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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

858 

KA 15-02120 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JERRY T. SADDLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

CHARLES A. MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (NATHAN J. GARLAND OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H.

Fandrich, A.J.), rendered November 17, 2015. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal contempt in the first

degree and assault in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment

convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal contempt in the

first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [b] [v]) and assault in the second

degree (§ 120.05 [2]). In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a

judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of aggravated family

offense (§ 240.75 [1]). With respect to both appeals, we conclude

that the “waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because, based on

County Court’s statements at the plea proceeding, ‘defendant may have

erroneously believed that the right to appeal is automatically

extinguished upon entry of a guilty plea’ ” (People v Prince, 141 AD3d

1103, 1104, quoting People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892, 893). We

nevertheless conclude that neither sentence is unduly harsh or severe.

In appeal No. 1, defendant failed to preserve for our review his

challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution with

respect to the assault count because he did not move to withdraw his

plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Lopez, 71

NY2d 662, 665). This case does not fall within the rare exception to

the preservation requirement inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy

“casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt [of assault] or

otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” (id. at

666; see People v Rinker, 141 AD3d 1177, 1177). We decline to

exercise our power to review defendant’s challenge as a matter of 
-2- 858 

KA 15-02120 

discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). 

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
( . ~. 

I 

). 

'·-· '!.·• ·-1 .• r' 

_,;---.. REF ID :A416_3742 

[n~lf MIG Piiots. W~1·e Rus~ian . 

: . ;:::v Q...,y(,_ \5 ;;;x: er ~ !'1.S-3 I• . • 

i l 

j 

1

Truce Fails to Reduce Flo.w 

Of Soviet Arms'to Red China 

By ·Marguerite Higgins 

HONGKONG, Aug. 7 (NYHT.). Soviet supply build-up to China 

The Soviet Union will continue by rail or by sea. . 

a steady flow of military and The Red Chinese air force 

. technical a'ssistance to Commu- will be given a new ,potential by . 1

nist China in spite &f the Ko- activation of an additional 

rean· truce, according ·to infor- complex of air~elcls in south and 

mation reaching Western intel- ~outhwest Chma: MIG forces 

ligence sources. m the ~1!Se co~plex south of 

I 

. Shanghai, as at.Nmpo and Hang- It. can :~'?W be. d1sclo.sed that kow, have been reinforced. Be-, Soy1~t c1tJ~ens, mclu~mg non- tween Shanghai and Canton One~tal pilots, constituted at there now are about 250 MIGs, one Juncture clo~e to. 50 percent at a minimum. 

of the Communist air force. . Radio intercepts of pilot-to- T~e Chinese have ac~ivated 

ground· conversations in the an important group of airfields 

Yalu River battle area estab- in the ·southwest, near French 

lished that Soviet personnel Indo-China. were actively engaged. .. A base south of Peiping re- · Russian dialects vary consid- cently received a force of straerably,. so. th;~.t a catalogue ·was tegic bombers-the Soviet ver- made md1catmg what parts of sion of the American B-29 Sup- t~e Sovi~t. Unio1~ various MIG erfortresses. The. presence in 

pilots J:ailed from. central China of Soviet-styled 

·R.ussians also serv.ed as tank jet· bombers als'o has been re- , 

1 , 

dri~e~s, artillery o~cers and i~ potted. . anti-aircraft battaho?s. . Or?1- T.he Rus.sians a.lso have been [' 

nary grounq troops also m- takmg an mcreasu1g number of · · eluded. perso.IJs bor~1 and edu- Chinese candidates ·into their I 

cated m Soviet ternt.ory. · . · naval training· centers at Port I Actuall~'" the Sovi~t U~ion Arthur and Dairen. It has been '• ke~ps tramed on Soviet soil· a . [ · !kind of foreign legion of vari- reported persistently. that a ' . 

jous nationalities, including for- dozen Soviet su~marmes h!Jve I l

cibly retained German, Yugo- been. turned over to R~d Chma. ' . 

·Slav: and Japanese . prisoners ~t is kn?wn that Ch1pes~ are · taken in World war II. bemg tramed as submar~ners 1

• 

They are shock troops which and ~h~t a n~mber .of Chinese ! 

the Russians can send to any ports, . mcludmg Ts1~gtao, are , place where it . suits them to C!ipable now of h~n.dlmg subrnapretend that a conflict is a civil nne traffic. J· ,_ , ~ 

war. The German troops, for · It has been establistj~d that I 

example, would· come in handy the Russians have in., the Far I 

if the Russians should . dedde East alone seven times':·as many 

to initiate a Korea-type civil submarines as were manned by war between East and West Adolph. Hitler's Germany wh,en 

Germany. ·. the Nazis were launching deadly · There has been no drop since undersea attacks in World 

the truce in the tempo of the War II. 

-·--·-- -~~~-"'-

- -·- --- ---·---------

I 

I
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>            Earnings  per share  amounts  reflect  the effects of a 
                    2-for-1 stock  split  declared on  November  11, 1997 (See  
                    footnote 1 in condensed consolidated financial statements).
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-30-1997            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-28-1997            SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                        166,024                166,024
<SECURITIES>                                        0                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 302,937                302,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                   38,753                 38,753
<INVENTORY>                                   188,424                188,424
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              669,852                669,852
<PP&E>                                        241,440                241,440
<DEPRECIATION>                                 86,377                 86,377
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                828,174                828,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         360,772                360,772
<BONDS>                                        45,683                 45,683
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                      0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                      0
<COMMON>                                      277,987                277,987
<OTHER-SE>                                          0                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  828,174                828,174
<SALES>                                       431,700              1,193,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              431,700              1,193,206
<CGS>                                         291,373                828,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 291,373                828,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               95,202                242,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,371                  5,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                46,180                121,744
<INCOME-TAX>                                   16,172                 42,513
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            30,008                 79,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                      0
<CHANGES>                                           0                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   30,008                 79,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .11                    .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .11                    .29
        


</TABLE>
IC1~1 :D 

SECIJRl"rY INPOll:MM'ION 

NATIONAL. SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 21'3, D. C. 

RES'tRICTED - al!:OUM'f! INFOHMA'f!OU 

MEMORANDUM TO ALL NSA PERSONNEI, 

I /~/, ~ 

, /,/~ -r 

SUBJECT: Corrective Action, Press Release, Sunday, 3 May 

1. From time to tine since 18 April 1953, but specifically in 

press releases on Sunday, 3 May 1953, this Agency has received considerable tmwarranted publicity. The circumstances or the release 0£ 

this infonnation are not lmown at this time., 

2. All employees are cautioned to neither affirm, deny nor 

commant upon the material which they have read in the press concerning 

this Agency or which they may hear discussed as a result of this 

publicity. 

FOR '!HE DIRECTOR: 

.. 

RESTRICTED 

Jeclassified and approved for 

elease by NSA on 05-14-2014 

Jursuantto E .0. 13526
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., A CHILD. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 15

- 00177

- CV

Appeal from

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2013DCM9384)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order that because Appellant is indigent, no order regarding costs

is made. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY , 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClu re, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
LONNIE MARGOL,

Appellant,

v.

DANE MARGOL AND LODA, 

LLC,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4619

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 17, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Lance M. Day, Judge.

Cynthia S. Tunnicliff and Dina Foster of Pennington, P.A., Tallahassee, for 

Appellant.

Stephanie A. Sussman of Bledsoe, Jacobson, Schmidt, Wright & Sussman and 

Michael J. Korn of Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS and ROWE, JJ., and WELLS, LINDA A., ASSOCIATE JUDGE, 

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 Quarterly Report of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William
Steinhauer, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ William Steinhauer     
|William Steinhauer         
|Vice President of Finance  
|Principal Financial Officer
|August 10, 2009            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unigene
Laboratories, Inc. and will be retained by Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# CA2014211EN.01000201.xml

| 5.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 211/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 211/2

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

2014/C 211 A/02

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | |
| 188 | |
| 195 | |
| 207 | |
| 209 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 211 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

185

186

188

195

207

209

(DE/EN/FR)

211

---
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Summary of Directors’ Compensation 
 NewMarket Corporation (the
“Company”) pays each of its non-employee directors (a) $1,500 for attendance at each meeting of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors”) and (b) $1,500 for attendance at each meeting of a
committee of the Board of Directors of which he or she is a member. In addition, effective October 1, 2011, the Company pays the following quarterly fees for non-employee committee membership: 

 

					
	 •      Audit Committee Member
	  	$	1,250	  
		
	 •      Audit Committee Chairman
	  	$	3,750	  
		
	 •      Compensation Committee Chairman
	  	$	1,875	  
		
	 •      Nominating Committee Chairman
	  	$	1,250	  

 Also, effective October 1, 2011, the Company pays each of its non-employee directors a quarterly fee
of $10,000. The Company does not pay employee members of the Board of Directors separately for their service on the Board of Directors or its committees. 
 Effective on October 1, 2011, the Board of Directors approved a $43,750 quarterly fee payable to Bruce C. Gottwald for serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chairman of the Executive
Committee. 
 Any director who was elected to the Board of Directors on or before February 23, 1995 and who retires from
the Board of Directors after age 60 with at least five years’ service on the Board of Directors will receive $12,000 per year for life, payable in quarterly installments. The service requirement for this benefit may be waived under certain
circumstances. Any director retiring under other circumstances will receive $12,000 per year, payable in quarterly installments, commencing no earlier than age 60, for a period not to exceed his or her years of service on the Board of Directors. The
payment period limitation on this benefit may be waived in certain circumstances. Such retirement payments to former directors may be discontinued under certain circumstances. 
 Under the 2004 Incentive Compensation and Stock Plan (“the Plan”), each non-employee director is awarded on each July 1 that number of whole shares of the Company’s common stock that,
when multiplied by the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the immediately preceding business day, as reported in The Wall Street Journal, equal as nearly as possible but do not exceed $30,000. The shares of the Company’s
common stock awarded under the Plan are nonforfeitable and the recipient directors immediately and fully vest in shares of the Company’s common stock issued under the Plan. Subject only to such limitations on transfer as may be specified by
applicable securities laws, directors may sell their shares under the Plan at any time.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          30,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  776,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (95,366)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,107,685
<PP&E>                                         788,885
<DEPRECIATION>                               (576,573)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,384,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,420,354
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,547
<OTHER-SE>                                   (979,294)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,384,935
<SALES>                                        944,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               944,542
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,041,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,530
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,929
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONNA L. FRITZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-15820

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03588-CMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 11, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, THOMAS, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Fritz appeals from the district court’s summary judgment upholding the

Commissioner’s final denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

FILED

SEP 14 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

1291. We apply de novo review, Lewis v. Astrue, 498 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir.

2007), and affirm.

Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) finding

that Fritz would not need five-minute breaks after every hour of standing or

walking. The contrary testimony of Dr. Jensen, a nonexamining, nontreating

physician, conflicts with that of Dr. Kumar, an examining physician, and is not

otherwise supported by the record. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 831 (9th Cir.

1995).

The ALJ offered specific, clear, and convincing reasons to support his

adverse credibility finding against Fritz, including (1) the reports of Dr. Kumar and

other physicians, (2) the lack of objective medical evidence supporting the alleged

limitation, and (3) evidence in the record that Fritz had undergone successful

conservative treatment and was able to perform daily functions. See Lingenfelter v.

Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007).

The ALJ’s refusal to include the rejected limitations in hypothetical

questions to the vocational expert was permissible. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261

F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ is not required to include rejected limitations).

The ALJ’s failure to ask the vocational expert whether the expert’s

testimony contradicted the Dictionary of Occupational Titles was harmless error
3

because Fritz has not shown any contradiction to be present. See Massachi v.

Astrue, 486 F.3d 1149, 1154 n.19 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2014095EN.01000901.xml

| 1.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7107 — Cordes & Graefe/Pompac/Comafranc)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 95/03)

On 18 November 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7107. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7107. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Ortec
International, Inc. ("Ortec"), hereby certifies that Ortec's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Annual Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Ortec.

Dated: March 30, 2004


/s/ Steven Katz
----------------------------------------
Steven Katz
Chairman and Principal Executive Officer
BRAD A. BATES,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4289

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Brad A. Bates, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
\) 

QI.floe o~ Oblet of atatt 

REF ID:A414BB~ 

u ,, 

/ 

~ tola~ tlfte@nth. Off!O&n ~4Vo Chloap ~ •nine 

ml4 Will ~1"t•l1 wot.or t(t Div~ GO thGN 1• uo a.a ';/CV 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-18-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a