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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Amaro, J.), rendered April 10, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It was established during the plea allocution that the defendant forcibly stole a quantity of United States currency from a bank after passing the teller a note in which he demanded money and declared that he had a gun. In addition to the threatening note, the defendant carried a portfolio in which he kept his hand throughout the course of the robbery in such a manner as to convey to the teller the impression that there was a handgun in the portfolio. Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the evidence was sufficient to establish that he had displayed what appeared to be a firearm within the meaning of Penal Law § 160.15 (4) *(see, People v Saez,*69 NY2d 802, 804; *People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374, 381; *cf., People v Copeland,*124 AD2d 669, 670, *lv denied*69 NY2d 710). Accordingly, the court did not err in accepting the defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the first degree and his accompanying waiver of any available affirmative defenses.

There is no sound reason to disturb the sentence imposed *(see, People v Neal,*118 AD2d 815, 816, *lv denied*67 NY2d 1055). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 5 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         9,563,314
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        4,258,129
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          4,390,089
<EQUITIES>                                   3,465,204
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              23,388,142
<CASH>                                         482,405
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             525,102
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,750,234
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,241,881
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          2,997,334
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                              5,616,132
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       315,567
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,394,843
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,750,234
<PREMIUMS>                                  19,783,307
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          1,387,602
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              25,891
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 613,544
<BENEFITS>                                  12,760,094
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  6,997,969
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           454,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,597,784
<INCOME-TAX>                                   176,698
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,421,086
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,421,086
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
<RESERVE-OPEN>                               3,189,112
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         12,513,000
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              247,094
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          10,659,000
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                             3,577,051
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                              1,713,155
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 The district court sentenced Dickerson to concurrent prison terms of 78 months for the conspiracy and armed robbery counts, respectively.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30478 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARLON DICKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. CR-95-189-N

- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1997 Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marlon Dickerson argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions for conspiracy and armed robbery of a postal worker. 1 Because Dickerson did not file a motion for a judgment of acquittal during or after his trial, his claim is2

only reviewable to determine whether his conviction amounted to a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Laury , 49 F.3d 145, 151 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 162 (1995). The evidence overwhelmingly showed that Dickerson and a cohort entered into an agreement to rob a postal worker of his mail bag and that Dickerson effected the robbery by employing a weapon which placed the postal worker’s life in danger. Dickerson’s convictions for conspiracy and armed robbery did not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Dickerson also argues that the district court failed to instruct the jury properly on several elements of the offenses. Because Dickerson did not file objections to the district court’s instructions, we will only reverse the district court if it committed plain error. United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994). The instructions given by the court were sufficient; even if they were erroneous in some respects, they did not prejudice Dickerson’s substantial rights. Dickerson next argues that the district court erred in enhancing his base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(1). Dickerson did not file an objection to the adjustment in the district court. Dickerson has not demonstrated that the district court plainly erred in its application of this provision of the guidelines. See United States v. Alexander , 48 F.3d 1477, 1491- 93 (9th Cir. 1995).3

Finally, Dickerson argues that the district court erred in sentencing him above the statutory maximum sentence for the conspiracy conviction. The maximum statutory penalty for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 is a fine or imprisonment of “not more than five years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 371. Because the 78-month term of imprisonment imposed by the district court for the conspiracy conviction exceeded the statutory maximum, we VACATE that portion of the sentence and REMAND for resentencing on that count. AFFIRMED in part as to conviction and sentence; sentence VACATED in part and REMANDED for resentencing on the conspiracy
count.
#### Christopher LANE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert WARD, Active Director; Dennis Patterson, Division Director of Op; Wayne McCabe, Warden; James Blackwell, DHO; Thierry Nettles, Major; Leslie Davis, Lieutenant; Fred Thompson, Asst. Warden; Timothy Clarke, SMU Captain; Anne Shephard, Shift Captain, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-6436.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 29, 2013.

Christopher Lane, Appellant pro se. Christopher Thomas Dorsel, Sandra J. Senn, Senn Legal, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lane appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Lane v. Ward,*No. 0:ll-cv-02829-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Benning *vs.*Barlow *et al.*

[Blandíord, J., being disqualified, did not preside in this case.]

It furnished no ground for an extraordinary motion for a new trial at a later term of court; that the case was tried near the close of a term, and counsel did not have time to perfect the motion for a new trial, where it appears that, after the trial, the court drew juries and did other things usual at the “heel ” of a term; that the dissatisfied party could have made a motion, and taken an order to perfect it and file a brief of the evidence afterwards, hut that this was neglected without any sufficient excuse therefor, and that nothing was done until the next term of court.

Judgment affirmed.

October 13, 1885.

Jackson, Chief Justice.

*871[The case of Benning, administratrix, *vs.*Barlow *et al.*was tried and resulted in a verdict for the defendant on May 3, 1884. No motion was made or order taken at that term, but on October 24 thereafter, a motion for a new trial was filed The grounds were based on rulings which were made during the trial. The only extraordinary ground set out was that the court adjourned in twenty minutes after the verdict was rendered; that counsel had no opportunity to consult with the agent of plaintiff, who resided in another county, as to whether it would be advisable to carry the case further; and that immediately after adjournment, the presiding judge went to another county, and counsel could not, therefore, get any order as to making the motion.

(The judge certified that after the business of the court was over, he occupied some time in drawing juries, etc.; that it was his uniform practice to give notice of his intention to adjourn and ask if there was anything further to be presented to the court; and that he was satisfied that he did so then.)

On the call of the motion, it was dismissed, and the plaintiff excepted.]
EXHIBIT 10.1

                         DESCRIPTION OF INDEMNIFICATION
                AND REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENT WITH CHARLES SANDER


On December 13, 2005, the Board approved an indemnification arrangement with the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, Charles Sander, who is also a
director. Under the arrangement, in exchange for Mr. Sander's agreement that the
Company and its subsidiary may continue to use Mr. Sander's residence as an
office, the Company's subsidiary has agreed to indemnify and defend each of Mr.
Sander, his spouse and all other family members residing at, and each other
person visiting or who is a guest at, Mr. Sander's residence, and each of their
heirs, administrators and representatives, from and against claims and losses of
any nature whatsoever, including, without limitation, losses from personal
injury, death and property damage, arising out of the use or alleged use of Mr.
Sander's residence as an office of the Company or its subsidiary. The Company
currently carries commercial liability insurance on Mr. Sander's personal
residence for business-related liability and property loss.

In addition, on December 13, 2005, the Board authorized the Company's subsidiary
to reimburse Mr. Sander his out-of-pocket expenses for the use of Mr. Sander's
residence as an office of the Company and its subsidiary for as long as such use
continues.
#### In the Matter of Sharon P. I., an Infant. Brooklyn Home for Children, Respondent; Rosale I., Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate the parental rights of the natural mother of the child upon the ground that she is presently and for the foreseeable future unable by reason of mental illness to provide proper and adequate care for the child, the mother appeals from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens *943County (Torres, J.), dated February 2, 1988, as, after a fact-finding hearing, found her unable to provide proper care for the child by reason of mental illness and committed the custody and guardianship of the child to the Brooklyn Home for Children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Sharon P. I. was placed in the care of the petitioner Brooklyn Home for Children in May 1985 when she was 5 Vi years old. In May 1987 the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding to terminate the parental rights of the mother because she is presently and, for the foreseeable future will be, unable to care for Sharon due to mental illness. After a fact-finding hearing, the Family Court granted the petition.

We agree with the Family Court that there was clear and convincing evidence to justify granting the petition (see, Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]). The court-appointed psychiatrist examined the appellant approximately one week before the hearing and, based on this examination, testified unequivocally that the appellant was then, and for the foreseeable future would be, unable to adequately care for her child *(cf., Matter of Hime Y.,*52 NY2d 242). His diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia manifesting itself in a serious thinking disorder was in substantial accord with the diagnosis of the psychiatrist at the out-patient hospital facility where the appellant had been treated for nearly two years without substantial improvement.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court did not err in granting the petition without holding a dispositional hearing. The issue was not raised before the hearing court and, therefore, has not been preserved for appellate review (see, *Matter of Sean S.*S., 143 AD2d 836). In any event, a dispositional hearing was not required (see, *Matter of Sean S. S., supra).*

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
             PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report on Form 10-KSB of Bluestar Health, Inc. for the
annual period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Richard M. Greenwood, do hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

     (2) The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition of the small business issuer at
     the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of
     the small business issuer for the period covered by this Report.

September 5, 2007                           /s/  Richard M. Greenwood
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Richard M. Greenwood
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the small business issuer for the
purposes of ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This
certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of
any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by ss.906 has been provided
to the small business issuer and will be retained by the small business issuer
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Clear All

        10 August 2023    

                    USS Mobile Bay Decommissions, Honors 36 Years of Service                 
                SAN DIEGO – USS Mobile Bay (CG 53) honored more than three decades of naval service during a decommissioning ceremony at Naval Base San Diego, Aug. 10.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### In the Matter of Eugene L. Sugarman, for Reinstatement.

— Motion for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York denied. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
# C_2004115EN.01002701.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/27

---

NOTICE TO IMPORTERS

(2004/C 115/13)

Preferential imports of canned tuna fish from Turkey

By a notice to importers published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 366 of 20.12.2000, p. 16, the Commission informed operators that there were reasonable doubts concerning the proper application of the preferential treatment enjoyed by Turkey and the applicability of the evidence of origin presented in the European Community for tuna products under tariff heading 16.04 coming from Turkey. The reasonable doubt stemmed from the surveillance operations carried out and the finding by the Commission that administrative cooperation between the Turkish and Community authorities were not applied properly.

Official Journal of the European Communities

The rules of origin and related methods of administrative co-operation are laid down in Protocol 3 of Decision 1/98 of the EC-Turkey Association Council on trade regime for agricultural products. Turkey has recently introduced changes in its national legislation and operational practices, in order to comply with these provisions. In addition, the Turkish competent authorities have committed themselves to ensure an adequate monitoring of their functioning and to perform the necessary controls.

The conditions for a proper functioning of the administrative co-operation in that field having thus been restored, the notice to importers concerning tuna imports from Turkey, of 20 December 2000, is withdrawn.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1647 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1647

 To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers to 
      provide recommendations and opinions to veterans regarding 
               participation in State marijuana programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2019

 Mr. Blumenauer (for himself, Mr. Amash, Mr. Gallego, Mr. Perlmutter, 
 Mr. Young, Mr. Peters, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Massie, 
  Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Titus, and Ms. McCollum) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers to 
      provide recommendations and opinions to veterans regarding 
               participation in State marijuana programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Equal Access Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVISION BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE 
              PROVIDERS OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS REGARDING 
              VETERAN PARTICIPATION IN STATE MARIJUANA PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall authorize physicians and other 
health care providers employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs 
to--
            (1) provide recommendations and opinions to veterans who 
        are residents of States with State marijuana programs regarding 
        the participation of veterans in such State marijuana programs; 
        and
            (2) complete forms reflecting such recommendations and 
        opinions.
    (b) State Defined.--In this section, the term ``State'' means each 
of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico, any territory or possession of the United States, and each 
federally recognized Indian Tribe.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT (23)


CAROLINA TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3,  No.  33-64476)  of Carolina  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company and in the
related  Prospectus  of our report dated  January 21, 1998,  with respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements  and  schedule  of  Carolina  Telephone  and
Telegraph  Company included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1997.




                                                    s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                    ----------------------
                                                    ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Kansas City, Missouri
March 23, 1998