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

[51 NYS3d 397]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered November 12, 2014, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing her to a term of six months, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion, without granting a hearing. Defendant did not preserve her specific argument that the lack of information from the People concerning the basis for the searches at issue completely exempted her from the requirement of making allegations of fact in her motion *(see People v Wright,*54 AD3d 695, 696 [2d Dept 2008], *lv denied*12 NY3d 922 [2009]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find it unavailing. A suppression motion must be in writing, state the legal ground of the motion and “contain sworn allegations of fact,” made by defendant or “another person” (CPL 710.60 [1]). Here, defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of a search of her purse and a bag contained no factual allegations whatsoever, conclusory or otherwise, but only stated legal conclusions. Notwithstanding the limited information provided by the People, defendant presumably had personal knowledge of those circumstances of the searches that occurred in her presence, and was at least obligated to make factual allegations, to the best of her ability (see *People v Vega,*210 AD2d 41 [1st Dept 1994], *lv denied*85 NY2d 915 [1995]; *compare People v Hightower,*85 NY2d 988, 990 [1995] [minimal factual allegations, as opposed to legal conclusions, warranted hearing in light of minimal information supplied to defendant]).

*415To the extent the record permits review, we find defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Regardless of whether counsel should have filed a more appropriate suppression motion or replied to the People’s opposition, defendant has not shown that she was prejudiced.

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
#### Com. v. Ramey

08/23/2016

278 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 136 A.3d 1031
[56 NYS3d 893]

#### In the Matter of Daniel Franklin Spitalnic, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

August 2, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Faith Lorenzo,*Hauppauge *(Ian P. Barry*of counsel), for petitioner.

*85OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

On March 28, 2017, upon a plea of guilty before the Honorable Meryl J. Berkowitz, Acting Supreme Court Justice of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, the respondent was found guilty of three counts of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 155.40 (1), a class C felony. There is no record of the respondent having notified this Court of his conviction as required by Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (c).

The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District now moves to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b) based upon his felony conviction. Although the respondent was duly served, he has neither opposed the motion, nor interposed any response thereto.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a), the respondent was automatically disbarred and ceased to be an attorney upon his conviction of a felony.

Accordingly, the motion to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law is granted, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b), to reflect the respondent’s automatic disbarment as of March 28, 2017.

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Dillon, Balkin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a), the respondent, Daniel Franklin Spitalnic, is disbarred, effective March 28, 2017, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (b); and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Daniel Franklin Spitalnic, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 1240.15); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, the respondent, Daniel Franklin Spitalnic, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that if the respondent, Daniel Franklin Spitalnic, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Adminis*86tration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15 (f).
Request for Information Jacobsen Construction (FAA-2015-4363) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Decker: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−4363). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your

petition.

z Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including payload). This

information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by December 23, 

2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

FAA Office of Rulemaking

Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:57 AM 

To: mdecker@jacobsenconstruction.com
|                                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                       |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                                  | Year Ended |
|                                                                  | December 30, 2011 |   | December 31, 2010 |   | December 25, 2009 |   | December 26, 2008 |   | December 28, 2007 |
| Earnings:                                                             |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|    Loss from continuing operations before income taxes | $ | (59,402 | ) |   | $ | (52,849 | ) |   | $ | (85,595 | ) |   | $ | (539,272 | ) |   | $ | (45,766 | ) |
|    Fixed charges                                       | 57,586 |  |   | 70,492 |  |   | 86,697 |  |   | 112,987 |  |   | 87,290 |  |
|  Total earnings                                                  | $ | (1,816 | ) |   | $ | 17,643 |  |   | $ | 1,102 |  |   | $ | (426,285 | ) |   | $ | 41,524 |  |
|                                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|  Fixed charges:                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|    Interest expense                                    | $ | 55,579 |  |   | $ | 68,333 |  |   | $ | 84,204 |  |   | $ | 109,527 |  |   | $ | 84,923 |  |
|    Implicit interest in rent expense                   | 2,007 |  |   | 2,159 |  |   | 2,493 |  |   | 3,460 |  |   | 2,367 |  |
|         Total fixed charges   | $ | 57,586 |  |   | $ | 70,492 |  |   | $ | 86,697 |  |   | $ | 112,987 |  |   | $ | 87,290 |  |
|                                                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                    | — |  |   | 0.25x |  |   | 0.01x |  |   | — |  |   | 0.48x |  |

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| * | Earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges by $59.4 million, $52.8 million, $85.6, million, $539.3 million, and $45.8 million for the years ended December 30, 2011, December 31, 2010, December 25, 2009, December 26, 2008 and December 28, 2007, respectively. |
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 103 / Friday, May 29, 1998 / Notices 29475

10226, New Executive Office

Building, Washington, DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–14257 Filed 5–28–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT

CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Enrichment

Corporation.

SUBJECT: Board of Directors Meeting.

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday–Wednesday,

June 2–3, 1998, commencing at 8:00

a.m. Tuesday, June 2, 1998.

PLACE: USEC Corporate Headquarters,

6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda,

Maryland 20817.

STATUS: The Board meeting will be

closed to the public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Issues related

to the privatization of the Corporation

and other commercial, financial and

operational issues of the Corporation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Elizabeth Stuckle at 301–564–3399.

Dated: May 26, 1998.

William H. Timbers, Jr.,

President and Chief Executive Officer.

[FR Doc. 98–14370 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8720–01–M

UNITED STATES INFORMATION

AGENCY

Determination To Close a Portion of

the Advisory Board Meeting of May 27,

1998

Based on information provided to me

by the Advisory Board for Cuba

Broadcasting, I hereby determine that

the 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. portion of this

meeting should be closed to the public.

The Advisory Board has requested

that part one of this meeting be closed

to the public. Part one will involve

technical information about new

frequency testing and TV transmission,

the premature disclosure of which

would likely frustrate implementation

of a proposed Agency action. Closing

such deliberations to the public is

justified by the Government in the

Sunshine Act under 5 U.S.C.

552b(c)(9)(B). Part one will also involve

discussions of internal Agency and

Board procedures, which is a basis for

closing under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2).

Dated: May 21, 1998.

Joseph Duffey,

Director, United States Information Agency.

United States Information Agency

Meeting of the Advisory Board for

Cuba Broadcasting.

The Advisory Board for Cuba

Broadcasting will conduct a meeting at

301 4th Street, SW., Rm. 840,

Washington, DC on Wednesday, May

27, 1998, at 1:00 p.m.

The intended agenda is listed below.

Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting

Meeting, Wednesday, May 27, 1998

Agenda

Part One—Closed to the Public

I. Technical Operations Update

A. Status of UHF Testing

B. Aerostat

II. Internal Procedures

III. Approval of Minutes

Part Two—Open to the Public—2:00

p.m.

I. Programming Changes

II. Major News Event Coverage

III. Relocation Update

IV. Old Business

V. New Business

Members of the public interested in

attending the meeting should contact

Mr. Joseph O’Connell at (202) 619–2538.

[FR Doc. 98–14185 Filed 5–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8230–01–M
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40360 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DIONICIO GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-95-CR-245-01

- - - - - - - - - - January 30, 1997 Before WISDOM, JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dionicio Gonzalez appeals his sentence for possession to distribute marijuana. Gonzalez argues that the district court plainly erred in calculating his criminal history and that the court mistakenly believed that it lacked the authority to depart downward. Gonzalez also contends that his attorney was ineffective for failing to request to review the presentence report with Gonzalez, failing to object that some priorNo. 96-40360 - 2 - convictions were “double-counted” for purposes of determining his criminal history category, and failing to move for a downward departure. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no error, plain or otherwise, in the district court’s determination of Gonzalez’s criminal history category.
See United States v. Box , 50 F.3d 345, 359 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 309 (1995). The record does not suggest that the district court believed that it lacked the authority to depart downward. United States v. Burleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 283 (1994). Gonzalez’s statements to the district court refute his claim that he was denied an opportunity to review the presentence report. Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). Gonzalez has failed to establish that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the calculation of his criminal history or move for a downward departure. See Box , 50 F.3d at 359; Burleson , 22 F.3d at 95 ; Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. at 687.
AFFIRMED.
# Record ofContacts

OMS Docket No.

# FAA-2oo~-_lJ~\~3~_ With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, ett.)?

Organization Person Conlacted Dat" HMin:: SafNy.SlrucrUn.", Lf'I Ryd1.cwski. John Summcrs 1011107 ATA Mark Lopc7~ 

### ~'iaClnail 10112/07

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Ct<ed< llKIMaster list to verify That This is the Correct Revision 8efo<&Use
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Eaddy, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 362]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), entered July 16, 2015, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion when it declined to grant a downward departure *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]), and we find no basis to substitute our own discretion in this regard. The mitigating factors cited by defendant were adequately taken into account by the risk assessment instrument or were outweighed by the seriousness of the underlying crime, which consisted of repeated sexual abuse of a 10-year-old child over an extended period of time.

The court properly designated defendant a sexually violent offender because he was convicted of an enumerated offense, and the court lacked discretion to do otherwise *(see People v Bullock,*125 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 915 [2015]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s constitutional arguments.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. of our report dated April 5, 2006, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Plaza Centers (Europe) B.V. and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report
appears in the December 31, 2005 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elbit Medical
Imaging Ltd.

KPMG Hungaria Kft.

Budapest, Hungary
June 28, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      176
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           7,193
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                          5,604
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,281
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,774)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,531
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,054
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      904
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  91
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     59
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        91
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

EPIQ SYSTEMS, INC.        Subsidiaries of the Company

The following is a list of subsidiaries of the company as of December 31, 2010.

Subsidiary

Where Incorporated

Also Doing Business AsEpiq Systems Acquisition, Inc.(1)

New YorkEpiq Systems Holding Company(1)

DelawareJupiter eSources, LLC(3)

OklahomaEpiq Data Services, LLC(2)

DelawareEpiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc.(2)

DelawareEpiq Document Review Solutions, LLC(5)

Delaware

Epiq Staffing SolutionsEpiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC(2)

New YorkEpiq Financial Balloting Group, LLC(2)

New York

Financial Balloting GroupEpiq Preference Solutions, LLC(2)

New YorkHilsoft, Inc.(2)

Pennsylvania

Hilsoft NotificationsEpiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.(1)

Rhode Island

Epiq Corporate Services, Inc.
Legal Support Services
Litigation Support Services
Huntington Legal AdvertisingEpiq Systems Holding B.V.(1)

NetherlandsEpiq Forensic Intelligence, Ltd.(4)

United KingdomEpiq Systems, Ltd.(4)

United KingdomEpiq Systems, Limited(4)

Hong Kong


(1)100%
owned by Epiq Systems, Inc.(2)100%
owned by Epiq Systems Acquisition, Inc.(3)100%
owned by Epiq Systems Holding Company(4)100%
owned by Epiq Systems Holding B.V.(5)100%
owned by Epiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc.


---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

AARON DURELL GRIFFIN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 30 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief executive officer of
MicroVision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)     the Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011
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 Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: May 9, 2011 | /s/ Alexander Y. Tokman
                      Alexander Y. TokmanChief Executive Officer
|----------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan Kollock, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 867]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cyrulnik, J.), rendered April 20, 2015, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and aggravated criminal contempt, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The charges against the defendant arose from an incident in which he punched his former girlfriend (hereinafter the complainant) in the eye while she was wearing eyeglasses, causing her to sustain injury to her eyelid. After a nonjury trial, the defendant was acquitted of several charges in the indictment, and convicted of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and aggravated criminal contempt. On appeal, he contends that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.

In reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, this Court must examine the trial as a whole to determine whether the defendant was afforded meaningful representation *(see People v Schulz,*4 NY3d 521, 530 [2005]; *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]; *People v Flores,*84 NY2d 184, 189 [1994]). “So long as the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutional requirement will have been met” *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Mere disagreement with strategies and tactics that failed does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel *(see People v King,*27 NY3d 147, 159 [2016]; *People v Schulz,*4 NY3d at 531; *People v Benevento,*91 NY2d at 712; *People v Benn,*68 NY2d 941, 942 [1986]).

Viewed as a whole, the record reveals that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation at trial *(see People v*
      *547
      *Carncross,*14 NY3d 319, 331 [2010]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d at 151-152; *People v Naqvi,*132 AD3d 779, 781 [2015]; *People v Lutchman,*121 AD3d 716, 717 [2014]; *People v Hall,*68 AD3d 1133 [2009]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Connolly, JJ., concur.