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

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered January 4, 1988, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

While serving a five-year term of probation for driving while intoxicated as a felony, defendant was charged with violating the terms of his probation. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the violation of probation and was *970to be sentenced to incarceration for one year. At the time set for sentencing, County Court refused to impose the agreed-upon sentence because of new information, including a Nevada driving while intoxicated charge against defendant. Accordingly, defendant withdrew his guilty plea and a hearing on the probation violation was scheduled for one week later.

On the date of the hearing, defendant discharged his assigned counsel and decided to represent himself. He requested a further adjournment to subpoena two witnesses but, following an offer of proof, the request was denied. On the basis of testimony by defendant’s probation officer, County Court concluded that defendant violated the terms of his probation. Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of 1 Vis to 4 years. This appeal followed.

We affirm. County Court retained discretion in fixing an appropriate sentence up until the time of sentencing *(People v Schultz,*73 NY2d 757, 758) and the new information of additional alleged wrongdoing by defendant certainly provided the court with sufficient reason to deviate from the plea agreement *(see, supra,*at 758). Accordingly, defendant was properly afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea which was done *(see, supra,*at 758). Thus, defendant was not improperly denied a one-year sentence.

We also find no merit to defendant’s claim that County Court erred by refusing the requested adjournment. Defendant was aware that his counsel had been given a one-week adjournment to prepare and that the hearing was scheduled for that day. His decision to dismiss the assigned counsel on that day was carefully reviewed with the court. Defendant’s offer of proof established that the witnesses he sought to subpoena would not present relevant testimony. Under such circumstances, we find no violation of CPL 410.70 (2) in refusing to grant defendant the adjournment. In this regard, we see no denial of defendant’s ability to prepare a defense especially in light of County Court’s admonitions to defendant about proceeding *pro se*and the adjournment already given.

Finally, there is no evidence that defendant’s presentence report was not available to him as required by CPL 390.50 (2). Significantly, there is no indication in the record that defendant sought to review the report. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s claim that he was improperly denied the right to review the report.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Clear All

        23 August 2022    

                    Ohio-Class Submarines work with USAF and USMC during VERTREP                 
                NAVAL BASE KITSAP – BANGOR, Wash. -- Two Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines demonstrated their ability to replenish while operating at sea during a series of vertical replenishment (VERTREP) exercises off the coast of California July through August, 2022.            

#####  

##### 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
Norman C. Kleinberg (NK 2735) 

Theodore V. H. Mayer (TM 9748) 

William J. Beausoleil (WB 5296) 

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP 

One Battery Park Plaza 

New York, New York 10004-1482 

(212) 837-6000 

Attorneys for Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-----------------------------------------------------x 

IN RE: Fosamax Products Liability : 

Litigation : 

-----------------------------------------------------x 

This Document Relates to: : 1:06-md-1789 (JFK) 

Valerie Brown : 

v. Merck & Co., Inc., : Rule 7.1 Statement

Case No: 1: 07-cv-05770-JFK : 

-----------------------------------------------------x 

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to enable 

Judges and Magistrate Judges of the Court to evaluate possible disqualification or 

recusal, the undersigned attorneys of record for Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. certify that 

it has no parent companies and are not aware of any beneficial owner of more than ten 

percent of its Common Stock. 

Dated: New York, New York 

July 19, 2007 

Respectfully submitted, 

HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP 

By: /s/ 

Norman C. Kleinberg (NK 2735) 

Theodore V. H. Mayer (TM 9748) 

William J. Beausoleil (WB 5296) 

One Battery Park Plaza 

New York, New York 10004-1482 

(212) 837-6000 

Attorneys for Defendant Merck & Co., Inc.

Case 1:07-cv-05770-JFK Document 4 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 32 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 32 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05398-AKH     Document 6      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
Nos. 585, 586, 587, 588 and 589.

#### Joaquin Celis, Plaintiff in Error, v. The United States.

In error to the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. October 29, 1908. Docketed and dismissed on motion of *ilfr. Solicitor General Hoyt*for the defendant in error. *The Attorney General*and *The Solicitor General*for defendant in error. No one opposing.
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of ImageMax, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark P. Glassman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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


         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company as of June 30, 2002 (the last date of the period covered by the Report).





/s/ Mark P. Glassman



Mark P. Glassman
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
##### 



Exhibit 10.2 March 16, 2004 Mr. Christopher S. Alexander
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
HYPERCOM CORPORATION
2851 W. Kathleen Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85053 Re:       Deferred Compensation Agreement Dated June 3, 2002 Dear Chris: This letter confirms that effective January 1, 2004 (the Effective
Date), the Deferred Compensation Agreement between you and Hypercom dated June
3, 2002 (the Agreement) is amended to provide that the total deferred
compensation and accrued interest thereon under the terms of the Agreement as
of the Effective Date, and all compensation which you may defer thereafter
pursuant to the Agreement, shall accrue interest at 4% per annum, compounded
bi-weekly. Such interest rate shall be adjusted to the interest rate under
Hypercoms Amended and Restated Senior Secured Credit Facility effective
December 31, 2003 (the Credit Facility), as amended or superceded from time
to time, and such new interest rate under the Agreement shall be effective on
the same date as a new interest rate shall be effective under the Credit
Facility or a superceding agreement. All other terms and conditions of the
Agreement are unchanged and remain in full force and effect. Please signify your confirmation of the foregoing by signing below. Sincerely,/s/
John W. SmolakJohn W. Smolak, Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
 Acknowledged and Agreed: /s/ C.S. Alexander
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 24129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11888]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-403-000]


OkTex Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

May 7, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 2, 2001, OkTex Pipeline Company (OkTex), 
filed revised tariff sheets in compliance with the Commission's 
directives in Order No. 587-M.
    OkTex states that the tariff sheets reflect the changes to OkTex's 
tariff that result from the Gas Industry Standards Board's (GISB) 
consensus standards that were adopted by the Commission in its November 
30, 2000 Order No. 587-M in Docket No. RM96-1-015. OkTex will implement 
the GISB consensus standards for May 1, 2001 business, and that the 
revised tariff sheets therefore reflect an effective date of May 1, 
2001.
    OkTex states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11888 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Brown, administrator, *vs.*Hardee, survivor.

Where an owner of land sells it, gives bond for title, and receives part of the purchase money, the title still remains in him until the - -whole of the purchase money is paid, and he has such an interest in the land as is subject to the lien of a judgment rendered against him, and it is liable to levy and sale thereunder.

November 3, 1885.

Levy and Sale. Title. Before Judge Jno. T. Clarke. Randolph Superior Court. November Term, 1884.

Reported in the decision.

J. H. Guerry ; L. S. Chastain ; W. 0. Worrill, for plaintiff in error.

0. B. Wooten; A. Hood & Son, for defendant.

Blandford, Justice.

This was a claim case. The plaintiff in error contends that, as his testimony showed possession of the land under bond for titles, and that he had paid half of the purchase money before the rendition of plaintiff’s judgment, and that his possession was more than four years prior to the levy of plaintiff’s execution, the land levied on was not subject, although the levy was made within four years from the rendition of the judgment, and within four years from the time of the last payment by him of the purchase money for the land.

Upon his theory, the court charged the jury that the land was subject. This charge is excepted to, and is the only error assigned.

The land was the property of defendant in execution, and the title to the same was in him until the whole of the purchase money was paid; he had such an interest in the land as became subject to the lien of plaintiff’s judgment, when it was rendered; and this was liable to levy and *458sale. This being so, it follows that the instructions of the court to the jury complained of were right.

The evidence in the case is overwhelmingly in favor of the finding of the jury, upon the theory of the plaintiff in *fi.*fa., that this was a fraudulent arrangement between claimant and defendant in execution to defraud his creditors.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 26877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12097]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a meeting 
of the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory 
Council to be held in May 2001.
    A portion of the meeting will be open and include discussion of the 
Center's policy issues and current administrative, legislative, and 
program developments. Status reports on OPIOID Accreditation, and 
CSAT's Initiative for Homeless Substance Abusers will be presented. 
Other presentations include: The Faith Initiative; 42 CFR part 2 and 
Child Protective Services; Parity Coalition; and Recovery Month. 
Council members will give updates on SAMHSA's Subcommittees, and 
discuss, ``Substance Abuse and the Consumer.'' Public comments are 
welcome. Please communicate with the individual listed as contact below 
for guidance. If anyone needs special accommodations and for persons 
with disabilities, please notify the contact listed below.
    The meeting will also include the review, discussion, and 
evaluation of grant applications. Therefore a portion of the meeting 
will be closed to the public as determined by the Administrator, 
SAMHSA, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and 5 
U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d).
    A summary of the meeting and roster of council members may be 
obtained from: Ms. Cynthia Graham, CSAT, National Advisory Council, 
Rockwall II Building, Suite 618, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 
20857, Telephone: (301) 443-8923.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from the contact 
whose name and telephone number is listed below.

    Committee Name: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment National 
Advisory Council.
    Meeting Date: Thursday, May 24, 2001.
    Place: Gaithersburg Marriott Washingtonian Center (at Rio), 9751 
Washingtonian Boulevard, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
    Closed: May 24, 2001--8:30 a.m.--9 a.m.
    Open: May 24, 2001--9 a.m.--4:30 p.m.
    Contact: Cynthia Graham, M.S., Public Health Analyst, Telephone: 
(301) 443-8923 and FAX: (301) 480-6077.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

    Dated: May 9, 2001.
Toian Vaughn,
Executive Secretary/Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-12097 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






To the Directors of Catalyst Paper Corporation









We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Catalyst Paper Corporation ("the Company") as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the related consolidated statements of earnings (loss), comprehensive income (loss), equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.




We conducted our audits in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. With respect to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009, we also conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.




In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009 in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.




We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated March 11, 2010 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.















Chartered Accountants




Vancouver, Canada









March 11, 2010
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00502-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.S.M., a Child

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018EM507216

Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

SIGNED October 16, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0635

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SAUL JAMES DOOLING,

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 May 17, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 10 2024

04/10/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0635
Case 1:07-cv-05356-AKH Document 7 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05356-AKH Document 7 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05356-AKH Document 7 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05356-AKH Document 7 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05356-AKH Document 7 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05356-AKH Document 7 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05356-AKH Document 7 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05296-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05296-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
A91A1411.

#### SIZEMORE v. THE STATE.

(421 SE2d 346)

Decided July 16, 1992.

*John H. Tarpley,*for appellant.

*Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Barbara B. Conroy, J. Michael McDaniel, Gregory J. Lohmeier, Assistant District Attor*
      *40
      *neys,*for appellee.

*39McMurray, Presiding Judge.

The Supreme Court of Georgia in *Sizemore v. State,*262 Ga. 214 (416 SE2d 500) (1992), having reversed this Court’s prior judgment in this case wherein we affirmed the trial court, the judgment of this court in *Sizemore v. State,*201 Ga. App. 431 (411 SE2d 505), is vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is hereby reversed and the case is remanded in accordance with direction as prescribed in *Sizemore v. State,*262 Ga. 214, supra.

*Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.*

*Sognier, C. J., and Andrews, J., concur.*