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

[943 NYS2d 752] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered August 10, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and assault in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment affirmed.

The defendant’s sole contentions on appeal are that his conviction of robbery in the second degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the second degree *{see*Penal Law §§ 20.00, 160.10 [1]; *see also People v Luke,*279 AD2d 534, 535 [2001]; *see generally People v Mendez,*34 AD3d 697, 698-699 [2006]; *cf. Matter of Juan J.,*81 NY2d 739, 740 [1992]; *Matter of Peter J.,*184 AD2d 511, 511 [1992]; *People v Morales,*130 AD2d 366, 367-368 [1987]; *People v De Jesus,*123 AD2d 563, 563-564 [1986]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on that count was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.
EX-10.11






EXHIBIT 10.11




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

LIFE INSURANCE ENDORSEMENT SPLIT DOLLAR

PLAN MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT




          This First Amendment (the “Amendment”), to that certain Life Insurance Endorsement Method
Split Dollar Plan Management Agreement dated June 1, 2004, (the “Agreement”) made and entered into
as of the       day of                     , 2008, by and between United Bankshares, Inc. (USB), United Bank, a
Virginia state bank, successor by merger to The Marathon Bank, hereinafter referred to as “the
Bank”, and Donald L. Unger, a key employee of the Bank, hereinafter referred to as the “Insured.”



          WHEREAS, the Bank and the Insured entered into the Agreement dated the 1st day of
June, 2004;



          WHEREAS, pursuant to ITEM XVI of the Agreement, the parties hereto are permitted to amend the
Agreement;



          WHEREAS, UBS and the Bank have determined that certain revisions to the Agreement should be
made so as to clarify the intentions of the Bank and the Insured at the date of its execution and
to ensure that the Agreement avoids application of IRC § 409A in compliance with Notice 2007-34, to
which revisions the Insured consents as attested by his signature hereto.



          Accordingly, the USB, the Bank and the Insured desire to amend and do hereby amend the
Agreement as follows:



          1. Section IX, TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT, is hereby amended in order to add the following
paragraph to said Section IX:




All provided, however, that no purchase hereunder shall in any event
be less that at fair market value of the policy determined at the time
of the transaction in accordance with applicable provisions of the
Internal Revenue Code, regulations and guidance issued thereunder.



 









 





          2. The parties hereto reserve the right to further amend the Agreement, as amended herein.



          3. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, which taken together shall
constitute an original.



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acknowledge that each has carefully read this Amendment
and executed the original hereof, in triplicate, as of the day and date first above appearing, and
that, upon execution, each has received an original.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	UNITED BANKSHARES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By: 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Witness
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	Its: 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	UNITED BANK
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By: 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Witness
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	Its: 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Witness	 	 	 	Donald L. Unger
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00443-CR

Brian Thompson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2030759, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s brief was due September 29, 2005. Appellant’s appointed attorney, Mr.

Bruce P. Garrison, did not respond to this Court’s notice that the brief is overdue.

The appeal is abated for the district court to conduct a hearing to determine whether

counsel has abandoned the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2). The court shall make appropriate

findings and recommendations. If necessary, the court shall appoint substitute counsel who will

effectivelyrepresent appellant on appeal. A record fromthis hearing, including copies of all findings

and orders and a transcription of the court reporter’s notes, shall be forwarded to the Clerk of this

Court for filing as a supplemental record no later than November 28, 2005. Rule 38.8(b)(3).

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Patterson and Puryear

Filed: November 2, 2005

Do Not Publish
#### ACKERLY v. OSBORN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

January 31, 1896.)

No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Order settled and filed. See 34 N. Y. Supp. 459.
#### CHARLES H. BROWN PAINT CO., Respondent, v. COHN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 15, 1907.)

Action by the Charles H. Brown Paint Company against Samuel Cohn and another.

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with costs, unless the appellants perfect the appeal within 20 days and pay the respondent $10 costs. On compliance, the motion to dismiss the appeal is denied, without costs, and the. case placed at the foot of the present calendar.
#### Anthony W. ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Robert BREEN, Police Officer, San Antonio, Texas; Ronald D. Earle, District Attorney, Travis County, Austin, Texas; Buddy Meyer, Assistant District Attorney, Travis County, Austin, Texas; Margo Fraiser, Sheriff of Travis County, Austin, Texas; Stan Hibbs, Deputy Sheriff of Travis County, Austin, Texas; Bill Scallions, Deputy Sheriff of Travis County, Austin, Texas; Stanley L. Knee, Chief of Police, Austin, Texas; Robert Travis, Police Officer, Austin, Texas; John Does, Unknown, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-50126

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 18, 2011.

Anthony W. Roberson, Beeville, TX, pro se.

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Anthony W. Roberson, Texas prisoner # 838289, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as malicious, frivolous, and for failure to state a claim under 28 *842U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b) and § 1915A(b)(l). Roberson’s motion is construed as a challenge to the district court’s determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). This court’s inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’ ” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (citation omitted).

Roberson argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case against him under the doctrine of res judicata. The district court did not find that the complaint was frivolous based on res judicata, but rather, that the complaint was “duplicative” and, therefore, malicious. An action may be dismissed as malicious and frivolous if it duplicates claims raised by the same plaintiff in previous or pending litigation. *Pittman v. Moore,*980 F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir.1993); *Wilson v. Lynaugh,*878 F.2d 846, 850 (5th Cir.1989). Roberson has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint as duplicative and malicious. *See Pittman,*980 F.2d at 994-95. Accordingly, we do not reach Roberson’s arguments concerning the district court’s alternative grounds for dismissal of the complaint.

Roberson’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n. 24. Roberson’s motion for the appointment of counsel also is denied. Roberson has accumulated three strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Accordingly, he may no longer proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.

*

 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.
#### Cornelius Alvin NOBLES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie DAVIS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 11-6598.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 30, 2011.

Cornelius Alvin Nobles, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cornelius Alvin Nobles seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 *677U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nobles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 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.

*DISMISSED.*
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
 Microbial and Chemical Food Safety: Wyndmoor, PA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About ERRC
                        Greetings from the Director
                                    Directions/Lodging
                                    History and Accomplishments
                    Our Work
                        Biomass Pyrolysis Research
                                    IPMP 2013
                                    IPMP Dynamic Prediction
                                    IPMP Global Fit
                                    Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP)
                                    Predictive Microbiology Information Portal (PMIP)
                                    PoultryFARMSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania Eastern Regional Research Center Microbial and Chemical Food Safety People & Locations







Andy  Hwang
                        Microbial and Chemical Food Safety

                        




                        
                        Research Food Technologist
                        Phone: (215) 233-6416
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
 Bushland, Texas
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Lloyd  Banghart
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Maintenance Worker
                        Phone: (806) 356-5716
                        
                        
                        Fax: (806) 356-5750(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
#### Brahna Yassky, Respondent-Appellant, v Raytheon Co. et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered November 23, 1984, which granted plaintiff’s motion to impose sanctions upon defendants-appellants for failure to comply with a notice of discovery and inspection as modified by a prior order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered July 17,1984, and which granted defendants-appellants’ cross motion for reargument and renewal of said prior order, to the extent of striking certain items from plaintiff’s notice of discovery and inspection and directing defendants-appellants to comply with those demands not stricken, unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to reinstate item No. 1 of the notice of discovery and inspection and direct defendants-appellants to comply therewith within 90 days of the date of this court’s order, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff suffered burns over 65% of her body as a result of an accident involving her use of a stove, and she has brought the underlying action alleging three causes of action in products liability against, *inter alia,*the manufacturers and designers of the stove, the defendants-appellants herein. Plaintiff’s notice of discovery and inspection at issue, dated June 1, 1984, seeks information concerning various aspects of the gas ranges manufactured by the defendants-appellants. Item No. 1 seeks data regarding the pilotless ignition control devices incorporated in these gas ranges; item No. 4 seeks similar data regarding the *727burner control knobs utilized in the ranges. Special Term struck item No. 1 on the sole ground that it was the “same as [No.] 4”. Plainly, these items are not congruent, and it was error to disallow item No. 1 on this basis. Data regarding the pilotless ignition control system are certainly “material and necessary” in the prosecution of this products liability action and should be subject to discovery.

We have reviewed the other points raised by all parties on this appeal and cross appeal and find them without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Bloom and Elíerin, JJ.
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:12
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:13
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:14
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:15
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:16
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:17
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:18
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:19
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:20
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:21
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:22
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:23
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:24
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:25
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:26
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:27
Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 2 Filed: 02/23/04 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:28
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Section 302 Certification

I, Austin L. Roberts, III, certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc.;

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 period 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 periods presented in this report;

4. I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and;

5. 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):

(a) all significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                      |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|/s/ Austin L. Roberts, III            |  |  |  | Dated: August 1, 2007
|Austin L. Roberts, III                |  |  |  |                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857

',675,&72)25(*21

-())5(<+<621

3ODLQWLII

&9-(

YV

25'(5

&$52/<1&2/9,1

&RPPLVVLRQHURI6RFLDO6HFXULW\

'HIHQGDQW

%DVHGXSRQWKHVWLSXODWLRQRIWKHSDUWLHVLWLVKHUHE\25'(5('WKDWDWWRUQH\IHHVLQWKH

DPRXQWRIVKDOOEHDZDUGHGWR3ODLQWLIISXUVXDQWWRWKH(TXDO$FFHVVWR-XVWLFH$FW

86&7KHSDUWLHVDJUHHWKDWDWWRUQH\IHHVZLOOEHSDLGWR3ODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\GHSHQGHQW

XSRQYHULILFDWLRQWKDW3ODLQWLIIKDVQRGHEWZKLFKTXDOLILHVIRURIIVHWDJDLQVWWKHDZDUGHGIHHV

SXUVXDQWWRWKH7UHDVXU\2IIVHW3URJUDPDVGLVFXVVHGLQ$VWUXHY5DWOLII6&W

,I3ODLQWLIIKDVQRVXFKGHEWWKHQWKHFKHFNVKDOOEHPDGHRXWWR3ODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\DQG

PDLOHGWR3ODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\¶VRIILFHDVIROORZV0HUULOO6FKQHLGHU32%R[3RUWODQG

25,I3ODLQWLIIKDVDGHEWWKHQWKHFKHFNIRUDQ\UHPDLQLQJIXQGVDIWHURIIVHWRIWKHGHEW

VKDOOEHPDGHWR3ODLQWLIIDQGPDLOHGWR3ODLQWLII
VDWWRUQH\
VRIILFHDWWKHDGGUHVVVWDWHGDERYH

'$7('WKLVBBBBBGD\RIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

-RKQ-HOGHUNV

8QLWHG6WDWHV0DJLVWUDWH-XGJH

30th September

/s/ John Jelderks

Case 3:14-cv-00835-JE Document 31 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 1