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

[768 NYS2d 610]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 25, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.

The court was not obligated, sua sponte, to order a psychiatric examination of defendant since there was no reasonable ground to believe that he was unable to understand the proceedings or to assist in his defense *(see Pate v Robinson,*383 US 375 [1966]; *People v Tortorici,*92 NY2d 757 [1999], *cert denied*528 US 834 [1999]; *People v Morgan,*87 NY2d 878 [1995]). When defendant moved to withdraw his plea and raised, among other things, his mental condition, the court conducted an extensive inquiry of defendant *(see People v Bangert, 22*NY2d 799 [1968]) to determine whether his purported mental impairment affected the voluntariness of his plea. The record supports the court’s denial of the motion since, during the plea colloquy, defendant, *330who had pleaded guilty on several prior occasions, was rational and coherent, and unequivocally assured the court that he fully comprehended the meaning of his plea and that he was pleading guilty of his own free will. Although, in his plea withdrawal motion, defendant maintained that he had not taken his psychiatric medication the night before he pleaded guilty, the court’s firsthand assessment of defendant’s lucidity at the time of the plea established the plea’s voluntariness *(see People v Alexander,*97 NY2d 482 [2002]; *People v Rodriguez,*302 AD2d 317 [2003], *lv denied*99 NY2d 657 [2003]).

In denying the plea withdrawal motion, the court accorded defendant a full opportunity to be heard and properly rejected his conclusory and unfounded claim that his attorney coerced him into pleading guilty. There was no conflict of interest requiring assignment of new counsel because defendant’s attorney did not make any statements that were materially adverse to his client’s position *(see Cuyler v Sullivan,*446 US 335, 348-350 [1980]; *People v Benitez,*290 AD2d 363 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 673 [2002]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Rosenberger, Williams and Friedman, JJ.
|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                              
|View History:                                               
|                                                            
|Miami, FL Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|Miami, FL Liquefied Natural Gas Exports (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      | 100    | 22     | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 3      | 46     | 26     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 00203
- CR

André Webb , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 403RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- DC
- 19
- 301919 , THE HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due July 6, 2022 . On counsel’s
motion s , the time for filing was extended to O ctober 6, 2022 . Appellant’s counsel has now filed

a fourth motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for fi l ing appellant’s brief. We grant the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than October 31,
2022 . No further extension of time will be grante d and failure to comply with this order will
result in the referral of this c a se to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is ordered on October 13, 2022

.

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Do Not Publish
No. 12-8394.

#### Barnett *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
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 Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph
M. Ramos, Jr., in my capacity as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period
covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for the
period covered by the Report.

|                                                       |  |                           
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------
|/s/ Joseph
  M. Ramos, Jr.                             |  | Dated:
  November 14, 2007
|                                                       |  |                           
|Joseph M.
  Ramos, Jr.                                 |  |                           
|Executive
  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  |                           
|(principal financial and accounting officer)           |  |                           

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 to Siebert Financial Corp. and will be retained by
Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

19

---
No. 85-6735.

#### Vannerson et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                               
|                                                                                            
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Netherlands (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Netherlands (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 6.35   | 6.61   | 4.78  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.51   | 7.24   | 12.50  | 7.61   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Lithuania (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Lithuania (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 3.84   | --     | 4.50  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.17   | 6.99   | 11.14  | 6.54   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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:                                                       
|                                                                    
|Kansas Natural Gas Percentage Total Commercial Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|Kansas Natural Gas Percentage Total Commercial 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 1.96   | 1.81   | 1.75   | 1.81   | 1.29   | 1.39   | 1.28  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1.27   | 1.24   | 1.23   | 1.19   | 1.18   | 0.99   | 0.97   | 1.01   | 1.06   | 1.04  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1.02   | 1.02   | 0.88   | 1.01   | 1.04   | 1.16   | 1.12   | 1.09   | 1.15   | 1.18  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1.26   | 1.25   | 1.31   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       4,462,000
<SECURITIES>                               327,920,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              104,802,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,601,000
<INVENTORY>                                 14,264,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                     132,362,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              48,183,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             578,234,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     42,793,000
<COMMON>                                       911,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 149,458,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               578,234,000
<SALES>                                     25,845,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           257,812,000
<CGS>                                       24,906,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              242,758,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,852,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                50,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,025,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,127,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,197,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,930,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,930,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.26
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-6733.

#### In re Dunbar.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis [ante,*p. 1084] denied.
Matt LaPenta (Abt Associates) spoke with Kip Howl ett (Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association) on

1/04/2011.

I just had a phone conversation with Kip Howlett wi th regards to my laminated products production methodology. I described my overall approach to him for I was trying to do and then asked him his opinion about some of my assumptions and asked for some input on some missing assumptions. Here is

what I learned:

(1) $0.45 cents seemed to be a reasonable number to him for average hardwood veneer prices (2) He agreed that there is no other use for hardwood veneer other than gluing to a platform (3) He agreed my overall approach made sense (4) He told me that 30% of veneer can assume to be wasted (5) He suggested that assuming front and back veneers was reasonable, but then later he said that back veneers may be less common in furniture

Also, he said that current HWPW production is about 60% off from 2007 and current capacity utilization is about 45%. He thought that for HWPW, excluding engineered wood flooring, that domestic laminated products would be about 10-15% of HWPW production plus imports.
|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                          
|View History:                                                                           
|                                                                                        
|Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to China (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to China (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 17,763 | 17,544 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Martha Sanchez, Respondent, v Mitsui Fudosan America, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[48 NYS3d 578]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered February 8, 2016, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established entitlement to judgment as a matter *492of law in this action where plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she slipped on a floor that was negligently waxed. Defendants submitted evidence showing that the floor was last waxed approximately three months before plaintiff’s fall *(see e.g. Aguilar v Transworld Maintenance Servs.,*267 AD2d 85 [1st Dept 1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 762 [2000]). In opposition, plaintiff raised triable issues as to whether “a dangerous residue of wax was present” *(Ullman v Cohn,*248 AD2d 200, 200 [1st Dept 1998]). She stated that after she fell, there was wax on her hands and, when she stepped on the waxy area, she saw a “scuff mark” running through a circular area, creating a “sunken stripe through the wax.” Plaintiff slid her foot back and forth on the circular patch, and felt the “accumulated, raised, substance on the floor” move with the pressure of her foot, and these actions were captured on the building’s security footage.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.