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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered October 19, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted after trial of stealing the complainant’s purse. After defendant accosted the victim, a good Samaritan intervened and captured defendant, who offered to return the complainant’s missing bag if he were released. Defendant also made statements to the police. Prior to trial, the prosecutor withdrew his CPL 710.30 notice, and advised the defense that he would seek to introduce the statements that defendant made to the civilians, and not those made to law enforcement officials.

On appeal, defendant argues that the prosecutor subverted his right to a suppression hearing. To the contrary, CPL 710.30 does not apply to statements made to civilian witnesses, nor did defendant seek suppression of these statements.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court unfairly marshaled the evidence is unpreserved. We also find no merit to defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing defendant to the maximum term. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
#### REPUBLIC INS. CO. v. HIGHLAND PARK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

No. 24013.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 1, 1939.

Smithdeal, Shook & Lefkowitz, W. PI. Shook, and J. L. Shook, all of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

Bell, Goode, Heinen & Miller, J.- W. Hassell, and R. M. Vaughan,; all of Dallas, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

T?he application for writ of error in this case is stamped Dismissed W. O. J. — Correct Judgment by virtue of a rule adopted by this Court, effective March 1, 1939, which rule reads as follows:

> “5a. — Under Article 1821 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, and Article 1728 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, as amended [Vernon’s Ann.Civ. St. art. 1728], certain cases are placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on writ of error. Such cases must be dismissed by the Supreme Court for want of jurisdiction on the applications for writs of error.

> “Under Subdivision 6 of Article 1728, as amended, it is directed that ‘in all cases where the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is a correct one but the Supreme Court is not satisfied that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in all respects has correctly declared the law, it shall dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.’

> “In order that parties, attorneys, and the courts may be advised of the classification made by the Supreme Court in dismissing each application for writ of error, effective from this date, each application dismissed because the case is adjudged beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on writ of error will be stamped ‘Dismissed, W. O. J.,’ while each case dismissed under the above quoted portion of Subdivision 6 of Article 1728, as amended, will be stamped ‘Dismissed, W. O. J. — Correct Judgment.’ ”
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41259

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN RAMON RESENDEZ, also known as Juan Ramon Resendiz-Resendiz,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:14-CR-380-1

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Ramon 

Resendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Resendez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

August 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41259 Document: 00513158373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
No. 14-41259

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-41259 Document: 00513158373 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015
#### ROSS v. STATE.

No. 20669.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 13, 1939.

Bob McCampbell, of Comanche, for ap■pellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for cattle theft, punishment assessed being two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment is in proper form. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from IVP
Technology Corporation's balance sheet as of March 31, 2000 and statement of
operations for the three months ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.

IVP Technology Corporation
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                             263,214
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   263,214
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     311,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              686,588
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        10,125,607
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       311,902
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   617,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (617,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (617,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (617,778)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.02)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31071]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following ocean transportation intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 
1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding 
dates shown below:

    License Number: 4619F.
    Name: Amad Corporation d/b/a Amad Forwarding Corporation.
    Address: 3550 N.W. 33rd Street, Miami, FL 33142
    Date Revoked: November 8, 2000.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 4384F.
    Name: Continuity Corporation d/b/a Alamo Forwarding.
    Address: 2320 McCue Road, Houston, TX 77056
    Date Revoked: November 8, 2000.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 14049N.
    Name: Ever-Lasting Int'l Inc.
    Address: 179-39 149th Avenue, Rm. 105, Jamaica, NY 11434
    Date Revoked: November 5, 2000.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 13730N.
    Name: Freight Systems International, Inc.
    Address: 1300 Newark Turnpike, Kearny, NJ 07032
    Date Revoked: November 8, 2000.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 4541N.
    Name: Southeast Logistics International, Inc.
    Address: 122 Agape Street, Williamson, GA 30292
    Date Revoked: October 31, 2000.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 00-31071 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75951-75952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WO-310-1310-01-24-1A-PB]


OMB Approval Number 1004-0136; Information Collection Submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget for Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted the proposed 
collection of information listed below to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3501 et seq.). On August 18, 2000, the 
BLM published a notice in the Federal Register (65 FR 50559) requesting 
comments on the collection. The comment period ended October 17, 2000. 
No comments were received. Copies of the proposed collection of 
information and related forms and explanatory material may be obtained 
by contacting the BLM Clearance Officer at the telephone number listed 
below.
    OMB is required to respond to this request within 60 days but may 
respond after 30 days. For maximum consideration your comments and 
suggestions on the requirement should be made within 30 days directly 
to the Office of Management and Budget, Interior Department Desk 
Officer (1004-0136), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20503. Please provide a copy of your comments to the 
Bureau Clearance Officer (WO-630), 1849 C St., NW., Mail Stop 401 LS, 
Washington, DC 20240.
    Nature of Comments: We specifically request your comments on the 
following.
    1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper functioning of the Bureau of Land Management, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    2. The accuracy of BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting the 
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 
used;
    3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and
    4. How to minimize the burden of collecting the information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated 
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
    Title: Application for Permit for Drill, Deepen, or Plug Back (as 
required by 43 CFR 3162).
    OMB Approval Number: 1004-0136.
    Abstract: Data submitted by oil and gas operators are used for 
agency approval of proposed drilling operations through review of 
technical and environmental factors.

[[Page 75952]]

    Bureau Form Number: 3160-3.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Description of Respondents; Oil and gas operators.
    Estimated Completion Time: 30 minutes.
    Annual Responses: 4,000.
    Annual Burden Hours: 2,000.
    Filing Fee Per Response: 0.
    Bureau Clearance Officer: Michael Schwartz, (202) 452-5033.

    Dated: November 18, 2000.
Michael Schwartz,
BLM Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-30894 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-M
##### 



Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of MBNA Corporation of our report dated
January 22, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of MBNA Corporation incorporated by reference in
this 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K of MBNA Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2003:

|                              |  |      |     | 
|----------------------------- |  | ---- | --- | 
|Registration Statement Number |  | Form
|                              |  |     
|33-41936                      |  |      | S-8 | 
|33-41895                      |  |      | S-8 | 
|33-71640                      |  |      | S-8 | 
|33-95438                      |  |      | S-8 | 
|333-15721                     |  |      | S-3 | 
|333-21181                     |  |      | S-4 | 
|333-06824                     |  |      | S-8 | 
|333-51477                     |  |      | S-8 | 
|333-74919                     |  |      | S-3 | 
|333-79987                     |  |      | S-8 | 
|333-44422                     |  |      | S-8 | 
|333-45814                     |  |      | S-3 | 
|333-109035                    |  |      | S-8 | 

Baltimore, Maryland
March 9, 2004



| | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| | ---------------------
p080512.en3

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 08-0512

Post-Focus Draft Revision 3 1/17/2012

ENGINEER: Macek/Austin \

PV (kg/yr): 

 

 

 

SUBMITTER: 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1
p080512.en3

 

 

SAT (concerns) (07/25/2008):

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P1B1T1

Health: 1 XB Testing (No Testing desired)

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1ppb), XB

Testing (Testing desired)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: NR

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

None.

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: Yes (0 criteria met)

1) # of workers exposed: 0 >1000? No

2) >100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: No

3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100

days/yr: No

 (b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr:

No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 08-0512

 

 

Page 2
p080512.en3

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 08-0512

 

 

Page 3
p080512.en3

 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4
p080512.en3

 

 

 

 

 

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 08-0512

 

 

 

 

 

Page 5
p080512.en3

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 6
p080512.en3

 

 

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Page 7
p080512.en3

-

Page 8
# Official Journal L 97/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 97 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6524 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 97

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6524 March 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2022/448 of 17 June 2021 on the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy for Siremar and its acquirer Società Navigazione Siciliana
  (notified under document C(2022) 4268)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2022/448 of 17 June 2021 on the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy for Siremar and its acquirer Società Navigazione Siciliana
  (notified under document C(2022) 4268)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2022) 4268)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
(Principal Financial Officer)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2005 of AirNet Systems, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Reserved];c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Dated:
November 21, 2005
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Gary W. QualmannPrinted Name: Gary W. QualmannTitle: Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcus Graham, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rienzi, J.), rendered April 17, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of evidence, without a hearing, of uncharged crimes *(see, People v Ventimiglia,*52 NY2d 350). He further contends that proper limiting instructions were not given at the time of the admission of that evidence. In addition, he contends that the trial court improperly allowed a prosecution witness, in response to a question on cross-examination, to comment on the complaints made by residents in the area where the defendant was arrested, and to mention that an innocent person at that place had been shot in the head. Moreover, he objects to the court’s charge and to the prosecutor’s summation, wherein the prosecutor mentioned the defendant’s two prior misdemeanor convictions in support of his argument that the defendant’s trial testimony was not credible.

All of the issues now raised by the defendant are unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d *633245; *People v Williams,*46 NY2d 1070; CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we disagree with the defendant’s assessment. First, we find the evidence of the uncharged drug sales to have been properly admitted, since they were directly probative of the defendant’s intent to sell *(see, People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233; *People v Parsons,*150 AD2d 614). Although the court should have instructed the jury on the limited purpose of that evidence *(see, People v Best,*121 AD2d 457), in this case, the defendant never requested such a limiting instruction before or during the trial. In any event, the trial court’s final charge on this matter contained explicit limiting instructions which removed any possible prejudice.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and, in addition to them being unpreserved for appellate review, we find that they are either without merit, or, to the extent that any error did exist, are harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.