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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

527 

KA 12-00341 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC X. MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (JOHN E. TYO OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JAMES B. RITTS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G.

Reed, A.J.), entered September 7, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree and

forcible touching (two counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon

his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1])

and two counts of forcible touching (§ 130.52). We agree with defendant

that the waiver of the right to appeal was not valid inasmuch as the

record does not establish that it was knowingly, intelligently and

voluntarily entered (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 259). Although

the prosecutor engaged in a colloquy with defendant regarding the waiver

of the right to appeal, County Court failed to address the waiver with

defendant and we thus conclude that the court “took no measures to ensure

that [defendant] . . . understood . . . and . . . validly waiv[ed] his

right to appeal” (People v Bradshaw, 76 AD3d 566, 568, affd 18 NY3d 257).

We further conclude, however, that defendant’s contention that the

court erred in denying his motion seeking to sever three counts from the

remaining 11 counts of the indictment was forfeited by his guilty plea

(see People v Konieczny, 2 NY3d 569, 572; People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227,

230). We reject defendant’s further contention that the court erred in

refusing to suppress his statement to the police, which was given without

the assistance of an interpreter. The court credited the testimony of

the police investigator who took the statement that she had no trouble

communicating with defendant and that he responded appropriately to her

questions. Defendant’s oral statement was reduced to writing, and our

review of that written statement establishes that defendant responded

appropriately to the investigator’s questions. “The [suppression]
-2- 527 

KA 12-00341 

court’s determination is entitled to deference and will not be disturbed

where it is supported by the record” (People v Sanders, 74 AD3d 1896,

1896; see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761). The sentence

is not unduly harsh or severe. 

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DEMATIC CORP., §

§ No. 180 , 2023

Defendant Below, Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

FORTIS ADVISORS, LLC

, §

§ C.A. No. N18C

- 12

- 104

Plaintiff Below, Appellee. §

Submitted: April 17, 2024

Decided: May 7 , 2024

Before VALIHURA

, TRAYNOR , and GRIFFITHS , Justices.

O R D E R

Now this 7 th day of May 2024, the Court having considered this matter on the briefs

and oral arguments of the parties and the record below and having concluded that the same

should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its

Post

- Trial Memorandum Opinion dated December 29, 2022; its Final Order and Judgment

dated April 24, 2023

, and its Stipulation and Amended Final Order and Judgment dated

May 3, 2023

. 1

1 In this appeal, Appellee/Cross

- Appellant

, Fortis Advisors, LLC

, argues on cross

- appeal that the

Superior Court erred when it granted a set

- off to indemnify Dematic Corp. for certain legal fees

and settlement costs incurred in a related litigation. Specifically, Fortis argues that the Superior

Court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on it as opposed to placing the burden on Dematic

Corp

. The Superior Court found that Fortis did not offer any persuasive testimony regarding the

reasonableness of the set

- off amounts

. The trial court’s opinion indicates that it was satisfied that

Dematic had put forward evidence sufficient to support the reasonableness of the set

- off. This

evidence included testimony from Dematic’s head of accounting who testified that he authorized

the settlement amount after consultation with Dematic’s executives and lawyers

, and that the

amount authorized was consistent with Dematic’s estimates created during due diligence regarding

the likely cost of resolving that related litigation. The court also noted that Fortis did nothing toNOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision and judgments of the

Superior Court be and the same hereby are AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

rebut this testimony. Based upon the record before us, we conclude that

, to the extent the trial

court erred in allocating the burden of proof on this issue, it is not reversible error.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71194-71195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30334]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 29, 2000. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments

[[Page 71195]]

promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance 
Officer before the deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Voluntary Customer surveys in Accordance with E.O. 12862.
    No: N/A.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Various SBA Program Offices.
    Annual Responses: 86,614.
    Annual Burden: 13.102.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 00-30334 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
1 of 3

September 19, 2016

Docket FAA-2000-8180

Docket Management Facility

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Extension of Exemption 5560

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Regional Airline Association (“RAA”), on behalf of its Part 135 member airlines,

1 petitions

pursuant to Sections 11.63 and 11.81 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) for an extension of

Exemption 5560J, which is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2016.

Exemption 5560J provides relief from 14 CFR §§ 61.3(a) and (c), 63.3(a), and 135.95(a). It

permits the establishment of special procedures that enable an operator to issue to its flight

crewmembers, on a temporary basis, confirmation of any required crewmember certificates based upon

information contained in the operator's approved record system subject to certain conditions and

limitations. Exemption 5560 has proved to be a useful device that benefits the commercial aviation

industry and the flying public

Extending this exemption will not compromise or adversely affect safety, as the conditions and

circumstances pertaining to safety and public interest, which warranted the grant of the original request

and subsequent extensions, continue to exist. The approved procedures, encompassing the conditions

and limitations established by previous grants, have been in use for over a decade with no known

compromise of safety. It is also in the public interest as the exemption can prevent possible and

unnecessary delays or cancellations of scheduled air service. For these reasons, Exemption 5560J

should be extended.

 

1 Cape Air, Empire Airlines Inc., Grand Canyon Airlines, Inc. d/b/a Grand Canyon Airlines d/b/a Scenic Airlines, Great Lakes 

Airlines, New England Airlines Inc., and RAVN Alaska.
2 of 3

In accordance with FAR 11.87, RAA requests that the requirement for publication and comment

be waived. The renewal of this exemption is not a controversial issue and this petition does not seek to

establish a precedent, rather would merely continue an accepted and established practice. Although

RAA requests waiver of publication, a summary of this petition is attached as required by FAR 11.81.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require additional

information.

Respectfully submitted,

Stacey Bechdolt

VP, Safety & Operations/Regulatory Counsel

Regional Airline Association

2025 M Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

202-367-1252

Bechdolt@raa.org
3 of 3

SUMMARY

Petitioner: Regional Airline Association.

Sections of 14 CFR Affected:

14 CFR 61.3(a)

14 CFR 61.3(c)

14 CFR 135.95(a)

Description of Relief Sought:

The Regional Airline Association petitions on behalf of its member airlines for an extension of

Exemption 5560J. This exemption permits RAA Part 135 member airlines to establish special

procedures that enable an air carrier to issue to its flight crewmembers, on a temporary basis,

confirmation of any required crewmember certificate based on information contained in the carrier’s

approved record system.
#### GALDI v. STATE.

No. 21153.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 19, 1940.

*609Geo. W. Harwood, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of an assault to murder with malice upon one Mildred Turner, and was by the jury given a penalty of ten years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception presented to us, and the statement of facts reflects but a revolting record of an alleged sexual pervert in an underworld of distorted and wasted lives. It would add nothing to the State’s jurisprudence to recount the nauseating facts of the night-life of both of these unfortunate people, and we will only say that we think they are sufficient to evidence the appellant’s guilt of the offense charged and as found by the jury. The trial court, in an admirable charge, seems to have given the appellant every conceivable right raised by the evidence, and perceiving no error reflected by the record, the judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 99.3**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

As adopted pursuant to****section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of Allied Devices Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald J. Bentivegna,Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)     Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  Gerald J. Bentivegna |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   | Gerald J.  Bentivegna          |
|   | Principal  Financial Officer   |
|   | January 13,  2003              |

 

----
*OPINION ISSUED AUGUST 16, 2007*

#### GARY BUSH VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-06-271)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

*29Jason C. Workman, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Stipulation entered into by claimant and respondent wherein certain facts and circumstances of the claim were agreed to as follows:

1. On September 21,2005, claimant was traveling on Interstate 81 in Berkeley County when his vehicle struck a hole in the road damaging his vehicle.

2. Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of Interstate 81 which it failed to maintain properly on the date of this incident.

3. As a result of this incident, claimant’s vehicle sustained damage in the amount of $246.98.

4. Respondent agrees that the amount of $246.98 for the damages put forth by the claimant is fair and reasonable.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of Interstate 81 on the date of this incident; that the negligence of respondent was the proximate cause of the damages sustained to claimant’s vehicle; and that the amount of the damages agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable. Thus, claimant may make a recovery for his loss.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award in the amount of $246.98.

Award of $246.98.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1827

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Eddie Mull

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

 ____________

 Submitted: August 7, 2023

Filed: August 10, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Mull appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and

sentenced him to 8 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. His counsel

1The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the substantive

reasonableness of the sentence.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence. See United States v.

McGhee, 869 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). The revocation sentence

is within the Guidelines range and accorded a presumption of substantive

reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th

Cir. 2008). Moreover, there is no indication that the district court failed to consider

a relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor, gave significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate

factors. See McGhee, 869 F.3d at 706.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


CALFED Bay-Delta Program Policy Group

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The CALFED Bay-Delta Program Policy Group will meet on 
December 13, 2000. The agenda for the Policy Group meeting will include 
discussions about CALFED's: Record of Decision Commitments; Ecosystem 
Restoration 2001 Funding Package; and Operation and Implementation 
Budget. This meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make 
oral statements to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Policy Group or may 
file written statements for consideration.

DATES: The CALFED Bay-Delta Program Policy Group meeting will be held 
from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will meet at the Sacramento Convention Center, 
1400 J Street, Room 103-104, Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Breitenbach, CALFED Bay-Delta 
Program, at (916) 657-2666. If reasonable accommodation is needed due 
to a disability, please contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Office 
at (916) 653-6952 or TDD (916) 653-6934 at least one week prior to the 
meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta system) is a critically important part of 
California's natural environment and economy. In recognition of the 
serious problems facing the region and the complex resource management 
decisions that must be made, the state of California and the Federal 
government are working together to stabilize, protect, restore, and 
enhance the Bay-Delta system. The State and Federal agencies with 
management and regulatory responsibilities in the Bay-Delta system are 
working together as CALFED to provide policy direction and oversight 
for the process.
    One area of Bay-Delta management includes a joint State-Federal 
process to develop and implement long-term solutions to problems in the 
Bay-Delta system related to fish and wildlife, water supply 
reliability, natural disasters, and water quality. This effort, the 
CALFED Bay-Delta Program (Program), is being carried out under the 
direction of the CALFED Policy Group.

    Dated: November 22, 2000.
Lester A. Snow,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 00-30402 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MP-M
Geospatial Holdings, Inc. 10-Q






Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350
 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geospatial Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Mark A Smith, 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, as amended; 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: November 15, 2010

By:

/s/ Mark A. SmithName:

Mark A. SmithTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1449

To prohibit any State or local government from requiring any disabled veteran

to reside for a minimum period within the jurisdiction of such government as a condition of receiving benefits under any real property tax

relief program of such government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1993

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit any State or local government from requiring

any disabled veteran to reside for a minimum period

within the jurisdiction of such government as a condition

of receiving benefits under any real property tax relief

program of such government.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1449 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT

2 FOR ELIGIBILITY OF DISABLED VETERANS

3 FOR REAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 4 of title 4, United

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the

6 following new section:

7 ‘‘§ 114. Prohibition of residency requirement for eligi8 bility of disabled veteran for real prop9 erty tax relief.

10 ‘‘No State or local government may require any dis11 abled veteran to reside within the jurisdiction of such gov12 ernment for any minimum period as a condition of receiv13 ing benefits under any real property tax relief program

14 of such government.’’

15 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

16 for such chapter 4 is amended by adding at the end there17 of the following new item:

‘‘114. Prohibition of residency requirement for eligibility of disabled veteran for

real property tax relief.’’

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

19 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

20 of this Act.

Æ
#### BETHEA v. REHIN et al.

No. 4088.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 8, 1941.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1941.

W. C. Peticolas, of El Paso, for appellant.

William Flournoy, of El Paso, for ap-pellee M. W. Tipps.

PRICE, Chief Justice.

This case originated in one of the Justice Courts of El Paso County. It was appealed to the County Court at Law by appellant Bethea.

In our opinion the rider attached to and made a part of the lease covering Lots 1, 2 and 3 limits the liability for the rent for Lots 4 and 5 to the term provided in the basic lease, to-wit, the lease on Lots 1, 2 and 3.

We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed without opinion. McLoughlin v. Schnitzer, Tex.Civ.App., 147 S.W.2d 826.

On Rehearing.

In the memorandum opinion heretofore filed herein it was erroneously stated that appellant, Sam Bethea, appealed from the judgment rendered in the Justice Court. In fact appellee here appealed from the judgment rendered in the Justice Court to the County Court.

After careful reconsideration we see no reason to change the disposition of this case.

Motion overruled.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, November 29, 2000, 1 p.m. to November 29, 2000, 3 p.m., NIEHS, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, Building 4401, Conference Room 3446, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 19, 2000, FR 203:62741.                

The telephone conference call meeting will be held on January 16, 2001, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at the same location, instead of November 29, 2000, as previously advertised. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: November 17, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-30176 Filed 11-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M