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

[768 NYS2d 672]

*1062Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), rendered June 4, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Indicted for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, defendant pleaded guilty to the latter count in exchange for, inter alia, a 4- to 8-year prison term. The charges stem from evidence that defendant possessed cocaine in a City of Albany motel room on the afternoon of January 4, 2002. On appeal, defendant argues that County Court erred in a particular suppression ruling, namely, permitting the People to introduce certain physical evidence seized from his motel room on the ground that same was derived from an illegal search. Significantly, however, defendant waived his right to appeal as part of his guilty plea, a waiver which encompasses the denial of this suppression motion *(see People v Wilkins,*294 AD2d 707, 708 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 703 [2002]; *People v Sayles,*292 AD2d 641, 642 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 681 [2002]; *People v Jennings,*280 AD2d 697, 697-698 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 920 [2001]).

In any event, the argument lacks merit. Testimony at the suppression hearing established that on the afternoon in question, defendant opened the door of his room to a motel manager, who was accompanied by police officers investigating alleged drug activity. According to the testimony of one of these officers, he was then able to observe, in plain view, marihuana on a table in the room.* Pictures depicting the motel room, including the table on which the marihuana was seen by this officer from his vantage point at the door, were introduced into evidence. Defendant claims that this officer’s testimony was “incredible and unworthy of belief.” County Court, however, specifically credited it in denying defendant’s suppression motion. Fundamentally, “credibility determinations made by the suppression court are to be accorded great deference” *(People v Esposito,*191 AD2d 746, 747 [1993], *lv denied*81 NY2d 885 [1993]). Here, since there was nothing inherently incredible or improbable about the officer’s testimony, there is no basis to disturb the court’s determination and denial of the motion was proper *(see e.g. People v Gonzalez,*232 AD2d 231 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 923*1063[1996]; *People v Maylor,*184 AD2d 371 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 906 [1992]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 Notably, defendant did not deny during his hearing testimony that there was marihuana on a table in the motel room that day, but claimed that it was located on a table unobservable by the officer from the doorway.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1239]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement 
Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in In 
re HBSA Industries, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 91-12864/12866/12868/12869/
12871/12872, was lodged on December 29, 1997 in the United States 
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York.
    The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement resolves the United 
States' claim, pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 
9607, for response costs incurred by EPA at the Chase Interiors, Inc., 
Superfund Site (``the Site'') in Falconer, New York. Under the 
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, the United States will receive 
$126,500 in reimbursement of response costs incurred by EPA at the 
Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. Comments should be 
addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 
20530, and should refer to In re HBSA Industries, Inc., et al., DOJ 
Ref. #90-11-3-1432.
    The proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement may be examined 
at the office of the United States Attorney, Federal Center, 138 
Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York; the Region II Office of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York; and 
at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent 
decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree 
Library. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and 
enclose a check made payable to the Consent Decree Library in the 
amount of $3.00 (25 cents per page reproduction costs).
Bruce S. Gelber,
Deputy Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-1239 Filed 1-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
No. 12-7141.

#### Daly *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00404

- CV

In re Robert Sean Mosley

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BURNET COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a)

.

Relator ’ s motion for eme rgency relief and stay pending mandamus is also denied.

_______________________ ___________________

Edward Smith , Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Filed: August 26 , 202 1
#### Elizabeth and Jose PEREZ, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-0739

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 10, 2017

L.T. NO.: 15-8643

Dismissed.
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|Wyoming Natural Gas % of Total Electric Utility Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|Wyoming Natural Gas % of Total Electric Utility Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.00   | 0.01   | 0.00  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0.04   | 0.05   | 0.07   | 0.05   | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.03   | 0.02   | 0.02  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.01   | 0.02   | 0.01   | 0.02   | 0.03  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0.05   | 0.07   | 0.09   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Colombia (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Colombia (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 5,101  | 6,518 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,528  | 0      | 4,305  | 15,396 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131938 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MICHELLE COLUMBUS, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 131938 

 COA: 267957 

Ingham CC: 04-001440-NO

THOMAS L. MOORE, d/b/a SOUTHERN 

MICHIGAN PAINT & QUARTER HORSE 

AUCTION COMPANY, and J. R. COVELL,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1218 

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. 

December 28, 2006 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT
      13.2




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 Annual Report of Dynasty Gaming Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Billings, the
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes
      of
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(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.






**Dynasty
                Gaming Inc.**Date:
                June 29, 2007
            
            
            
            */s/
                Mark Billings*
              Mark
                BillingsChief
                  Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer and Principal Financial
                  Officer) and Corporate Secretary
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 10

                      SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN

      The Corporation's Management Incentive Plan is an informal plan pursuant
to which the Compensation Committee may grant on an annual basis cash awards
equal to a percentage of an officer's or other key employee's fiscal year base
salary based on the extent to which actual earnings of the Corporation or the
relevant business unit during a fiscal year exceed a minimum earnings threshold
established by the Compensation Committee for such fiscal year. The percentage
of base salary an individual may be awarded under the plan is determined by the
Compensation Committee based on the individual's level of responsibility, with a
maximum cash award of up to 50% of base salary or greater if fiscal year
earnings of the Corporation or relevant business unit equal or exceed,
respectively, the target earnings level established by the Compensation
Committee for that fiscal year. The amount of any bonus under the plan's formula
is subject to adjustment based on the profitability of the Corporation or the
relevant business unit and other factors as determined by the Compensation
Committee in its discretion.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO. 09
- 20
- 00051
- CV

__________________ JIMMY RELAFORD AND D O NICE RELAFORD, Appellants
V. THE LACAZE FAMILY TRUST, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 134776

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
The tria l court signed a final judgment on February 10, 2020. Appellants filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a brief. On August 17, 2020, we notified the parties that the reporter’s record had not been filed because the reporter’s fee had not been paid and that the appeal would be submitted on the clerk’s record alone unless payment arrangements were made with the court reporter or a motion explaining the need for additional time to file the record were filed. On September 18, 2020, we notified the parties that the Court had received a notice from the court2 reporter that, due to A ppellants’ failure to pay for the record, no reporter’s record had been filed, and we informed the parties that the case was submitted on the clerk’s record alone and A ppellants’ br ief was due on or before October 19, 2020. On September 22, 2020, the reporter’s record was filed, and on October 21, 2020, we notified the parties that A ppellants’ motion for extension of time to file their brief was granted and A ppellants’ brief was due on November 23, 2020. On November 24, 2020, we notified the parties that the A ppellants’ brief was past due and warned that the cause would be submitted to the Court on the record alone on December 4, 2020 and without briefs, which could result in dismiss al for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b)

. Appellant s ha ve not filed a brief. In the absence of a brief assigning error for appellate review, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).
APPEAL DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Submitted on January 27 , 2021 Opinion Delivered February 4, 2021 Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History: Annual                                             
|View History: Annual                                             
|View History:                                                    
|                                                                 
|No chart available.                                              
|No chart available.                                              
|                                                                 
|                                                                 
|Wyoming Natural Gas International Deliveries (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|U.S. Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|U.S. Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           |           |           |           | 4,013,040 | 4,124,745 | 4,168,048
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 4,236,280 | 4,357,252 | 4,409,699 | 4,464,906 | 4,533,905 | 4,636,500 | 4,720,227 | 4,761,409 | 5,044,497 | 5,010,189
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 5,010,817 | 4,996,446 | 5,064,384 | 5,152,177 | 5,139,949 | 5,198,028 | 5,273,379 | 5,308,785 | 5,444,335 | 5,322,332
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5,301,576 | 5,319,817 | 5,356,397 | 5,372,522 | 5,413,546 | 5,453,627 | 5,474,701 | 5,499,932 | 5,518,358 | 5,551,599
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5,627,762 | 5,613,615 | 5,619,484 |           |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/28/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 7/31/2024