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

[771 NYS2d 253]

*792Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered October 7, 2002, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

Defendant was sentenced to community service and five years’ probation after being convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. While he does not dispute that he was intoxicated, he contends on appeal that the People failed to prove that he was operating the motorcycle and, therefore, the jury’s verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. We disagree and, thus, affirm the judgment.

In assessing whether a verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and the verdict will be upheld if “ *‘any*rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt’ ” *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983], quoting *Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, 319 [1979] [emphasis in original]; *see People v Taylor,*94 NY2d 910, 911 [2000]). Here, Fire Chief Kevin Crosby testified that he responded to the report of a motorcycle accident and found defendant in a ditch next to a motorcycle. Deputy Sheriff Martin Dumolin, who was also summoned to the scene, related that defendant smelled of alcohol and failed two of three field sobriety tests. A subsequent breathalyzer test revealed a blood alcohol content of .23%. Dumolin stated that, upon initial questioning at the site, defendant claimed that he had merely been pushing the motorcycle on the shoulder of the road. However, Dumolin observed fresh scrapes on defendant’s forehead and shoulder. He further stated that he placed his hand on the motorcycle’s engine, which he characterized as “hot.” After defendant was arrested and read his *Miranda*warnings, he reportedly acknowledged to police that he had been operating the motorcycle. This evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict.

Next, we consider defendant’s weight of the evidence argument. Defendant presented proof, including his own testimony and his father’s testimony, contending, among other things, that his scrapes predated the accident and that the motorcycle had mechanical problems. Defendant further denied that he told police that he had been driving the motorcycle. After *793reviewing the record and weighing the conflicting evidence, we discern no reason to reject the jury’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility or to conclude that the jury “failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded” *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; *see People v Amato,*1 AD3d 713, 716 [2003]).

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Laguerra CHAMPAGNE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3387

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
SCWC-14-0000840

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

BRANDETTE K. RAMOS-LABENIA, 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. 

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0000840; CASE NO. 1DCW-12-000335)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Brandette K. RamosLabenia’s application for writ of certiorari filed on October 11,

2015, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 13, 2015.

Tae W. Kim

for petitioner

Stephen K. Tsushima

for respondent

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0000840

13-NOV-2015

10:04 AM
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 2, 2024

NO. 03-24-00474-CV

Abraham Johnson, Appellant

v.

AAHC Davenport Place Apartments MM LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION –

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 26, 2024. Having reviewed 

the record, the Court holds that Abraham Johnson has not prosecuted his appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court 

and in the court below.
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Darren Maurice King Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) (947A em
EX-10.5





 Exhibit 10.5 

SUMMARY OF 2018 COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 

(Effective as of December 31, 2018) 

The following summarizes the compensation and benefits received by the non-employee Directors of
CryoLife as of December 31, 2018. It is intended to be a summary of compensation arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee Director. 

Annual Retainer and Committee Chair Fees 

Each of the non-employee Directors of the Board of Directors of CryoLife (the “Board”)
receives an annual cash retainer of $45,000. Each committee chair also receives a fee in addition to the annual cash retainer in the amounts shown in the following table. 
  

					
	 Annual Fees For Committee Chairs
	 
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	20,000	 
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	15,000	 
	 Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	10,000	 
	 Compliance Committee
	  	$	10,000	 

 The Presiding Director also receives $25,000 retainer paid in cash. Currently, the Presiding Director is also
the Chairman of the Corporate Governance Committee, and he does not receive any additional compensation for his position as Chairman of that committee. CryoLife pays all cash retainers on a monthly basis. 

Each committee member, other than the Presiding Director, also receives a fee, in addition to the annual cash retainer, in the amounts shown
in the following table. 
  

					
	 Annual Fees For Committee Members
	 
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	10,000	 
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	7,500	 
	 Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	5,000	 
	 Compliance Committee
	  	$	5,000	 

 Restricted Stock Grants 

Non-employee Directors of CryoLife are eligible for equity grants, which are generally made in May of
each year. The annual equity portion of non-employee Director compensation for fiscal 2018 was paid in the form of a grant of 4,638 shares of restricted stock. These shares were issued following the annual
meeting of stockholders and vest on the first anniversary of issuance. The size and terms of the annual equity grant are subject to annual reevaluation by the Compensation Committee. If a Director ceases to serve as a Director as a result of death
or disability or chooses not to stand for reelection following the completion of a full term of service, the equity grant will become fully vested on the date the Director ceases to be a member of the Board. If the Director ceases to be a member of
the Board for any other reason, and their equity grant has not fully vested as of the date of termination of Board service, the equity grant shall automatically be forfeited and cancelled as of the date of such termination of Board service. The
Compensation Committee, however, has discretion under CryoLife’s Equity and Cash Incentive Plan to cause the equity grant to fully vest for certain conditions.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, James L. Fox, the Chief Financial Officer of The BISYS Group, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Form 10-Q of
the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q"),
which this certification 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 or
78o(d)) and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: November 12, 2003

                                           /s/ James L. Fox
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           James L. Fox




                                       27
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: FRB, INC.,

 Debtor,

TJG/ SUMMITT DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION,

 Appellant,

 v.

JAMES F. RIGBY, Jr.,

 Appellee.

No. 12-60053

BAP No. 12-1013

MEMORANDUM*

In re: FRB, INC.,

 Debtor,

TJG/ SUMMITT DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION,

 Appellant,

 v.

No. 12-60054

BAP No. 12-1068

FILED

SEP 10 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
JAMES F. RIGBY, Jr.,

 Appellee.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Hollowell, Markell, and Jury, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 26, 2013

Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

TJG/Summitt Development Corporation (“Summitt”) appeals from the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) orders dismissing its appeals because of

Summitt’s corporate suspension and denying its motion for reconsideration after

the corporate powers were revived. 

Under the circumstances, the BAP correctly dismissed Summitt’s appeals. 

Traub Co. v. Coffee Break Serv., Inc., 425 P.2d 790, 792 (1967) (Under California

law, “a suspended corporation not shown to have been reinstated lacks the right or

capacity to defend an action or to appeal from an adverse decision.”). We need not

address whether the BAP abused its discretion in denying Summitt’s motion for

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b); the ultimate result

would be the same because Summitt’s claims cannot be sustained. 

2
We reject Summitt’s challenge to the bankruptcy court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the estate of FRB, Inc.,

(“FRB”) because FRB filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1334(e). 

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding that equitable

principles precluded Summitt, at this late stage and after active participation in the

bankruptcy proceedings, from contesting James F. Rigby’s authority to file the

petition on FRB’s behalf. See Rudebeck v. Sanderson (In re Nonpareil Consol.

Copper Co.), 227 F. 575, 578 (9th Cir. 1915) (“[T]hey could not stand idly by and

permit the administration of the estate to proceed in the bankruptcy court until

some step was taken that did not meet their approval. Whether the petition in

bankruptcy was filed by competent authority or not, it was the duty of the

petitioners to move against it promptly, if at all, and this they failed to do.”); see

also Beaty v. Selinger (In re Beaty), 306 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir. 2002) (reviewing

application of laches doctrine for an abuse of discretion).

To the extent the issue is not moot, we also affirm the order authorizing the

sale of the California property. 

AFFIRMED. 

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,127
<SECURITIES>                                    24,557
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,789
<INVENTORY>                                     18,422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,294
<PP&E>                                         136,035
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,587
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                     190,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   229,433
<SALES>                                         43,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,442
<CGS>                                           16,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   224
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,264
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,133
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

s0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144823

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144823

COA: 307786

Wayne CC: 10-008780-FH

JIMMIE LEE BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Omar Shareef JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5236

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 17, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Neal EVANS, Petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D17-3086

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018

Neal Evans, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

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

Lewis, Roberts, and Jay, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1293 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1293

  To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to prohibit a State from 
   counting a ballot cast in an election for Federal office which is 
         received by the State after the date of the election.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 2021

 Mr. Gohmert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to prohibit a State from 
   counting a ballot cast in an election for Federal office which is 
         received by the State after the date of the election.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING COUNTING BALLOTS RECEIVED AFTER DATE OF 
              ELECTION.

    (a) Prohibition.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 
(52 U.S.C. 21081 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 303 the 
following new section:

``SEC. 303A. PROHIBITING COUNTING OF BALLOTS RECEIVED AFTER DATE OF 
              ELECTION.

    ``(a) Prohibition.--A State may not count a ballot cast in an 
election for Federal office which is received by the State after the 
date of the election. For purposes of this subsection, a ballot shall 
be considered to be received by the State after the date of the 
election if the ballot is not received by the appropriate State or 
local election official prior to 12:01 a.m. on the day after the date 
of the election.
    ``(b) Exception for Absent Uniformed Services Voters and Overseas 
Citizens.--Subsection (a) does not apply with respect to any individual 
who is entitled to vote by absentee ballot under the Uniformed and 
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (52 U.S.C. 20301 et seq.).
    ``(c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to 
elections for Federal office held on or after the date of the enactment 
of this section.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment Relating to Enforcement.--Section 401 of 
such Act (52 U.S.C. 21111) is amended by striking ``and 303'' and 
inserting ``303, and 303A''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents of such Act is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 303 the 
following new item:

``Sec. 303A. Prohibiting counting of ballots received after date of 
                            election.''.
                                 <all>
```
**STATEMENT      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|         |                                                                                                                  |                             |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|    |                                                                                                             |                        |
|              | *By:*                                                                                                                 | */s/                  Seth Grae* |
|         | *Name:                Seth Grae*                                                                                      |
|         | *Title:                President, Chief Executive Officer and Director**(Principal                Executive Officer)* |

|         |                                                                                                 |                                     |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|    |                                                                                            |                                |
|              | *By:*                                                                                                | */s/                Larry Goldman*  |
|         | *Name:                Larry Goldman*                                                                 |
|         | *Title:                Acting Chief Financial Officer**(Principal                Financial Officer)* |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oliver DOLORES-CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50354

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S, Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kristin J. Kraus, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Law Office of Kris J. Kraus, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Oliver Dolores-Cruz appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 27-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. A review of the record indicates that this appeal is moot because Dolores-Cruz has fully served his custodial sentence and is not subject to a term of supervised release. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 14, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); *United States v. Palomba,*182 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 1999).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.