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

[69 NYS3d 290]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered January 6, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, adjudicating him a youthful offender, and sentencing him to a term of IV3 to 4 years, and judgment, same court (Larry R.C. Stephen, J. at plea; Jill Konviser, J. at sentencing), rendered January 16, 2015, as amended March 9, 2015, convicting defendant of two counts of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to a concurrent aggregate term of 2V3 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The sentencing court’s comments, read in context, establish that it properly and explicitly considered defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment, and declined to extend such treatment to the burglary convictions *(see People v Rudolph,*21 NY3d 497 [2013]). The sentencing court, which had all the necessary information before it, expressly decided to grant YO treatment for defendant’s robbery conviction, but deny it as to his burglary convictions, for reasons independent of any plea agreement.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal from the burglary convictions (see *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]). The court adequately explained that the right to appeal was separate from the trial rights forfeited upon a guilty plea. To the extent there was any ambiguity in the court’s explanation, the written waiver ensured that defendant understood that in addition to the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty, he was separately giving up his right to appeal as a bargained-for condition of the plea *(see People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094 [2016]).

Although waiver of the right to appeal does not foreclose review of a court’s failure to comply with the requirements of *Rudolph,*a “valid waiver of the right to appeal forecloses appellate review of a sentencing court’s discretionary decision to deny youthful offender status” *(People v Pacherille,*25 NY3d 1021, 1024 [2015]). As an alternative holding, we find that the *541court providently exercised its discretion in denying YO treatment.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kapnick, Webber and Moulton, JJ.
**Exhibit31.2**

**Certification of Principal Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(a)or 15d-14(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I,David W. Montgomery, certify that:

(1)          I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q ofAdvanstar, Inc. (the “registrant”);

(2)          Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

(3)          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

(5)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: August 14, 2006 | By:    | /s/ David W. Montgomery |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                  |   | David W. Montgomery     |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
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 period ended March 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2013 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; 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: May 15, 2013
By: /s/ Michael R. FeinsodMichael R. FeinsodChief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-4312 ANTHONY CLIVE REID, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-108) Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 15, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and KING, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Randy V. Cargill, MAGEE, FOSTER, GOLDSTEIN & SAYERS, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Sharon Burnham, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Anthony Clive Reid pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, see21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Reid was sentenced on D ecember 9, 1997. At the sentencing hearing, the district court informed Reid that, if he wished to appeal, the appeal must be filed within ten days. The judgment order was entered on December 11, 1997. On April 20, 1998, Reid's pro se notice of appeal (dated April 12, 1998) and motion for leave to note an appeal out of time were entered in the district court. The district court denied Reid's motion. Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a notice of appeal to be filed within ten days of judgment. The district court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal for thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect with or without a motion being filed. The district court may not otherwise extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. See United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schuchardt , 685 F.2d 901 (4th Cir. 1982). Reid's notice of appeal and motion for leave to file a late notice of appeal were filed in April 1998, over four months after the entry of judgment. The notice of appeal was ineffective and the district court was without authority to extend the time for filing beyond forty days after the entry of judgment. Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See United States v. Raynor , 939 F.2d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 1991). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Reid'smotion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief is granted. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED 3
No. 10-6594.

#### Paul Martin Henrikson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1016, 131 S. Ct. 535,

178 L. Ed. 2d 393,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8334.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 428.
**Exhibit
      32**





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
      ADDED
      BY


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Diapulse Corporation
      of America (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned, being
      the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by 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.




Date: September 27, 2007
              
              /s/ David M. RossDavid M. Ross
                President (Chief Executive Officer and Principal
                Financial Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Diapulse Corporation of America and will be retained by Diapulse
      Corporation of America and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
# Distribution leadership hosts Gen Darren McDew, USAF, USTRANSCOM Commander

/ Published May 3, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
Air Force Gen. Darren W. McDew, commander, U.S. Transportation Command and members of his team including Brig. Gen.  Kyle Kremer and DLA-USTRANCOM staff visited DLA Distribution April 27 for an overview of DLA Distribution, and a tour of the DLA Distribution’s Expeditionary Operations and Foreign Military Sales areas. The discussion also focused on how the two agencies, who both provide support to U.S. combatant commands, the military services, defense agencies and other government organizations, can improve processes to provide better customer service.

Starting with an office call with Distribution commander Army Brig. Gen. Richard B. Dix, they met with key Distribution staff to receive an organizational overview highlighting DLA Distribution’s 24 distribution centers worldwide, with particular focus on the Transportation Division’s process improvements, the benefits of customers utilizing the vendor shipment module and the Business Development team efforts to increase Distribution’s storage and distribution customer base (PBLs /FMS).  McDew was impressed with the innovative efforts of the Distribution team and commented that it is always a good practice to, “anticipate the customer’s needs before they know they need it.” For example, McDew referenced how Federal Express anticipated the need for overnight delivery before it became a customer requirement.     

As a means to continue to provide the best customer service, McDew stressed the importance of aligning processes. “It is natural that we should be partners. We should be even tighter partners than we are today. There is no way USTRANSCOM can be as successful as we are without your team,” said McDew. Citing the importance of both agencies remaining relevance going forward, McDew talked about working together to build new business for DLA Distribution, encouraging Distribution’s leadership to reach out to him to help influence key leaders within the Department of Defense. McDew concluded that, “This was more powerful than I even thought. I have even more confidence in this organization than I had when I walked in the room, and I had a lot of confidence walking in.” 

Welcoming McDew’s offer to “influence and help,” Dix stated that, “The partnership with DLA and USTRANSCOM has enabled us to provide effective, efficient and best value service to our customers. The mission is driving us to work together.” 

Following the briefing, the group toured DLA Distribution’s Expeditionary Operations Communication and Command Control Center display and FMS area.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Loudeye Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for
the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence J. Madden, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
President 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 to the best of my knowledge: 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 as of the date of the financial
statements contained therein. /s/ Lawrence J. Madden
Lawrence J. Madden
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
February 9, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34501-34502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16765]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

May 8, 1998.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

[[Page 34502]]

Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by 
calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments 
regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB 
reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, 
Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20220.

    Dates: Written comments should be received on or before July 24, 
1998 to be assured of consideration.
    Special Request: In order to conduct the surveys described below at 
the end of May 1998, the Department of the Treasury is requesting that 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this 
information collection by May 20, 1998. To obtain a copy of this study, 
please contact the Internal Revenue Service Clearance Officer at the 
address listed below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: M:SP:V 98-009-G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: 1999 Filing Season TeleFile Customer Satisfaction Survey.
    Description: The IRS is planning to conduct a three question 
automated TeleFile customer satisfaction survey in 1999 administered to 
a sample of taxpayers who successfully use TeleFile. This survey will 
build on the 1998 data. In 1998 a six question automated customer 
satisfaction survey of taxpayers who had successfully used TeleFile was 
developed with the Bureau of Labor Statistics Behavioral Science 
Research Center (BLS BSRC) to gather data on the taxpayers' 
satisfaction and use of TeleFile.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,746.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 2 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Other (one-time only).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 192 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503
Dale A. Morgan,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-16765 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

((((((((((((((((

No. 10-0022

((((((((((((((((

Statewide Bank, Petitioner

v.

Anita Keith, Respondent

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

On Petition for Review

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

**ORDER**

1. SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1The parties’ motions to abate the case pending Anita Keith’s exhaustion of administrative remedies under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)–(13) are **GRANTED**, and this case is **ABATED** effective as of July 2, 2010.

2.This case is abated pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 60.6 until further order of this Court and is removed from the Court's active docket, subject to reinstatement upon proper motion.  It is the parties' responsibility to immediately notify this Court once Keith has exhausted her administrative remedies under 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)–(13).

Done at the City of Austin, this 2nd day of July, 2010.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Sonic Environmental Solutions Inc. - Exhibit 4.12





 PROTECTED BUSINESS INFORMATION 

 Basic Principles of Proposed Licensing Agreement between SONIC
  and NRCAN 

 1.           PARTIES 

 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Minister of
  Natural Resources acting through the CANMET Energy Technology Centre - Ottawa
  ("CETC-O"), having a principal place of business at 580 Booth Street, Ottawa,
  Ontario, Canada K1A 0E4 ("NRCan") 

and 

Sonic Environmental Systems Inc., a corporate entity registered under the laws
  of the province of British Columbia, having a principal place of business at
  1778 West 2nd Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6J 1H6 ("SONIC").


 2.           RECITALS 


NRCan has developed and owns technology relating to the application of a sonic energy process for the pacification of fluidized bed combustion ash as outlined to USA patent #6,270,691 and Canadian patent application #2,224,901. In addition, the
parties are poised to commence a research and development project to further explore this process, the results of which shall be combined with the patents to form the licensed technology ("Licensed Technology"). 


SONIC wishes to commercially exploit the Licensed Technology which utilizes SONIC's patented (US #4,941,194/#5,007,773 and related families) hardware that uses high power low frequency sonic technology to support the Licensed Technology. 

 3.           TERM 


The license shall be in effect until the greater of March 31, 2010 or the life of the NRCan patents. 

 4.           GRANT 


An exclusive world-wide license to use, sell, manufacture and sub-license processes, services and equipment utilizing the Licensed Technology, NRCan reserves the right to use the Licensed Technology for research and development purposes and to
perform related R&D services. 

 5.           ROYALTIES 

$10,000 minimum annual royalty payable on or before April 1, 2005 and $20,000
  annually payable on April 1 of each year thereafter (paid in advance and credited
  towards that specific year's total royalty due without carryover to subsequent
  years); and

 2% of Gross Revenue derived from SONIC's entire ash pacification business;
  and 

2% of Gross Revenue derived from any Joint Venture formed by SONIC to exploit
  the ash pacification business; and 

45% of the financial value of any consideration SONIC receives from sub-licensing
  transactions. 


Terms valid until March 31, 2005 or earlier upon execution of a full license agreement 

	  	 SONIC  	 NRCan  
	 Initials  	 "Adam R. Sumel"  	 "Signed"  
	 Date  	 2003/11/13  	 2003/11/13
No. 10-115.

#### Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton, Petitioner v. Dayco Products, LLC, et al.

562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 298,

178 L. Ed. 2d 143,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6214,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 402.