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

[945 NYS2d 421]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered October 16, 2009, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs, reckless driving, failure to stay in a designated lane, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The plea minutes demonstrate that the defendant’s plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that he understood the nature of the crimes to which he was pleading *775guilty (see *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9 [1983]). Further, the defendant’s plea of guilty precludes him from challenging claimed defects in the grand jury proceedings and nonjurisdictional issues concerning alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury (see *People v Curtis,*33 AD3d 721 [2006]; *People v Miller,*306 AD2d 294 [2003]). Also, the defendant’s voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal all aspects of his case encompassed his right to a review of his nonjurisdictional contentions pertaining to the grand jury proceedings, as well as the denial of that branch of his motion which was to suppress evidence based upon lack of probable cause *(see People v Rodriguez,*268 AD2d 491, 492 [2000]).

To the extent that the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not relate to the voluntariness of the plea, the defendant’s valid and unrestricted waiver of his right to appeal foreclosed appellate review of that claim *(see People v Sorino,*82 AD3d 911, 912 [2011]). To the extent that the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does relate to the voluntariness of the plea, his claim is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a “ ‘mixed claim[ ]’ ” of ineffective assistance *(People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011], quoting *People v Evans,*16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2 [2011], *cert denied*565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as it relates to the voluntariness of his plea *(cf. People v Crump,*53 NY2d 824 [1981]; *People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852 [1978]). Since the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety *(see People v Freeman,*93 AD3d 805 [2012]; *People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d at 1109; *People v Rohlehr,*87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              24
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,952
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                     50,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,394
<PP&E>                                          27,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,126
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,665
<BONDS>                                         19,596
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,414
<SALES>                                        462,323
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               465,328
<CGS>                                          393,775
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  393,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   181
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,476
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,038
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,038
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.63
        

</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
 U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center: Madison, WI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Archives
                        Presentations
                                    World Dairy Expo
                                    Newsletters and Research Summaries
                    Resources
                        General Resources
                                    Books
                                    Teacher's Resources
                                    New Research Dairy Updates
                                    Integrated Research at USDFRCSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Madison, Wisconsin U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center People & Locations





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

People and Locations at Madison, Wisconsin   [Expand All] [Collapse All]
  (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
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TONY GLACKIN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-308

)

KATHRYN M. POTTER, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed November 21, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Amy M. Williams, Judge.

Susan M. Helms and R. Michael Robinson, 

St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Nathaniel B. Kidder of Kidder & Bennett, St. 

Petersburg, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MANDY SPRINGER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN COL VIN, Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 3:14-CV-01450-HZ 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY 

FEES PER 28 USC 2412(d) 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant 

to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, an attorney fee in the amount of 

$ 5,539.07 is awarded to Plaintiff. It is ordered that the attorney fee will be paid to 

Plaintiff's attorney, dependent upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies 

for offset against the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as 

discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then 

the check shall be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's 

address at: 1336 E. Burnside St., Suite 130, Portland OR 97132. If Plaintiff has such 

debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt shall be made 

payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's mailing address stated above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this .lt day of September, 2015. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:14-cv-01450-HZ Document 22 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 1
#### DODGE, Respondent, v. WEILL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 30, 1896.)

Action by Hampton Dodge against Henry Weill.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
ex10_11.htm


    Exhibit
10.11

    


    QUICKSILVER
RESOURCES INC.

    


    Description
of Non-Employee Director Compensation

    


    Beginning
in 2009, each non-employee director of Quicksilver Resources Inc. receives an
annual fee of $205,000. Each non-employee director is paid $49,500 of the annual
fee in restricted stock under the Quicksilver Resources Inc. Second Amended and
Restated 2006 Equity Plan (the “Plan”) and $49,500 of the annual fee in options
to purchase common stock under the Plan. Each non-employee director is paid the
remaining $106,000 of the annual fee in cash, unless the non-employee director
makes an appropriate election under the Plan to receive some or all of the
remaining $106,000 of the annual fee in restricted stock or options to purchase
common stock.
Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 2 Filed: 06/11/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:62
Exhibit 10-d


            


            COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS

             

             


            The retainer for Board service for non-employee directors of ArvinMeritor is $75,000 per year. No additional retainer is paid for service as committee members.

             

            The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional retainer of $10,000 per year, and the Chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an additional retainer of $7,000 per year. The Chairmen of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the Environmental and Social Responsibility Committee each receive an additional retainer of $5,000 per year. The Presiding Director receives an additional retainer of $20,000 per year.

             

            A director may elect to defer payment of all or part of the cash retainer fees to a later date, with interest on deferred amounts accruing quarterly at a rate equal to 120% of the Federal long-term rate set each month by the Secretary of the Treasury. Each director also has the option each year (provided sufficient shares are available under a plan covering director equity grants to accommodate this deferral option at the time of election) to defer all or any portion of the cash
            retainer by electing to receive restricted shares or restricted share units that could be forfeited if certain conditions are not satisfied. The restricted shares or restricted share units in lieu of the cash retainer are valued at the closing price of the Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange – Composite Transactions reporting system on the date each retainer payment would otherwise be made in cash.

             


            After each Annual Meeting of Shareowners, each non-employee director receives an equity grant under the 2004 Directors Stock Plan. The grant in 2008 consisted of shares of common stock, restricted
            stock or restricted share units, at the director’s discretion, equal to a value of $80,000 on the date of grant, which on the date of grant was equal to 6,607 shares. The grant for fiscal 2009 is expected to deplete the remaining shares available under the 2004 Directors Stock Plan and consist of a grant of 3,500 shares per director. Accordingly, the difference
            between the fair market value on the date of grant of the 3,500 shares and $80,000 (the intended value of the equity award) will be paid in cash. The Company currently expects to submit a plan covering director equity grants for shareholder approval prior to the 2010 annual grant.


            


            A non-employee director who is elected to the Board during the fiscal year receives a pro rata portion of the annual grant.

             

            Non-employee directors also receive fees for attendance at committee meetings. These attendance fees are in the amount of $1,500 for each meeting in person and $750 for each telephone meeting.

             

            Directors who are also employees of ArvinMeritor or a subsidiary of ArvinMeritor do not receive compensation for serving as directors.
DISMISS and Opinion F iled September 30, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-01253-CV VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Appellant V. RITA MARTINEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-05227-C MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Reichek Noting appellant has failed to file his brief despite being cautioned the failure to do so by August 15, 2024 could result in dismissal of the appeal, appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1). More than te n days have passed since the filing of the motion, and appellant has not responde d to the motion or otherw ise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

231253f.p05 / Amanda L. Reichek / AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
No. 05-23-01253-CV V. RITA MARTINEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-05227- C. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek, Justices Nowell and Carlyle participating. In accordance with this Court’ s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.
Judgment entered September 30, 2024
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

452 CA 12-01887 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

JAMES HENNING AND CHRISTINE HENNING, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER

WILLIAM H. KING, JR., ESQ., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

FORSYTH, HOWE, O’DWYER, KALB & MURPHY, P.C., ROCHESTER (SANFORD R. SHAPIRO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, ROCHESTER (ROBERT M. SHADDOCK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (William P. Polito, J.), entered August 30, 2012. The order, among other things, granted the motion of defendant seeking to vacate a judgment entered on June 29, 2012.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
                                                              EXHIBIT 32.2

SUMMIT PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, L.P. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Summit Properties Inc., the general partner of Summit
Properties Partnership, L.P. (the "Operating Partnership") hereby certifies to
his knowledge that the Operating Partnership's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Operating Partnership.



Date:  August 14, 2003                            /S/ Gregg D. Adzema
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  Gregg D. Adzema
                                                  Executive Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
<logo>Ernst & Young LLP
1211
Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York, 10036
212-773-4900

Report of Independent Accountants

To the Stockholder
Columbia Equities, Ltd.

We have examined management's assertion about Columbia 
Equities Ltd. (the "Company") compliance with the minimum 
servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers 
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program 
for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) as of and for the year ended May 
31, 1996 included in the accompanying management assertion. 
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with 
those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to 
express an opinion on management's assertion about the 
entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards 
established by the American Institute of Certified Public 
Accountants and accordingly, included examining. on a text 
basis. evidence about the Company's compliance with the 
minimum servicing standards and performing such other 
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. 
We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis 
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal 
determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum 
servicing standards.

In our opinion. management's assertion that the Company 
complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards 
as of and for the year ended May 31.1996 is fairly stated, 
in all material respects

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

July 18, 1996

Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
      SECTION**


**906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Purchase Point Media, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Steve
      Rubakh, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
      the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
      knowledge:





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





(2)
      The  information  contained in the
      Report  fairly  presents,  in all
      material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and
      result of  operations of the Company.





/s/
      Steve
      Rubakh


Steve
      Rubakh


Principal
      Financial Officer


October
      15,
      2007
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20245

STEVEN CRAIG PATTY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13

- CV

- 3173

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given in the

opinion of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH 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

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED

February 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk Case: 15-20245 Document: 00513371317 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2016
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-29255 

08-OCT-2012 

10:55 AM 

NO. SCWC-29255
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

JEROME JANTO, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,
 

vs.
 

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE STATE OF HAWAI'I,


Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CIV. NO. 04-1-0398)
 

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION AND DISMISSAL
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
 

The Stipulation and Dismissal with Prejudice filed by
 

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant on October 4, 2012, is hereby
 

approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 8, 2012.

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald


 /s/ Paula A. Nakayama


 /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.


 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna


 /s/ Richard W. Pollack
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEGAN ELIZABETH ALTORFER, No. 3:14-cv-01933-HZ

Plaintiff, 

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ORDER

Defendant.

Plaintiff Megan Altorfer brought this action seeking review of the Commissioner's final

decision to deny disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). In a 

December 18, 2015 Opinion & Order, I reversed the Commissioner's decision, and ordered that

the case be remanded for a determination of benefits. Judgment was entered on December 18,

2015. 

Plaintiff now seeks an award of fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant has no

objection to the request. I have reviewed the record in the case, the motion, and the supporting

materials including the award of benefits, the fee agreement with counsel, and the recitation of

1 - ORDER
counsel's hours and services (which were previously filed with the earlier application for fees

under the Equal Access to Justice Act). Applying the standards set by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002), I find the requested fees reasonable.

I grant the motion [33] and award Plaintiff's counsel $37,576.75 in attorney's fees under

42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Previously, I awarded Plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $10,127.36

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. When issuing the § 406(b)

check for payment to Plaintiff’s attorney, the Commissioner is directed to subtract the amount

previously awarded under EAJA and send Plaintiff’s attorney the balance of $27,449.39, less any

applicable processing fees as allowed by statute. Any amount withheld after all administrative

and court attorney's fees are paid should be released to the claimant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this day of , 2018

 

Marco A. Hernandez

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER