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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered November 21, 1979, convicting him of murder in the second degree (six counts) and arson in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*463Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court’s instructions to the jury with respect to the elements of the crime of burglary, as the predicate for the felony murder counts, and with respect to the alibi evidence, were erroneous. However, since the defendant raised no objection to the charge as given, his claims of error are not preserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467; *People v Malave,*114 AD2d 376).

Furthermore, insofar as the defendant now claims that certain testimony was improperly received during the cross-examination of a prosecution witness by the attorney for the codefendant, we note that this testimony was either not objected to, or that where objections were made, they were not sufficiently specific to preserve the errors for appellate review *(see, People v Oliver,*63 NY2d 973; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023; *People v Ortiz,*164 AD2d 872).

The defendant’s contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were prejudicial and deprived him of a fair trial is also unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to register any objections thereto at the time of trial *(see, People v De Gina,*46 AD2d 925, *affd*39 NY2d 96).

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to reach these issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see,*CPL 470.15 [6]). Fiber, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50209

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PATRICK RENE RODRIGUEZ, also known as Patrick Rene Rodrigez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-185-1

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Rene Rodriguez appeals his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine for 

which he was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment and 10 years of 

supervised release. He contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and 

voluntary because the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal 

* 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

January 28, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50209 Document: 00512918014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2015
No. 14-50209

Procedure 11(b)(1)(G) and (I) by failing to properly advise him of the 

mandatory minimum sentence.

Rodriguez raised no Rule 11 error in the district court. Accordingly, 

review is for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). 

The district court is required to ensure the defendant understands the nature 

of the charge to which he is pleading and any mandatory minimum penalty. 

FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(G), (I). Rodriguez was sentenced to the mandatory 

minimum sentence of 20 years. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). The district court 

correctly and consistently advised Rodriguez that he faced a 20-year 

mandatory minimum sentence. The record does not support Rodriguez’s 

arguments that he was misled by the alternative minimum sentences set forth 

in the enhancement information and plea agreement or the Government’s 

promise to pursue only one prior felony drug conviction for statutory 

enhancement purposes. Even if Rodriguez could demonstrate plain error, he 

cannot show “a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have 

entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004); 

see also United States v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 954-55 (5th Cir. 2013), 

cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 950 (2014). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50209 Document: 00512918014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2015
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 108

To provide that professional baseball teams, and leagues composed of such

teams, shall be subject to the antitrust laws.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. BUNNING, and Mr. MCCOLLUM) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide that professional baseball teams, and leagues

composed of such teams, shall be subject to the antitrust

laws.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDING.

4 The Congress finds that the business of providing for

5 profit public baseball games between teams of professional

6 baseball players in a league and between such teams of

7 rival leagues is in, or affects, interstate commerce.
2

•HR 108 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFES2 SIONAL BASEBALL.

3 The antitrust laws shall apply to the business of pro4 viding for profit public baseball games between teams of

5 professional baseball players and to leagues composed of

6 teams of professional baseball players.

7 SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

8 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘antitrust laws’’

9 has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first sec10 tion of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), except that

11 such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Com12 mission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that such section

13 5 relates to unfair methods of competition.

14 SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF SECTION 2.

15 Section 2 shall not apply with respect to conduct oc16 curring before the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-83-006]


Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Filing of Pro Forma 
Tariff Sheets

November 22, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 21, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing, as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following pro forma tariff 
sheets to become effective January 14, 2000:

First Revised Sheet No. 79
Original Sheet No. 80
Original Sheet No. 80G
Original Sheet No. 80H

    On November 29, 1999, Texas Gas filed proposed tariff sheets to 
establish a new Summer No-Notice Service (SNS). The Commission Order 
issued January 12, 2000, suspended the effective date of those tariff 
sheets until June 14, 2000, subject to refund, the conditions set forth 
within the Order, and the outcome of a technical conference. The pro 
forma tariff sheets submitted herein reflect changes to the SNS Rate 
Schedule, which Texas Gas agreed to as a result of the recent technical 
conference. Texas Gas also requests withdrawal of the tariff sheets 
that were filed on March 10, 2000, in Docket No. RP00-83-002 and 
noticed by the Commission on March 15, 2000. The pro forma tariff 
sheets will replace and reflect the identical revisions previously 
filed on March 10, 2000.
    Texas Gas states that copies of the revised tariff sheets are being 
mailed to all parties on the Commission's official service list as well 
as to Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30352 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

AYASHA MIMS, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RA SUSHI ADDISON CORP., 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-cv-01437-S 

________________________________________ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff AYASHA MIMS and Defendant RA SUSHI ADDISON CORP., having stipulated to the 

dismissal with prejudice of all claims in this lawsuit, it is accordingly, 

 ORDERED and ADJUDGED that all of AYASHA MIMS’ claims against RA SUSHI ADDISON 

CORP., in this lawsuit shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear 

her or its own costs of court and attorneys’ fees. 

 SIGNED in Dallas, Texas this _____ day of ________, 2023 

 ____________________________________ 

 KAREN GREN SCHOLER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-01437-S Document 20-1 Filed 09/18/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 64
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000943906
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND V, L.P., SERIES 4
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US CURRENCY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                            766,107
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  766,107
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  5,190,134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                      2,624,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    5,190,134
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    2,427
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    2,040
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (75)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (75)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (75)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph Mayo et al., Appellants-Respondents, v State of New York, Respondent-Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Court of Claims for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The court’s determination of the highest and best use of the property is supported by the evidence and should not be disturbed *(see, Matter of Rochester Urban Renewal Agency v Lee,*83 AD2d 770). The court erred, however, in its conclusion that claimants should not be compensated for the presence of borrow because it would not have been "governmentally feasible” to mine the borrow. That conclusion is belied by the fact that, following the appropriation, all the required permits were issued and borrow was mined on this site. Consequently, we remit the matter to the Court of Claims to allow the parties to submit appraisals based upon comparable sales of land that contained borrow *921
      *(see, Sparks v State of New York,*48 AD2d 236, 239, *affd*39 NY2d 884). We have examined the remaining issues raised by claimants and find them to be lacking in merit. (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims, Israel Margolis, J.—appropriation.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
Case 4:22-cr-00274-P Document 69 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 211
Case 4:22-cr-00274-P Document 69 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 212
# Official Journal C 33A/15 F

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 33A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5015 February 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 33A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5015 February 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2007/C 033A/01 | Notice to readers | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

2007/C 033A/01

Notice to readers

1

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2007/C 033A/02 | Corrigendum to the reserve list of the open competition EPSO/AD/43/06 — Lawyer-Linguists (AD7) with main language Bulgarian (OJ C 22 A, 31.1.2007) | 3 |

Corrigenda

2007/C 033A/02

Corrigendum to the reserve list of the open competition EPSO/AD/43/06 — Lawyer-Linguists (AD7) with main language Bulgarian (OJ C 22 A, 31.1.2007)

3

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

15.2.2007

| 15.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 33/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 33/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---

Corrigenda

| 15.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 33/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 33/3

---

Corrigendum to the reserve list of the open competition EPSO/AD/43/06 — Lawyer-Linguists (AD7) with main language Bulgarian

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 22 A of 31 January 2007
  )

(2007/C 33 A/01)

The reserve list of the open competition EPSO/AD/43/06 — Lawyer-Linguists (AD7) with main language Bulgarian, Court of Justice channel, reads as follows :

RESERVE LISTS
   (1)

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/43/06

LAWYER-LINGUISTS (AD7)

WITH MAIN LANGUAGE BULGARIAN (BG)

Court of Justice channel

| ABADHJIEVA | STANISLAVA |
| --- | --- |
| ALEXOVA | SIMONA |
| ANGUELOVA | ANTONIA |
| BOYADJIEVA | NEDIALKA |
| GEORGIEVA | TANJA |
| GROZEV | ROSSEN |
| GUEORGIEVA | DEANA |
| HADJIYSKA | NEVYANA |
| KALINOV | ANGEL |
| KOLEVA | KATERINA |
| MITREV | GEORGI |
| OBAYDI | SIVIYA |
| PARVANOV | PETRE |
| RADEVA | DIANA |

ABADHJIEVA

STANISLAVA

ALEXOVA

SIMONA

ANGUELOVA

ANTONIA

BOYADJIEVA

NEDIALKA

GEORGIEVA

TANJA

GROZEV

ROSSEN

GUEORGIEVA

DEANA

HADJIYSKA

NEVYANA

KALINOV

ANGEL

KOLEVA

KATERINA

MITREV

GEORGI

OBAYDI

SIVIYA

PARVANOV

PETRE

RADEVA

DIANA

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request his/her name not be published.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1056 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1056

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Civil Service 
   Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded from the budget of the 
                       United States Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1993

Mr. Lewis of Florida (for himself, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Young of Florida, 
Mr. Thurman, Mr. Goss, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Allard, and Mr. Gene Green of 
Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the 
 Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Civil Service 
   Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded from the budget of the 
                       United States Government.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 8348 of 
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(n) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and 
disbursements of the Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, 
outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
            ``(1) the budget of the United States Government as 
        submitted by the President,
            ``(2) the congressional budget, or
            ``(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
        of 1985.''.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of PACE Health Management Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John Pappajohn, Director and Acting 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/ John Pappajohn
                                                       -------------------------
                                                         John Pappajohn
                                                         Director and Acting CFO
                                                         November 12, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LeCroy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas H. Reslewic, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 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 7, 2009 |  |  |  |                        
|                  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas H. Reslewic 
|                  |  |  |  | Thomas H. Reslewic     
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Executive 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.
# ORIGINAL

INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24-0163
HOLLYANNE MATHIS,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee: ORDER 

# FILED:__ __AUG 2 1 2024

- Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court sintantltstontana. Self-represented Appellant Holly Anne Mathis moves this Court for a subpoena duces tecum of a document. She has filed a brief in support. The State of Montana responds in opposition. Mathisappeals aJanuary 16,2024 Order dismissingherPetitiOn forPostConviction Relief and Methoranda along with denying her Motion for a Subpoena Duces Tecum, issued in theTenth JudicialDistrict Court, Fergus County. Mathis requests thatthis Court review—in-camera—a produced copy of an investigative subpoena served upon a counselor in the underlying criminal case. The State responds that Mathis's motion is improper. The State explains that her motion is an attemptto expand therecordwith a document thatwas not before theDistrict Court and its ruling upon Mathis's Petition. M. R. App. P. 8(1). The State relies on the general rulethatparties are bound to the record on appeal. Bahm v. Southworth, 2000 MT 244, ¶ 11, 301 Mont. 434, 10 P.3d 99;In re C.M.C., 2009 MT 153, ¶37;350 Mont. 391, 208 P.3d 809. The State concludes that denial is appropriate. We agree with the State. This Court has received the record on appeal. As an appellate court of review, this Court does not conduct fact-finding, discovery, or other document acquisition. M. R. App. P. 1. Mathis is not entitled to her request. Therefore, 08/21/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0163

### IT IS ORDERED that Mathis's Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to Holly Anne Mathis personally. DATED this 

# e1 ty ofAugust, 2024. For the Court,

ChiefJustice

2
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**RULE 13a - 14(b) CERTIFICATIONSOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officers of Source InterlinkCompanies, Inc. (the “Corporation”) hereby certify that the Corporation’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended April 30,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

|        | Dated: June 13, 2007                 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ MICHAEL R. DUCKWORTH                  |
|   | Name: Michael R. Duckworth                |
|   | Title: Chairman of the Board of Directors |
|   | /s/ MARC FIERMAN                          |
|   | Name: Marc Fierman                        |
|   | Title: Chief Financial Officer            |

 

----