alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
495 P.2d 1348

#### In the Matter of the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus of Alex Gortarez. Alex GORTAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Arizona ex rel. Frank A. EYMAN, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1159.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

April 25, 1972.

Alex Gortarez, Florence, in pro per.

Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Howard L. Fell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court alleging that he was being illegally restrained because of respondent’s misinterpretation of his sentence.

On March 1, 1967, while servng an eight to ten year prison term for a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon, the appellant was convicted of three counts of robbery and two counts of kidnapping. He contended in his petition that the kidnapping and robbery counts were to run concurrently and not consecutively. The trial court denied the writ from which denial the appellant has lodged this appeal.

Appellant contends that his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should have been granted since (1) the trial court erred in denying the writ prior to the time the State had responded; (2) he is being denied equal protection of the laws as guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States since a prisoner named Bobby Dean White was granted a writ of habeas corpus when he contended that his sentences were to run concurrently and not consecutively and (3) the sentence imposed upon him by the court is ambiguous and should be resolved in his favor by making the sentences for kidnapping and robbery run concurrently with each other.

All of appellant’s contentions are without merit. In State v. Gortarez, 103 Ariz. 339, 442 P.2d 83 (1968) the Arizona Supreme Court decided the ambiguity of the sentence adversely to the appellant. We did the same in Gortarez v. State, 12 Ariz.App. 206, 469 P.2d 98 (1970). The issue has already been litigated twice in the appellate courts and we believe that is enough. The trial court was correct in denying the writ of habeas corpus in view of the fact that State v. Gortarez, supra, and Gortarez v. State, supra, had already been decided at *142the time the subject petition was filed. It was not necessary for the trial court to wait for any response from the State before denying the petition.

There is no similarity between the sentences imposed upon Bobby Dean White and those imposed upon appellant.

Affirmed.
No. 12-112.

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

C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner Richard Roe for leave to file supplemental brief under seal granted. Motion of respondent John Doe for leave to file brief in opposition under seal granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to file brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted. Certio-rari denied.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 Date: August 8, 2006
    
    /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.Anthony F. Earley, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief ExecutiveOfficer ofMichigan Consolidated Gas Company
  22
#### In the Matter of Feysher C., an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Evelyn G., Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

[52 NYS3d 325]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered November 19, 2015, which, inter alia, granted the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon respon*510dent New York City Housing Authority, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding as against the Housing Authority dismissed.

Petitioner failed to establish any of the relevant statutory factors that would warrant leave to serve a late notice of claim (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; *Matter of Kelley v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*76 AD3d 824 [1st Dept 2010]). Petitioner’s service of a notice of claim on the City of New York does not excuse her failure to serve the Housing Authority within the statutory period *(see Arias v New York City Hous. Auth.,*40 AD3d 298 [1st Dept 2007]). The actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim, acquired by the City of New York, through the notice of claim and General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing, cannot be imputed onto the Housing Authority *(see Seif v City of New York,*218 AD2d 595, 596 [1st Dept 1995]). Furthermore, there has been no showing that a defense on the merits would not be prejudiced by the over 10-month delay in service (see *Matter of Casale v City of New York,*95 AD3d 744, 745 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
2015-0328.

#### Mace v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2014-1951. On appellants’ application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
2017-0484.

#### State v. Moore.

Erie App. No. E-16-030, 2017-Ohio-673. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. 8.02. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Neill and DeWine, JJ., dissent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oscar Vargas, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 430]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murphy, J.), imposed November 30, 2015, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; *People v Pacheco,*138 AD3d 1035 [2016]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Dillon, Sgroi, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2 Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(b) and section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C. Section 1350   I, Ronald E. Schutz, Chief Financial Officer of HuntMountain Resources, certify that:   1. This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of HuntMountain Resources 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HuntMountain Resources.  Date: November 8, 2006 /s/ Ronald E. Schutz ________________________________ Ronald E. Schutz, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32



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 Mines Management, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Glenn M. Dobbs



Glenn M. Dobbs

Chief Executive Officer

August 11, 2005





/s/ James H. Moore



James H. Moore

Chief Financial Officer

Ausgust 11 , 2005









A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mines Management, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29247-29248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14033]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-985-0777-66; WY-142430]


Proposed Lease of Public Lands Under the Recreation and Public 
Purposes Act in Washakie County, Wyoming, Bighorn Basin Resource Area

ACTION: Noticeof Realty Action; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land management, Worland District, published a 
notice in the Federal Register of April 27, 1998, regarding the 
proposed lease of public lands under the provisions of the Recreation 
and Public Purposes Act, as amended. The notice contained in incorrect 
U.S.C. citation and an incorrect legal description.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bureau of Land Management, Worland District Office, Steven R. Till, 
Realty Specialist, P.O. Box 119, Worland,

[[Page 29248]]

Wyoming 82401-0119, or telephone (307) 347-5100.

Correction

    In the Federal Register issue of April 27, 1998 in FR Doc. 98-
11067, on page 20643, in the third column, correct the Summary caption 
to read:

SUMMARY: The following public lands near the community of Worland, 
Washakie County, Wyoming, have been examined and found suitable for 
classification for lease under the provisions of the Recreation and 
Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 United States Code 869 et seq.). 
The Washakie County Fair Board proposes to use the lands for an 
Olympic-style cross-country horse track and associated jumping 
facilities.

Sixth Principal Meridian

T. 48 N., R. 93 W.
    Section 8, S\1/2\SE\1/4\SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, NE\1/4\SE\1/4\
    Section 9, E\1/2\W\1/2\SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, E\1/4\SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, 
NW\1/4\SW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, W\1/2\NW\1/4\NW\1/
4\SE\1/4\, E\1/2\NE\1/4\NE\1/4\SW\1/4\.

    Containing 127.5 acres more or less.

    Dated: May 13, 1998.
David Atkins,
Bighorn Basin Assistant Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-14033 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P-M
#### Com. v. Williams

11/02/2015

138 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 394
No. 12-8295.

#### Huezo *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1853

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to extend

Federal assistance programs related to educational television programming, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 10 (legislative day, JANUARY 25), 1994

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. PELL, Mr. DODD, Mr. SIMON,

Mr. WELLSTONE, and Mr. BINGAMAN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and

Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

of 1965 to extend Federal assistance programs related

to educational television programming, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ready To Learn Reau5 thorization Act of 1994’’.
2

•S 1853 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.

2 Section 4702(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary

3 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 3161a(b)(1)) is amend4 ed by striking ‘‘, nongovernmental’’.

5 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

6 Section 4706(a) of the Elementary and Secondary

7 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 3161e(a)) is amend8 ed—

9 (1) by striking ‘‘$25,000,000 for fiscal year

10 1993’’ and inserting ‘‘$50,000,000 for fiscal year

11 1995’’; and

12 (2) by striking ‘‘for fiscal year 1994.’’ and in13 serting ‘‘for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997.’’.

Æ
#### In the Matter of James Conway, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Depart*827ment of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[630 NYS2d 264]

—Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered August 29, 1994 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as moot.

In January 1994, petitioner, while incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility in Sullivan County, applied for temporary work release. His initial application was denied by the Temporary Release Committee on the ground that he presented a risk to the community in light of the nature of his offense (murder in the second degree). The denial was affirmed on administrative review on the basis that, in the interim, petitioner had become statutorily ineligible for temporary release. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court treated respondents’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action as an application to dismiss on the ground of mootness and granted respondents’ motion.

Petitioner appeals. We affirm for the reasons set forth in our recent decision in *Matter of McCormack v Posillico*(213 AD2d 913). In that case, we upheld a determination which denied an inmate participation in a temporary work release program based on the prohibition contained in the recent amendment (L 1994, ch 60, § 42) to Correction Law § 851 (2), namely, that no person under sentence for certain offenses, including murder in the second degree, shall be eligible to participate in a work release program. There, as here, the petitioner was serving a sentence for a homicide offense and had not entered a work release program prior to April 1, 1994, the effective date *(see,*L 1994, ch 60, § 46) of the amendment under challenge here. Therefore, petitioner in this case was ineligible to enter the program. Furthermore, in *McCormack*we rejected the same ex post facto argument raised by petitioner on this appeal.

Mikoll, White, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
|                                                                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                     
|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 United Arab Emirates (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                     
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to United Arab Emirates (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | 4.18   | 3.87   | 3.46   | 3.99  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.91   | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 1.2

EUROTECH HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, FORM 20-F (12/31/00)

      The Company's Memorandum of Association includes the following new
Sections 6, 7 and 8 to replace the existing Sections 6, 7 and 8:

AUTHORIZED CAPITAL

      6.    THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL OF THE COMPANY IS $250,000.00.

CLASSES, NUMBER AND PAR VALUE OF SHARES

      7.    THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL IS MADE UP OF TWO CLASSES, ONE SERIES EACH,
            DIVIDED INTO 20,000,000 ORDINARY SHARES AND 5,000,000 PREFERRED
            SHARES. ALL SHARES ARE OF $0.01 PAR VALUE.

DESIGNATIONS, POWERS, PREFERENCES, ETC., OF SHARES

8.    THE RIGHTS ATTACHING TO THE ORDINARY SHARES AND PREFERRED SHARES ARE AS
      FOLLOWS:

      8.1   ORDINARY SHARES

            8.1.1 THE HOLDERS OF ORDINARY SHARES SHALL:

                  (i)   HAVE ONE VOTE FOR EACH ORDINARY SHARE HELD OF RECORD;
                  (ii)  BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE DIVIDENDS AS AND WHEN DECLARED
                        AND TO PARTICIPATE RATABLY IN THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY
                        UPON LIQUIDATION; AND
                  (iii) NOT BE ENTITLED TO REDEEM THE ORDINARY SHARES, OR BE
                        ENTITLED TO ANY PRE-EMPTIVE OR SIMILAR RIGHTS.

      8.2   PREFERRED SHARES

            THE HOLDERS OF PREFERRED SHARES SHALL HAVE SUCH VOTING POWERS, FULL
            OR LIMITED, OR NO VOTING POWERS, AND SUCH DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES
            AND RELATIVE PARTICIPATING, OPTIONS OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS, AND
            QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS THEREOF, AS SHALL BE
            STATED AND EXPRESSED IN THE RESOLUTION OR RESOLUTIONS PROVIDING FOR
            THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH SHARES ADOPTED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE BOARD
            OF DIRECTORS. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY VESTED WITH
            THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE AND FIX IN THE RESOLUTION OR RESOLUTIONS
            PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PREFERRED SHARES THE VOTING POWERS,
            DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS, AND THE QUALIFICATIONS,
            LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS THEREOF, OF EACH SUCH SERIES TO THE FULL
            EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE LAWS OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS.


                                      -1-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yolanda Ostoloza, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 878]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J.), rendered January 6, 2015, as amended March 11, 2015, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of promoting prostitution in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim relating to her conviction of promoting prostitution, which is essentially a statutory interpretation argument not implicating the mode of proceedings, is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the clause “acting other than as a person in prostitution” in Penal Law § 230.15 (1) creates an exemption from liability for a defendant who personally engages in prostitution, separately from the acts that form the basis of a promoting prostitution charge. In any event, there was no evidence that defendant offered her own services as a prostitute to any particular person.

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting an undercover officer to testify from behind a partition that prevented spectators from seeing him. This procedure did not violate defendant’s right to a public trial, because all members of the public were permitted to be present and hear the officer testify *(see People v Tocco,*258 AD2d 374, 375 [1st Dept 1999], *476
      *lv denied*93 NY2d 980 [1999], *cert denied*528 US 968 [1999]). The officer’s testimony at a *Hinton*hearing established a justifiable fear for his personal safety in the absence of any measure to protect his identity *(see People v Kearse,*215 AD2d 104 [1st Dept 1995], *lv denied*86 NY2d 797 [1995]). To the extent the test set forth in *Waller v Georgia*(467 US 39, 48 [1984]) could be applicable to a procedure in which no one is actually excluded from the courtroom, we find that the safety concern was sufficiently overriding to warrant the minimally restrictive measure at issue. The court also reasonably rejected, as impracticable and unreliable, defendant’s proposed alternative of posting a court officer outside the courtroom to screen prospective spectators.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
No. 12-8764.

#### Lopez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### People v Askins

4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1598

denied*

*

 Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic or denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| \s\ Glenn M. Dobbs                     |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Glenn M. Dobbs                         |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| August 13, 2010                   |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MinesManagement, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----