alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services, on Behalf of Laura Fountain, Respondent, v Larry Fountain, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 585]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Rogers, J.), entered March 11, 2011, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, to revoke respondent’s suspended sentence of incarceration.

*1115By order entered January 28, 2009, Family Court (Potter, J.) found respondent to be in willful violation of a prior order of child support and committed him to jail for 90 days. This sentence was suspended upon the condition that respondent make payments in compliance with the prior order of support and pay an additional weekly sum toward the accumulated arrears. When respondent failed to fulfill his obligations in this regard, petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to revoke respondent’s suspended sentence of incarceration. By order entered March 11, 2011, Family Court (Rogers, J.) granted petitioner’s application and committed respondent to jail for 60 days. This appeal by respondent ensued.

To the extent that respondent challenges the 2009 order finding him to be in willful violation of child support, there is nothing in the record to suggest that respondent appealed from this order. Hence, any arguments with respect thereto are not properly before us *(see Matter of Muller v Muller,*90 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2011]; *Matter of St. Lawrence County Dept. of Social Servs. v Pratt,*80 AD3d 826, 826 [2011], *lv denied*16 NY3d 712 [2011]; *Matter of Clark v Clark,*61 AD3d 1274, 1275 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 702 [2009]). As to respondent’s appeal from the 2011 order revoking his suspended sentence of incarceration, respondent has served the 60-day sentence imposed thereunder and, therefore, this appeal is moot *(see Matter of Muller v Muller,*90 AD3d at 1166; *Matter of Franklin County Dept. of Social Servs. v Durant,*54 AD3d 1139, 1140 [2008]; *Matter of Franklin County Dept. of Social Servs. v Grant,*54 AD3d 1103 [2008]; *Matter of St. Lawrence County Dept. of Social Servs. v Pratt,*24 AD3d 1050 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 713 [2006]). Finally, contrary to respondent’s assertion, the exception to the mootness doctrine is inapplicable here *(see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]). Accordingly, we do not reach the remaining arguments advanced by respondent on appeal.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             10,660
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   10,660
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     14,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              41,875
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              240
<OTHER-SE>                                        (27,249)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       14,866
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    5,299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  1,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (7,099)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (7,099)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (7,099)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.03)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                                   CD&L, Inc.
                                80 Wesley Street
                          South Hackensack, N.J. 07606


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408


April 15, 2002


Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, CD&L, Inc. (the
"Company") has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP
("Andersen") with respect to Andersen's audit of the Company's consolidated
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001. Andersen's letter
certifies that the audit was subject to their quality control system for the
U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to this audit.



Very truly yours,

/s/ Russell J. Reardon

Russell J. Reardon
Chief Financial Officer
CD&L, Inc.


                                       28
* 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

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40968

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER GONZALEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-304-1

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

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Gonzalez-Hernandez appeals from his conviction of

illegal reentry following deportation.

Gonzalez contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony”

sentencing-enhancement provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are

facially unconstitutional because Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), has been undercut by later Supreme

Court opinions. Gonzalez concedes that his argument is

foreclosed by existing precedent, but he raises it to preserve it
No. 04-40968

-2-

for further review. Gonzalez contends that Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), is applicable to his sentence

if Almendarez-Torres is overruled. Gonzalez’s Almendarez-Torres

contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d

979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

Gonzalez contends that his sentencing under the formerly

mandatory Sentencing Guidelines was plainly erroneous and

reversible pursuant to United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005). Gonzalez cannot demonstrate reversible plain error

because he cannot show that the district court’s error affected

his sentence. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d

728, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25,

2005) (No. 05-5556). 

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwin Lopez, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered August 22, 1984, convicting him of two counts of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which sought suppression of statements.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention concerning the content of the *Miranda*warnings given him *(see, People v Tutt,*38 NY2d 1011).

There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the police were required to readminister the *Miranda*warnings before expanding the scope of the continuing interrogation to encompass another crime. The mandate of *Miranda v Arizona*(384 US 436) is met if a defendant is adequately informed of his rights and effectively waives them *(see, People v Williams,*62 *593NY2d 285), and in this case that was accomplished by informing defendant of his rights prior to the interrogation session and eliciting an effective waiver. Lazer, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### Jerry Lee ZASTERA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Santiam Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-36141.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2011.*

Filed July 13, 2011.

Anthony Bornstein, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Jon Diehl, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jerry Lee Zastera petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to sever the two cases against him. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount additional facts except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm the judgment of the district court, and deny the petition.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, we may grant habeas relief only if the state court’s decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The government contends that the state trial court could not have applied established federal law in an unreasonable manner, noting that no Supreme Court case has addressed the constitutional implications of joinder of indictments. Zastera argues, however, that the trial court’s denial of his motion to sever the two cases against him violated his rights to a fair trial, *see Smith v. Phillips,*455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982), and to testify in his own defense, *see Rock v. Arkansas,*483 U.S. 44, 51, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987).

*329Even applying the legal principles that Zastera advocates, however, the trial court did not apply clearly established federal law in an unreasonable manner. In the context of a trial court’s denial of a motion to sever counts in a single indictment, a trial is unfair “if the impermissible joinder had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict,” *Davis v. Woodford,*384 F.3d 628, 638 (9th Cir.2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and here there is no evidence that the trial court’s denial of the motion to sever influenced the jury’s verdict. Nor did Zastera make “a convincing showing that he [had] both important testimony to give concerning one [case] and a strong need to refrain from testifying on the other.” *United States v. Armstrong,*621 F.2d 951, 954 (9th Cir.1980) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 12.1

Computation of Ratio of Debt to Equity



|                     |  |                         |  |      |         |  |      |   |         |      |  |   |         |  |  |   |         | 
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | ---- | ------- |  | ---- | - | ------- | ---- |  | - | ------- |  |  | - | ------- | 
|                     |  | Year ended December 31, | 
|Dollars in thousands |  | 2017                    |  | 2016 |         |  | 2015 |   |         | 2014 |  |   | 2013    | 
|Debt                 |  | $327,623                |  | $    | 349,073 |  |      | $ | 404,540 |      |  | $ | 348,795 |  |  | $ | 314,958 | 
|Equity               |  | 287,159                 |  |      | 286,096 |  |      |   | 278,088 |      |  |   | 274,670 |  |  |   | 273,495 | 
|Debt to equity       |  | 1.14                    |  |      | 1.22    |  |      |   | 1.45    |      |  |   | 1.27    |  |  |   | 1.15    |
<PAGE>   1


                             HOMESIDE LENDING, INC.
    EXHIBIT 12.1(a) - COMPUTATION OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         (Dollar amounts in thousands)



The following table sets forth the ratio of earnings to fixed charges of
HomeSide Lending, Inc. for the three months ended May 31, 1997, the period 
from March 16, 1996 (start of operations) to May 31, 1996 and the three
months ended February 28, 1997. The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is 
computed by dividing net fixed charges (interest expense on all debt plus the 
interest portion of rent expense) into earnings before income taxes and fixed 
charges.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        For the period       For the period      For the period
                                      three months ended     March 16, 1996    three months ended
                                         May 31, 1997       to May 31, 1996     February 28, 1997
                                      ------------------    ---------------    ------------------        

<S>                                         <C>                <C>                   <C>

Earnings before income taxes                $33,273            $13,478               $28,854
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------

Interest expense                             18,062             12,592                20,417

Interest portion of rental expense              322                259                   476
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------

Fixed charges                                18,384             12,851                20,893
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------

Earnings before fixed charges                51,657             26,329                49,747
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------


Fixed Charges:
--------------

Interest expense                             18,062             12,592                20,417  

Interest portion of rental expense              322                259                   476
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------

Fixed charges                               $18,384            $12,851               $20,893
                                      -----------------------------------------------------------

                                      -----------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges          $  2.81            $  2.05               $  2.38
                                      ===========================================================
</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Water Management Research: Parlier, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center
                                    Commodity Protection and Quality Research
                                    Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research
                                    National Arid Land Plant Genetic RepositorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Parlier, California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center Water Management Research People Suduan Gao





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

Gao Research Teamheadline bar Dr. Suduan GaoAllie KenyonRuijun QinRobert Shenk


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center: Pendleton, OR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Related TopicsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pendleton, Oregon Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center Docs







Public Resourcesheadline bar **Technical Notes by CPCRC staff:** How Tillage Affects Soil Erosion and Runoff. How Tillage Affects Water Infiltration. Soil Carbon Storage


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 32

Certification Furnished 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 on Form 10-Q of Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify 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 Section 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 for the period covered by the
Report.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Kerry J. ChauvinKerry J. ChauvinChief Executive OfficerOctober 26, 2007By:

/s/ Robin A. SeibertRobin A. SeibertChief Financial OfficerOctober 26, 2007


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gulf Island
Fabrication, Inc. and will be retained by Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019328EN.01007401.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/74

---

Action brought on 16 August 2019 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a braided cheese)

(Case T-570/19)

(2019/C 328/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi Ve Ticaret AȘ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU mark in black and white (Shape of a braided cheese) — Application for registration No 17 909 082

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 in Case R 106/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---