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

[770 NYS2d 250]

Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Harvey, J.), entered September 26, 2002, convicting defendant after of jury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in denying his motion seeking to suppress statements made to police after he was given *Miranda*warnings. Defendant stated, “you guys cost me some money tonight” and, when asked by police what he meant by that statement, defendant told police that he intended to sell the marihuana and crack cocaine found in his possession at a nearby bar and that he expected to receive a total of $200 from the sales. Although the police witness testified that he believed that defendant was impaired by drugs when he made those statements, we conclude that the evidence presented at the suppression hearing “establishes that defendant ‘was not intoxicated to such a degree that he was incapable of *1453voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waiving his *Miranda*rights’ ” *(People v John,*288 AD2d 848, 848 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 705 [2002]).

Defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to have the voir dire recorded is not properly before us because defense counsel expressly waived the recording of the voir dire *(see People v Collins,*288 AD2d 860, 861 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 752 [2002]; *cf. People v Vasquez,*89 NY2d 521, 534 [1997]). Although a “single, substantial error by counsel [may] so seriously compromise[ ] a defendant’s right to a fair trial” that the defendant is thereby deprived of effective assistance of counsel, we cannot agree with the further contention of defendant that defense counsel’s waiver herein constitutes ineffective representation *(People v Hobot,*84 NY2d 1021, 1022 [1995]). The court’s questions to the prospective jurors were recorded, and defense counsel limited the waiver by requesting that any objection be recorded. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
No. 10-6585.

#### Allen Lynn Jeffries, Petitioner v. Anthony Hedgpeth, Warden.

562 U.S. 1068, 131 S. Ct. 652,

178 L. Ed. 2d 489,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9220.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6479.

#### John Witherow, Petitioner v. Craig Farwell, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1033, 131 S. Ct. 574,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8798.

178 L. Ed. 2d 420,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 688.
Exhibit 32


                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 Sunburst Acquisitions VII, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form  10-QSB  for the period ending  September 30, 2002
(the "Report"),  I, Jay Lutsky,  Principal  Executive  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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.



/s/ Jay Lutsky
-----------------------
Principal Executive Officer
November 8, 2005
No. 09-10896.

#### Fred E. Christian, Petitioner v. Frank Bommarito Oldsmobile, Inc., dba Bommarito Infinity.

562 U.S. 1028, 131 S. Ct. 587,

178 L. Ed. 2d 412,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8781.

November 8, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.4(b)
                                                                       2004 10-K

PLEXUS CORP.
SUMMARY OF BOARD COMPENSATION -- 12/04
(OUTSIDE DIRECTORS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                       FY2005
                                                                                  (Effective 11/04)        FY2004
                                                                                  -----------------    ---------------
<S>                                                                               <C>                  <C>
CASH COMPENSATION
BOARD MEETINGS
Annual Retainer Fee                                                                    $25,000             $20,000
Meeting Fee - in person / not in person                                            $2,000 / $1,000     $2,000 / $1,000

COMMITTEE COMPENSATION
AUDIT
Chairman Retainer                                                                      $7,500              $4,000
Committee Meeting Fee (including Chairman's participation in                        $1,000 / $500       $1,000 / $500
periodic conference calls with auditors to review financial
disclosures)  - in person / not in person
COMPENSATION
Chairman Retainer                                                                      $5,000              $2,000
Committee Meeting Fee - in person / not in person                                   $1,000 / $500       $1,000 / $500
NOMINATING & CORP GOVERNANCE
Chairman Retainer                                                                      $5,000              $2,000
Committee Meeting Fee - in person / not in person                                   $1,000 / $500       $1,000 / $500

Directors are also reimbursed for their travel expenses for attending meetings.

No compensation for board service is paid to directors who are full-time
executive officers or employees of the Company.

Directors who are not officers or employees are also eligible for stock option
awards under the 1995 Directors' Stock Option Plan; no further options may be
granted thereunder after December 31, 2004. Directors will be eligible to
participate in awards under the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, if that plan is
approved by Plexus shareholders. The following information summarized directors'
option grants in fiscal 2004 and 2005:
EQUITY COMPENSATION
Annual # of Options Granted (on 12/1, in the case of grants
under the 1995 Plan)                                                                    6,000               6,000
Stock Price at Grant                                                                   $14.055             $18.125


</TABLE>
# C_2014421EN.01003801.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Federación Española de Hostelería v EACEA

(Case T-340/13) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Lifelong learning programme - Contract concerning the ‘Virtual simulator for language training for tourism professionals (e-client)’ - Pre-information letter - Contractual nature of dispute - Act not subject to appeal - No reclassification of contract))

2014/C 421/52

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Federación Española de Hostelería (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: B. Miguelsanz Roldán, F.J. del Nogal Méndez, R. Fernández Flores and M.P. Abad Marco, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and A. Jaume, Agents, assisted initially by J.L. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García and A. Balcells Cartagena, then, J.L. Buendía Sierra and A. Balcells Cartagena, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the EACEA’s pre-information letter of 5 April 2013 informing the applicant that it had to reimburse EUR 1 81  686,11 following the audit of the ‘Virtual simulator for language training for tourism professionals (e-client)’.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the Federación Española de Hostelería to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federación Española de Hostelería to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 13

- 00229

- CV

IN RE Linda LEESER

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 17, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On April 11, 2013, R elator Linda Leeser filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This

court has determined that Leeser is not entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the petition is

DENIED. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006

- CI

- 14491, styled In the Interest of S.O.L. , pending in the 150th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Janet Littlejohn, presiding. However, the order

complained of was signed by the Hono rable Eugenia “ Genie ” Wright presiding judge of County Court No. 7, Bexar

County, Texas

.
SERVED: JANUARY 20, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

APPLICATION OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

For fees and expenses under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-1117 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (arising from civil penalty proceeding Docket No. FAA-2013-0046) has 

been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

DocketNo. FAA-2014-1117 

(Equal Access to Justice Act) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

F eder!ll Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Paul R. Borth, Applicant's Counsel 

. Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

TEL: 847-724-5520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Jessica E. Kabaz-Gomez, Agency's Counsel 

Enforcement Division AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7395 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge. 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · 

-2-
No. 09-11463.

#### Tyrone McAffee, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 882, 131 S. Ct. 203,

178 L. Ed. 2d 122,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7049.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2015034EN.01003401.xml

| 2.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Sherwin-Williams Sweden v OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI)

(Case T-12/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark ARTI - Earlier Benelux word mark ARTITUDE and international registration of the earlier Benelux trade mark ARTITUDE - Refusal to register - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Identical or highly similar goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 034/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sherwin-Williams Sweden AB (Märsta, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV (Arnhem, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2012 (Case R 2085/2011-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Akzo Nobel Coatings International B V and Sherwin-Williams Sweden Group AB.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action.

| 2) | Orders Sherwin-Williams Sweden AB to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Sherwin-Williams Sweden AB to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

1

---
PALA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS 

35008 Pala Temecula Rd. PMB 50 

Pala, CA 92059 

Ph: (760) 891-3500 

Fax: (760) 742-1411 

October 6, 2009 

Ms. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA
 

Region IX
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
 

Dear Ms. Yoshii: 

Pursuant to your letter of September 9th concerning the area designation process for meeting the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead, the Pala Band ofMission Indians is 

herein requesting that the Pala Indian Reservation be designated "unclassified." This request is 

in conformance with Section 107 (d) ofthe Clean Air Act. The basis for the recommendation of 

"unclassified" is as follows: 

1. No data on lead is available from air monitoring samples taken on the Pala 

Reservation. The Air Pollution Control District of San Diego County did monitor for lead many 

years ago in areas near to the City of San Diego. Even then the amounts of lead detected were 

miniscule and demonstrated a pattern of diminishing from that level over time. The APC District 

has not sampled for lead for a very long time because ofthe lack ofindicated need to do so. 

2. The population ofthe Reservation is very small and scattered over a large area. 

Population density is light. We are located in the north end of San Diego County and 

approximately 30 miles from the metropolitan area ofthe City of San Diego. That coupled with 

the total lack of any recognized industrial source oflead pollution makes it very unlikely that 

there is any level of lead in excess of the new standard. 

Thank you for your consideration of our recommendation. The ''unclassified'' status ofthe 

Reservation would be the appropriate designation. Your support ofthat designation would be 

greatly appreciated. 

cc: Colleen McKaughan
Proposed Action 1/14/11 and Final Action 8/12/11 

The TSD as part of this package was used to establish COMAR 26.11.09 and this is not part of 

the SIP Revision 15-05. 

Therefore the following document is not included. 

 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT 

FOR 

COMAR 26.11.01, COMAR 26.11.09 AND COMAR 26.11.31 

STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES 

FOR 

CONTINUOUS OPACITY MONITORS 

AND 

CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORS 

PREPARED BY 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING PROGRAM 

AND 

AIR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM 

January 10, 2011
# C_2015198EN.01003201.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council

(Case T-10/13) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Time limit for action - Admissibility - Plea of illegality - Error of law - Proportionality - Right to property - Competence of the Council - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Review of the restrictive measures adopted - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment))

(2015/C 198/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bank of Industry and Mine (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: E. Glaser and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment in part of Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) and, secondly, application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/635, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), and of the decision communicated by the letter from the Council of 14 March 2014, in so far as it concerns the listing of the applicant’s name in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bank of Industry and Mine to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bank of Industry and Mine to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31987-31988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15525]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission

June 5, 1998.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Major New License (Tendering Notice).
    b. Project No.: 2651-006.
    c. Date filed: May 19, 1998.
    d. Applicant: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Elkhart Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: In the City of Elkhart, Concord Township, Elkhart 
County, Indiana, on the St. Joseph River 77 miles upstream from 
confluence with Lake Michigan.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: J.R. Jones, Senior Vice President, Fossil & 
Hydro Production, American Electric Power Service Corporation, 1 
Riverside Plaza, Columbus, Ohio 43215, (614) 223-1801.
    i. FERC Contact: Edward R. Meyer, (202) 208-7998.
    j. Brief Description of Project: The proposed project would consist 
of: (1) a 300-foot-long by 14-foot-high concrete spillway, the crest of 
which bears 11, 25-foot-wide by 10.5-foot-high Tainter gates separated 
by 2.5-foot-wide piers;

[[Page 31988]]

(2) an approximately 100-foot-long by 80-foot-wide brick powerhouse 
attached to the spillway on the south bank of the St. Joseph River 
having 3 horizontal shaft 4-Francis turbines (2 camelback pairs) with a 
3.44 megawatts installed capacity; (3) 6, 9-foot six-inch diameter 
concrete draft tube tunnels transitioning to 10-foot-high 6-foot-wide 
openings; and (4) other appurtenances.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the 
Indiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by 
Sec. 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of 
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
    l. Under Section 4.32(b)(7) of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 
4.32(b)(7)), if any resource agency, SHPO, Indian Tribe, or person 
believes that the applicant should conduct an additional scientific 
study to form an adequate, factual basis for a complete analysis of 
this application on its merits, they must file a request for the study 
with the Commission, together with justification for such request, not 
later than 60 days after the application is filed, and must serve a 
copy of the request on the applicant.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15525 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

JOHNNY JUNIOR GRAHAM,

Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-770 September 17, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Donna M. Padar, Judge. Johnny Junior Graham, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. VILLANTI, BLACK, and STARGEL, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________
No. 99-31174 Summary Calendar Civil Docket #98-CR-60027-2

_______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH ROBICHEAUX,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

_________________________________________________________________ February 2, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Joseph Robicheaux has

moved for leave to withdrawn and has filed a brief in accordance

with An ders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In response to

counsel’s motion, Robicheaux has raised several appellate issues,

including claims that counsel performed ineffectively at trial and

at sentencing, and he moves this court to appoint new appellate2

counsel. The motion for appointment of new appellate counsel is

DENIED.

We pretermit consideration of Robicheaux’s ineffective

counsel arguments because the record is not adequately developed

for appellate review. United States v. Chavez-Valencia , 116 F.3d

127, 133-34 (5th Cir. 1997). Robicheaux’s responses, counsel’s

brief, and our independent review of the record reveal no other

potentially nonfrivolous issue. Consequently, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED and counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein. Robicheaux’s claims of ineffective

counsel are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his ability to raise the

issues on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 review. The APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.