alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 29 – Tracking Landscape Change with LCMAP      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

## Eyes on Earth

Get every episode

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. In this episode, we learn about an exciting new initiative to track landscape change in the U.S.

View Media Details

View

Download and Transcript Access

View Media Details

**Summary**: The U.S. Geological Survey took a bold step toward documenting change across the landscape with the launch of the first Landsat satellite in 1972. Since then, it’s collected nearly five decades of imagery. But it takes more than just imagery to understand change. It takes time, effort—and serious computing horsepower. The USGS Land Change Monitoring, Assessment, and Projection (LCMAP) initiative aims to use the full Landsat record to track change in long-term landscape conditions. In this episode, we hear about LCMAP and what its 33-year product suite can tell us about change in the U.S.

**Guests**: Jesslyn Brown and Jennifer Rover, Research Geographers, USGS EROS

**Host**: John Hult

**Producer**: John Hult

**Release date**: July 13, 2020

**More on LCMAP**: 
                            - USGS Land Change Monitoring, Assessment, and Projection (LCMAP) website
                            - LCMAP Web Viewer
                            - From Concept to Reality, USGS Land Change, Monitoring, Assessment and Projection Pushes Boundaries in Service of Science
                            - LCMAP Change Stories

### Contacts
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

723 

CA 12-01789 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC., 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN J. JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, 

AND KENNETH P. BERNAS, DEFENDANT. 

 

BARTH SULLIVAN BEHR, BUFFALO (LAURENCE D. BEHR OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

GROSS, SHUMAN, BRIZDLE & GILFILLAN, P.C., BUFFALO (KATHERINE M.

LIEBNER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paula L.

Feroleto, J.), entered April 13, 2012. The order granted the motion

of defendant Brian J. Johnson to compel plaintiff to comply with the

release agreement entered into by the parties. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion is

denied. 

Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of Brian

J. Johnson (defendant) to compel plaintiff to comply with the release

agreement between plaintiff and defendants. Defendant brought his

motion after the related third-party action was settled and an

unconditional stipulation of discontinuation as to him with respect to

this action was signed by the attorneys for plaintiff and defendant

and filed. Although a trial court has the power “to exercise

supervisory control over all phases of pending actions and

proceedings” (Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 54), it lacks

jurisdiction to entertain a motion after the action has been

“unequivocally terminated . . . [by the execution of] an express,

unconditional stipulation of discontinuance” (id. at 56; see Yonkers

Fur Dressing Co. v Royal Ins. Co., 247 NY 435, 444; DiBella v Martz,

58 AD3d 935, 937; Germanovich v Bethlehem Steel Corp. [appeal No. 1],

270 AD2d 863, 863).

Entered: June 14, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
null

441.23508
Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 48 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 48 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 48 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGORY TODD POOLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-135, CA-01-966) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 29, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Todd Poole, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gregory Todd Poole seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Poole , Nos. CR-98-135; CA-01-966 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 21, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Michael R. BATCHELOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-6133.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: April 30, 2013.

Michael R. Batchelor, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael R. Batchelor seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appeal-*195able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Batchelor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny Bathcelor’s motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 22      Filed 08/05/2008     Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive 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 Quarterly Report of SRKP 15, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerJuly
      26, 2010
Exhibit 32

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Greer Bancshares Incorporated (the Company), each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ R. Dennis HennettR. Dennis HennettChief Executive OfficerMarch 30, 2006/s/ J. Richard Medlock, Jr.J. Richard Medlock, Jr.Chief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2006
Richard S. Mills, Esq. (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson, Esq. (JPC-9391)

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE 

LITIGATION

21 MC 102 (AKH)

MIGUEL URGILES (and WIFE, MARTHA 

URGILES), 

 Plaintiffs, -against- 90 CHURCH STREET LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP, ET. AL., 

 Defendants.

INDEX NO.: 07-CV-05400 (AKH)

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF AMBIENT 

GROUP, INC. S ANSWER

TO MASTER COMPLAINT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., by its attorneys, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, as and for its Response to the allegations set forth 

in the Amended Complaint by Adoption (Amended Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master

Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, hereby adopts its Answer to Master Complaint

dated August 2, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In Re World Trade Center Lower

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

WHEREFORE, the defendant, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., demands judgment dismissing

the above-captioned action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such

other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:07-cv-05400-AKH Document 35 Filed 06/03/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

Dated: New York, New York

May 13, 2008 

Yours etc., 

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc. 

By:_ s/ John P. Cookson ____________ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483.9490

TO: Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

(212) 267.3700

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

(212) 553.9206

James E. Tyrrell, Jr., Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

One Riverfront Plaza

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 848.5600

Thomas A. Egan, Esq.

Fleming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006-1404

(212) 412.9500

Case 1:07-cv-05400-AKH Document 35 Filed 06/03/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 13

th day of May 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF ANSWER BY DEFENDANT AMBIENT GROUP, INC., 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which sends notification to 

appearing parties.

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP

By: s/ John P. Cookson ____________ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Case 1:07-cv-05400-AKH Document 35 Filed 06/03/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG     Document 4-3      Filed 07/13/2007     Page 1 of 1
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40301 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN RODRIGUEZ NARVAEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-97-CR-98-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Rodriguez Narvaez appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to possession of more than 50 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).He contends that the district court erred in denying a threelevel reduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The court denied the reduction because Narvaez absconded soon after he entered his plea and was not arrested until several months later. The court did not err in concludingNo. 98-40301 -2- that this conduct was of the sort that warranted an enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 and that the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was thus inappropriate. See § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); United States v. Gonzales , 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Tremelling , 43 F.3d 148, 152 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
Case 1:07-cv-05721-DLC Document 2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05721-DLC Document 2 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 2 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 3 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 4 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 5 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 6 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 7 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 8 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 9 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 10 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 11 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 12 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 13 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 14 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 15 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 16 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 17 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 18 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 19 of 20
Case 1:07-cv-05001-AKH Document 5 Filed 07/08/2008 Page 20 of 20
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Don Crosbie, certify that:1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CLAIMSNET.COM INC.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) [Reserved]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.October 26, 2006   /s/ Don Crosbie Don Crosbie  Chief Executive Officer
lf"\,..

(•.1 *p ^ *~ * TM ^* *«*

Micfeiel L Frevola (MJF 8359)

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

195 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-3189

(212)513-3200

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CYGNUS TRANSPORT LTD.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CYGNUS TRANSPORT LTD.,

Plaintiff,

-againstPALMYRA SHIPPING & CHARTERING LTD.,

Defendant.

07 Civ.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

OF REQUEST FOR AN

ORDER APPOINTING

PERSONS TO

SERVE PROCESS

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

Michael J. Frevola, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am a member of the firm of Holland & Knight LLP, attorneys for plaintiff

Palmyra Shipping & Chartering Ltd. ("Plaintiff), and I am duly admitted to practice before the

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I am fully familiar with all

the facts in the above case.

Case 1:07-cv-05799-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
2. This affidavit is made in support of Plaintiffs application for an Order to appoint

Elvin Ramos and/or Rudy D. Green and/or Jerome Wills and/or Willis Vargas and/or Rapid and

Reliable Attorney Service, individuals or representatives of whom are all over 18 years of age

and are not a party to or an attorney in this action, to serve the Writ and Order of Attachment and

Garnishment, Summons, Verified Complaint, Affidavit in Support and Interrogatories on the

Garnishees.

3. The granting of this request will result in a material savings in process and travel

expenses.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Order be granted appointing Elvin

Ramos, Rudy D. Green, Jerome Wills, Willis Vargas, a person from Rapid and Reliable Attorney

Service, or any one of them to serve process in this matter upon the above named defendant and

the garnishees.

Sworn to before me this

th

19 day of June, 2007

Michael J. Frevola

Notary Public

Ramos

Not pub|.

NO. 01RA4870243

Qualified in Queens County

Certificate filed in New York County

Commission Expires September 2, 2010

Case 1:07-cv-05799-MGC Document 4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Randall RAMEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6019.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 28, 2013.

*211Ryan Randall Ramey, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, Office of the United States Attorney, Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Randall Ramey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion and various preliminary orders. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ramey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clarence Griffin, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), both rendered July 1, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 2129/87, and robbery in the second degree under S.C.I. No. 2243/87, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The record reflects that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel. Many of the matters to which the defendant refers are dehors the record and are thus not cognizable on this appeal (see, *People v Robinson,*122 AD2d 173; *People v Wolcott,*111 AD2d 943). Contrary to the defendant’s position, the two concurrent indeterminate terms of 3 to 9 years’ imprisonment imposed were not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.