enforcement in mar
exploit children and adolescents have largely escaped accountability.

ion of these individuals and despite
jurisdictions, those who sexually

MYTH © Itis easy for professionals who interact with minors to recognize victims, survivors,
and youth at risk of commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking.

FACT © Many teachers, doctors and nurses, child welfare workers, and other individuals who
interact with youth are unaware that commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of minors
occur in their communities or lack the knowledge or training to identify and respond to them. .

MYTH © Help is readily available for victims and survivors of commercial sexual exploitation _
and sex trafficking. z

FACT © There are too few services to meet current needs. The services that do exist
ributed geographically, lack adequate resources, and vary in their ability.
lized care.

are unevenly di
to provide specia

B READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

PAL.RESEARCH COUNCIL

‘OFTHE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATE OF THE


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF


FNBH BANCORP, INC.





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350):





I, Mark J. Huber, Chief Financial Officer of FNBH Bancorp, Inc., certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:





(1)  The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and;





(2)  The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of FNBH Bancorp, Inc.





FNBH BANCORP, INC.Date:  August 15, 2011
By
/s/ Mark J. HuberMark J. HuberIts:
Chief Financial Officer





The signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to FNBH Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by FNBH Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Mario Laniado, as Administrator of the Estate of Valentina Laniado, Deceased, Appellant, v New York Hospital et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered June 15, 1989, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendants, dismissed plaintiff’s medical malpractice action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Our review of the record demonstrates that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the jury’s verdict in favor of defendants could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence *(Yalkut v City of New York,*162 AD2d 185, 189). Decedent, who suffered severe burns over 30% of her body, was placed on a respirator. Plaintiff produced an expert witness who testified that defendant doctors negligently inserted an endotrachael tube into decedent’s esophagus as opposed to her trachea, resulting in her death. The claim was rebutted by two defense experts. The jury’s resolution of the conflicting expert testimony was not incredible as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s failure to object to the allegedly prejudicial comments made by defendant’s medical expert, Dr. Cutler, or to move for a mistrial, constitutes a waiver of the claim. *(Picciallo v Norchi,*147 AD2d 540; *Matter of Giacalone,*143 AD2d 749.) Lastly, the arguments made in defendants’ summations do not warrant reversal as they were either not objected to or were within the bounds of rhetorical comment. *(Sherman v Ashkinazy,*157 AD2d 451.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Carro, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATIOH EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF THE
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         234,526
<SECURITIES>                                   138,898
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               361,785
<PP&E>                                       2,460,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                 640,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,351,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          285,075
<BONDS>                                      1,788,291
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     277,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,351,271
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               651,581
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  435,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             173,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             62,204
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       15,533
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,737
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
On February 10, 2000, the Commission staff will meet with Petal Gas Storage Company (Petal). This meeting is in response to Petal's February 2, 2000 letter requesting a meeting with Commission staff to discuss a proposed amendment to Petal's pending application in the above referenced proceeding. In its letter Petal states that the proposed amendment would reduce the amount of facilities to be constructed. The meeting will commence at 2:00 PM, in room 72-76 at the Commission's headquarters, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-3043  Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 4:22-cr-00193-P Document 16 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 17
Case 4:22-cr-00193-P Document 16 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 18
exv10w2



 






Exhibit 10.2




Summary of Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers



Set forth below is a summary of the compensation paid by Lamar Advertising Company (the “Company”)
to its executive officers effective January 1, 2005. All of the Company’s executive officers are
at-will employees whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time at the
discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) pursuant to authority delegated to it by the Board of
Directors.



Base Salary. Effective January 1, 2005, the Company’s executive officers are scheduled to receive
the following annual base salaries in their current positions:




	 	 	 
	Name and Current Position	 	2005 Salary
	Kevin P. Reilly, Jr.
	 	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	$550,000
	Sean E. Reilly
	 	 
	Chief Operating Officer and Vice President
	 	$425,000
	Keith A. Istre
	 	 
	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
	 	$425,000





Annual Incentive Bonus. The Company’s executive officers are also eligible to receive an annual
cash bonus. Each year the Compensation Committee determines the annual bonuses for each executive
officer based, in part, upon the recommendations of the Chief Executive Officer in conjunction with
an evaluation of individual and Company performance.




Benefits and Other Arrangements



In addition to base salary and bonus, each of the Company’s executive officers is eligible to
participate in the following:





	•  	The Company’s 1996 Equity Incentive Plan (filed as Exhibit 10.2
to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2004),
under which stock options and other equity compensation may be
granted at the discretion of the Compensation Committee.






	•  	The Company’s Deferred Compensation Plan (filed as Exhibit 10.15
to the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004),
under which the Company makes an annual contribution on behalf of
eligible employees who satisfy certain age, years of service and
management classification requirements.






	•  	The Company’s 401(k) profit-sharing plan and other health and
benefit plans generally available to officers/employees of the
Company.




Additional information about compensation for the Company’s executive officers, including 2004 cash
bonus awards and equity awards, is set forth in the Proxy Statement for the Company’s 2005 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders, which was filed with the SEC on April 22, 2005.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                             795
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,417
<PP&E>                                       2,280,319
<DEPRECIATION>                                 259,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,316,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,577,576
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,057
<OTHER-SE>                                   (297,318)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,316,520
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (232,860)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (232,860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (232,860)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>