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

[944 NYS2d 683]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Czajka, J.), rendered June 18, 2010 in Ulster County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant waived indictment, pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and executed a written waiver of the right to appeal. The judge who presided over the plea proceedings indicated that, under the terms of the plea agreement, defendant would be sentenced to 3x/2 years in prison, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, to run concurrently with the sentences imposed on other unrelated crimes. However, a different judge was assigned to the case at sentencing who refused to impose the term of imprisonment set forth in the plea agreement due to the absence of mitigating circumstances. Prior to imposing sentence, Supreme Court gave defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea, which he declined. The court proceeded to sentence defendant to four years in prison, followed by five years of postrelease supervision, to run consecutively to the sentences he was serving on the other crimes. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the sentence is harsh and *1563excessive.* We find his argument to be unpersuasive. Defendant has a lengthy criminal record and had been released on bail pending the disposition of other crimes when he committed the crime in question. In view of this, and given that the sentence was significantly less than the maximum he could have received if convicted after trial *(see*Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [b]), we find no extraordinary circumstances nor abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Merchant,*79 AD3d 1526, 1526-1527 [2010]; *People v Thompkins,*58 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2009], *lv denied*12 NY3d 822 [2009]). Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Rose, J.P, Lahtinen, Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 We note that defendant was specifically advised by Supreme Court at sentencing that he had the right to appeal the sentence. In the circumstances presented, the waiver of appeal does not preclude this challenge (see *People v Borden,*91 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2012]; *People v Middleton,*72 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2010]).
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.<TABLE> <S> <C><ARTICLE>    5<S>                                                      <C><PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS<PERIOD-START><FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Feb-28-2001<PERIOD-END>                                     May-31-2000<CASH>                                                     0<SECURITIES>                                               0<RECEIVABLES>                                        101,662<ALLOWANCES>                                               0<INVENTORY>                                          919,240<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     191,104<PP&E>                                               370,562<DEPRECIATION>                                       167,741<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1,336,807<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,009,416<BONDS>                                                    0<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              2,050,107<PREFERRED>                                                0<COMMON>                                               5,956<OTHER-SE>                                       (1,903,763)<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1,336,807<SALES>                                               28,873<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      28,873<CGS>                                                  7,025<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        246,830<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (226,982)<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (12,548)<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (383,333)<INCOME-TAX>                                       (383,333)<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (229,530)<DISCONTINUED>                                             0<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0<CHANGES>                                                  0<NET-INCOME>                                       (383,333)<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.14)<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.14)</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

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

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

 

Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, inhis capacity as an officer of Force Protection, Inc. (the “Company”),that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. § 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in such reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.  Thiswritten statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionas an exhibit to such Form 10-Q. A signed original of this statement hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|                    |                                                |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  May 4, 2010 | /s/ MICHAEL MOODY                                   |
|                    | **Michael Moody**                                   |
|                    | **Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President** |
|                    |                                                |
| Date:  May 4, 2010 | /s/ CHARLES MATHIS                                  |
|                    | **Charles Mathis**                                  |
|                    | **Chief Financial Officer**                         |

 

Thisexhibit shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liabilities of thatSection, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filings underthe Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether madebefore or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage in any filings.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18055]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-441-003.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC submits.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 154.203: File & Motion 
Revised & Cancelled Tariff Records--RP21-441-000 to be effective 8/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 7/29/21.
    Accession Number: 20210729[not]5057.
    Comment Date: 8/20/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1033-000.
    Applicants: Six One Commodities LLC, Six One Commodities Vega LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver of Capacity 
Release Regulations, et al. of Six One Commodities LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/13/21.
    Accession Number: 20210813-5127.
    Comment Date: 5 pm ET 8/25/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1034-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: EGTS--August 16, 2021 
Administrative Change to be effective 9/16/2021.
    Filed Date: 8/16/21.
    Accession Number: 20210816-5051.
    Comment Date: 5 pm ET 8/30/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1035-000.
    Applicants: Cove Point LNG, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cove Point--August 16, 2021 
Administrative Filing to be effective 9/16/2021.
    Filed Date: 8/16/21.
    Accession Number: 20210816-5053.
    Comment Date: 5 pm ET 8/30/21.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 17, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18055 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### In the Matter of Basset Group, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Town of Greece Town Board et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 897]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Harold L. Galloway, J.), entered August 4, 2011. The *1428judgment declared that the June 15, 2010 resolution of respondent Town of Greece Town Board does not violate Town Law § 272-a (11) and is not inconsistent with the Town’s master plan and denied and dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
# C_2005168EN.01004001.xml

| 8.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/40

---

Communication from the French Government concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1)

1

(Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, known as a ‘Permis de Moret-sur-Loing’)

(Notice regarding an application for an exclusive licence to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, known as a ‘Permis de Moret-sur-Loing’)

(2005/C 168/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By request of 17 January 2005, Géopétrol SA, a company with registered offices at 9, rue Nicolas Copernic BP 20, 93151 (Seine Saint-Denis) Le Blanc-Mesnil Cedex, France, applied for an exclusive licence, for a period of four years, to prospect for liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons known as a ‘Permis de Moret-sur-Loing’, over an area of approximately 200 km2 in the department of Seine et Marne.

2

The perimeter of the area covered by this licence is made up of the meridian and parallel arcs successively joining the vertices of a polygon defined below by their geographical coordinates, the original meridian being that of Paris:

| VERTICES | LONGITUDE | LATITUDE |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 0.30 degrees E | 53.80 degrees N |
| 2 | 0.60 degrees E | 53.80 degrees N |
| 3 | 0.60 degrees E | 53.70 degrees N |
| 4 | 0.30 degrees E | 53.70 degrees N |

VERTICES

LONGITUDE

LATITUDE

1

0.30 degrees E

53.80 degrees N

2

0.60 degrees E

53.80 degrees N

3

0.60 degrees E

53.70 degrees N

4

0.30 degrees E

53.70 degrees N

Interested companies may, within ninety days of the publication of this notice, submit a competing application in accordance with the procedure summarised in the ‘Notice regarding the granting of mining rights for hydrocarbons in France’ published in
  Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 of 30 December 1994, page 11, and established by Decree 95-427 of 19 April 1995 regarding mining rights (Official Journal of the French Republic of 22 April 1995).

Official Journal of the European Communities

Further information can be obtained from the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry (Directorate-General for Energy and Raw Materials, Directorate for Energy and Mineral Resources, Bureau of Mining Legislation), 61, Boulevard Vincent Auriol, Télédoc 133, F-75703 Paris Cedex 13, France, (tel. (33) 44 97 23 02, fax (33) 44 97 05 70).

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

1

---
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

REBECCA A. MARSH,

6:15-cv-0332-TC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 

18), and the matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the 

file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no substantive error and conclude 

the report is correct.

Case 6:15-cv-00332-TC Document 21 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 2
2 –ORDER

The only error found is the scrivener’s error pointed out in the Commissioner’s objection. 

This error, contained in the first paragraph, is clearly a scrivener’s error as it states the 

Commissioner’s final decision should be reversed. The other 15 pages of the Findings and 

Recommendation goes into great detail regarding why the Commissioner’s final decision is 

supported by legal substantial evidence and free of legal error. I agree and adopt the entire report 

other than the last sentence of the introductory paragraph which states, “For the reasons set forth 

below, the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed and this case should be remanded for 

further proceedings.” I strike that scrivener’s error. The rest of Magistrate Judge Coffin’s 

Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is adopted. The Commissioner’s final decision is 

AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2016.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-00332-TC Document 21 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1583 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1583

     To suspend temporarily the duty on <greek-b>-Bromo-<greek-b>-
                             nitrostyrene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 29, 1998

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on <greek-b>-Bromo-<greek-b>-
                             nitrostyrene.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON <greek-B>-BROMO-<greek-B>-
              NITROSTYRENE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new item:

      

``    9902.32.92        <greek-b>-Bromo-                                                                        
                         <greek-b>-                                                                             
                         nitrostyrene                                                                           
                         (CAS No. 7166-                                                                         
                         19-0) (provided                                                                        
                         for in                                                                                 
                         subheading                                                                             
                         2904.90.47)....  Free             No change        No change        On or before 12/   
                                                                                              31/2000           
                                                                                                              ''

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6434

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARRON GOODS, a/k/a Moo Man,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00309-RDB-9; 1:20-cv-03118-RDB)

Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: November 29, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darron Goods, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darron Goods seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized, and denying his motion for reconsideration. 

Our review of the record confirms that the district court properly determined that Goods’ 

§ 2255 motion was successive and unauthorized and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction 

over it.* See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 

397-400 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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

* Because we agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction to consider 

Goods’ successive, unauthorized motion, we do not address the district court’s alternative 

ruling that the motion was untimely and lacking in merit. To the extent that Goods wishes 

to obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion, he may file such 

a motion directly in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2255.
Exhibit 31.3



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Sam Kraynek, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



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



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;



5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;



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



|      |  |                                     
|----- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: |  | November 12, 2005                   
|      | 
|By:   |  | /s/ Sam Kraynek                     
|      |  | Sam Kraynek, Chief Financial Officer
&NM 'airVIBEEPTfir, 

facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 

(2005). 

Barajas failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to any 

additional credit. See NRS 176.055(1) (providing that a defendant will be 

given credit for the amount of time spent in confinement prior to 

conviction unless the confinement was pursuant to the judgment of 

conviction for a different offense); see also McMichael v. State, 94 Nev. 

184, 194, 577 P.2d 398, 404 (1978) ("Only incarceration pursuant to a 

charge for which sentence is ultimately imposed can be credited against 

that sentence."), overruled on other grounds by Meador v. State, 101 Nev. 

765, 711 P.2d 852 (1985), and abrogated on other grounds by Braunstein 

v. State, 118 Nev. 68, 40 P.3d 413 (2002). And Barajas' reliance on 

Johnson v. State, 120 Nev. 296, 89 P.3d 669 (2004), is misplaced because 

Johnson only mandates presentence incarceration credit for sentences 

ordered to run concurrently within a single judgment of conviction. 

Johnson does not mandate presentence incarceration credit where the 

sentences are ordered to run concurrently in separate judgments of 

conviction. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2 
:WMitION1151111112 I rIEREFTX • : 21k1 

cc: Second Judicial District Court Dept. 8 

Law Office of Thomas L. Qualls, Ltd. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A • 

3