alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Diaz, Also Known as Ricardo Morales, Also Known as Samuel Ramos, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 36]

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered September 30, 1999, as amended July 31, 2000, and October 30, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 3 to 9 years and 5 to 15 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence of 5 to 15 years imposed on the robbery in the first degree conviction and imposing a sentence of 5 to 10 years on that conviction, and otherwise affirmed.

Since defendant did not move to withdraw his plea, and since this case does not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662*301[1988]), his challenge to the validity of his robbery plea is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would conclude that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary and that there was nothing in the plea allocution that cast significant doubt on his guilt *(People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725 [1995]; *see also People v McGowen,*42 NY2d 905 [1977]).

Defendant was originally sentenced to a term of 5 to 10 years for the crime of robbery in the first degree, which was committed in July 1995. He later moved to set aside the sentence as illegal on the basis that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender when in fact he was a first felony offender. The court improperly granted defendant’s motion and resentenced him to a term of 5 to 15 years under the mistaken impression that because the crime was committed prior to the 1995 sentencing revisions, the minimum term of incarceration was to be set at one third of the maximum. However, because a firearm was displayed during the commission of the crime, the robbery in the first degree count was an armed felony offense (CPL 1.20 [41]), and the 5 to 10 year sentence that was originally imposed was legal as the court was authorized to impose a minimum term that was between one third and one half of the maximum sentence. Therefore, as the People concede, the court lacked the authority to resentence defendant to a term of 5 to 15 years (CPL 430.10). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### Mitchel BECK and John Vokiener, Copartners Trading as Mitchel Beck Company, Appellants, v. Steamship VIZCAYA, etc., and all persons claiming any interest therein, and Compania Anonima Maritima Union.

No. 10157.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 20, 1950.

Decided June 29, 1950.

Thomas E. Byrne, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Krusen, Evans & Shaw, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

Harrison G. Kildare, Philadelphia, Pa. (Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., Thomas F. Mount, Joseph W. Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the consignees of a cargo of bags of nuts from a decree *943which awarded them some but not all of the damages they sought against a carrier. The matter was thoroughly discussed in a full opinion by the court below. D.C.E.D. Pa.1949, 88 F.Supp. 818. We do not feel that we can add anything helpful to that discussion and so affirm on that opinion.

The decree of the District Court will be affirmed.
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|Nebraska Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Nebraska Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1960's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0.14   | 0.15   | 0.15  
|1970's                                                                                                                            | 0.16   | 0.16   | 0.18   | 0.19   | 0.24   | 0.32   | 0.42   | 0.57   | 0.73   | 1.10  
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 1.36   | 1.81   | 2.35   | 2.56   | 2.55   | 2.51   | 2.40   | 2.20   | 1.77   | 1.86  
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1.70   | 1.43   | 1.54   | 1.79   | 1.34   | 1.33   | 2.10   | 2.54   | 2.01   | 1.96  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2.81   | 3.56   | NA     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
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

OLIVIA VARGAS-VILLA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-74024

Agency No. A092-880-579

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 

Olivia Vargas-Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

denial of a motion to reopen, Granados-Oseguera v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1011,

FILED

SEP 27 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-74024

1014 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review. The

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Vargas-Villa’s motion to

reopen due to her lack of prima facie eligibility for relief from removal because her

failure to depart the United States in accordance with her grant of voluntary

departure rendered her statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and

adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1); see also Granados-Oseguera,

546 F.3d at 1015 (“[Where the] motion to reopen was filed after the period for

voluntary departure had elapsed . . . the BIA was not simply correct to deny the

motion; it was compelled to do so by the operation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).”). 

Our case law forecloses Vargas-Villa’s contention that her claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel surmounts the voluntary departure bar. See id. at 1016

(“Even assuming . . . ineffective assistance of counsel, the statutory bars on relief

would nonetheless control . . . .”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|Utah Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|Utah 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 31,329 | 32,637 | 32,966
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 34,697 | 35,627 | 36,145 | 37,816 | 39,183 | 40,101 | 40,107 | 40,689 | 42,054 | 43,861
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 47,201 | 47,477 | 50,202 | 51,063 | 51,503 | 55,174 | 55,821 | 57,741 | 59,502 | 60,781
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 61,976 | 62,885 | 63,383 | 64,114 | 65,134 | 66,143 | 66,987 | 67,926 | 69,191 | 70,275
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 71,022 | 71,969 | 73,119 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1574 Referred in House (RFH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1574

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 1993

             Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail Route in the 
              State of New Jersey, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 6 of 
Public Law 100-515 (16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended by striking 
``$250,000'' and inserting in lieu thereof, ``$2,500,000''.

            Passed the Senate November 20 (legislative day, November 
      2), 1993.

            Attest:

                                             WALTER J. STEWART,

                                                             Secretary.
```
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Re-Exports to United Kingdom (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Re-Exports to United Kingdom (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 9,584  | 2,862  | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 305   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 96 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27558-27559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13172]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of the Census.
    Title: Annual Retail Trade Report.
    Form Number(s): B-151, B-151-A, B-151D, B-153, B-153D.
    Agency Approval Number: 0607-0013.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Burden: 9,817 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 23,700.
    Avg Hours Per Response: 25 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: The Bureau of the Census conducts the Annual Retail 
Trade Survey to collect annual totals of sales, inventories, inventory 
valuation methods, purchases, and accounts receivable balances from a 
sample of retail establishments in the United States. The estimates 
compiled from this survey are critical to the accurate measurement of 
total economic activity and are used in computing such indicators of 
economic well-being as the Gross Domestic Product and the National 
Income and Product Accounts. Survey results also provide valuable 
information for economic policy decisions and actions by the government 
and are widely used by private businesses, trade organizations, 
professional associations, and others for market research and analysis.
    This request for revision informs OMB of a recent change in sample 
design. This redesign has increased the number of respondents by about 
3,000, while decreasing, on average, the number of data requests to 
each respondent.

[[Page 27559]]

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    Legal Authority: Title 13, Sections 182, 224, and 225.
    OMB Desk Officer: Nancy Kirkendall, (202) 395-7313.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent on or before June 18, 1998 to Nancy 
Kirkendall, OMB Desk Officer, room 10201, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: May 13, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 98-13172 Filed 5-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                             192
<SECURITIES>                                 1,660,361
<RECEIVABLES>                                  470,391
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,130,944
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,130,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,083,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,130,947
<SALES>                                      1,562,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,582,452
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,698
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,383,754
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,383,754
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,383,754
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .105
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .105


</TABLE>
Exhibit
      10.4

    


    Amendment
      to Employment Agreement between 

    Slavie
      Federal Savings Bank and Sophie T. Wittelsberger 

    


    In
      January 2006, the compensation committee of the board of directors increased
      Mrs. Wittelsberger’s annual compensation, effective January 1, 2006, to $69,000
      per year. In January 2006, the compensation committee of the board of directors
      also determined that Mrs. Wittelsberger was entitled to a bonus of $5,280 for
      service during 2005.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify pursuant to § 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
      Registrant.






/s/
      Gysle R. Shellum
              
              April
      8, 2009Gysle
      R. ShellumChief
      Financial Officer
                Petroleum
      Development Corporation
                Managing
      General Partner




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Exhibit 10.3(b)


       Schedule of Warrant (refinancings after October 31, 2005) Issued by
                NCT Group, Inc. to Carole Salkind on May 10, 2006


                     Expiration                                      Shares
    Grant Date          Date             Exercise Price              Granted
    ----------          ----             --------------              -------
     05/10/06         05/10/11        Greater of: (i)$0.0020;      36,750,000
                                      or (ii) the par value of
                                      NCT Group, Inc.
                                      common stock on the
                                      date of exercise