alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The City of Menasha and another vs. The Milwaukee & Northern Railroad Company.

*March 30*

*April 19, 1881.*

*Conditional order: Appeal.*

An injunctional order was granted against defendant with, a provision that plaintiff should file a certain bond and serve a copy thereof on defendant’s attorney, within ten days, or the order should he denied. On defendant’s appeal from that order, the record fails to show that any such bond was filed. *Held,*that the appeal, not appearing to he from an order in force, must be dismissed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

The cause was submitted on the brief of *E. Mariner*for the appellants, and that of *Chas. W. Felher*for the respondent.

Cole, C. J.

This is an appeal by the *Milwaukee & Northern Railroad Company*from an order enjoining it fronnex-tending its road “to connect within three miles of the depot *139of the Milwaukee & Northern Railway Company, in the city of Menasha, with any other railway, so as to permit the passage of cars from one road to the other, otherwise than north of the north branch of Eox river, or west of Lake Buttes des Morts.” The injunctional order bears date November 6, 1880, and provided that the plaintiffs, within ten days of the date thereof, execute and file with the clerk of the court a bond, w-ith two sufficient sureties, to be approved by the circuit judge, in the penal sum of $20,000, conditioned to pay all damages which should come to the defendants, or either of them, by reason of the injunction. The order further provided that if such bond were not so filed and a copy served on the defendant’s attorney within the said ten days, the motion for the injunction should he denied.

Now, the record fails to show that any proper bond was ever executed and filed as required by the injunctional order. It is very plain that unless the proper bond was given, in the form and within the time specified in the order, the injunction fell, and there is nothing to sustain this appeal. The injunction was granted upon a condition which it does not appear was ever performed by the plaintiffs. Consequently the rights of the defendant could not have been injuriously affected or impaired by it. It was mere *irutum*fuZmen, and could have prejudiced no one.

The learned counsel upon both sides have argued the question as to the rightfulness of the injunction, as though it were still in force. But we cannot go into that question as the record now stands. Presumably the injunction fell on account of the failure of the plaintiffs to execute and file a bond in conformity to the order; and, as we have already said, it does not appear that there was anything to appeal from — anything which could possibly operate to the prejudice of the defendants. This being the case, the correctness of the injunctional order is not before us for review.

*By the*Court.— The appeal is dismissed.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Presidential Documents 11075 

Notice of February 25, 2015 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to 

Cuba and of the Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels 

On March 1, 1996, by Proclamation 6867, a national emergency was declared 

to address the disturbance or threatened disturbance of international relations 

caused by the February 24, 1996, destruction by the Cuban government 

of two unarmed U.S.-registered civilian aircraft in international airspace 

north of Cuba. On February 26, 2004, by Proclamation 7757, the national 

emergency was extended and its scope was expanded to deny monetary 

and material support to the Cuban government. The Cuban government 

has not demonstrated that it will refrain from the use of excessive force 

against U.S. vessels or aircraft that may engage in memorial activities or 

peaceful protest north of Cuba. In addition, the unauthorized entry of any 

U.S.-registered vessel into Cuban territorial waters continues to be detrimental 

to the foreign policy of the United States. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am 

continuing the national emergency with respect to Cuba and the emergency 

authority relating to the regulation of the anchorage and movement of vessels 

set out in Proclamation 6867 as amended by Proclamation 7757. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

February 25, 2015. [FR Doc. 2015–04353 

Filed 2–26–15; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3295–F5 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with O0OB#1.EPS</GPH>
Cette Troika est 

taillee chaque 

jour dans un 

bloc de glace. 

REF ID:A59493 

--

CARTE DU JOUR 

BORS·D'<EUVBE 

Blinis 300.- Caviar presse 800.- Caviar frais 1800.-

Couvert 250.-

This Troi"ka is 

carved daily in 

a bloc of ice. 

Saumon fume 800.- Hareng a la russe 300.- Salade de tom.ates 150.- Anchois 200.- Sardines 150.-

Foie gras frais de Strasbourg 800.- Caviar d'aubergines 200.- Anguille fumee 350.- Harengs haches 200.-

Kilkis 200.- CEufs mayonnaise 200.- Grape fruit 350.- Cmur de Palmier, Vinaigrette 500.-

Hors-d'muvre varies 450.- Zakouskis d' Armaille 1100.-

POT.l.GES 

Bortch 300.- Bortch passe (strained Bortch) 250.- Pirojok 100.-Consomme de Volaille 250.-

Creme Vichyssoise 250.-

<EUFS & PATES 

CEufs au plat 200.- Omelette aux ~mpignons 200.- CEufs poches 200.- CEufs au bacon 250.-

CEufs brouilles 200.- Forschmalc Dragomiroff 400.-

POisSONS 

Lobster Cocktail 800.- Esturgeon froid 700.- Esturgeon grille 750.-Sole meuniere 800.-

Sole maison 800.- Langouste mayonnaise, Prix S.G. 

E:NTUES & GRILL.I.DES 

Escalope Viennoise 700.- Skoblianka 700.- Bmuf Stroganoff 700.- Steak grille 700.- Filet Mignon 850.-

Tou:rnedos sauce Bearnaise 850.- Toumedos a la Rossini 1.000.- Hamburger steak 700.- Steak Tartare 700.-

Karsky du Tzar 1200.- Bitotchkis a la Stroganoff 700.-

Chachlik Caucasien 800.- Chachlik Karsky 900.- Cotelette a la Kieff 900.- Cotelette Marechale 1100 •• 

Cotelette Pojarsky de volaille 600.- Cote Tzarsky 750.- Tchakhobilis de poulet (aile 800.- Cuisse 700.-) 

Poularde a la Moscovite 900.- Poulet a la Souvaroff 900.- Perdreau roti 1000.-

Poulet grille a l'Americaine 800.- Poulet roti 800.- Poulet froid, salade 700.-

L:i:GUMES 

Haricots verts frais 250.- Petits pois a la Fran9aise 250.- Cacha 250.- Epinards a la creme 250.-

Champignons sautes a la Proven9ale 250.- Artichauts 250.- Asperges sauce vinaigrette ou Hollandaise 450.· 

Tomates braisees a la :russe 250.- Endives Meuniere 250.- Salade de saison 200.~I 

Le Plateau de From.ages 250.-

ENTREMETS & FRUITS 

Compote 350.- Delices d' Armaille 350.- Ananas frais 350.- Ananas au Kirsch 350.-

Cacha Gourieff 350.- Peche Melba 350.- Timbale Pompadour 300.- Ti:mhale Orientale 300.-

Souffl.e Siberien 350.- Scuffles divers (30 m.) 350.- Blintchikis 250.-

Crepes Suzette flam.bees au Grand Mamier et Vieille Fine 450.- Corbeille de Fruits 250.- Glace Vanille 200.-

Glace Me:xicaine 250.- Patisserie Maison 350.- Pomme Bonne Femme (a la commande) 350.· 

Raisin, Poire... Peche... La Bombe du Patron 400.-

[nfusion 200.- u .. A I J. _•l _J _ c '• The OU Cafe Cona 200.-

n..... VrstU iw ftOS alJ.eS S i.m/JOU • • • 

6, fl..ue J'c:Jtmaille, /Jatis 17' Gel. : Ctoile 52-49 el 56-04 

_E\_p_p_ro_v_e_,.d..,..fo-r"""'R,,...e...,.le_a_s_e_,b_y_,N...,.S.,,....,..A-o-n...,0,...,8,....-"""'07"""_"""2...,,.0""'"1..,,..3-p-u-rs_u_a_n_t -to...,E="""". 0,.... ...,.1...,,.3""'5~2a
# CE2004084EN.01094801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/948 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/948

---

(2004/C 84 E/1047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1109/04

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject:   Restriction on allowances in connection with foreign income

Subject:

Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law (EStG), in the version published in the Austrian Federal Gazette (BGBl 818/1993), lays down that where, with regard to an assessment for the calculation of tax, an average tax rate is applicable, that average rate is to be calculated after account has been taken of the allowances granted pursuant to paragraphs 3 to 7 (except for child allowances granted pursuant to paragraph 4, third line, subparagraph (a)). Those allowances may not be deducted a second time when the average tax rate is applied. That provision guarantees that a taxpayer with an income in his country of origin will receive the full allowances, while a taxpayer with foreign income is entitled solely to allowances granted on a pro rate basis.

According to case-law of the Austrian Administrative Court with regard to the legal situation before the publication of BGBl 818/1993, the allowances were not to be taken into account before the calculation of the average tax rate but only in connection with the tax payable after application of the average tax rate to the income subject to national tax. According to the judgment handed down by the European Court of Justice on 12 December 2002 in Case C-385/00 (F.W.L. de Groot), the allowances granted in Austria, the State of residence, must be admitted as deductible if no guarantee can be given that the amounts will be deductible in the source State.

What measures is the Commission thinking of taking if the method of calculating the average tax rate, including the application of a progressivity clause and the maximum assessment amount laid down in Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law, proves to infringe Article 39 of the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

(30 April 2004)

A first examination of Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law (EStG), in the version published in the Austrian Federal Gazette (BGBl 818/1993) led to doubts as regards its compatibility with EU law.

The Commission will therefore contact the Austrian Government for further information and, if necessary, take further steps to ensure the compliance of the Austrian tax rule with EU law.

---
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20
- 0381 DAWN M. AUGUSTINE,

Petit io ner and Appellee,
v. JEWELS JEMS, INC., a Mon tana Corporati on d/b/a/ THE CATTLEMEN'S CUT SUPPER CLUB,

Respondent an d Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parti es having failed to j oint ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Thomas Anthony Marra,** whose name appears next on th e list of

attorneys desi

ring appo int me nt a s me di ators fo r Mo ney Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appo int ed to c onduct the mediat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at th e time peri ods set fo rth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

of this order is being mailed to counsel of record f or the parti es, or to th e parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s August 18, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood , Cl erk of the Supreme Court
c: Dana A. Henkel, Kathryn Elizabeth Delans, Steven T. Potts, Thomas Anthony Marra 

# Viy-.-6Am--f 08/18/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0381
-= 

~c-_ 

~: ~-

= 

.......,.. -

c:: 

~-=-­

~ 

~-

,,.,---

~---

[ 

~-. 

... 

REF-~- ID : A68 0 7 9 

StCUftllY lhfOl\i,i11ilON 

COit liJiii!i:At - S!e..,"ftfl iHFAiU"' HSU 

..... '·-~:;= ...,. 8ridp Laltoi-atot'j' ol ~- Cll.U'~ ~\de or 1~Mt01o.;g 

Nlll•r• i., eautonaa 

Dieitnr~ ~t 

----~ 

, ~·:;: 

.-~ 

Jil "I.a }M\\er of 11 July -J.9S2~ ~. Pri~ WO\.e ,cu \hat. 1n 

1111 

a Uitt.l.o 

~9n 

~e 

tQr 

no 

• 

a.l&ht. 

iww SCA-0

~ ~ a dfttt ot a ~temmt or a ~ 

~ .t 1 cd WJuld .. ~r 10ur .. 

~•mts. • 

l'?f• Jft'. ~.is ~ ~\i9Jl,. ! CO"lose the drat~ ard wo'lld 

la9 pr&Wil tor ~an."J u to otwJi1.n• !lldl:siant16 e.r deletions. 

p ~ c~~~,. _, ~\. -,ou hua a ~ad 'Me'Q.rol&ld tor 

••• _illnt! our~ u to ~~a• ~ ... it.,,..,, tmft 1n wdtd 

tl1rtl «J*')llllet:t t«lo,, 1~ 'f'T,xr or4znon w~ bfJ p"'.:'\ent.1~ nl~ 

~-s rer ~~~ ~ ~ ~pr;>~ ~ llri.Qil~fio ~llOi":f ep_. pfc~ lttt. zc htde_ \.~ ~ ard addn?!Jge'f I umer3toazld 

i3 =~m:==tt!: ~~+iie~·1l't!I~ {{.~~~ iha •t~U.ct; ~b:,t do oot 1axu tJO., he e;~ ~te~ p9nonall¥ • .:I.thin• ..at1 group ~r ~~ upat>le ~a\ists" An7'tb~ ,.. 08!1 t.d1 a pr!Yatrl..T llhich ~t bolp ..a c=ma w a camla'd.an aa 

t. his ~dacy 1'1U 9e ~tat and bo MW~ •":'lei. co."lfidenov, 

···~, 

, ' , -. . - ,...,. ,• . _--·.. . ' ' - . - t 

__ Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-13-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

; 

t 

.. 

f 

• I 

' '
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

941 

KA 11-02454 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LYLE L. BOATMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

GREGORY S. OAKES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO, FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W.

Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered May 28, 2010. The judgment revoked

defendant’s sentence of probation imposed upon his previous conviction

of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentenced

him to an indeterminate term of incarceration. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Same Memorandum as in People v Boatman ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d

___ [Oct. 4, 2013]).

Entered: October 4, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Corporate Incentive Plan

The Corporate Incentive Plan encompasses employees at the corporate level of
USEY for the portion of corporate work performed, i.e. excluding the time spent
on development work.

The Plan is formula driven and awards based upon attainment of certain
predetermined personal and Company goals. The individual goals will be
determined by USEY's management, while the Compensation Committee will
approve the annual corporate goals to be met.

Awards will be determined as a percentage of an individual's salary. A maximum
cap will be established and can be exceeded only if the Company surpassed 100%
of its earnings goal. An example of a bonus calculation will be as follows:

Employee salary        =   $100,000
Incentive Bonus %      =        $30%

GOALS:
75%      =        Company earnings goal $5 million (net after taxes)
25%      =        Employee goals (performance goals are established)

RESULTS:
Company earns $4 million            =       4 / 5 x 75% = 60%
Employee is deemed to have          =       90% x 25% = 22.5%
attained 90% of established goals

TOTAL ATTAINMENT  82.5% (60% + 22.5%)
Established incentive %    x 30%
Percent of time worked
on corporate work          x 60%
                                    14.9%
                                        X
Salary                              $100,000
Bonus                               $14,900



Awards under the program will vest over a 5 year period.
-- -- ----~n::-.r··-

REF ID:A671BB 

~ -eoMf\eeMTt~ .... v - . J :rlNFOIUt1ATl~JP4 

(Basie lt:r1 GAS 461• Sub3 i Letter ot Tl'aBm1 t1i..'l!l tor ASA 

D.1.scuss1o'l Topics} 

llSt Ind 28 .April 19S3 

l'fr'. W1l.liam F. Fr1ed::ian1 Rational. Security Ageney, w•:d.n,iton 2$* D. C. 

'l'Oi Aasistant Adjutant General. Headqusrtors, 

Am;t Secud\7 Agency• was.ld.n.,.~n 2S. n., c. 

l. With raterenco t~ paragraph 2 or bu1c letw. unless additional 

copies ot a particular issue ara req,uestcd. one cow or t...lie subject 

magazine will be sutf'icient-. 

2w Betu%'nod. herevith aro two copies or ad>jeet ~asine £or 10U?' 

d1.spos1 t.1.on .. 

2 Inols1 

2 copies of .&SA 

Discussion Topics 

THl"t L ETT~i1 MAY BE • • ~ 

nnWNCR#.DED T~ ~'i~~tr V.'H!: INCL SUR , 

2 

OONFIDENTIAL 

WILLa'lf F * 1BIE!1-!AR 

Special Assist.ant 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-20 2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit (99.1a)


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Lifeline Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-40684, 33-58632, 33-79294, 33-
59499, 333-03949, 333-03953, 333-03951) of our report dated June 22, 1999, on
our audits of the financial statements of the Lifeline Employees' Savings and
Investment Plan as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the years then ended,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 11-K.


                                   /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP

                                   PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
June 29, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND> 
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
XEROX  
CREDIT CORPORATION'S JUNE 30, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN  
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000 
        
<S>                             <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997 
<CASH>                                               0 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,928 
<ALLOWANCES>                                       119 
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0 
<PP&E>                                               0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,920 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,500 
<BONDS>                                          3,368 
<COMMON>                                            23 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<OTHER-SE>                                         457 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,920 
<SALES>                                              0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   178 
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     6 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 108 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     64 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        26 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 38 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                        38 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 22, 2019

No. 04-18-00964-CR

IN RE Jose Flores HERNANDEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On January 2, 2019, this court issued an opinion denying relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. On January 17, 2019, relator filed a motion for rehearing. After considering the 

motion, relator’s motion is hereby DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on January 22, 2019.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, 

Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 80-CR-1362-W, styled The State of Texas v. Jose Flores Hernandez, 

pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding.
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Maietta, Anthony

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:31 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa

Cc: Portanova, Mary; Blakley, Pamela

Subject: FW: Ohio: Final SIP Call: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction 

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

Here come R5’s emails.  I’ll forward the rest as they come!

‐Tony

Anthony Maietta

EPA Region 5

maietta.anthony@epa.gov

(312) 353‐8777

From: Czerniak, George  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:30 PM

To: Portanova, Mary; Maietta, Anthony

Subject: FW: Ohio: Final SIP Call: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction  

From: Czerniak, George  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:17 PM

To: bob.hodanbosi@epa.state.oh.us

Subject: Ohio: Final SIP Call: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction  

Bob:  

This message is a follow‐up to my recent phone call notifying you about the final action the EPA Administrator signed

today to ensure States have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources at all times, including when the source is

operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).  

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the

treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are

treated in State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action,

EPA has revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is calling for 36 States, including Ohio, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health and ensure

consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy.  You will have 18 months to submit revisions of

your State plan to EPA. Your revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.  

As part of our notification to your State about this final SIP call, I have attached to this email a letter from the EPA’s

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the details on the final action,

including the specific SIP provisions your State needs to address, we have posted a pre‐publication version of the

action on our website at:  http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html.  
2

The EPA will continue to work closely with you to ensure the SIP revision process is as efficient as possible.  If you or

your staff have questions, please contact Mary Portanova, portanova.mary@epa.gov, (312) 353‐5954.

George  

Attachment
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilson Torres, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 541]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Ward, J.), rendered March 22, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of SVs to 7 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence to a term of 2 to 4 years, and otherwise affirmed.

Although defendant’s ultimate plea agreement failed to make clear what sentence would be imposed in the event he left his drug treatment program and voluntarily returned to court, we deem the imposition of a maximum sentence under such circumstances to be inequitable. Accordingly, we modify the sentence as indicated. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.