alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

INGRID ANGGRAINI RUMAGIT; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70050

Agency Nos. A096-053-952

 A096-053-953

 A096-053-954

 A096-053-955

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ingrid Anggraini Rumagit and her family, natives and citizens of Indonesia,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying

their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi

FILED

SEP 18 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70050

v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part

the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion

to reopen because they did not establish changed circumstances in Indonesia to

qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 989-90. Further, we reject petitioners’

contention that the BIA’s decision was insufficient. See id. at 990 (BIA need not

“write an exegesis on every contention,” just “consider the issues raised, and

announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive

that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted”) (internal quotations and

citation omitted).

Despite our prior decision, Rumagit v. Mukasey, No. 05-71388, 2008 WL

4429530 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2008), in which the court applied the disfavored group

analysis to Rumagit’s withholding of removal claim and rejected it, petitioners also

contend their case should be reopened, based on a change in law, for assessment of

Rumagit’s withholding of removal claim under the disfavored group analysis. We

lack jurisdiction to review this contention because petitioners did not raise it to the

BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160449

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Larry LEWIS v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-01484-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: April 9, 2018 Closed: June 14, 2018

Certiorari - Denied.
Michael Lewis-Steven JOHNS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1356

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 8, 2018

Michael Lewis-Steven Johns, Malone, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the December 6, 2017 order denying motion for postconviction relief rendered in Case No. 2013-CF-390, in the Circuit Court in and for Citrus County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
|   | **Exhibit 32.1** |
|--------|------------------|

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Grayson Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”), we, Jacky K. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Blake M. Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

 

|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|   | By:  /s/ Jacky K. Anderson | Date:  August 14, 2009 |
|--------|----------------------------|------------------------|

|   | Jacky K. Anderson |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

 

 

|   | By:  /s/ Blake M. Edwards | Date:  August 14, 2009 |
|--------|---------------------------|------------------------|

|   | Blake M. Edwards |
|--------|------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
MCKELVEY MECHANICAL, INC., and Gregory Derrick Moore v. Michael DUEY

1150770

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Affirmed.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40272 Conference Calendar

__________________ DON WAYNE BASEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LESLIE W. WOODS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CV-20

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). A sua sponte dismissal by the district court pursuant to Rule 41(b) must be upheld on appeal unless the court determines that the district court abused its discretion in choosing that sanction. McNeal v. Papasan , 842 F.2d 787, 789-90No. 95-40272 -2- (5th Cir. 1988). However, the scope of the district court's discretion is narrow when a statute of limitations would bar reprosecution of a suit dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA , 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992). As there is no federal statute of limitations for § 1983 actions, the federal courts borrow the forum state's general personal injury limitations period, Henson-El v. Rogers , 923 F.2d 51, 52 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 501 U.S. 1235 (1991), which in this case is two years. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003 (West 1994). The district court dismissed Don Wayne Basey's action after Basey did not comply with a previous district court order directing Basey to obtain and send to the district court's clerk's office certification of his inmate account balance for determination of Basey's in forma pauperis status. The district court had previously warned Basey that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of Basey's action. The dismissal was without prejudice. Additionally, as Basey's claims were based on events which occurred on or about November 1, 1994, or after that date, the statute of limitations on Basey's claims will not run until approximately November 1, 1996. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Basey's action. Basey's motions for production of documents, for admission of policies into evidence, and to appear in appellate court are DENIED as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. MOTIONS DENIED.
Jonathan Chase GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3878

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Jonathan Chase Green, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6238 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6238

To require the Secretary of State to report a Government Accountability 
 Office High Risk List for weaknesses in the department's information 
   technology acquisitions and operations, human capital management, 
 Federal real property, and personal security clearance of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 6, 2023

  Mr. Baird introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of State to report a Government Accountability 
 Office High Risk List for weaknesses in the department's information 
   technology acquisitions and operations, human capital management, 
 Federal real property, and personal security clearance of the United 
                                States.

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

SECTION 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF GAO HIGH RISK LIST RECOMMENDATIONS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary shall implement the Government 
Accountability Office's High Risk List recommendations as applicable to 
the Department of State for--
            (1) improving the management of information technology 
        acquisitions and operations;
            (2) improving strategic human capital management;
            (3) managing Federal real property;
            (4) ensuring the cybersecurity of the United States; and
            (5) managing Government-wide personnel security clearance 
        process.
    (b) Report.--Within 90 days of the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary shall report to the appropriate congressional committees 
the Department of States progress in implementing all of the Government 
Accountability Office's High Risk List recommendations as applicable to 
the Department of State mentioned in subsection (a).
    (c) Definitions.--
            (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
        ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee on 
        Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and the 
        Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
            (2) High risk list.--The term ``High Risk List'' refers to 
        GAO-08-751, the April 20, 2023, report by the Government 
        Accountability Office titled ``High-Risk Series: Efforts Made 
        to Achieve Progress Need to Be Maintained and Expanded to Fully 
        Address All Areas''.
                                 <all>
```
# ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET Attachment Number010 Attachment Name Attachment 10CaCoPbSrTiWO ProcessFlow 

# Associated PMN Section Number Pt.2,Sec.A, 1d. (#3) Does notcontainCBI



# ReportNumber CONSI 10317786855351-4o 

### 00 ! "00

000

z C. 

### O 0 

# ""o 00

__ _ _ ___U 

### 461 00 

# 2 ~~ 4 - 0 00 (k,04 00 00 0 x l 0~~~~~I

_________________ 00

# o0 000 0 

## ~ ~~~~~ -4___________________ 

### P cn4 - O 

# 4

-oo 

### 0 

## ~ c 0 I 

### 0 c tn +JC0 

## m 

## ~ W)' u 

# SC W -4cn 

# 4 4 0_0 0 00 m0 0 > 0. 

### uu 00 

## ~o * 0O 0O 0k 0 0 C /) 40 cn0 C 

### -0o 

## o~S

0~ CZ > (A G0 L60 o 0 

## n
_ 

## 00" 0 0 " 0 0 0 c so 0 - \ 

## 02 4- 2- 64 0..!-. " 0 k



## o o kc 

## ~ ' U(. 

## Ul 0 

### 40 0 

## *5 -*.d

0 00 

### o 0 n 

## o 0
0 0 0

### 00 00 0 u 0

-C4CL9. '

cnC c 4- 4

### I0 A ' 

# ont 

# E

. . u*L.'2 - 

## 'OC
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7450
LEWIS E. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER, Chairman, Virginia Parole Board, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-786-AM) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Tucker , No. CA-97-786-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 07/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
Astrid SHIKE v. John KAISER, Judith Kaiser, and Amanda Kaiser

2160305

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Kenneth Ray HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Motsumi MOJA, Doctor for C.C.S., Defendant-Appellee, and Nurse Hurst, RN/LPN, Defendant.

No. 17-6240

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Kenneth Ray Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Grace Morse-McNelis, RAWLS, MCNEL-IS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*110Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Ray Hill appeals the district court’s order dismissing Hill’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action and denying as futile Hill’s motions to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and deny Hill’s motion to appoint counsel. *Hill v.*Moja, No. 2:13-cv-00287-HCM-LRL (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 13, 2017, entered Feb. 14, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Osvaldo AGUILAR-AGUILAR, also known as Osvaldo Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40552 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Osvaldo Aguilar-Aguilar, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Osvaldo Aguilar-Aguilar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Aguilar-Aguilar has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Aguilar-Aguilar’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE0990

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Allen L. PENOYER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Julie JONES, Secretary, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3335

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

LaROSE, C.J., and WALLACE and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Carlos ZACARIAS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Mercedes LOIRA f/k/a Mercedes Zacarias, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0722

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Joseph I. DUCHMAN, Appellant, v. Rener Da CUNHA, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 3D17-1356 3D17-1005

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018. Rehearing Denied May 22, 2018

The Bernstein Law Firm, Jason B. Pear and Michael I. Bernstein ; Therrel Baisden, P.A., and Jonathan Feuerman, for appellant.

Boldt Law Firm, P.A., Mario R. Giommoni and Kimberly L. Boldt (Boca Raton); Hoffman & Hoffman, P.A., Teresa Abood Hoffman, Sean C. Langton, Maggie A. Brito, and John D. Hoffman ; Dorot & Bensimon, P.L., and Datan Dorot, for appellees.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Dows v. Nike, Inc.*, 846 So.2d 595, 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding: "Settlement agreements are not considered final when the record establishes the parties' intent to take further action prior to the completion of a binding agreement. Where essential terms of an agreement remain open, and subject to future negotiation, there can be no enforceable contract.") (citing *Williams v. Ingram*, 605 So.2d 890, 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) and *Suggs v. Defranco's, Inc.*, 626 So.2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) ).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Michael NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10032

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED OCTOBER 2, 2017

Ross Pearson, Assistant U.S., DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Carolyn Phillips, Esquire, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Robert Michael Nunez, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Michael Nunez appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Nunez’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Nunez the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In connection  with the Annual Report of Natural Gas Services  Group,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2004, as filed
with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Stephen C.
Taylor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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/Stephen C. Taylor
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Stephen C. Taylor
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                                         March 29, 2005
EXHIBIT 32



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



The undersigned hereby certify that the annual report on Form 10-K of Insight Communications Company, Inc. (the Registrant) for the year ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Michael S. WillnerMichael S. WillnerVice Chairman, President andChief Executive OfficerMarch 3, 2004/s/ John AbbotJohn AbbotSenior Vice President andChief Financial OfficerMarch 3, 2004
Ronald N. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0673

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 3, 2018

Ronald N. Johnson, pro se, Appellant.

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

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Wetherell, Ray, and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1346 

KA 11-01632 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CEDRICK K. BRADBERRY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.

Sperrazza, J.), rendered July 1, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled

substance in the fifth degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in

the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31). Contrary to defendant’s

contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and

intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver forecloses any

challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see id. at

255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v

Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: December 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court