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

[946 NYS2d 872]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered December 10, 2010, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, aggravated vehicular homicide, and driving while ability impaired by drugs, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 16 years and five *971years of postrelease supervision on the conviction of attempted murder in the second degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years on the conviction of aggravated vehicular homicide, and an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years on the convictions of driving while ability impaired by drugs, all to run concurrently.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentences imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

While the defendant’s contention that he was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]), we consider the matter in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see People v Favale,*77 AD3d 970 [2010]; *People v Hamdam,*58 AD3d 752, 753 [2009]). As the People correctly concede, the sentencing court adjudicated the defendant a second felony offender *(see*Penal Law § 70.06) absent any indication of compliance with the procedural requirements of CPL 400.21, or any showing that the defendant was given notice and an opportunity to be heard *(see People v Bouyea,*64 NY2d 1140, 1142 [1985]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for resentencing in accordance with the mandates of CPL 400.21 *(see People v Favale,*77 AD3d at 971; *People v Hamdam,*58 AD3d at 753).

The defendant’s contentions that, at the resentence, the People should be precluded from filing a statement pursuant to CPL 400.21 (2) and that CPL 440.40 applies herein are without merit. Rivera, J.P., BalkIn, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### Pinky Sohn, Respondent, v Lucrecia Calderon et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered August 6, 1986, which, *inter alia,*stayed defendants’ Civil Court proceeding to compel the restoration of essential services and repairs and set down for immediate trial plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action seeking permission to withdraw the units of the subject building from the rental market, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to condition the stay of the Civil Court proceeding upon the commencement of the "immediate trial” of the declaratory judgment action within 30 days after service of a copy of this court’s order with notice of entry thereof and, in the event said condition is not complied with, the stay of the Civil Court proceeding is vacated, and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the motion court that an expeditious trial should be had of the landlord’s claim that he should be permitted either to withdraw the units from the rental market under Code of the Rent Stabilization Association of New York City, Inc. (Code) § 54 (D) (3) and New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations §59 (a) (2) and (4) or to demolish the subject building pursuant to Code § 54 (D) (1) and New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations § 58 (a) (1); (b). In accordance with the view that an immediate trial was warranted, *228the matter had been set down one week later for trial and the tenant defendants’ Civil Court proceeding stayed. This appeal and a stay of the motion court’s order intervened. Since we do not believe that the Civil Court proceeding — and the tenants’ rights to restoration of services and repairs, if warranted— should be deferred indefinitely, we attach a time limitation for the commencement of the trial of the declaratory judgment action. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas and Kassal, JJ.
(November 25, 1986)

#### In the Matter of John J. Santucci, as District Attorney, Queens County, Appellant, v Cosmo J. Di Tucci, as Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, et al., Respondents.

The respondent Trial Justice of the Supreme Court was exercising his discretion in his control of the calendar. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur. *[See, People v Garnes,*134 Misc 2d 39.]
#### WEEKS, Respondent, v. PACHER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 15, 1896.)

Action by Angelina Weeks, executrix, etc., against Xaver Pacher and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Ail concur.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. DILLON, Appellant, v. WELLES, Police Commissioner, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 15, 1896.)

Certiorari by Richard Dillon against Leonard R. Welles, police commissioner.

No opinion. Determination confirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

RESIGNATION OF CHARLES P. 

COCKERILL, BAR NO. 67. 

No. 84050 

HLE 

JAN 1 3 2022 

EUA A. BROWM 

COU 

IEF DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION 

This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and attorney 

Charles P. Cockerill for his resignation from the Nevada bar. 

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not actively 

practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if certain 

conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state bar staff 

confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client security 

fund matters are pending against Cockerill; and that he is current on all 

membership fee payments and other financial commitments relating to his 

practice of law in this state. See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2). 

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be 

approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for 

resignation. See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Cockerill acknowledges that his 

resignation is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing 

jurisdiction with respect to matters involving a past member's conduct prior 

to resignation. See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Cockerill has submitted an 

affidavit of compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 98(5)(e). 

Sumen COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) P.147A alego 

Tz- oi3(17- 

411;44 . ,7:--4._ • -4;-!:..x:i6.;.:•ac-rit;441;--'•-•--if.r_est i•-•-•<7;r.; 
The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney Charles P. Cockerill's resignation. SCR 

98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

06-01, 

cc: Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Charles P. Cockerill 

Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(o) 1947A .47pla 

,AarigaiskiiAtaeritia), ".;•1,
#### Maxine Grant, Appellant, v Steve Mark, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[947 NYS2d 97]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered June 29, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously modified, on the law, defendants’ motion denied, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff testified that while cleaning the top shelves of a closet, in an apartment that was undergoing a gut renovation, the A-frame ladder that she was using to complete the task tipped over causing her to fall to the ground with the ladder falling on top of her. Under these circumstances, dismissal of the section 240 (1) cause of action was improper. Where, as here, a plaintiff has shown that the ladder on which she was standing was unstable and tipped over, a prima facie case of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) has been established *(see Harrison v V.R.H. Constr. Corp.,*72 AD3d 547 [2010]; *Thompson v St. Charles Condominiums,*303 AD2d 152, 154 [2003], *lv dismissed*100 NY2d 556 [2003]).

However, plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. The manner of the happening of the accident is within the exclusive knowledge of plaintiff, and the only evidence submitted in support of defendants’ liability is plaintiff’s account. Defendants should have the opportunity to subject plaintiff’s testimony to cross-examination to explore whether she misused the ladder and was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and to have her credibility determined by a trier of fact *(see e.g. Manna v New York City Hous. Auth.,*215 AD2d 335 [1995]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
#### REED, Appellant, v. STANLEY et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by Joseph Reed against Fred Stanley and Jennie M. Stanley.

No opinion. Judgment of the county court of Orleans county affirmed, with costs.
# C_2021081EN.01000401.xml

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9161 — Brookfield/M Finance Capital/ECLA Paris Massy-Palaiseau Companies)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/04)

On 16 November 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9161. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M9161. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
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 Quarterly Report of Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Timothy J. Steinkopf                                       
|Timothy J. Steinkopf                                           
|Senior Vice President of Operations and Chief Financial Officer
|May 10, 2006
##### 



Exhibit 21

LIBERTÉ INVESTORS INC.
Listing of Subsidiaries of the Company

The Company has no parent.
At June 30, 2003, the subsidiary of the Company was as follows:

|                   |  |           |  |                         |     |  
|------------------ |  | --------- |  | ----------------------- | --- | -
|                   |  | Organized |  | Percentage of          
|                   |  | Under the |  | Voting securities      
|Name of subsidiary |  | Laws of   |  | Owned by the Registrant
|                   |  |           |  |                        
|LNC Holdings Inc.  |  | Nevada    |  |                         | 100 | %
UNITED STATES CO

Complainant,

VS

JA ]\{.ARRI LAMAR BROWN.

Rcspondent.

Docket Number: 2023-0107

Enforcement Activity ID: 7630424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

AST GUARD. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: August 17. 2023

Bv Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge: Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

ADDearances:

For the Coast Guard

LT Alex Gagne

USCG Sector Virginia

and

Jennifer A. Mehaffey, Esq.

USCG Suspension and Revocation

National Center of Expertise

For the Respondent

Jamarri Lamar Brown, pro se
CONSENT ORDI]R APPROVINGSETTLEMENTAGREEMENT

On August 04,2023, the parties in this case submifted a Motion for Approval of a

settlement Agreement and Entry ofconsent order to the Administrative Law Judge for approval

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair.

reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement

is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall

constitute full, final, and complete adjudication ofthis proceeding.

ue,// s4../J.

Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Chief Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard

Date: August 17,2023 I
EXHIBIT 32.2




PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended April 2, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Aaron Tachibana, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:


(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and


(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.




May 6, 2011By:
/s/ Aaron TachibanaAaron TachibanaChief Financial OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to a request from the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority (ETRPA), the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment), has decided to extend the public review comment period for the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) El Toro Disposal and Reuse Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), from April 3, 2000 to April 24, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert Montana, NEPA Project Manager, Commander, Southwest Division, BRAC Program Office, 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1100, San Diego, CA 92101-8517, phone (619) 532-0942. 

Dated: April 12, 2000. 

J.L. Roth, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-9528 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James K. Hilger, Chief 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:

(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/ JAMES K. HILGER

James K. Hilger
Chief Financial Officer
November 15, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pyramid Breweries Inc. and will be retained by Pyramid Breweries
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. LAWYERS’ SURETY CO. v. ANTHONY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June, 1896.)

Proceeding on the relation of the Lawyers’ Surety Company against D. Edgar Anthony.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 1130, and 40 N. Y. Supp. 279.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50086

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAURICIO PERALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-02-CR-1409-ALL-PM

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Mauricio Perales appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after

deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Perales

contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define

separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that

resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate

offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in

his indictment. Perales maintains that he pleaded guilty to an
No. 03-50086

-2-

indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year

maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that

offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Perales acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 25, 2021

No. 04-21-00114-CV

Zulema GARZA,

Appellant

v.

Zulema J. GARZA, Jose Juan Garza, III, Andres Garza, Alejandro Garza, and Gabriel Garza,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CVK-002209-D1

Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On August 23, 2021, appellant filed her brief. The brief does not comply with Rules 9.4, 

9.5, or 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. 

Specifically, the brief violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4 because it is not double 

spaced and does not contain a certificate of compliance stating the number of words in the 

document. See id. R. 9.4(d), 9.4(i)(3). The brief also violates Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.5 because it does not certify that appellant served it on appellees’ counsel. See id. R. 9.5(a), 

(b)(2), (d), (e). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the brief violates Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.1 because it does not contain a statement of facts with citations to the appellate 

record, a proper legal argument supported by citations to legal authorities and the appellate 

record, or an appendix containing the trial court’s judgment or other appealable order from 

which relief is sought. See id. R. 38.1(g), 38.1(i), 38.1(k). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant’s brief STRICKEN and ORDER appellant to file 

an amended brief in this court complying with Rules 9.4, 9.5, and 38.1 by September 14, 2021. 

If appellant does not file an amended brief that complies with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure by the date stated in this order, we will dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9, 42.3. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of August, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court