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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered March 11, 1981, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant’s guilt of the charged crimes *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). Applying that standard to the evidence herein, we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Here, three prosecution witnesses testified that they saw the defendant take a gun from his waistband, point it at one of the witnesses and pull the trigger, shooting him in the chest. As the witnesses ran from the scene, they heard the defendant fire three more shots, which resulted in the death of Jeffrey Parker. The defendant’s guilt of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of *641a weapon in the second degree was, therefore, overwhelmingly proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was no broad attempt by the prosecutor to discredit the defendant by showing his affiliation with the "five percenters” *(cf., People v Connally,*105 AD2d 797). The prosecutor merely elicited from witnesses that that group was a religious sect whose members were known by various nicknames and that the defendant had such a nickname. The prosecutor did not attempt to inform the jury of the activities, beliefs or reputation of said group or to attribute illegal, immoral or vicious acts to its members *(cf., People v Connally, supra; People v Forchalle,*88 AD2d 645). Rather, such limited questioning merely served to explain the relevant and material issue of identification and the circumstances regarding the apprehension of the defendant who was known only by a nickname.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

B.A.B.,

Petitioner

v.

J.J.B.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 494 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# C_2021076EN.01001101.xml

| 5.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/11

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

(2021/C 76/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons who appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 (4) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, before 10 December 2021 to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26.

(2)  OJ L 77, 5.3.2021, p. 29

(3)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 77, 5.3.2021, p. 2

---
#### McCULLOCH, Respondent, v. McCULLOCH et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Martha McCulloch against J. Ashley McCulloch and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 237 

To authorize the revocation or denial of passports and passport cards to 

individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2015 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the revocation or denial of passports and passport cards to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist 

organizations, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘FTO Passport Revoca5 tion Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 237 IH

1 SEC. 2. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORTS AND PASS2 PORT CARDS TO INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED 

3 WITH FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. 

4 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to regulate the issue and 

5 validity of passports, and for other purposes’’, approved 

6 July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known 

7 as the ‘‘Passport Act of 1926’’, is amended by adding at 

8 the end the following: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT AND 

10 PASSPORT CARD. 

11 ‘‘(a) INELIGIBILITY.— 

12 ‘‘(1) ISSUANCE.—Except as provided under 

13 subsection (b), the Secretary of State may not issue 

14 a passport or passport card to any individual whom 

15 the Secretary has determined is a member of or is 

16 otherwise affiliated with, or is aiding, assisting, abet17 ting, or is otherwise helping an organization the Sec18 retary has designated as a foreign terrorist organiza19 tion pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and 

20 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189). 

21 ‘‘(2) REVOCATION.—The Secretary of State 

22 shall revoke a passport or passport card previously 

23 issued to any individual described in paragraph (1). 

24 ‘‘(b) EXCEPTIONS.— 

25 ‘‘(1) EMERGENCY AND HUMANITARIAN SITUA26 TIONS.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:00 Jan 15, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H237.IH H237

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 237 IH

1 retary of State may issue a passport or passport 

2 card, in emergency circumstances or for humani3 tarian reasons, to an individual described in para4 graph (1) of such subsection. 

5 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION FOR RETURN TO UNITED

6 STATES.—Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), the 

7 Secretary of State, before revocation, may— 

8 ‘‘(A) limit a previously issued passport or 

9 passport card only for return travel to the 

10 United States; or 

11 ‘‘(B) issue a limited passport or passport 

12 card that only permits return travel to the 

13 United States. 

14 ‘‘(c) REPORT.—If the Secretary of State issues or 

15 limits a passport or passport card under subsection (b), 

16 the Secretary shall, not later than 30 days after such 

17 issuance or limitation, submit to Congress a report on 

18 such issuance or limitation, as the case may be.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We have issued our report dated March 15, 2005, accompanying the
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Trycera Financial,
Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004.  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statement of Trycera Financial, Inc. on Form S-2 (File No.
333-121651).

/s/ Chisholm, Bierwolf & Nilson LLC

CHISHOLM, BIERWOLF & NILSON LLC

Bountiful, Utah
April 14, 2005
#### In the Matter of Clemence Chambers, Petitioner, v Edward V. Regan, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

— Main, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits on the basis of three injuries she sustained. The first occurred in November 1977 when she slipped and fell on an icy ramp leading to the building in which she worked, injuring her back. The second occurred in October 1983 when she slipped while climbing onto a forklift, again injuring her back. The third occurred on that same date when she aggravated the back injury while lifting a large box. Following a hearing, respondent denied her application, finding that the 1977 injury was not sustained in the performance of petitioner’s duties and that the 1983 incidents did not constitute accidents within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm respondent’s determination. With regard to the 1977 injury, we find that petitioner had not yet begun her duties, despite the fact that she was entering the building to begin her duties, and thus did not sustain her injury in the course of her duties *(see, Matter of Marino v Regan,*117 AD2d 845; *Matter of Smith v Regan,*115 AD2d 161; *cf. Alessio v New York City Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*114 AD2d 774, *affd*67 NY2d 978). The fact that petitioner was required to use a specific entrance to gain entry to the building does not compel a different result.

Next, with respect to the forklift injury, we find that that injury resulted from a risk inherent in petitioner’s duties, not from an unexpected event *(see, Matter of McCambridge v McGuire,*62 NY2d 563, 568). The record reveals that the *921injury resulted from petitioner’s own misstep rather than any unforeseen circumstances such as a wet surface *(see, id.,*pp 567-568; *Matter of Rowe v Regan,*107 AD2d 967, 968) and, accordingly, the forklift injury did not result from an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63. Similarly, with regard to petitioner’s third injury, we note that petitioner herself stated that lifting boxes was one of her regular duties. Since this injury resulted from physical exertion in the performance of petitioner’s regular duties, the incident does not qualify as an accident *(see, Matter of McCambridge v McGuire, supra; Matter of Atkins v Regan,*84 AD2d 619). We accordingly find that respondent’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and should be confirmed.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Main, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000  
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          20,629
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                       407
<INVENTORY>                                      6,087
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,193
<PP&E>                                         366,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,528
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,052
<BONDS>                                        191,427
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,838
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,333
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,653)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (839)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,814)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,814)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 227TH JUDICIA L DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETI NGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 3, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Shawn L. Sanders , Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 14

- 00570

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2012CR5452

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion issued this date, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. S andee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on March 2, 2015

. KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.27

                                INGRAM MICRO INC.
               SUMMARY OF ANNUAL EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE AWARD PROGRAM

      Ingram Micro's annual executive incentive award program provides for
performance-based bonuses for executives as well as management-level associates
and is based on Ingram Micro's performance relative to financial goals.

      Each executive role has an incentive target that is established as a
percent of base salary. For executive officers, this percentage ranges from 45%
up to 100%. If a threshold level of profit performance is not met, the incentive
award would be zero. The maximum award for executive officers is two times the
target award.

      The Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors has the ability to
make discretionary adjustments to awards under the annual incentive plan, but
expects to exercise this discretion only under exceptional circumstances.
##### 



Page 12 of 24 Exhibit 99(d) KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A OFFICERS CERTIFICATE JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., ELT
    
    Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, IT4 New York Plaza, 6th Floor
    
    60 Wall Street, 26th Floor-MS NYC60-2606New York, NY 10004
    
    New York, NY 10007Attn: ITS-Global Debt.
    
    Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency GroupPhone: (212) 623-5427
    

Structured FinanceFax: (212) 623-5933
    
    Phone: (212) 250-8522Fax: (212) 797-8606KeyBank National Association
    
    MBIA Insurance Corporation800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor
    
    113 King StreetCleveland, OH 44114
    
    Armonk, NY 10504ATTN: President, KER
    
    ATTN: Data AdministrationPhone: (216) 828-4293
    
    Phone: (914) 765-3772Fax: (216) 828-9301
    
    Fax: (914) 765-3660
 Pursuant to Section 4.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement among KeyBank National Association,
successor in interest to Key Bank USA, National Association, as Seller, Master Servicer, and
Administrator, KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2000-A, as Issuer, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
successor in interest to Bank One, National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely
as Eligible Lender Trustee, dated as of June 1, 2000 (the Agreement), the undersigned hereby
certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the Administrator from January 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2004, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made, and (ii) to the best
of our knowledge, based on our review, the Administrator has fulfilled all its obligations under
the Agreement and the related Administration Agreement respectively throughout such period. KeyBank National Association,
successor in interest to
Key Bank USA, National Association,
as Administratorby:           /S/ DANIEL G. SMITHDate: February 18, 2005
    
    Name: Daniel G. Smith
Title: Senior Vice Presidentby:          /S/ DARLENE H. DIMITRIJEVSName: Darlene H. Dimitrijevs
Title: Senior Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-26-2000             FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-28-1999             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-26-2000             FEB-27-1999
<CASH>                                           7,533                     149
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,741                   2,683
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     60,203                  56,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,705                  64,814
<PP&E>                                          59,901                  45,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,006                  13,764
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,870                 100,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,787                  40,217
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           103                     102
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,467                  60,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,870                 100,621
<SALES>                                        328,267                 325,231
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               328,267                 325,231
<CGS>                                          156,186                 156,198
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  306,535                 306,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (864)                     697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,422                  17,681
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,251                   6,990
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,171                  10,691
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,171                  10,691
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.38                    1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34                    1.02


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Page 17 of 18

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(g)

[KPMG LETTERHEAD]


                        Report of Independent Accountants


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report of
Management on Compliance with Specified Key Alternative Loan Program
Requirements, that Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. (Great Lakes)
complied with the specified requirements of the Subservicing Agreement (KeyCorp
Student Loan Trust 2000-A) between Key Bank USA, National Association and Great
Lakes dated as of June 1, 2000 (Subservicing Agreement) during the period June
1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. Management is responsible for Great Lakes'
compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on management's assertion about Great Lakes' compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Great Lakes'
compliance with those requirements 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 Great Lakes' compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Great Lakes complied with the
aforementioned requirements during the period June 1, 2000 through December 31,
2000 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management of
Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc.; Bank One, National Association;
Bankers Trust Company; Moody's Investor Services, Inc.; Standard and Poor's
Ratings Services; Fitch IBCA; and Key Bank USA, National Association, and is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.

                                        /s/Ernst & Young LLP

January 5, 2001