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

[943 NYS2d 691]—

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Schenectady County (Drago, J.), entered October 13, 2010, which denied defendant’s motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46.

In 1997, defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and was thereafter sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 8 to 16 years. In 2009, while on parole, defendant violated the terms of his parole and was reincarcerated. Defendant thereafter moved for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46. County Court denied the motion on the basis that defendant was ineligible to apply for resentencing because he had violated parole. Defendant now appeals.

We reverse. Defendant’s status as a reincarcerated parole violator does not render him ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law *(see People v Paulin,*17 NY3d 238, 244 [2011]), although it may be taken into consideration in determining whether or not to grant his application *(see People v Chaires,*89 AD3d 1282, 1282 [2011]; *People v Chatham,*88 AD3d 1063, *14491064 [2011]). Accordingly, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to County Court for further proceedings.

Peters, PJ., Mercure, Lahtinen and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the County Court of Schenectady County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
| 1.   | The Annual Report of the Companies on Form 10-K for the year ended August 29, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 Companies. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                          |                                                               |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                          |                                                               |
|   | /s/ DONALD J. PERCENTI   |                                                               |
|   | Name:               | Donald J. Percenti                                                 |   |
|   | Title:              | President and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer) |   |
ex102form8k.htm




 


Exhibit 10.2


FIRST AMENDMENT TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







 







This FIRST AMENDMENT ("Amendment") to the Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") made and entered into effective as of October 28, 2013 by and between CITIZENS  COMMUNITY  FEDERAL  and  CITIZENS  COMMUNITY  BANCORP, INC. (collectively, the "Bank") and MARK C. OLDENBERG (the "Employee"), is entered into effective as of March 3, 2015 by each of the foregoing parties to the Employment Agreement. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this First Amendment will have the meanings given to them in the Employment Agreement.







In consideration of the mutual promises set forth in the Employment Agreement and below, the undersigned agree to amend the provisions of the Employment Agreement as follows:







1.  Effective Time. Section 6 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:







"6.  Term. The Bank hereby employs the Employee, and the Employee hereby accepts such employment under this Agreement, for the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending on December 31, 2016 (or such earlier date as is determined in accordance with section l0)."







2.  No Other Changes. All other terms, conditions, covenants, obligations and agreements in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and without any change due to this First Amendment. To the extent this First Amendment is inconsistent with the Employment Agreement, this First Amendment shall govern and control.


 







[Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signature pages follow}







 


 




  





  










 











 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to the Employment Agreement to be executed effective as of the day, month and year first above written.







CITIZENS COMMUNITY FEDERAL







By: _/s/ Richard McHugh___________


Richard McHugh, Chairman







CITIZENS COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.







By: __/s/ Richard McHugh_________


Richard McHugh, Chairman












EMPLOYEE:












__/s/ Mark C. Oldenberg__________


Mark C. Oldenberg
































 










2
**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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”)on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Nancy K. Buese, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner of thePartnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Partnership.

 
| /S/ NANCY K. BUESE                                                                                                                 |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                                               |   |   |
| Nancy K. Buese                                                                                                                     |   |   |
|  Senior Vice President & Chief  Financial Officer   (Principal Financial Officer and   Principal Accounting Officer) |   |   |
|                                                                                                                               |   |   |
| May 7, 2008                                                                                                                   |   |   |
|                                                                                                                                    |        |        |  |

 

This certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.  Thiscertification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), orotherwise subject to liability under that section.  This certification shall not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, or the Exchange Act except to the extent this Exhibit 32.2 isexpressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnershipand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 678 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 678

           To increase the penalties for economic espionage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 30, 2011

 Mr. Kohl (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Coons) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To increase the penalties for economic espionage.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Economic Espionage Penalty 
Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18.

    Section 1831(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``15 years'' and inserting ``20 years''.

SEC. 3. DIRECTIVE TO SENTENCING COMMISSION.

    Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United 
States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--
            (1) review its guidelines and policy relating to a two-
        level enhancement for economic espionage; and
            (2) as a part of such review consider amending such 
        guidelines to--
                    (A) apply the two-level enhancement to the simple 
                misappropriation of a trade secret;
                    (B) apply an additional two-level enhancement if 
                the defendant transmits or attempts to transmit the 
                stolen trade secret outside of the United States and an 
                additional three-level enhancement if the defendant 
                instead commits economic espionage (i.e., he/she knew 
                or intended that the offense would benefit a foreign 
                government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent); 
                and
                    (C) provide when a defendant transmits trade 
                secrets outside of the United States or commits 
                economic espionage, that the defendant should face a 
                minimum offense level.
                                 <all>
```
#### BOROUGH OF FANWOOD, APPELLANT-RESPONDENT, v. ANTONIO ROCCO AND DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, RESPONDENTS-PETITIONERS.

See same ease below: 59 *N. J. Super.*306.

*Mr. David D. Furman*and *Mr. Samuel B. Helfand*for the petitioner Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

*Messrs. Hetfield & Set field*and *Mr. Alfred C. Clapp*for the petitioner Roceo.

*Mr. William M. Beard*and *Mr. Max L. Rosenstein*for the respondent.

April 8, 1960.

Granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wendell Hayes, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.), rendered June 26, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing a sentence of 4 Vi to 9 years’ imprisonment.

Judgment affirmed.

The People’s witness’s testimony was neither incredible as a matter of law nor patently tailored to avoid constitutional objections *(see, People v Berrios,*28 NY2d 361; *People v Hardy,*106 AD2d 403; *People v Parmiter,*55 AD2d 938; *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86). Thus, the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]).

The defendant also contends that the denial of his request for an adjournment to obtain the presence of a witness was an abuse of discretion. The record discloses that the defendant had more than sufficient time to serve the witness with a subpoena to ensure his presence at the trial.

Finally, we have considered defendant’s assertions of impropriety in the prosecutor’s summation and find that those claims of error were not preserved for appellate review, as no objections were taken thereto *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the comments were a fair response to remarks made by defense counsel in summation *(see, People v Anthony,*24 NY2d 696; *People v Marks,*6 NY2d 67, *cert denied*362 US 912; *People v Blackman,*88 AD2d 620). Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


Town Sports International, Inc.                                      Exhibit 11

Statement of Computation of Per Share Data

For the three and six months ended November 30, 1997

All figures are $'000, except share data               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED                  FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                           NOVEMBER 30, 1997                           NOVEMBER 30, 1997
                                                   ------------------------------------       -----------------------------------
                                                                            Fully                                     Fully
                                                       Primary             Diluted                Primary            Diluted
<S>                                               <C>                  <C>                     <C>                 <C>
Loss to common stockholders before 
  extraordinary item............................             ($309)              ($309)                 ($321)             ($321)

Extraordinary item..............................              (730)               (730)                  (730)              (730)

                                                   ----------------    ----------------       ----------------    ---------------
Net loss to common stockholders.................           ($1,039)            ($1,039)               ($1,051)           ($1,051)
                                                   ----------------    ----------------       ----------------    ---------------

Weighted average number of common 
  shares outstanding............................         1,015,714           1,015,714              1,012,857          1,012,857

Shares issuable upon exercise of outstanding 
  options and warrants..........................                               171,164                                   171,164
                                                   ----------------    ----------------       ----------------    ---------------

Weighted average number of common shares used
  in computing per share data...................         1,015,714           1,186,878              1,012,857          1,184,021
                                                   ----------------    ----------------       ---------------     ----------------


Per common share data:
Loss to common stockholders before 
  extraordinary item............................            ($0.30)             ($0.26)                ($0.32)            ($0.27)

Extraordinary item..............................             (0.72)              (0.62)                 (0.72)             (0.62)


                                                   ----------------    ----------------       ----------------    ---------------
Net loss per share..............................            ($1.02)             ($0.88)                ($1.04)            ($0.89)
                                                   ----------------    ----------------       ----------------    ---------------

</TABLE>
#### RYAN, Respondent, v. PENNSYLVANIA COAL CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by John A. Ryan, as administrator, etc., of John J. Ryan, deceased, against the Pennsylvania Coal Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




Written
      Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


as
      Adopted by


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory J. Wessling,
      Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition as of December 31, 2006 and results of operations for
      the year ended December 31, 2006 of the Company and its
      subsidiaries.






/s/
      Gregory J. Wessling





Gregory
      J. Wessling


Chairman
      of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive
      Officer)





February
      6, 2008





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERIC GILES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:09-cr-00203-RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted: May 13, 2016 Decided: June 17, 2016

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Giles, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Giles appeals the district court’s order denying his 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion for a new trial, which Giles filed 

pro se. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of 

discretion in either of the identified bases for the district 

court’s ruling. See United States v. Robinson, 627 F.3d 941, 

948 (4th Cir. 2010) (providing standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. See United States v. Giles, No. 3:09–cr–00203–RJC-DCK–1 

(W.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 2015). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30839

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NATHANIEL SINGLETON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-20102-1

Before GRAVES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nathaniel Singleton, federal prisoner # 34438-018, who was convicted of 

being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute 

cocaine, and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, moves for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He seeks to challenge the 

denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion in which he sought a sentence 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 15, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30839 Document: 00513549013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2016
No. 15-30839

2

reduction pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Amendments 782 and 788, which 

retroactively lowered certain offense levels under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c).

Singleton’s guidelines range was not based on the quantity of cocaine 

pursuant to § 2D1.1(c); his guidelines range was based on U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. 

Accordingly, he was not sentenced based on a sentencing range that was 

subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission, and the amendments do 

not apply to him. See United States v. Anderson, 591 F.3d 789, 791 & n.8 (5th 

Cir. 2009). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying him a 

sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); United 

States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, because there is no 

constitutional right to appointed counsel in a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, United 

States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995), Singleton cannot claim 

ineffective assistance of counsel, see Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752 

(1991).

Because the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous, 

Singleton’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 

n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-30839 Document: 00513549013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
METRIKA SYSTEMS CORPORATION'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 
JANUARY 2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                                 15,093
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          27,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                            2,286
<INVENTORY>                                            12,257
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       64,885
<PP&E>                                                 17,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                          5,772
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        105,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  29,067
<BONDS>                                                 3,437
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                   83
<OTHER-SE>                                             66,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          105,444
<SALES>                                                70,029
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       70,029
<CGS>                                                  40,537
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          40,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        5,397
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          470
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        10,293
<INCOME-TAX>                                            3,950
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     6,343
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            6,343
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.77
        

</TABLE>