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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), both rendered July 16, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree under indictment No. 64503, upon his plea of guilty, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) under indictment No. 64505, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to grant his application for the assignment of new counsel on indictment No. 64505. We disagree.

The constitutionally guaranteed right to be represented by counsel of one’s choosing may not be employed as a tactical *703device to delay judicial proceedings *(see, People v Arroyave,*49 NY2d 264). In deciding whether good cause exists to change counsel, "a court must take into account such circumstances as whether present counsel is reasonably likely to afford a defendant effective assistance and whether the defendant has unduly delayed in seeking new assignment” *(People v Medina,*44 NY2d 199, 208). The defendant made his application during the second day of jury selection, and after a *Sandoval*hearing had been conducted. The bases of his complaint consisted of matters of which he was aware long before the trial commenced. Given the timing of his application, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s application. In addition, the defendant has failed to demonstrate a deprivation of his right to the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705).

The defendant’s contention that the court erred in allowing a videotape of the drug transaction into evidence because it was inaudible is without merit. The record demonstrates that the videotape was made from a specially designed van, contained no audio portion and was submitted only as visual proof.

Furthermore, there is no basis in the record to disturb the trial court’s sentence, which is neither unduly harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Kooper, J. P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH Document 24 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                     GATX RAIL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                        (IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT FOR RATIOS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                2000           1999             1998
                                                             -----------    ------------    -------------
<S>                                                           <C>              <C>             <C>

Earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                           $  78.8          $ 86.2          $ 80.4
Add (deduct):
  Income taxes expense                                           47.3            51.8            48.6
  Share of affiliates' earnings, net of                          (3.0)           (3.8)           (2.7)
      distributions received
  Interest on indebtedness and amortization of
      debt discount and expense                                  62.2            58.3            59.2
  Portion of operating lease expense
      representative of interest factor
      (deemed to be one-third)                                   44.0            36.8            31.2
                                                             -----------    ------------    -------------

Total earnings available for fixed charges                    $ 229.3          $229.3          $216.7
                                                             ===========    ============    =============


Fixed charges:
  Interest on indebtedness and amortization of
      debt discount and expense                               $  62.2          $ 58.3          $ 59.2
  Capitalized interest                                            (.1)             .2              --
  Portion of operating lease expense
      representative of interest factor (deemed  to
      be one-third)                                              44.0            36.8            31.2
                                                             -----------    ------------    -------------

  Total fixed charges                                         $ 106.1          $ 95.3          $ 90.4
                                                             ===========    ============    =============


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (A)                          2.16x           2.41x           2.40x
</TABLE>

(A)   The ratio of earnings to fixed charges represents the number of times
      "fixed charges" are covered by "earnings." "Fixed charges" consist of
      interest on outstanding debt and amortization of debt discount and
      expense, adjusted for capitalized interest and one-third (the proportion
      deemed representative of the interest factor) of operating lease expense.
      "Earnings" consist of consolidated net income before income taxes and
      fixed charges, less share of affiliates' earnings, net of distributions
      received.
Exhibit 10.31**PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT**This Purchase and Sale Agreement is entered into effective as of July 31, 2007, by and betweenPURE CYCLE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (“Pure Cycle”), and Margaret S. Hansson, (“Seller”).RECITALSWHEREAS, Pure Cycle and Seller are parties to a Comprehensive Amendment Agreement No. 1, datedas of April 11, 1996 (the “CAA”), pursuant to which Pure Cycle is obligated to pay to the partiesto the CAA certain proceeds it receives from the sale of Export Water (as defined in the CAA); andWHEREAS, Seller is a party entitled to receive Gross Proceeds totaling $150,000 in categories(h) of Paragraph 2 of the
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Cunningham, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered May 21, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts) and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, there was sufficient evidence to permit the jury to find that the defendant, on two separate occasions, knowingly entered or remained unlawfully in the subject building with criminal intent, that on one such occasion he stole an IBM typewriter, and that on the other occasion he was apprehended with his hand in a drawer at a dental laboratory *(see,*Penal Law §§ 140.20, 140.00 [2], [5]; § 155.25; *People v Mackey,*49 NY2d 274, 279; *People v James,*138 AD2d 745; *People v Caraballo,*138 AD2d 725, 726; *cf., People v Way,*59 NY2d 361, 366; *People v Powell,*58 NY2d 1009, 1010). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Finally, the trial court, in imposing sentence, properly considered the defendant’s background and prior criminal history, including those crimes for which he was never tried or convicted *(see, People v Marrero,*110 AD2d 785, 786). Under the circumstances, we do not find the imposition of the maximum sentence to be excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either meritless or unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Geurrero,*69 NY2d 628, 630; *People v Bullock,*137 *701AD2d 825, 826; *People v Handy,*123 AD2d 398, 399) and in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kooper, J. P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG     Document 11      Filed 07/24/2007     Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a) AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
David Patterson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Optelecom-NKF, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Optelecom-NKF Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periods presented in this annual report.

/s/ DAVID PATTERSON David Patterson, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 3, 2010


---



QuickLinks
## Breadcrumb

-  Astrogeology Science Center 

#           Connect        

## Visit Astrogeology

Click to Learn More

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Maps 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  Software 
-  News 
-    Connect    -  Locations 
  -  Social Media 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Welcome to Astrogeology! There are many ways to connect with us online, or visit us in person!

Locations

Social Media

## Employee Directory
Clear All

        11 June 2022    

                    USS Porter embarks German Navy Chaplain during BALTOPS 22                 
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Porter (DDG 78) embarked a German Navy chaplain as part of exercise Baltic Operations (BALTOPS22) in the Baltic Sea, June 6, 2022.             

        22 May 2022    

                    USS Porter arrives in Oslo, Norway for port visit                 
                The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Porter (DDG 78) arrived in Oslo, Norway for a scheduled port visit May 22, 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
## Breadcrumb

-  News 

Breadcrumb-  News 

## Research by California Water Science Center Scientists Focuses on Hydrodynamics in the Upper Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel

      By California Water Science Center      January 10, 2022    

In the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, phytoplankton populations that make up the bottom of the aquatic food web have been declining in recent decades. To better understand this problem, more thorough information and data on aquatic ecosystems are necessary.

View Media Details

*Microscopic view of a phytoplankton cell collected in Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta*

One of the primary ways of determining the health of an aquatic ecosystem is to understand its hydrodynamics, that is the movement of water and impact it has on the environment, including the food web. This allows water managers to make better decisions affecting the preservation of natural resources.

An area of interest in this effort has been the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel, a terminal channel known to support native fish populations, where conditions may be favorable to enhance primary production of phytoplankton.

In an article for the journal San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science scientists discuss their research related to this issue. This work included studying the mixing in the channel driven by tidal currents and wind, and the resulting effect on the strength and duration of thermal stratification in the upper channel and its influence on phytoplankton production. Information from this research will be useful for habitat-restoration efforts being made to increase phytoplankton production.

To learn more, read the full article.

## Related Content

                -              Partners           

#### University of California, Davis

## Related Content

#### University of California, Davis

### Get Our News

These items are in the RSS feed format (Really Simple Syndication) based on categories such as topics, locations, and more. You can install and RSS reader browser extension, software, or use a third-party service to receive immediate news updates depending on the feed that you have added. If you click the feed links below, they may look strange because they are simply XML code. An RSS reader can easily read this code and push out a notification to you when something new is posted to our site.

RSS Icon**

California Water Science Center News

RSS Icon**

Water News

### Authors

#### Leah E Kammel Lenoch

##### Physical Scientist

Water Resources Mission Area

llenoch@usgs.gov

608-212-7890

#### Steve Ackley

##### Public Affairs Specialist

California Water Science Center

hackley@usgs.gov

916-278-3105
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 17 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 14, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 14, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A0996. BARRI SPEELER et al. v. HILDA KIMSEY.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 13-2 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 18 of 18
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Tri-Union Development Corporation
(formerly Tribo Petroleum Corporation)
Houston, Texas



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-4 No. 333-66282 and 333-66282-01 of Tri-Union Development
Corporation (formerly Tribo Petroleum Corporation) of our report dated March
14, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in
this Form 10-K.

We also consent to the reference to us under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectus.

                                            BDO Seidman, LLP



Houston Texas
March 31, 2003
**EXHIBIT
32.1**
 ****
 **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 Annual Report of Netfran Development Corp. a Florida
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Arne Dunhem, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Voula
Kanellias, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of their
knowledge, 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; and
 
 (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Netfran Development Corp., and will be retained by Netfran Development Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  Dated:
      April 15, 2005
    By:
    /s/
      Arne
      DunhemArne
      Dunhem, President and Chief Executive Officer
  Dated:
      April 15, 2005
    By:
    /s/
      Voula KanelliasVoula
      Kanellias, Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Williams, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered on July 8, 1987, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders, v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Steven M. Belote, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shore Financial Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in 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; and

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:May 13, 2005
Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 21 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 21 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 21 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Ortiz Velazquez, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to defendant’s argument that he was improperly adjudicated and sentenced as a second felony offender. He contends that his 1972 plea of guilty to grand larceny in the third degree should not have been accepted by the court "in the face of unequivocal assertions of innocence”. That claim may not properly be raised in a second felony offender adjudication *(see, People v Lowe,*149 AD2d 939; *People v Perkins,*89 AD2d 956). Defendant’s other contentions were not properly preserved for review (CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Wisner, J. — criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
<PAGE>



                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         In connection with the Form 10-Q of OMNI Energy Services Corp. (the
"Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I certify that the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

         This certification should not be deemed to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission as part of the Report, except to the extent required to
satisfy 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.



                                       /s/ JAMES ECKERT
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       James Eckert
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       November 14, 2002
<PAGE>   1






                          CORPORATE ORGANIZATION CHART


As of December 31, 1996, the organization chart of corporate structure and
ownership is shown below. Percent figures show percent ownership of shares by
parent. Jurisdiction of organization is shown in parentheses.



McM CORPORATION (NC)   56-1171691

 - - 100% - - Equity Holdings, Inc. (DE)  56-1651565

 - - 100% - - Occidental Fire & Casualty Company of North
                Carolina (NC)  84-0513811

 - - 100% - - Wilshire Insurance Company (NC)  56-1507441




Note: Two entities, Equity American Financial Service, Inc. and
Equity American General Agency, Inc., have been formed as North
Carolina corporations.  Although neither company has been fully
activated or capitalized, it is anticipated that they might be
utilized in additional marketing programs in the future.


                                       80