alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-40631 Summary Calendar

_______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIA BERRY, also known as Tony,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:92-CR-93-1)

_________________________________________________________________

February 23, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Antonio Berry appeals from the district court's

denial of his motion for a new trial, filed pursuant to Fed. R.

Crim. P. 33. He contends that he recently learned that, under a

local rule of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Texas, his trial attorney was not qualified to practice

law in that court, and that the attorney was thus p er se

ineffective. We have reviewed the record and the district court's2

dec ision and find no reversible error. The local rule to which

Berry refers is not "newly di scovered evidence", and his counsel

was properly admitted to the court in this case. Other issues are

presented by Berry for the first time on appeal, and we decline to

review th em. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons

given in the district court's decision. B erry v. United States

,

No. 1:92-CR-93-1 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 1995).

AFFIRMED

.
164 A.3d 395

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TARELL AMBROSE, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

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 denied.
| (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:      March 31, 2010 |   /s/ Rodney      E. Schwatken |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                           |   Rodney E. Schwatken          |
|                           |   Chief Financial Officer      |

----
No. 09-10471.

#### James Donald King, Petitioner v. North Carolina.

562 U.S. 844, 131 S. Ct. 82,

178 L. Ed. 2d 53,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5813.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of North Carolina, Guilford County, denied.
# Defense Supply Center Columbus observes Pride Month in June

/ Published June 5, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
During the Defense Federal Community’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, we celebrate our rich diversity and renew our enduring commitment to equity.

Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Employment Program observes LGBT Pride Month annually in June. Throughout the nation’s history, patriotic lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coastguardsmen have honorably served and bravely fought for our nation.

The Pride Month celebrations our nation takes part in today are rooted in events that occurred  more than 50 years ago. In June of 1969, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City staged an uprising to resist the police harassment and persecution LGBT Americans routinely experienced. This uprising marked the beginning of a movement to outlaw discriminatory laws and practices against the LGBT community. LGBT Pride Month commemorates these events and works to achieve equal justice and equal opportunity for LGBT Americans. On December 22, 2010, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was officially repealed. Military members could now serve openly, proudly and honorably. In June 2015, the Department of Defense updated its Military Equal Opportunity program to protect service members against discrimination because of sexual orientation. In June 2016, DOD announced all transgender service members can openly serve, and cannot be discharged or otherwise separated from the military.

As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month together, let us take pride in all who step forward to serve our country. All who answer the call to serve are committing themselves to the most noble endeavor—to provide security for others so they can live their dreams and enjoy full lives. Diversity and inclusion are readiness imperatives; we rely on our diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise to address the complex challenges of global security.

For additional DEOMI products and Facts of the Day please visit their website at: www.deomi.org

If you would like more information or join the LGBTEP Special Emphasis Program (SEP) committee please contact the Chair, Robert S. Humphrey by email: Robert.Humphrey@dla.mil
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Raymond, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 428]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered June 7, 2013, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the Supreme Court failed to inquire into his mental capacity at the time of the plea allocution is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Sulaiman,*134 AD3d 860, 861 [2015]; *People v Washington,*134 AD3d 963 [2015]; *People v Pelaez,*100 AD3d 803, 804 [2012]; *People v Perez,*65 AD3d 1167 [2009]; *People v Godfrey,*33 AD3d 623, 624 [2006]). In any event, nothing in the record indicates a need for the court to have conducted a full inquiry into the defendant’s mental health before accepting his plea of guilty *(see People v Sulaiman,*134 AD3d at 861; *People v Washington,*
      *767134 AD3d at 963-964; *People v Godfrey,*33 AD3d at 624). Although the defendant previously had been found unfit to proceed in the criminal action, within the month before the plea proceeding, he was found fit to proceed, and his demeanor at the plea allocution and responses to the court’s inquiries were appropriate *(see People v Washington,*134 AD3d at 964; *People v Godfrey,*33 AD3d at 624).

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing and voluntary because the Supreme Court failed to advise him that the sentence would include a period of post-release supervision before he admitted to the factual allegations of the crime is also unpreserved for appellate review (see *People v Murray,*15 NY3d 725, 727 [2010]). In any event, this contention is also without merit, as the record demonstrates that the defendant was advised of the period of postrelease supervision at the plea allocution (see *generally People v Louree,*8 NY3d 541, 545 [2007]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
AOClENl:llM 1

JU'IJl 25, 1988

'!he current Me100rarrlum of Agree.Irent between the state of wash.i.n:jton ard the

united states Envirorunenta.l Protection kJercy Region x, dated June 1986, is

SUWlemmted by this hkierdum 1. All tents defined in the existirq

Mem:>rarrlum of Agreement shall have the sarre meani.rqs. for purposes of this

Mle.rrlum 1.

Availability of Information to the Public

Ecolcxy agrees, subject to restrictions inpooed by exi..sti.n;J state law, to

make the fullest possible disclosure of records to the public in a manner

equivalent to 40 em Part 2. nus shall incltk1e all information available

in Ecolcxy's records and files, subject to claims of confidentiality ard

specific statutoty exenptions. state law specifies procedures for providirq

information to the public, ard these procedures closely parallel 40 em Part

2. '!he procedures generally specify a formal request mechanism, rot do allC7w'

that the public will be able to OOtain certain material on a rootine basis,

withc:ut a fonnal request. 'Ibese materials incltk1e state regulations,

administrative staff manuals affectin;J the rm>lic, statements of

departItental policy, and final opinions or orders in case adju:lications. In

sane respects, state law is not as specific as 40 CFR part 2, so Ecolcxy

agrees, in partio.1lar, to ilrpleroont the follC7w'i.rq pl:'OCE!dures:

1. EcoICXJY agrees that, if a p.Jblic disclosure request results Ina

need to resolve a claim of b.lsiness confidentiality, ard the"-claim

cannot be resolved within the twenty day response time, then

EcoICXJY will notify the requestor that the information is not

aVailable because of failure to resolve the business

confidentiality claim..

2. EcoICXJY agrees that notices of deni.al, of public disclosure shall

incl\rle discussion of awlicable ju:licial cq:peal. procedures.

state law does not establish a statute of lilnitations on appeals,

so notices of denial will not disolSS statutes of limitations.

Ecolcxy agrees to maintain a Loq or file of such denials of

requests for infonnation.

3. Ecolcxy agrees that, in situations where fees for rm>lic records

might J'X)nnally be assessed, if Ecolcxy detennines that the
Memxardum of 1qreement

July 25, 1988

Page 2 .

information ~d be of prilnary benefit to the general pmlic,

then the fees may be waived or reduced. Fsquests fran the press

and p.1blic interest groups may also be subject to waiver or

reductial of fees.

c

S'IM'E OF WASHDCIt'N

IEPARIMENl' OF EX:Qr.c:x:;y

u. s. Pro'W::rlOO ~, RmICN X

By:

Director, Department of Ecology

e/r/eg ,

. fm57V1

Title: Acting Regional Administrator

o
Exhibit 31.2


I, Dane D. Anderson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MOCON, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


     c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: November 13, 2003


/s/ Dane D. Anderson
-------------------------------------------
Dane D. Anderson,
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|   | Exhibit 13.1 |
|--------|--------------|

|   | 1.  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and |
|--------|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Banco Santander Chile. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |                    |
|----------------------|-------------------------|
| /s/ Claudio Melandri |                    |
| Name:                | Claudio Melandri        |   |
| Title:               | Chief Executive Officer |   |

|            |                    |
|-----------------|-------------------------|
| /s/ Miguel Mata |                    |
| Name:           | Miguel Mata             |   |
| Title:          | Chief Financial Officer |   |

|                |                 |
|---------------------|----------------------|
| /s/ Gabriel Montoya |                 |
| Name:               | Gabriel Montoya      |   |
| Title:              | Financial Controller |   |

----
2017-1364.

#### In re Chuparkoff.

Sua sponte, Mark Andrew Chuparkoff, Attorney Registration No. 0071982, last known business address in Akron, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before November 1, 2017.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
August 8, 2016

Mr. Eric Andelin

Sales Director, AGERpoint Inc.

AGERpoint, Inc.

P.O. Box 1810

Daytona Beach, FL 32115

Re: FAA–2015–0323

Dear Mr. Andelin:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst
### RECEIVED ON:

STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY APR 2 1 2014 EPA Region 10 Office of the Regional Administrator

1410 North Hilton • Boise, Idaho 83706 • (208) 373-0502 C.L. "Butch" Otter, Governor Curt Fransen, Director April 14, 2014

Mr. Dennis McLerran Regional Administrator U. S. EPA Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. McLerran: On behalf of the State of Idaho, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) hereby submits the enclosed Portneuf Valley PM10 Maintenance Plan Amendment: MOBILE 6 to MOVES for full approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection agency (EPA) as a revision to the Implementation Plan for the Control of Air Pollution in the State of Idaho (Idaho SIP). The document is an amendment to the Portneuf Valley PM i

o Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plan, Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation Request (Plan) submitted in 2004. The Portneuf Valley Plan has been adopted pursuant to the Idaho Environmental Protection and Health Act, Idaho Code §§39-101 through 39-130, and in accordance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act, as amended. The document memorializing the adoption is enclosed. One major aspect of the Amendment is the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) for the Portneuf Valley for Transportation Conformity purposes. DEQ is requesting an immediate parallel process review and adequacy determination (40 CFR 93.118(f)) of the MVEB for transportation conformity purposes at the same time the maintenance plan amendment is being reviewed by EPA. My staff is available to provide assistance to ensure Idaho's SIP is updated at your earliest convenience. Please contact Tiffany Floyd, Air Quality Administrator, at (208) 373-0552, with any questions concerning the plan. Sincerely,

rt Fransen ector ME:ts Enclosure (1)

P r i n t e r , ' o n F e c y c 1 e d P a p e r

# Adoption of Portneuf VallevPM10 Maintenance Plan Amendment: MOBILE 6 to MOVES

Pursuant to the Environmental Protection and Health Act, Idaho Code §§ 39-101 through 39-130, I hereby adopt the Portneuf Valley PM10 Maintenance Plan Amendment: MOBILE 6 to MOVES as an amendment to the Portneuf Valley PM I o Nonattainment Area State Im p lementation Plan, Maintenance Plan, and Redesignation Request as a revision to the Implementation Plan for the Control of Air Pollution in the State of Idaho (Idaho SIP).

Dated this 14 th day of April 2014.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TIMOTHY VERNON KASHNER,

 Petitioner

 v.

JOHN KERESTES,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 378 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
No. 12-698.

#### Crawley *v.*Minnesota.

Sup. Ct. Minn. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 09-1535.

#### Lana Perez, et al., Petitioners v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc.

562 U.S. 839, 131 S. Ct. 188,

178 L. Ed. 2d 43,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5888.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 379 Fed. Appx. 801.
No. 12-7432.

#### Johnson *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.
# DSCC MWR provides support to National Guard members amid recent activation

/ Published Jan. 18, 2022

The Defense Supply Center Columbus Morale, Welfare and Recreation Team supported Ohio National Guard service members recent activation by providing snacks during December and January. DSCC MWR’s ongoing partnership with the Girl Scouts of Ohio’s Heartland allowed for the distribution of 210 cases of snack items to service members during their inprocessing at DSCC. The service members have been activated to support hospitals across the state of Ohio during the latest COVID-19 surge.

The DSCC MWR Team’s quick response got snacks into services members hands within 24 hours of the activation notification. In response to his team’s performance, DSCC MWR Chief Steve Coulson said, “The team responded as they do to every opportunity to support the warfighter: quickly, efficiently and with a smile. This is what we do!”
(December 11, 2003)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bernard Alston, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 389]

— Crew III, J.P

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), rendered April 21, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted sodomy in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted sodomy in the third degree in satisfaction of a two-count indictment. Prior to sentencing, County Court conducted a hearing pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) for a determination of defendant’s risk assessment as a sex offender. County Court classified defendant as a risk level III sex offender and thereafter sentenced defendant to time served and three years’ probation in accordance with the plea agreement *(see*Correction Law § 168-n). Defendant now appeals.

Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and defendant’s pro se letter, wherein he contends that he was “mentally disordered” on the day of the plea and not otherwise fully informed by his attorneys of the effect of SORA’s requirements, we agree. To the extent that defendant argues that his plea was not knowing or voluntary, this claim is not preserved for our review because defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or vacate the *967judgment of conviction *(see People v Miller,*306 AD2d 752, 753 [2003]; *People v De Berardinis,*304 AD2d 914, 915 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 580 [2003]). In any event, we find that the record clearly reveals that defendant’s plea, which included a waiver of his right to appeal, was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. Notably, County Court clearly explained to defendant the consequences of defendant’s plea and adequately ascertained that he fully understood the implications of SORA, had discussed his plea and SORA with counsel and had no questions regarding any of the conditions that County Court imposed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction and grant defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Mugglin, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
No. 09-1332.

#### Charles J. Sain, Petitioner v. Carolyn M. Snyder, et al.

562 U.S. 830, 131 S. Ct. 85,

178 L. Ed. 2d 27,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6640,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 932.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 11, 2022.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 11, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22I0091. SOPHIA WILLIAMS v. ABEBE SANDY VENTURES, LLC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2021CV347317