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

[767 NYS2d 696]

— Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered November 18, 2002, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated, a class E felony, waiving her right to appeal. Sentencing was adjourned for a one-year period with interim probation imposed, the conditions of which included her abstention from the consumption of alcohol and the completion of a substance abuse treatment program. After defendant was found to have violated certain conditions of her interim probation by, among other actions, consuming alcoholic beverages, her sentence of interim probation was revoked and she was resentenced to a prison term of *V-k*to 4 years.

Defendant appeals, contending that her plea allocution was inadequate. Having failed to move to withdraw her plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant has not preserved her challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665-666 [1988]). There is nothing in defendant’s allocution that negates an element of the crime of driving while intoxicated as a felony. The record discloses that defendant’s plea was voluntary, knowing and intelligent and her responses to County Court’s questions were sufficient to establish the elements of the crime *(see People v Stakowski,*276 AD2d 909, 910-911 [2000]).

Defendant charges that defense counsel failed to provide her with effective legal representation and this failure vitiated the voluntary nature of her plea. This contention is belied by the transcripts of the proceedings before County Court, which show that defense counsel’s legal representation was adequate in all respects *(see People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; *People v*
      *903
      *De Berardinis,*304 AD2d 914, 916 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 580 [2003]).

As to defendant’s challenge to her sentence as harsh and excessive, her waiver of the right to appeal precludes review of this issue *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; *People v Crooks,*278 AD2d 931, 932 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 782 [2001]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


                                Compu-DAWN, Inc.
                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X



The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  financial  statements  for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001028079
<NAME>                        Compu-DAWN
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,528,400
<SECURITIES>                                   1,850,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,297,920
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,297,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    50
<COMMON>                                       32,654
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,265,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,297,920
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               336,955
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               296,952
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1,150,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             17,459
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,127,456)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            22,544
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (2,806,096)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,783,552)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.73)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1403]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-114000-97]
RIN 1545-AV41


Withholding on Interest in the Case of Sales of Obligations 
Between Interest Payment Dates; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed regulations under section 1441 regarding the 
obligation to withhold on interest paid with respect to obligations in 
the case of the sale of obligations between interest payment dates.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Monday, January 26, 
1998, beginning at 10:00 a.m. is canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Slaughter of the Regulations 
Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7190, (not a toll-
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is 
proposed regulations under section 1441 of the Internal Revenue Code. A 
notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing appearing in 
the Federal Register on Tuesday, October 14, 1997 (62 FR 53503), 
announced that the public hearing on proposed regulations under section 
1441 of the Internal Revenue Code would be held on Monday, January 26, 
1998, beginning at 10:00 a.m., in the Commissioner's Conference Room, 
Room 3313, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    The public hearing scheduled for Monday, January 26, 1998, is 
canceled.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 98-1403 Filed 1-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT


Board of Directors
Electronic Processing, Inc.
Kansas City, Kansas


    We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Electronic Processing,
Inc. as of December 31, 1999, and the related statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 1999 and
1998. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

    We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

    In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the financial position of Electronic Processing, Inc.
as of December 31, 1999, and the results of its operations and its cash flows
for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles.



/s/   BAIRD, KURTZ & DOBSON


Kansas City, Missouri
February 25, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,026,313
<SECURITIES>                                 4,457,118
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,950
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,705,311
<PP&E>                                       1,328,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                 273,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,419,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          365,542
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         7,749
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,046,309
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,419,600
<SALES>                                          3,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               315,040
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,207,263
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             299,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,191,321)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,191,321)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,191,321)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
#### Gloria Cortes, Appellant, v MMC Residential Corp., I., Inc., Respondent.

[54 NYS3d 849]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered December 28, 2015, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

As the movant on a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212, the burden is on defendant to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment *(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Defendant’s moving papers did not make a prima facie showing that it was an out-of-possession landlord (Winegrad, 64 NY2d at 853). Defendant also did not make a prima facie showing that MMC is an alter ego of Montefiore *(see Ortiz v Rose Nederlander Assoc., Inc.,*90 AD3d 454, 454 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur—Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.
2017-1193.

#### State v. Dixon.

Montgomery App. No. 21823. Reported at 151 Ohio St.3d 1429, 2017-Ohio-8371, 84 N.E.3d 1065. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Henderson, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 129]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered June 7, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The People’s expert testimony warranted the conclusion, under the reasonable doubt standard, that defendant was the source of a partial latent fingerprint recovered from a burglarized apartment *(see People v Walker,*106 AD3d 432 [1st Dept 2013], *lv denied*23 NY3d 1044 [2014]). We find no basis for disturbing the jury’s evaluation of conflicting expert testimony introduced by the People and defendant.

The People’s expert testimony sufficiently complied with the court’s in limine ruling on the permissible scope of that testimony, and the court did not materially change its ruling during trial. In particular, the court never precluded the fingerprint experts from testifying that defendant’s exemplar print matched the latent print. Instead, the court precluded the experts from using the word “match” in conjunction with certain other language, such as “100% certain,” which the experts ultimately avoided. Accordingly, defendant was not unfairly surprised by the testimony.

We also reject defendant’s challenges to the admissibility of the expert testimony. The fingerprint experts explained in great detail the process by which they reached their opinions, and these opinions were supported by an adequate factual basis. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in admitting this testimony *(see generally People v Cronin,*60 NY2d 430, 434 [1983]).

Because we are affirming the trial conviction, there is no basis for disturbing the plea conviction.

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Singh, JJ.
160 A.3d 704

#### RICHARD J. SPILLANE, APPELLANT-PETITIONER, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
No. 10M30.

#### James E. Downing, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 377,

178 L. Ed. 2d 13,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6719.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 435.
#### L.H. v. Department of Public Welfare

12/08/2015

286 WAL (2015)

Denied
164 A.3d 393

#### MARY HARZ, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOROUGH OF SPRING LAKE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND PHILIP KAVANAUGH, DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

March 16, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted.
CAAP-12-0000501

#### Sunahara v. Department of Health

Affirmed
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Morgan’sFoods, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended May 20,2007, (the “Report”), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: July 5, 2007                                            /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir   Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board and   Chief Executive Officer   
15
Order filed September 11, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00308-CV

____________

HELEN MAYFIELD, Appellant

V.

HARRIS COUNTY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-26254

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due July 9, 2012. No brief or motion for extension of time 

has been filed. 

Unless appellant files her brief with the clerk of this court on or before September 

24, 2012, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
NO. 03

- 14

- 00701

- CR

BARRY PIZZO § IN THE

§

VS. § THI RD COURT

§

STATE OF TEXAS § OF APPEALS

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

TO THE HONORABLE J USTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes E. Chevo Pastrano and hereby files this appearance as

attorney of record for BAR RY PIZZO

, Appellant

. Undersigned counsel received

notice of appointment to represent Mr. Pizzo on June 8, 2015. Address and

other contact information is as follows:

E. Chevo Pastrano

The Pastrano Law Firm, P.C.

202 Travis Street, Suite 307

Houston, Texas 77002

713.222.1100

832.218.7114

- fax

chevo@pastranolaw.com

Respectfully submitted,

The Pastrano Law Firm, P.C.

The Old Cotton Exchange Building

202 Travis Street, Suite 307

Housto n, Texas 77002

(713) 222

- 1100

(832) 218

- 7114

- FAX

By:

___________________________________ E. Chevo Pastrano

State Bar No. 24037240

chevo@pastranolaw.com ACCEPTED

03-14-00701-CR

5613152

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

6/10/2015 9:22:22 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Thi s is to certify that on June 10, 2015 , a true and correct copy of the

above and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office,

Comal County, Te xas, via facsimile and/or email:

Comal County District Attorney

150 North Seguin, Suite 307

New Braunfels, Texas 78130

Telephone: 830.221.1300

Facsimile: 830.608.2008

E. Chevo Pastrano
# DLA petroleum lab partners with high school in Germany

/ Published Sept. 30, 2021
KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany, 
Two Ramstein High School students are getting hands-on learning at the Defense Logistics Agency Energy Europe and Africa petroleum lab in Kaiserslautern, Germany. 

The six-month Department of Defense Education Activity Europe Career Practicum Student Internship Program matches a student with a professional experience based on their interest in a career field.

“Our collaboration with DoDEA started in 2011 but was postponed due to COVID,” said DLA Energy Europe & Africa Commander Army Lt. Col. Benverren Fortune. “After almost a yearlong break, we are excited to resume the training and give back to the local community.”

                DLA petroleum lab partners with high school in Germany                            Calvin Delp, a Ramstein High School student, runs a test on a fuel sample with the help of Petroleum Specialist Army Staff Sgt. Yhadira Meadows in the Defense Logistics Agency Energy Europe and Africa petroleum lab in Kaiserslautern, Germany. Delp is part of a six-month Department of Defense Education Activity Europe Career Practicum Student Internship Program that matches a student with a professional experience based on their interest in a career field. Photo courtesy of DLA Energy Europe and Africa            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Photo courtesy of DLA Energy Europe and AfricaVIRIN: 210910-D-D0441-703The students, Calvin Delp and Matthew Robillard, are working alongside Laboratory Chemist Elena Van Meter and Petroleum Specialist Army Staff Sgt. Yhadira Meadows learning about scientific papers and analytical testing equipment. 

“The students are working with more than 50 American Society for Testing and Materials Standards learning how to follow the procedures outlined in them and using analytical testing instruments to ensure petroleum quality assurance,” Fortune said. “These skills are important in pursuing STEM degrees and equip them with critical thinking and basic lab methods.”

Students in the Department of Defense Education Activity Europe in Kaiserslautern, Germany, who are interested in the program should contact their school’s coordinator.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30777-30778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14984]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-34,156]


Pinnacle Micro, Incorporated, Colorado Springs, CO; Dismissal of 
Application for Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the

[[Page 30778]]

Acting Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance for 
workers at Pinnacle Micro, Incorporated, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 
The review indicated that the application contained no new substantial 
information which would bear importantly on the Department's 
determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

TA-W-34,156; Pinnacle Micro, Incorporated, Colorado Springs, 
Colorado (May 18, 1998)

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 19th day of May, 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-14984 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9870]

[[Page 24555]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7853]

Determination on Foreign Military Financing Assistance for Egypt

    Pursuant to section 7041(a)(1)(C) of the Department of State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. 
I, Pub. L. 112-74) (``the Act''), I hereby determine that it is in the 
national security interest of the United States to waive the 
requirements of section 7041(a)(1)(B) of the Act with respect to the 
provision of Foreign Military Financing for Egypt, and I hereby waive 
this restriction.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register and, 
along with the accompanying Memorandum of Justification, shall be 
reported to Congress.

    Dated: March 23, 2012.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-9870 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-31-P
```