alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 9, 2017 106431B 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL L. STEVENS,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: January 11, 2017

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Aarons, JJ.

__________

G. Scott Walling, Schenectady, for appellant.

Stephen K. Cornwell Jr., District Attorney, Binghamton

(Stephen Ferri of counsel), for respondent.

__________

McCarthy, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County

(Cawley, J.), rendered July 23, 2013, convicting defendant upon

his plea of guilty of the crime of course of sexual conduct

against a child in the first degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to course of sexual conduct

against a child in the first degree and the plea agreement

included the waiver of the right to appeal. County Court

thereafter sentenced him to five years in prison, to be followed

by 10 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.1 

1 Although defendant's notice of appeal contains an error

in the crime of conviction, we will overlook the error and treat
-2- 106431B 

We affirm. Initially, the People concede, and we agree,

that defendant did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily

waive the right to appeal his conviction and sentence (see People

v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). As to defendant's contention

that the sentence is harsh and excessive due to the period of

postrelease supervision imposed, we are unpersuaded. The term of

postrelease supervision imposed was less than the maximum

permitted by statute (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [1] [a]; 70.80 [1]

[b]; 70.45 [2-a] [f]). Further, having reviewed the record, and

taking into consideration the seriousness of his crime, we

discern neither an abuse of discretion nor any extraordinary

circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the

interest of justice (see People v Taft, 115 AD3d 1095, 1095

[2014]; People v McCombs, 83 AD3d 1296, 1296 [2011]).

Garry, Lynch, Rose and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court

the notice of appeal as valid (see CPL 460.10; People v Saunders,

127 AD3d 1420, 1420 n [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 935 [2015]).
**Exhibit 12.2****CERTIFICATION**I, James D. MacDonald, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Metal Storm Limited;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;4. The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the company and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company,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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting;and5. The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:July 15, 2006         By:    /s/ JAMES D. MACDONALD      Name: James D. MacDonald  Title: Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30735

Summary Calendar

SMIT INTERNATIONAL (WEST AFRICA B.V.),

Plaintiff-Appellee

Cross-Appellant,

VERSUS

THE PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION,

Defendant-Appellant

Cross-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

 (CA 93 2268 J)

April 30, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On July 13, 1990, the USS Preserver, a United States Navy tug

commanded by Lieutenant Commander Paul Nolte ("Nolte") entered the

breakwater of the Panama Canal towing the 2,675-ton ex-USS

Skipjack, a decommissioned nuclear submarine, to be anchored inside

the breakwater. Nolte requested from the Panama Canal Commission

("PCC") a pilot and two tugs for assistance in the maneuvers. PCC
2

assigned its pilot, Louis Pascavage, and one tug, the Smit Belgie,

owned and operated by Smit International (West Africa B.V.)

("Smit"). Pascavage properly and effectively assumed control of

the USS Preserver and its tow and ordered the Smit Belgie to put

one line on the stern of Skipjack and then move aft to take way off

of the tow. Skipjack had a vertical rudder extending above the

deck; and Smit Belgie's 200 foot of line was attached to the deck

of the submarine on the center line of its hull well forward of the

stern. After pulling the stern of Skipjack to starboard, the Smit

Belgie began the maneuver to fall in behind Skipjack. When the two

line caught in the housing of the vertical rudder, the line became

taut and jerked the tug onto a submerged diving plane which

extended out from the hull of the submarine. Smit Belgie was holed

on her port side and sank. 

Smit sued PCC in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana to recover the stipulated damages of

$1,725,000 which it sustained as a result of the sinking of its

tow. The case was tried before the United States District Judge

who found that PCC and Smit were each liable for 50% of the fault

for the casualty. Accordingly, the district court awarded judgment

in favor of Smit for $862,500, being one-half of its stipulated

damages. Both sides appealed.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply briefs, the

record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. For
3

the reasons stated by the district judge in the Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law entered under date of May 30, 1995, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED
#### LUMBER EXCH. BANK et al., Respondents, v. JENKINS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by the Lumber Exchange Bank and others against Oliver A. Jenkins.

No- opinion. Order appealed from affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of CHILDS, J., at circuit.
pspf_ex101.htm


    EXHIBIT 10(l)

     

     

    Tuesday,
April 6, 2010

     

    Power
Sports Factory (PSF) and Crossroads Financial (CF) agree to the following
conditions for the companies to continue their current contractual
relationship:

     

    -  CF acknowledges that
Power Sports Factory is not presently in default on their current loan
agreement.

     

    -  CF will not sell any PSF
scooters to another party before June 30th,
2010 without the consent of PSF.

     

    -  CF will receive the
following payment on each bike model prior to release from MMI:

     

    M50 —
$520 + $100 to CTSI = $620

     

    X50- $620
+ $100 to CTSI = $720

     

    150XT -
$620 + $100 to CTSI —$720

     

    RX200 -
$470 + $100 to CTSI = $570

     

    RX50 -
$470 + $100 to CTSI — $570.

     

    -  CF and PSF agree this
payment to CF will only cover MMI storage, Product Liability insurance and CF
interest/management fee.

     

    -  PSF agrees they will sell
at least 100 scooters in April, 150 scooters in May, 150 scooters in June. PSF
agrees to use its best efforts to facilitate scooter sales as quickly as
possible. PSF will continue to provide proper MS0 documents for each
sale.

     

    -  PSF agrees that in order
to sell 1 X50, we must sell at least 10 units of another model. All other models
should be sold in relation to their relative inventory levels.

     

    -  PSF confirms that it has
the full right to use the Andretti name and to sell the above mentioned scooters
during this period.

     

     

    
      
        	 	 	 	 	 
	
                /s/
      Shawn Landgraf

              	 	 	
                /s/
      Rich Epstein

              	 
	
                Name:
      Shawn Landgraf

              	 	 	
                Name:
      Rich Epstein 

              	 
	
                Title:  Chief
      Executive Officer

                          
      Power Sports Factory

              	 	 	
                Title:
      COO

                
                           
      Crossroads Financial
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40135

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ULISES ALANIZ-DIAZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-1439-1

Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Ulises Alaniz-Diaz raises an

argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d

303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which reaffirmed the holding in United States v.

Gamez-Gonzalez, 319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 2003), that knowledge of drug type

and quantity is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841. The

appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 21, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 12-40135 Document: 00511964303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Cynthia Ann Hudson, Appellant

No. 06-11-00028-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2009-F-00005). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Carter and Justice Moseley 

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no reversible error in the judgment 

of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Cynthia Ann Hudson, has adequately indicated her inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 13, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EX-10.10






 Confidential Treatment Requested by Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. 

Pursuant to 17 C.F.R. Section 200.83 
  

 Exhibit 10.10 
 



 
 July 8, 2019 
 Lance
Mitchell 
 CEO, Reynolds Consumer Products 
 Dear Lance: 

As we have discussed, a critical component of our ongoing business strategy for Reynolds Consumer Products will be to explore opportunities for the business
that could lead to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the business or potentially a divestiture of the associated business entities. Your assistance is needed by Reynolds as we work through this process to help prepare the business for a successful
transaction. In light of this, we are offering you a special Transaction Success bonus (“Bonus”) that will become payable if a successful IPO is concluded or if there is a sale of the business by June 30, 2020. 

If an IPO transaction is completed, your potential bonus will be $1,782,500. Fifty percent (50%) of this bonus ($891,250) will be paid to you 30 days after
the effective date of an IPO, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. You will be paid the remaining fifty percent (50%) of this bonus six (6) months after the effective date of an
IPO, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. This bonus is a gross amount and is subject to all applicable tax withholding requirements. This bonus will not be treated as compensation for
any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless statutorily required. 
 If a sales transaction is completed, your potential bonus will be
$3,565,000. Fifty percent (50%) of this bonus ($1,782,500) will be paid to you 30 days after the closing date of a sale, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. You will be paid the
remaining fifty percent (50%) of this bonus six (6) months after the closing date, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. This bonus is a gross amount and is subject to all
applicable tax withholding requirements. This bonus will not be treated as compensation for any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless statutorily required. 

Because of the significance of this strategic effort, and given that you are one of a select group of employees to be offered this opportunity, it is of
utmost importance that you keep this offer and all its terms entirely confidential. 
 Thank you for your willingness to assist the team during this
endeavor and for your help in ensuring the success of this very important process for Reynolds Consumer Products. 
 Sincerely, 

 

	
	//s// Steve Estes
	Steve Estes
	Chief HR Officer
	Rank Group
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 2, 2016

No. 04-16-00238-CR

IN RE Roy L. SMITHWICK, Jr.

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The court has considered the Motion for Reconsideration En Banc filed by relator on 

May 16, 2016 and the motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on June 2, 2016.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 

MISC. NO. 01-07 IN RE: RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGE 

O R D E R 

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), and in order to meet the needs of the Court, recall-eligible 

retired Judge Frank Q. Nebeker, is recalled to perform substantial service to the Court. The Court requires 

Judge Nebeker's service to assist in reviewing and deciding an unprecedented number of appeals now 

pending before the Court. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that, effective January 2, 2007, Frank Q. Nebeker, shall commence service as a Judge of 

the Court until March 30, 2007. 

DATED: January 2, 2007 BY THE COURT: 

WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR. 

Chief Judge 

MISC. ORD. NO. 11-06 WAS THE LAST IN THE SERIES FOR 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Easterling, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from three judgments of the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), all rendered July 10, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (one count each under superior court informations Nos. 87-00696-01, 87-00699-01 and 87-00773-01, respectively), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10158]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-979, MM Docket No. 01-17, RM-10037]


Digital Television Broadcast Service; Lubbock, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Cosmos Broadcasting 
Corporation, licensee of KCBD(TV), substitutes DTV channel 9 for DTV 
channel 43 at Lubbock, Texas. See 66 FR 8557, February 1, 2001. DTV 
channel can be allotted to Lubbock in compliance with the principle 
community coverage requirements of section 73.625(a) at reference 
coordinates (33-32-32 N. and 101-50-14 W.) with a power of 15.0, HAAT 
of 232 meters and with a DTV service population of 336 thousand.
    With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective June 7, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-17, adopted April 18, 2001, and 
released April 23, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television, Digital television broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

47 CFR PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.622  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments 
under Texas, is amended by removing DTV channel 43 and adding DTV 
channel 9 at Lubbock.

Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-10158 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
**Exhibit 32.2**
 
 
 
 
 
 **Stratus Services Group, Inc.**
 **Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 **(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**
 
 
 In connection with the quarterly report of Stratus Services Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Maltzman, 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; and2.
the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 
 Dated: February 14, 2005
By:/s/ Michael A. MaltzmanMichael A. MaltzmanVice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20841-20842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10248]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

ACTION:  Request for Comments.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to publish a Notice in the Federal 
Register notifying the public that the Agency is preparing an 
information collection request for OMB review and approval and to 
request public review and comment on the submission. Comments are being 
solicited on the need for the information, its practical utility, the 
accuracy of the Agency's burden estimate, and on ways to minimize the 
reporting burden, including automated collection techniques and uses of 
other forms of technology. The proposed form under review is summarized 
below.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the subject form and the request for review 
prepared for submission to OMB may be obtained from the Agency 
Submitting Officer. Comments on the form should be submitted to the 
Agency Submitting Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OPIC Agency Submitting Officer: Carol 
Brock, Records Manager, Overseas Private Investment Corporation, 1100 
New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20527; 202/336-8563.

Summary of Form Under Review

    Type of Request: Form Renewal.
    Title: Project Information Report.
    Form Number: OPIC-71.
    Frequency of Use: No more than once per contract.
    Type of Respondents: Business or other institutions (except farms).
    Standard Industrial Classification Codes: All.
    Description of Affected Public: U.S. companies investing overseas.
    Reporting Hours: 7 hours per project.
    Number of Responses: 25 per year.
    Federal Cost: $1,600 per year.
    Authority for Information Collection: Title 22 U.S.C. 2191(k)(2) 
and 2199(h) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended.
    Abstract (Needs and Uses): The project information report is 
necessary to elicit and record the information on the developmental, 
environmental, and U.S. economic effects of OPIC-assisted projects. The 
information will be used by OPIC's staff and management solely

[[Page 20842]]

as a basis for monitoring these projects, and reporting the results in 
aggregate form, as required by Congress.

    Dated: April 19, 2001.
Rumu Sarkar,
Assistant General Counsel, Administrative Affairs, Department of Legal 
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 01-10248 Filed 4-24-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M