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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Linakis, J.), rendered May 14, 1985, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Lakritz, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officers.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that his confession should have been suppressed on the ground that the police allegedly placed him in custody without probable cause in order to question him *(see, People v Edwards,*124 AD2d 818, *lv denied*69 NY2d 827). The record unequivocally establishes, and the hearing court found, that the defendant voluntarily accompanied the detectives to the police station. The defendant was neither handcuffed nor frisked, and, in fact, was able to throw a packet of cocaine under the police car as he exited *(see, People v Quartararo,*113 AD2d 845). Additionally, the record establishes that the questioning at the precinct was conducted under noncustodial circumstances. The defendant *647was free to leave until he confessed to the crime. The fact that the defendant was given his *Miranda*rights does not compel a finding that he was in custody, particularly under these circumstances *(see, People v Busuttil,*115 AD2d 655). In sum, there is no reason to disturb the factual finding of the hearing court that the defendant was not in custody until he confessed *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759).

We also find no merit to the defendant’s contention that his right to counsel was violated. The right to counsel attaches even though the interrogation is conducted in a noncustodial setting where the person "unequivocally” informs the police of his intention to retain counsel for the matter under investigation *(see, People v Rowell,*59 NY2d 727). In this case, there was no request for counsel made by the defendant, and the hearing court found that the defendant’s father only asked the police whether counsel was needed. Such a question does not invoke the defendant’s right to counsel *(see, People v Hartley,*65 NY2d 703; *People v Johnson,*55 NY2d 931, *revg*79 AD2d 201).

Lastly, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant was afforded effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Morris,*100 AD2d 630, *affd*64 NY2d 803; *People v Boero,*117 AD2d 814). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Caldwell, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that defendant failed to demonstrate that a conflict of interest, or a significant possibility thereof, existed and, therefore, reversal is not required *(see, People v Recupero,*73 NY2d 877, 879; *People v McDonald,*68 NY2d 1, 9). We further find that defendant was adequately represented. The proof of guilt was overwhelming and the judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal and find them either unpreserved or without merit. *992(Appeal from judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J.— robbery, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          35,174
<SECURITIES>                                    40,947
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                       422
<INVENTORY>                                      4,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,999
<PP&E>                                          16,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,572
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,783
<SALES>                                         12,639
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,639
<CGS>                                            3,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (589)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (189)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Phillip AMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7596.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 11, 2011.

Decided: May 18, 2011.

Harold Phillip Amos, Appellant Pro Se. William Chad Noel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harold Phillip Amos seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitu*246tional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Amos has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
exv10w8






Exhibit 10.8




FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED EXECUTIVE

SERVICES AGREEMENT




     This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Second Amended and Restated
Executive Services Agreement dated as of November 30, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement”) by and
between Neil Sacker (“Employee”) and The Film Department Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (the “Company”), is made as of as of March 30, 2010 (the “Effective Date”),
and is entered into by and between Company and Employee.



     WHEREAS, Company and Employee have previously entered into the Employment
Agreement



     WHEREAS, Company and Employee have agreed to amend specific terms of the Employment
Agreement in accordance with the terms set forth below. All capitalized terms not defined herein
shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements made herein, the parties hereto agree as
follows:



     1. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by deleting both references to “April 1,
2010” in Sections 1 and 4, and substituting “April 30, 2010” in lieu thereof in both
instances.



     2. This Employment Agreement is intended to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and the regulations and guidance promulgated thereunder
(collectively, “Code Section 409A”) and will be interpreted in a manner intended to comply with
Code Section 409A.



     IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Fourth Amendment as of
the date first above written.



THE FILM DEPARTMENT HOLDINGS LLC




	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Mark Gill	 	/s/ NEIL SACKER
	 	 	 
	By:

	 	Mark Gill
	 	NEIL SACKER
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Its:

	 	CEO	 	 






	 	 	 
	1st
Amendment to 2nd Amended and Restated Exec. Srvcs Agrmt.

	 	1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**800 CAF 14-00689**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF DELSENIOR STRACHAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LINDA GILLIAM, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.
PAUL B. WATKINS, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
SARA E. ROOK, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROCHESTER.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Patricia E. Gallaher, J.), entered March 28, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition for a modification of an order of visitation. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Same memorandum as in Matter of Strachan v Gilliam ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [June 19, 2015]).

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0310 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GALEN LEWIS HAWK,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 4, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brie f on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 26 2022

01/26/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0310
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 The Quantum Group, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending October 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Noel J.
Guillama , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and
in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and,

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
          Report.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Quantum Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Quantum
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.



Signed on February 14, 2005



/s/ NOEL J. GUILLAMA
---------------------------------------------------
NOEL J. GUILLAMA
Chief Executive Officer of The Quantum Group, Inc.
#### Paul Petrone, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, Paul M. Petrone, Appellant, v Winfield E. Quinlan et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Paul Petrone, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, Paul M. Petrone, Appellant, v Winfield E. Quinlan et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

In two actions to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiff appeals from so much of an *616order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), entered September 6, 1988, as (1) denied his motion, denominated as one for leave to "reargue or renew” the granting of the defendants’ separate motions to dismiss the complaint in action No. 1 for failure to prosecute the same, and (2) denied that branch of his cross motion in action No. 2 which was to utilize "all * * * discovery in the first action as the disclosure and pre-trial proceedings in the second action”.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion in action No. 2 which was to use all discovery obtained in action No. 1 in action No. 2 and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the cross motion to the extent that the plaintiff is authorized to use all discovery in action No. 1 in action No. 2, subject to the supervision of the Supreme Court; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs motion for renewal was properly denied by the Supreme Court because the physician’s affirmation of merits, which fails to state the causation between the alleged improper acts and the plaintiffs injuries, is insufficient to establish a good and meritorious cause of action *(see, Ullrich v Rocking Horse Ranch,*138 AD2d 372).

However, under the circumstances of this case, we find that the Supreme Court’s refusal to allow discovery obtained in the first action to be used in the second action was an improvident exercise of discretion. Accordingly, we modify the decision of the Supreme Court to allow the discovery obtained in the first action to be used in the second action, subject to the supervision of the Supreme Court, which is authorized to allow such other and further discovery as is warranted. Rubin, J. P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Howard
      Pearl, President and Chief Executive Officer of Rhino Outdoor International,
      Inc. (the "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





This
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December
      31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report"),
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      April 17, 2007




/s/
      Howard
      Pearl


Howard
      Pearl


President
      and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6102 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6102

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to 
    extend the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into 
     multiyear contracts for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR F/A-18E, F/A-18F, AND 
              EA-18G AIRCRAFT.

    (a) Extension of Certification.--Paragraph (2) of section 128(a) of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 
111-84; 123 Stat. 2217) is amended by striking ``a reference to March'' 
and inserting ``a reference to September''.
    (b) Required Authority.--Such section 128 is further amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Required Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, with respect to a multiyear contract entered into under subsection 
(a), this section shall be deemed to meet the requirements under 
subsection (i)(3) and (l)(3) of section 2306b of title 10, United 
States Code.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6102

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to 
    extend the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into 
     multiyear contracts for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G aircraft.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 on Form 10-K of Metabolix, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Richard P. Eno, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer
of the Company and Joseph D. Hill, Chief Finacial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:



This
certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.

METABOLIX, INC.March 11, 2010

By:

/s/ RICHARD P. ENO Richard P. Eno President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)March 11, 2010

By:

/s/ JOSEPH D. HILL Joseph D. Hill Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
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 Army

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following Committee Meeting:

*Name of Committee:*                         Army Science Board (ASB)—Venture Capital.                              ( print page 20793)    

*Date of Meeting:*                         26-27 April 2001.                    

*Time of Meeting:*                         0900-1630, 26 April 2001; 0900-1630, 27 April 2001.                    

*Place:*                         Presidential Towers Office Bldg, 11th floor conference room, April 26, 9th floor conference room, April 27, 2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3911.                    

*Agenda:*                         This is the second meeting of The Army Science Board's (ASB) Venture Capital Ad Hoc Study. Briefings will be presented in support of Department of Defense initiatives to access leading edge technologies and on commercial business strategies for accessing leading edge technologies. For further information, please contact Christopher Vuxton, Senior Procurement Analyst, (703) 681-1037. If you plan to attend and require an escort to the 9th floor conference room, please call Mr. Everett R. Gooch on (703) 604-7479.                    

Damian Bianca,

Executive Secretary, Army Science Board.

[FR Doc. 01-10187  Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### Vikash CHANDRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Nanda Vashni Chand, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 08-71047, 09-71894.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 2011.*

Filed April 26, 2011.

Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.

Theodore Charles Hirt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Vikash Chandra and Nanda Vashni Chand, natives and citizens of Fiji, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo legal determinations. *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, *de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales,*503 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Chandra and Chand testified inconsistently about the central incident of harm they allegedly suffered. *See Li,*378 F.3d at 964; *Kin v. Holder,*595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir.2010). In the absence of credible testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

*641Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not credible, and petitioners do not point to any other evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not they would be tortured if returned to Fiji, their CAT claim fails. *See id.*at 1156-57.

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to remand because the evidence petitioners submitted was insufficient to establish a claim in light of the adverse credibility finding. *See Rodriguez v. INS,*841 F.2d 865, 867 (9th Cir.1988); *Toufighi v. Mukasey,*538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.