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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

467 

KA 13-00263 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PAUL A. COOKHORNE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

WILLIAMS, HEINL, MOODY & BUSCHMAN, P.C., AUBURN (RYAN JAMES MULDOON OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P.

Punch, J.), rendered November 19, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§

110.00, 120.05 [3]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right

to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the fine that

was imposed as part of his sentence. Although the record establishes

that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the

right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), we

conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not

encompass the challenge to the severity of the fine because County

Court failed to advise defendant of the potential range of any fine

that could be imposed as part of his sentence (see generally People v

Newman, 21 AD3d 1343, 1343; People v McLean, 302 AD2d 934, 934), and

there was no specific promise as to the amount of a fine at the time

of the waiver (cf. People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6

NY3d 852). Nevertheless, on the merits, we reject defendant’s

challenge to the severity of the fine.

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Harold Anthony Trout, Petitioner,

v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2013-001047

Appeal From Greenville County The Honorable D. Garri son Hill, Trial Judge The Honorable W. Jeffrey Young, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2014-MO-044 Submitted October 22, 2014 – Filed October 29, 2014

AFFIRMED

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Gr eenville, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan, all of Columbia, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-c onviction relief (PCR). We deny the petition on Petitioner's Questi on II. Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari on Petitioner's Questi on I and proceed with a revi ew of petitioner's direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State , 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).
Petitioner's conviction and sentence are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue 1: State v. Pinckney , 339 S.C. 346, 529 S.E.2d 526 (2000) (stating if there is a ny direct or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the defe ndant's guilt, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury); Issues 2 and 5: State v. Sheppard , 391 S.C. 415, 706 S.E.2d 16 (2011) (holding an argument not raised to the trial judge was not preserved fo r appellate review); Issue 3: Rule 801(c), SCRE; Player
v. Thompson , 259 S.C. 600, 193 S.E.2d 531 (1972) (holding statements offered not for the truth of the matter asserted, but as evidence of notice do not constitute hearsay); Issue 4: State v. Santiago , 370 S.C. 153, 634 S.E.2d 23 (Ct. App. 2006) (citing State v. Roper , 274 S.C. 14, 260 S.E.2d 705 (1979) ("[A] proffer of testimony is required to preserve the i ssue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge, and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the reco rd on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been.").
AFFIRMED. TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
**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 Annual Report of The Houston Exploration Company (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.     /s/     Robert T. Ray     Name: Robert T. Ray  Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    The Houston Exploration Company  February 28, 2007
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20962 Summary Calendar

ERIC WALLACE KOEHL, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-3704

-------------------- June 6, 2002 Before DeMoss, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eric Wallace Koehl, Texas prisoner # 661873, appeals following the dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for failure to exhaust state remedies and the grant of a certificate of appealability by the district court. The respondent concedes that, by virtue of a decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Koehl exhausted the claims presented in his state application for a writ of habeas corpus during the pendency of proceedings in the districtNo. 01-20962 -2- court. Koehl was therefore entitled to consideration of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application insofar as it presented exhausted claims. See Bufalino v. Reno , 613 F.2d 568, 571 (5th Cir. 1980). Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings. Koehl has filed a motion seeking federal protection based on an alleged deprivation of food, and in his reply brief Koehl requested federal protection following an alleged beating by a prison officer. A prisoner may not seek redress for allegedly unconstitutional “conditions of confinement” in a habeas corpus proceeding. See Cook v. Texas Dep’t. of Criminal Justice Transitional Planning Dept. , 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1994). The motion is DENIED. To the extent that Koehl seeks appointment of counsel, a change of venue, and unconditional release by way of his reply brief, his requests are hereby DENIED.
VACATED AND REMANDED; MOTION DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Richard Beyer, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2009 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor
Holdings I, Ltd.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: October 23, 2009



/s/ RICHARD BEYERRichard BeyerChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00101

- CV

In the Interest of Z.A.F. and Z.R.F

.

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA00277

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating

parental rights is AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED.

SIGNED August 19, 2019.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice
BLD - 30 0 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 1

- 3358

___________ IN RE: REGINALD YOUNG,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States D istrict Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to D.C. Civil Action No. 2

- 05

- cr - 00307

- 003 )

____________________________________ Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed R. App. P

.

September 29, 2011 Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circui t Judges

(Opinion filed : October 12, 2011 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Reginald Young filed this pro se mandamus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 , seeking an order that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania be compell ed to rule on his pending motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

. For the reasons that follow, we will deny the mandamus petition without prejudice. Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. In re Diet Drugs Pr ods. Liab. Litig. , 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005)

. A2

mandamus petitioner must establish that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the
reques ted relief, and that he has a “ clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. Madden v. Myers , 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996)

. As a general rule, the manner in which a court disposes of cases on its d ocket is within its discretion. In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. , 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982)

. Indeed, given the discretionary nature of docket management, there can be no “clear and indisputable” right to have the district court handle a case on its docket in a certain

manner. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 3 3, 3 6 (1980)

. Nonetheless, mandamus may be warranted where a distri ct court’s delay “is tantamount to a fai lure to exercise jurisdiction.” Madden, 102 F.3d at 79

. Young filed his § 2255 motion o n November 15, 2010 . Thereafter, the
Government requested, and w as granted , an extension to file a response by March 2011.
On March 3, 2011 , the Government filed a response to Young’s § 2255 motion . O n March 24, 2011, and on August 9, 2011, Young filed motion s to expedite consideration of the action. Then, on September 22, 2011 , he filed the current petition for a writ of mand amus. Some time has passed since the filing of Young’s motion , and a delay in ruling on it could become a matter of concern, see id. (noting that a seven

- month delay in adjudicating a hab eas petition may be “of concern”). However, under the circumstanc es, and despite Young’s argument to the contrary, the delay does not amount to a failure to3

exerc ise jurisdiction at this point. Furthermore, we are confident that the District Court will expeditiously rule on Young’s motion. For these reasons, we will d eny Young’s mandamus petition. Our denial is without prejudice to his filing another petition in the event that the District Court does not take action within a reasonable time from the date of this judgment.
**Exhibit 23.10****CONSENT TO BE NAMED A DIRECTOR**     I hereby consent to the use of my name and any references to me as a person to be appointed asa director of Superior Offshore International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), in theCompany’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-136567) filed with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “SecuritiesAct”), and any and all amendments (including post-effective amendments) thereto and in anyregistration statement for the same offering filed pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Actand any and all amendments (including post-effective amendments) thereto (collectively, the“Registration Statement”). I also consent to the filing of this consent as an exhibit to theRegistration Statement.        Dated: March 1, 2007                 /s/E. Donald Terry
##### 



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
  (a)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: August 14, 2007
    CONSOLIDATION SERVICES, INC.By:
    /s/ John C. FrancisJohn C. FrancisChief Financial Officer
MATS A and N Finding Overview w/ OMB 

RobertJ Wayland 

to: Cortney_Higgins, Darryl Weatherhead, Dave Guinnup, Lydia Wegman, 

Peter Tsirigotis, Richard Wayland, Sam Napolitano, Wendy Blake 

10/31/2011 03:06 PM 

Cc: Bill Maxwell, Bryan Hubbell, Jeb Stenhouse, Kevin Culligan, Marc 

Houyoux, Paul Versace, Ron Evans, Tyler Fox 

Attached below are the slides for tomorrow's discussion of the A&N 

finding. 

thanx! 

bob 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

RTP, NC 27711 

 

Phone: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

********************************************************* 

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

********************************************************* 

********************************************************* 

DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

********************************************************* 

Overview of Final MATS Appropriate and Necessary Finding.pptx
##### 



Exhibit 4.3
 FORM
OFMETROCORP BANCSHARES, INC.
 INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 
 Introduction
 Option
 Option Period
 Number of
    
    Percentage ofFull Years
    
    Shares Purchasable
  Procedure for Exercise
 -1-




---



##### 



Termination of Employment
  -2-




---



##### 



Transferability
 No Rights as Shareholder
 Extraordinary Corporate Transactions
 Changes in Capital Structure
 -3-




---



##### 



Compliance With Securities Laws
 Compliance With Laws
 Effect of Failure to Qualify for Incentive Stock Option Treatment
 No Right to Employment
 Resolution of Disputes
 Legends on Certificate
 -4-




---



##### 



Notices
 Construction and Interpretation
 Agreement Subject to Plan
 Binding Effect
 Entire Agreement; Amendment
 -5-




---



##### 



METROCORP BANCSHARES, INC.By:Name:Title:OPTIONEE
 -6-
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 30232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation Safety Approval 
Performance Criteria

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notification of criteria used to evaluate the Zero Gravity 
Corporation (Zero Gravity) safety approval application.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA issued Zero Gravity a safety approval, subject to the 
provisions of Title 51 U.S.C Subtitle V, ch. 509, and the orders, rules 
and regulations issued under it. Pursuant to 14 CFR 414.35, this Notice 
publishes the criteria that were used to evaluate the safety approval 
application.
    Background: Zero Gravity applied for, and received, a safety 
approval for its capability to provide a reduced gravity environment 
using a Boeing 727 aircraft. The performance criteria for this safety 
approval are applicant developed per 14 CFR 414.19 (a)(4). Zero Gravity 
is capable of replicating three reduced gravity levels associated with 
suborbital space flight. The reduced gravity levels are:

--0.00 g  0.05 g for 17 continuous seconds.
--0.16 g  0.05 g for 20 continuous seconds.
--0.38 g  0.05 g for 20 continuous seconds.

    Criteria Used To Evaluate Safety Approval Application: The reduced 
gravity environment provided by Zero Gravity was evaluated by the FAA 
as a component of a flight crew qualification and training process. The 
evaluation included the FAA's assessment of Zero Gravity's ability to 
accurately replicate the specified reduced gravity levels.
    Zero-G submitted the following data to show how they were in 
compliance with the criteria:

--Parabolic Aircraft Acceleration Measurement System (PAAMS) power and 
calibration procedures,
--Parabolic Aircraft Acceleration Flight Data, and
--Gravity Level Reports.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For questions about the performance 
criteria, you may contact Randy Maday, Licensing and Evaluation 
Division (AST-200), FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation 
(AST), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, 
telephone (202) 267-8652; e-mail randal.maday@faa.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2011.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2011-12732 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Quinn J. Hébert, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cal Dive International, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: February 28, 2007       /s/ Quinn J. Hébert Quinn J. Hébert    President and    Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1.1.1



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 19, 2016 - DIRECTORS
PURSUANT TO THE
SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC. 2016 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN
*  *  *  *  *


This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 19, 2016 – DIRECTORS (this “Amendment”) is hereby adopted by SandRidge Energy, Inc., a corporation organized in the State of Delaware (the “Company”) effective as of September 18, 2017. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in that certain Restricted Stock Award Agreement between the Company and Participant and the Restricted Stock Award Certificate attached thereto (together, the “Agreement”). 
1.Amendment.  The first sentence of Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided by the Committee in writing, the shares of Restricted Stock, and any rights and interests with respect thereto, issued under this Agreement and the Plan shall not, prior to vesting, be sold, exchanged, transferred, assigned or otherwise disposed of in any way by the Participant (or any beneficiary of the Participant), other than by testamentary disposition by the Participant or the laws of descent and distribution or pursuant to a domestic relations order as defined by the Code or Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or the rules thereunder.”
2.Miscellaneous.  Except as expressly set forth herein, all terms and provisions contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.  The provisions of this Amendment shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, the successors and assigns of the Company and the Participant, respectively.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware. Fax, electronic or email copies of this Amendment, including the signature pages hereto, shall constitute originals for all purposes.
*    *    *    *    *




KE 48336462






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused the execution of this Amendment by its duly authorized officer, as of the date first above written.


COMPANY 




By:                         
    Name:    James D. Bennett             
    Title:    President & Chief Executive Officer    






Signature Page to Amendment No. 1 to the Restricted Stock Agreement