alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(June 27, 2017)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcos Manon, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 326]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J. at plea, Ronald A. Zweibel, J. at sentencing; Maxwell Wiley, J. at hearing after remand), rendered July 23, 2009, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of IV2 years, unanimously affirmed.

When this appeal was initially heard (123 AD3d 467 [1st Dept 2014]), defendant argued that because the trial court did not advise him of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea, he was entitled to a remand of the matter for a hearing on the issue of whether he would have proceeded to trial had he been aware of those consequences *(see People v Peque,*22 NY3d 168 [2013], *cert denied*574 US —, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]). This Court held the appeal in abeyance and remanded for further proceedings pursuant to *Peque.*We now affirm the conviction.

On remand, the hearing court correctly determined that defendant failed to show a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty had the court advised him of the possibility of deportation. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. In determining whether a defendant has been prejudiced by a court’s failure to warn of the deportation consequences of a guilty plea, factors to consider include “the favorability of the plea, the potential consequences the defendant might face upon a conviction after trial, the strength of the People’s case against the defendant, the defendant’s ties to the United States and the defendant’s receipt of any advice from counsel regarding potential deportation” (P*eque,*22 NY3d at 198-199).

Here, although defendant characterizes the People’s case as *627“untested,” there is every indication that a conviction was very likely, and defendant’s attorney advised defendant accordingly. Defendant had a lengthy criminal record, with five prior drug felony convictions, and the plea offer was extremely favorable under all the circumstances. While defendant had significant family ties to this country, that factor does not outweigh the favorability of the disposition offered. Although defendant’s trial counsel testified at the *Peque*hearing that he had not discussed immigration issues at the time of the plea, defendant, who had previously been deported after a felony drug conviction, was presumably aware from his personal experience that deportation could result from his plea. In any event, defendant was convicted in federal court of illegal re-entry and thereafter deported, independent of drug conviction at issue on this appeal.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
No. 10-5844.

#### Victor Delgadillo-Gallegos, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 939, 131 S. Ct. 351,

178 L. Ed. 2d 228,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7470.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 758.
No. 10-6190.

#### Dwan L. Owens, Petitioner v. Moreno Valley Hospital, et al.

562 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 523,

178 L. Ed. 2d 386,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8650.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 13
 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 13
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 13
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 13
No. 10-5667.

#### Rajul Ruhbayan, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 334,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7322,

178 L. Ed. 2d 217,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 497.
#### Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office; Lehigh Valley Hosp., In re

04/12/2016

815 MAL (2015)

Denied
No. 10-104.

#### Ian A. Campbell, Petitioner v. Roy Cooper, Attorney General of North Carolina, et al.

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

178 L. Ed. 2d 142,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6216.

October 4, 2010.

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

*143Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 400.
No. 10-6158.

#### Galante Romar Phillips, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1010, 131 S. Ct. 520,

178 L. Ed. 2d 384,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8617.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 39 So. 3d 296.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Scott Davis, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 309]

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered April 15, 2016, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim (see *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133, 141 [2014]). However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Rivera, J.P., Roman, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.
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 Annual Report of Constar International Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Cook, Executive Vice President 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 position and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James C. Cook                                   
|James C. Cook                                       
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



March 12, 2004
No. 09-10601.

#### Thomas Davis, Petitioner v. Raymond Booker, Warden.

562 U.S. 1086, 131 S. Ct. 689,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9086.

178 L. Ed. 2d 519,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 847, 131 S. Ct. 92, 178 L. Ed. 2d 58, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6084.
No. 10-5842.

#### Jonathan L. Stout, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 939, 131 S. Ct. 351,

178 L. Ed. 2d 227,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7224.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 599 F.3d 549.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify to his knowledge, that:
 
 The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  November 15, 2010
By:
/s/Corey M. HorowitzCorey M. HorowitzChairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Glushko v. Henry Law Firm

05/03/2016

993 MAL (2015)

Denied

No. 1436 EDA 2015
2017-1618.

#### State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Cincinnati Police Dept.

In Mandamus. The court hereby returns this case to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. Respondents shall file a response to the complaint within 21 days.

The court refers the following cases to mediation under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01 and stays all filing deadlines for the cases until further order of this court. The court will not issue any decision on the merits of the cases until mediation has concluded.
# Another successful Operation Pacer Goose mission for DLA Distribution Norfolk

/ Published Aug. 29, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, employees downloaded retrograde material and equipment from Aug. 18 through Aug. 19 from the Ocean Gladiator, successfully concluding the annual resupply mission for the remote Thule Air Base, Greenland. Thule is located 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle and is home to the northernmost deep water port in the world.

                Navy Capt. Justin Lewis, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, commander, conducts a welcome brief Aug. 18, 2022, before the final leg of Operation Pacer Goose commences. The brief included presentations from members of the DDNV safety and security offices.                            Another successful Operation Pacer Goose mission for DLA Distribution Norfolk                            Navy Capt. Justin Lewis, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, commander, conducts a welcome brief Aug. 18, 2022, before the final leg of Operation Pacer Goose commences. The brief included presentations from members of the DDNV safety and security offices.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Distribution Public AffairsVIRIN: 220818-D-D0441-5492

Related Article: DLA Distribution Norfolk supports Operation Pacer Goose 2022

Navy Cargo Handling Battalion 5 joined the DDNV team for the final leg of the mission, providing support for rigging and crane operations and conducting the risk assessment.¬ The team successfully downloaded 49 containers from the ship, filled with equipment and supplies no longer needed by Thule Air Base. The material included three fuel tank trailers, a forklift, a compact wheel loader, tires, expended hazardous materials and scrap metal.

“The variety of material demonstrates the complexity of the offload mission and the extensive expertise required of the joint military and civilian team,” said Matthew Progen, DDNV chief strategy officer.

                Maurice Hammond, transportation supervisor with Defense Logistics Agency Distribution in Norfolk, Virginia, overseas the final leg of Operation Pacer Goose Aug. 19, 2022, as retrograde material is downloaded from the Ocean Gladiator, returning from Thule Air Base in Greenland.                            Another successful Operation Pacer Goose mission for DLA Distribution Norfolk                            Maurice Hammond, transportation supervisor with Defense Logistics Agency Distribution in Norfolk, Virginia, overseas the final leg of Operation Pacer Goose Aug. 19, 2022, as retrograde material is downloaded from the Ocean Gladiator, returning from Thule Air Base in Greenland.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Distribution Public AffairsVIRIN: 220818-D-D0441-5498
No. 10-6681.

#### April Griffin and Inez Griffin, Petitioners v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, et al.

562 U.S. 1069, 131 S. Ct. 658,

178 L. Ed. 2d 492,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9305.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 741.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (CHAPTER 98, TITLE 15 U.S.C. SS.
7241)

I,
Gilbert M. Cassagne, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation (collectively, "registrant");

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 periods 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 period presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 functions):



Date:
November 5, 2010

/s/ GILBERT M. CASSAGNE Gilbert M. Cassagne, Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
---

---

Exhibit  15.3

Advisors relied upon in the
consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2006 and December 31,
2007

|Name of advisor                                | Nature of professionaladvice                                                                                         | Reference to theconsolidated financialstatements | Reference to advisor'sconsent letter in thisForm 20-F
|---------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|King Sturge International Property Consultants | Valuation of the Duna Plaza offices, Budapest, Hungary                                                               | Note 12 A. (iii)                                 | Exhibit No. 15.4                                     
|                                              
|Financial Immunities Ltd.                      | Valuation of interest rate swap transaction executed by Plaza Centers N.V. ("PC")                                    | Note 9 A. (5)                                    | Exhibit No. 15.5                                     
|                                              
|Financial Immunities Ltd.                      | Valuation of Series  A Debentures of PC                                                                              | Note 17 H.                                       | Exhibit No. 15.6                                     
|                                              
|BDO Ziv Haft Consulting and Management Ltd.    | Valuation option by Plaza Centers N.V. under ESOP 2006                                                               | Note 10 B. (2) b.                                | Exhibit No. 15.7                                     
|                                              
|BDO Ziv Haft Consulting and Management Ltd.    | Valuation of option granted by PC to the Company's Vice Chairman of the Board in respect of PC's operations in India | Note 24 A. (10)                                  | Exhibit No. 15.8                                     
|                                              
|BDO Ziv Haft Consulting and Management Ltd.    | Valuation of embedded derivative included in a loan agreement                                                        | Note 18(2) and 21 A(13)                          | Exhibit No. 15.9                                     



---

---
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2457

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 5, 1994

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2457 RFH

1 SECTION 1. FINDING AND PURPOSE.

2 (a) FINDING.—The Congress finds that Benchmark

3 Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, satisfactorily per4 formed emergency work after the Northridge earthquake,

5 but has not been reimbursed as a result of a technicality

6 under California State law.

7 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to fairly

8 compensate Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the work for

9 which, except for the technicality under California State

10 law, it would otherwise have been paid under the provi11 sions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emer12 gency Assistance Act.

13 SEC. 2. PAYMENT.

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the

15 date of enactment of this Act, the director of the Federal

16 Emergency Management Agency shall pay to Benchmark

17 Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, an amount equal

18 to the total amount owed to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.,

19 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the

20 State of California to compensate Benchmark Rail Group,

21 Inc., for the emergency work and services performed at

22 the request of the Southern California Regional Rail Au23 thority, to the extent that such work and services are oth24 erwise eligible for reimbursement under the Robert T.

25 Stafford Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act. The
3

S 2457 RFH

1 payment shall be made from funds appropriated to imple2 ment such Act.

3 (b) DEOBLIGATION OF FUNDS.—The Federal Emer4 gency Management Agency shall deobligate an equal

5 amount to that obligated previously for payment to the

6 State of California to cover the costs of work performed

7 for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority by

8 Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., after the Northridge earth9 quake which would have been eligible for reimbursement

10 under such Act.

Passed the Senate October 4 (legislative day, September 12), 1994.

Attest: MARTHA S. POPE,

Secretary.
No. 10-5919.

#### Mark R. Mars, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 983, 131 S. Ct. 418,

178 L. Ed. 2d 326,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8154.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, denied.

Same case below, 395 Ill. App. 3d 1126, 369 Ill. Dec. 497, 986 N.E.2d 810.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2366

VIVIEN NEWTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(MISC-01-23)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vivien Newton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Vivien Newton appeals from the district court’s order denying

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s order and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Newton v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. MISC-01-23 (E.D. Va. filed

Oct. 26, 2001; entered Nov. 7, 2001). We deny Newton’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                     
<ARTICLE>                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
                           
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                1,299 
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        15,228
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,451
<INVENTORY>                          18,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     35,661
<PP&E>                                7,070
<DEPRECIATION>                       15,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       50,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                31,907
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                              2,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                           15,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         50,081
<SALES>                              90,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     90,442
<CGS>                                73,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        73,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     16,097
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        440
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1,145)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (1,145)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (1,145)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
#### People v Joseph

2d Dept: 145 AD3d 916 (Kings)

denied 3/27/17 (Stein, J.)