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

[48 NYS3d 719]

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Corrigan, J.), dated April 3, 2014, which, without a hearing, denied his motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mogil, J.), rendered January 31, 1996, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (three counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (four counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his judgment of conviction.

The defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly granted the People’s peremptory challenge to a nonwhite juror is based on matter in the record of the direct appeal and should have been raised on direct appeal *(see*CPL 440.10 [2] [c]).

Similarly, the facts relevant to the defendant’s contentions *822that judicial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial appear in the record of the direct appeal and should have been raised on direct appeal *(see*CPL 440.10 [2] [c]; *People v Degondea,*3 AD3d 148, 165 [2003]). Insofar as these contentions were raised on direct appeal, they must be rejected here as they were previously determined on the merits *(see*CPL 440.10 [2] [a]).

In moving to vacate a judgment of conviction, a defendant must “come forward with allegations that raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to challenge the presumed validity of a judgment of conviction” *(People v Waymon,*65 AD3d 708, 709 [2009]; *see*CPL 440.10, 440.30 [4] [d] [i]; *People v Session,*34 NY2d 254, 256 [1974]). “Mere conclusory allegations of ultimate facts are insufficient to warrant a hearing” *(People v Waymon,*65 AD3d at 709; *see People v Wright,*27 NY3d 516, 521 [2016]; *People v Brown,*56 NY2d 242, 246-247 [1982]). Here, the dé-fendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was based upon unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations and, thus, that branch of his motion which was to vacate his judgment of conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel was properly denied without a hearing *(see People v Vasquez,*134 AD3d 742, 744 [2015]; *People v Hayes,*120 AD3d 711, 712 *[2014]; People v Waymon,*65 AD3d at 709).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5161.

#### Paul W. Merritt, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 907, 131 S. Ct. 252,

178 L. Ed. 2d 167,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6868,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.

Same case below, 27 So. 3d 34.
Exhibit 15.7

William Northrop

ExplorMine Consultants

20 Villa Grande, Riverside Road, Beverley, Johannesburg

CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON

I, William Northrop, consent to the public filing of the
technical report titled The Mineral Resource Estimate for the Merensky and UG2 Reefs for the Ga-Phashsa Project Area, Limpopo Province, Republic of South Africa.

I also consent to any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report used by Anooraq Resources Corporation.

I certify that I have read all reports being filed by Anooraq Resources Corporation and that they fairly and accurately represents the information in the sections of the Technical Report for which I am
responsible.

DATED the 31stday of March, 2012.



|                    
|--------------------
|/s/ William Northrop
|William Northrop
No. 10-100.

#### Robert L. Bergbauer, et ux., Petitioners v. United States.

562 U.S. 893, 131 S. Ct. 297,

178 L. Ed. 2d 142,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6376.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 602 F.3d 569.
DLA Distribution Susquehanna Pennsylvania inventory support team complete large reserve force training evolution
 
  By Matthew Mahoney, DLA Distribution Public Affairs
  The inventory support team at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania successfully completed a large scale training evolution of the joint reserve force. Through the combined efforts of military and civilian personnel more than 150 reservists were trained in the use of six different pieces of materials handling equipment for a cumulative total of over 600 hours of instruction These efforts directly led to a 4,000 hour inventory of nearly 93,000 line items and the completion of a wall to wall inventory during the austere working conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. The inventory of over 16 million items, valued at more than $440 million and spanning across 25 warehouses, was made possible through the dedicated leadership and management of a combined civilian and military team. In addition to the training needed to conduct the inventory the team would also train 20 joint personnel as part of the DLA hurricane support team, part of the DLA whole of government response. The dedication to duty and focused approach to warfighter always mentality is directly visible in their actions and the resultant efforts. Their efforts not only accomplished the mission set forth, but set up DDSP for continued success with the vast increase in MHE qualified individuals.
161 A.3d 765

#### NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. L.A.I., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, AND J.E., DEFENDANT. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.D.K.I. AND K-E.F.I., MINORS-RESPONDENTS.

March 9, 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.
#### Com. v. Fredericks 8

05/05/2016

995 MAL (2015)

8

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 124 A.3d 748
2017-0574.

#### Madison St. Fishery, L.L.C. v. Zehringer.

Erie App. No. E-16-038, 2017-Ohio-992. Reported at 151 Ohio St.3d 1454, 2017-Ohio-8842, 87 N.E.3d 222. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

O’Donnell and French, JJ., dissent.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
7 Pickering 

J. 

Parraguirre 

Saitta 

J. 

Accordingly, having considered the petition and the 

supporting documentation, we conclude that Burris's offense does not 

warrant the imposition of a temporary suspension or referral to the 

disciplinary board at this time. 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel 

State Bar of Nevada/Las Vegas 

Law Office of Betsy Allen 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A ea
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-116637, 333-107795, 333-98545, 333-34522,333-50605, 333-59075, 333-59077 and 333-59079) of American Dental Partners, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 11, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary C. Granoff, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.


/s/ GARY C. GRANOFF
----------------------------------------------
GARY C. GRANOFF
PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
November 14, 2005
No. 10-5389.

#### Scott Jay MacKenzie, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 919, 131 S. Ct. 289,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7428,

178 L. Ed. 2d 189,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Allen Natanel, Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 872]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Delligatti, J.), rendered August 10, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the *556record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see id.; Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

Dillon, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese, Barros and Christopher, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41373 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUADALUPE MARCO ANTONIO VILLARREAL-FUENTES, also known as Guadalupe Marco Villarreal-Fuentes, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:06-CR-187-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe Marco Antonio Villarreal-Fuentes raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 10-5346.

#### Alexander Nodarse, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

562 U.S. 916, 131 S. Ct. 281,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6931.

178 L. Ed. 2d 185,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-13784 and 333-139512) pertaining to employees stock option plans of Elbit Systems Ltd. of our reports dated March 9, 2010, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Elbit Systems Ltd. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Elbit Systems Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2009.



By:

/s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererKost Forer Gabbay & KasiererA member of Ernst & Young Global


Tel-Aviv, Israel,
March 9, 2010
EXHIBIT 31.2RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002I, Russell Van Zandt certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Veridien Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth physical quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2007                /s/   Russell Van Zandt     Russell Van Zandt     Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Audrey Reed, Petitioner, v Terrence Raynor, as Commissioner, City of Mount Vernon Police Department, et al., Respondents.

[56 NYS3d 259]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the City of Mount Vernon Police Department dated October 8, 2014, made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law article 75, which found the petitioner guilty of certain disciplinary charges and terminated her employment as a jail attendant.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing at which evidence is taken pursuant to direction of law is limited to a consideration of whether that determination was supported by substantial evidence upon the whole record” (M*atter of Grimaldi v Gough,*114 AD3d 679, 680 [2014]; *see*CPLR 7803 [4]; *300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]; *Matter of Solano v City of Mount Vernon,*108 AD3d 676, 676-677 [2013]). “When there is conflicting evidence or different inferences may be drawn, ‘the duty of weighing the evidence and making the choice rests solely upon the [administrative agency]. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [such agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists’ ” *(Matter of Grimaldi v Gough,*114 AD3d at 680, quoting *Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 444 [1987]; *see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d at 180). Here, any credibility issues were resolved by the respondent Commissioner of the City of Mount Vernon Police Department, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the determination, which was supported by substantial evidence.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the penalty of termination of the petitioner’s employment was not so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 230-235 [1974]; *Matter of Quirolo v Israel,*130 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2015]; *Matter of Small v Village Bd. of Vil. of Ossining,*37 AD3d 839, 839 [2007]).

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
#### Elsa Medina-Ortiz, Appellant, v Luis A. Seda, Respondent.

[67 NYS3d 623]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered July 21, 2017, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of her entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability through her affidavit averring that her car was stopped when it was hit in the rear by defendant’s car *(see e.g. Cruz v Lise,*123 AD3d 514 [1st Dept 2014]). The burden then shifted to defendant “to come forward with an adequate nonnegligent explanation for the accident” *(Cabrera v Rodriguez,*72 AD3d 553, 553 [1st Dept 2010]).

Defendant met his burden through his affidavit averring that, after he exited onto Bruckner Boulevard, a service road, he saw plaintiff’s car stopped in the middle lane, and then suddenly begin backing up, thereby “causing the accident.” Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to defendant, and giving him the benefit of every available inference in his favor as the nonmoving party on this summary judgment motion *(De Lourdes Torres v Jones,*26 NY3d 742, 763 [2016]), the record would permit a factfinder to conclude that plaintiff was negligent, and that her negligence was the sole or a proximate cause of the accident. Thus, the court properly concluded that the parties’ differing versions of how the accident occurred precluded summary judgment *(see Susino v Panzer,*127 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2015]; *DeRosa v Valentino,*14 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2005]).

Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL ANGEL ORTEGA-FITZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70689

Agency No. A077-093-651

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Miguel Angel Ortega-Fitz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

FILED

MAR 01 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70689

evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence determination, Gutierrez v.

Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for

review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ortega-Fitz

did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement where the record

contains a signed Notice and Request for Disposition form (“I-826”) in Spanish

stating that Ortega-Fitz was giving up his right to a hearing before an IJ and

agreeing to return to Mexico, see Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 974

(9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam), and Ortega-Fitz testified that the contents of the I-826

were explained to him, see Gutierrez, 521 F.3d at 1117-18 (petitioner’s testimony

that he had the opportunity to go before an IJ and chose to depart instead is

sufficient to establish presence-breaking voluntary departure).

Ortega-Fitz’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15911]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-188-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Technical Conference

June 10, 1998.
    In the Commission's order issued on May 28, 1998, the Commission 
directed that a technical conference be held to address issues raised 
by the filing.
    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on 
Wednesday, July 22, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., in a room to be designated at 
the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15911 Filed 6-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Fox v. Fairbrother

DA 16-0744

06/06/17

2017 MT 135N

Affirmed

Dist. 20 (Sanders)