alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J-S15008-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MANUEL ORTIZ

Appellant No. 1516 MDA 2014

Appeal from the PCRA Order August 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-CR-0003548-1994

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., WECHT, J., and JENKINS, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 29, 2015

Manuel Ortiz appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Lancaster County denying his petition filed under the Post 

Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546. Because this Court does 

not have jurisdiction to review Ortiz’s petition, we affirm the PCRA court’s 

order.

On July 10, 1995, Ortiz was convicted of second-degree murder and 

sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. On direct 

appeal, this Court affirmed Ortiz’s judgment of sentence. Thereafter, Ortiz 

filed PCRA petitions in 1997, 2001, 2006 and 2010, all of which the PCRA 

court denied. On August 20, 2012, following the United States Supreme 

Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), Ortiz filed a 

fifth PCRA petition. The Court in Miller held that “the Eighth Amendment 
J-S15008-15

- 2 -

forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility 

of parole for juvenile offenders.” Id. at 2469. The PCRA court denied Ortiz’ 

fifth petition, concluding that it was untimely filed under the PCRA. See

Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013) (holding 

constitutional right announced in Miller v. Alabama is not retroactively 

applicable to cases on collateral appeal).1 See also Com. v. Cristina, ---

A.3d ----, 2015 WL 1730538 (Pa. Super.), 2015 PA Super 74. Consequently, 

Ortiz cannot rely upon Miller or subsection 9545(b)(iii) to establish 

jurisdiction over his untimely PCRA petition in any Pennsylvania court. We 

are bound by Cunningham. Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to 

review Ortiz’s petition. See Commonwealth v. Chester, 895 A.2d 520, 

522 (Pa. 2006) (“The PCRA's time restrictions are jurisdictional in nature. 

Thus, [i]f a PCRA petition is untimely, neither this Court nor the trial court 

has jurisdiction over the petition. Without jurisdiction, we simply do not have 

the legal authority to address the substantive claims.”). 

____________________________________________

1

The United States Supreme Court has since denied certiorari in 

Cunningham. See Cunningham v. Pennsylvania, 134 S.Ct. 2724 (U.S. 

2014). However, on March 23, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari 

in Montgomery v. Louisiana, –––U.S. ––––, 2015 WL 1280236 (2015), 

which again presents the Miller retroactivity question. Nonetheless, until 

the United States Supreme Court issues its decision, we are bound by 

Cunningham. 
J-S15008-15

- 3 -

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/29/2015
USCIB: 14.1/25 

2S September 1954 

MD10RANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Definition of Terms (COMINT and ELINT). 

The enclosure, which indicates LSIB-approved definitions 

of the subject terms, is forwarded for infonnation. 

Enclosure 

LSIB/316/54 dtd 17 Sep 1954· 

USCIB: 14.1/25 

SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-28-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
... 

SiCJ.m'l' 

SJP=A59199 

.D\.l.n:ni e 

GOVERNMENT COOMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS, 

OAKLEY; CHELTENHAM, GLOS. 

LSIB/316/54. 

17th September, 1954. 

Executive Secretary-, 

United States Communications Intelligence Board. 

I am writing to inform you that L.S.I.B. has agreed to 

adopt the !ollowing terms in its official terminology: 

CCMINT - (as defined in new Appendix B to UKUSA 

Agreement) 

ELINT - Information obtained by intercepting and 

• analysing non-communication transmissions. 

2. The term SIGINT will continue to be used by the U .K. to 

cover both COMINT and ELINT. 

London Signal Intelligence Board. 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

Enclosure with USCIB 14.1/25 dtd 28 Sep 1954. 

SECRET
# CE2004084EN.01017101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/171 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/171

---

(2004/C 84 E/0210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject:   Implementation of Directive 2000/78 in Greece

Subject:

Article 18 of Directive 2000/78 (1) on equal treatment in employment and occupation states that the Member States shall implement the Directive by 2 December 2003 at the latest except where ‘In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of 3 years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of 6 years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination.’

1

What does the Commission understand by ‘particular conditions’ and ‘if necessary’ in order to extend the deadline for implementing the Directive? Which Member States have requested an extension to the deadline for implementation? When are the Member States required to implement the other provisions of the Directive not pertaining to age and disability discrimination?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

(10 March 2004)

Under Article 18 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, Member States may, if necessary, in order to take account of particular conditions, have an additional three year period to implement the provisions of the Directive relating to discrimination on grounds of age and disability. The Directive does not define what is meant by ‘particular conditions’ nor ‘if necessary’.

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have notified the Commission that they will avail themselves of this provision. The reasons given vary, but include, for example, the fact that national law does not currently recognise the concept of ‘reasonable accom-modation’, the possible effect on retirement age and occupational pensions, etc. The Member States which take advantage of the extra time period are obliged to inform the Commission on an annual basis what steps they are taking to tackle discrimination and the progress they are making towards full transposition of the Directive.

All other provisions of this Directive had to be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003. The Commission has already launched the first stage of infringement procedures against those Member States which have not yet notified their national legislation, or have not adopted all the legislation necessary (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and the United Kingdom).

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

1

---
# CE2004084EN.01050802.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/508 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/508

---

(2004/C 84 E/0586)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3586/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   EU funding for an Italian company linked to Romano Prodi

Subject:

Does the Commission intend to respond to the questions raised by various newspapers (Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph, European Voice) concerning the fact that since 1999 — the year in which Romano Prodi became Commission President — the EU has paid EUR 15 million to ItalTrend, an Italian development aid consultancy with its registered office in Reggio Emilia, in which Sylvia Prodi, a niece of Romano Prodi, has been employed since 1994 and is currently assistant to the director Silvana Garavelli?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

(9 February 2004)

The Commission considers that it has already provided full answers through its spokesman to the questions raised by various press organs, including those cited by the Honourable Member. The Commission wishes to point out that cooperation with Italtrend in the area concerned, i.e. development aid, goes back at least as far as 1992. Silvia Prodi, President Prodi's niece, has worked on projects covered by contracts with Italtrend in the nuclear safety field as a nuclear engineer since 1994. On 31 December 2003, the value of contracts signed with Italtrend since 1 September 1999 amounted to EUR 7,97 million. Payments made to the company from 1 September 1999 amounted to EUR 39,84 million, of which EUR 35,3 million (equal to 89 %) was paid under contracts signed prior to 1 September 1999 and EUR 4,54 million under contracts signed after 1 September 1999.

---
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) AND 15d-14(b)
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Lattice Incorporated on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended  September 30, 2015 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned does hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of his or her knowledge and belief:



(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 the operation
of the Company.

|                         |     |                                             
|------------------------ | --- | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: December 29, 2015 | By: | /s/ Joe Noto                                
|                         |     | Joe Noto                                    
|                         |     | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                         |     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 4



             Talk Visual Corporation 1999 Stock Compensation Plan
             ----------------------------------------------------


          Effective June 1, 1999, the Board of Directors of Talk Visual
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company'), hereby adopts the Company's
1999 Stock Compensation Plan (the "Plan").  Pursuant to the Plan, the Board of
Directors of the Company may from time to time award to executive officers,
employees and consultants of the Company up to an aggregate of 320,000 shares of
common stock, $.001 par value (the "Common Stock"), of the Company as
compensation for services rendered and to be rendered to the Company, on such
terms and conditions as the Board of Directors may determine.  Notwithstanding
the foregoing, in no event may shares of Common Stock be awarded under the Plan
as compensation for services in connection with the offer or sale of securities
in a capital raising transaction or which directly or indirectly promote or
maintain a market for the Company's securities.  The number of shares of Common
Stock covered by the Plan shall be appropriately adjusted for stock splits and
reverse stock splits affecting the Common Stock.
# CE2004084EN.01086501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/865 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/865

---

(2004/C 84 E/0957)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0746/04

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Reform in the fruit and vegetable sector

Subject:

The Irish EU Presidency recently announced to the European Parliament that during its term of office the Commission would put forward proposals for reform in the fresh and processed fruit and vegetable sectors.

The Commission has already tackled crucial aspects of the COM via the Management Committee, using a procedure which prevented Parliament from either expressing an opinion or voting on the changes made. The result was a genuine reform of the rules governing the way in which producer organisations operate.

Would the Commission say which aspects will be dealt with in the next reform?

Is the Commission intending to submit a discussion paper (as it did in the case of the recent CAP reforms, including the package of ‘Mediterranean’ reforms) which will enable a debate to be held before the legislative texts are submitted?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

(13 April 2004)

Our review of the fruit and vegetable sector has not yet produced final conclusions. Therefore we cannot yet say what will be contained in any proposals.

We remind the Honourable Member that we presented a communication on the sector in 2001 that launched a wide democratic debate in which Parliament, the Council (with conclusions by the Spanish Presidency), the Member States and civil society have been participants. We have been and are working on the basis of the contributions made.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                      Subsidiaries of Dynatech Corporation

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Parent or
Subsidiary Organization*  State or Other Jurisdiction
------------------------  ---------------------------
<S>                       <C>
Dynatech Corporation
 (Parent)...............        Massachusetts
Dynatech LLC............        Delaware
Airshow, Incorporated...        Delaware
DataViews Corporation...        Massachusetts
DaVinci Systems, Inc. ..        Florida
Industrial Computer
 Source.................        California
Itronix Corporation.....        Washington
Pacific Systems
 Corporation............        Washington
Parallax Graphics,
 Inc. ..................        Delaware
Synergistic Solutions,
 Inc. ..................        Georgia
Tele-Path Instruments,
 Inc. ..................        Delaware
TTC International
 Holdings, Inc. ........        Delaware
Dynatech Export                 Barbados,
 Incorporated...........        West Indies
TTC Belgium B.V.B.A. ...        Belgium
TTC Canada Ltd. ........        Canada
Dynatech Corporation
 Ltd. ..................        England
Industrial Computer
 Source Europe..........        France
TTC Telecommunications
 France SARL............        France
Dynatech Gesellschaft
 Fur Datenveravbeitung,
 GmbH...................        Germany
TTC Federal Systems,
 Inc. ..................        Delaware
Dynatech Holdings               Guernsey,
 Ltd. ..................        Channel Islands
Dynatech Investments,           Guernsey,
 Ltd. ..................        Channel Islands
TTC Asia Pacific
 Limited................        Hong Kong
DataViews Scandanavia
 A.B. ..................        Sweden
</TABLE>
--------
*  Excludes nonmaterial subsidiaries.
Exhibit 23.12  Consent
of Ian T. Blakley  I
consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of North
American Palladium Ltd., which is being filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission, of references to my name and to references to my involvement
in the preparation of technical information relating to the Offset High Grade
Zone, Ontario, included in the 2008 Annual Information Form of North
American Palladium Ltd., dated March 16, 2009 (the AIF).  I also
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-10
and amendments thereto (No. 333-147126) of the references to my name and
the above-mentioned information in the AIF.   Dated
  this 16th day of March, 2009.(signed) Ian T. BlakleyName:
  Ian
  T. Blakley, P. Geo.Title:
  Consulting
  Geologist,Scott
  Wilson RPA
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. PD-901-20 & PD-902-20 & PD-903-20

BENSON DORSEY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam. WALKER, J., would grant. Newell, J., dissented to order.

ORDER

After his motion to suppress was denied, Appellant pled guilty to possession of a

controlled substance with intent to deliver, and two counts of unlawful possession of a

firearm by a felon. The trial court’s appeal certification states that this is a plea-bargain

case, but that matters were raised by written motion, filed and ruled on before trial, so

Appellant has the right of appeal. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of

Appellant’s motion to suppress. Dorsey v. State, ___S.W.3d___ Nos. 01-18-00520-CR,
01–18-00521-CR, 01-18-0522-CR (Tex. App. Houston [1 Dist.], December 12, 2019).

st

The court also addressed and rejected Appellant’s double jeopardy claim which he raised

for the first time on appeal. Id.

Appellant filed petitions for discretionary review challenging the court of appeals’

rejection of his double jeopardy claim concerning the two convictions for unlawful

possession of a firearm by a felon. We ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether

the court of appeals had jurisdiction to address the double jeopardy issue given that the

appeal was based upon a plea bargained case. We refuse Appellant’s petition for

discretionary review, but issue this order to clarify the scope of appeal.

The right to appeal in a criminal case is a statutory right. Griffin v. State, 145

S.W.3d 645 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). Texas Code Criminal Procedure Article 44.02

establishes a defendant’s right to appeal and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2

specifies the procedures to follow, consistent with that statutory grant of appeal. See

Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 679-80 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006)( a plea bargaining

defendant may appeal only matters consistent with the exceptions set out rule 25.2).

Rule 25.2 provides that a plea-bargaining defendant “may appeal only:

(A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial,

(B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or

(C) where the specific appeal expressly authorized by statute.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a);

see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. Art. 44.02 (plea bargaining defendant who seeks appeal

“must have permission of the trial court, except on those matters which have been raised
by written motion filed prior to trial”).

Appellant pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain and is therefore limited to

appealing “matters which have been raised by written motion filed prior to trial.” He did

not raise a double jeopardy claim in the trial court and may not raise the issue for the first

time on appeal. The court of appeals erred to address the merits of the claim.

Appellant’s petition for discretionary review is refused.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 21 DAY OF APRIL, 2021.

st

Publish
ex4_6.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
4.6

    


    


    The
following is a summary of an amendment to the Ford Motor Company Savings and
Stock Investment Plan for Salaried Employees, effective January 1,
2008:

    


    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              ·

            	
              Allow
      a distribution of elective deferrals (pre-tax deferrals) upon severance
      from employment, effectively eliminating the "same-desk
    rule."
EO 3.3(h)(2) • • 

.....:e:;:i:;e:::s:icR;;;z;E~T/m:iS}l.... PL 86-36/50 use 36~5 
I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

EO 3.:?>(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 use 3605 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1
~. 

TOP SECRET 

. e REF _ID:A67299 

. u·. s~ EVES ONLY • 

'f6P SBCRB'f 

Q,S. E¥BS ONbY 

MElv{)RANDUM FOR DmAFSA 

AFSA-llS/ ef · 

8 September 1950 

SUBJECT: U.S. - British Conference on the E;Kcha.nge of CryptograJiiic Principles on a Reciprocal Basis 

Reference·: AFSAC: 63/l 

1. :tt is recommended that the following be added to the equipments listed 

in Enclosures (A) arid (B) to the reference: · 

f. One-Time-Tape Teletype Scramble~s. · · . -~r .· 

2. Our new OTr scramblers (CSP 44orJ and Li. 00) have been ·developed to the 

. point where they should be disclosed to the British. No new cmtographic 

features are involved but ·superior mechanical features - which have reduced a 

. heavy bulky complax installation to a· ainiple lightweight CaJ!.pact and reliable 

equipment suitable for field use. I believe we would be negligent in our duty 

if we failed to discuss OTT devices. · · · 

3. If approved, a separate subcommittee should be set. up to h.indle this 

matter. 

L.F. SAFFORD 

.Captain, USN 

AFSA-llS 

TOP SECRET • U. $. EYES ONLY 

OPJ 

eclassifi ed and a roved for release b NSA on 05-13-2014 ursuantto E .0. 1352
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------

            WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES I, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
            --------------------------------------------------------
                            FORM 10-QSB JUNE 30, 2002
                            -------------------------


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 9.4 OF THE PARTNERSHIP
AGREEMENT


1.      Statement of Cash Available for Distribution for the three months ended
        June 30, 2002:

        Net Loss                                                   $   (29,000)
        Add:  Equity in loss of Local Limited Partnership               16,000
              Cash from reserves                                        13,000
                                                                   -----------

        Cash Available for Distribution                            $        --
                                                                   ===========

2.      Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
        General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended
        June 30, 2002:

          Entity Receiving           Form of
            Compensation           Compensation               Amount
        --------------------    ------------------      -------------------

                None






                                    12 of 13
# CE2004084EN.01057601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/576 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/576

---

(2004/C 84 E/0653)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0371/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Ireland's failure to fix penalties for ozone-depleting substances

Subject:

What reply has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the letter of formal notification that it sent to Ireland in October 2003, as announced in Commission press release IP/03/1425, regarding Ireland's failure to indicate what penalties have been fixed for breaches of the EU Regulation on ozone-depleting substances — Regulation 2037/2000 (1) of 29 June 2000 — by the 31 December 2001 deadline?

1

What action is the Commission now considering in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

(23 March 2004)

In December 2003, the Irish authorities notified national penalty provisions for the purposes of Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (2). This notification is currently under examination.

2

---

(1)  OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 244, 29.9.2000.

2

---