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

- A10008

- 18

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.
DAVID PAUL CUGNO

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 2451 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 30, 2017 In the Court of Co mmon Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 46

- CR

- 0000598

- 2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and RANSOM*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 0 3 , 2018 Appellant, David Paul Cugno, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas , following his bench trial conviction for driving under the influence of a controlled substance or a combination of drugs (“DUI”)

. 1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court correctly set forth the relevant facts and some of the procedural history of this case. We add that Appellant timely filed

a notice of appeal on July 31, 2017. The trial court did not order and Appellant

did not file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P 1925(b ). Appellant raises the following issue for our review:

DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYI NG APPELLANT A JURY

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 75 Pa.C.S. A. § 3802(d)(2)

.J

- A10008

- 18

- 2

- TRIAL FOR A FIRST OF FENSE DUI BECAUSE A DUI IS COMMENCED BY THE FIL ING OF A BILL OF INF ORMATION AND ARTICLE I SECTIO N 9 OF THE PENNSYLVA NIA CONSTITUTION GUARANT EES A RIGHT TO A PUB LIC TRIAL BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY OF THE VICINAGE, WH EN THE PROSECUTION IS START ED BY INDICTMENT OR BILL OF INFORMATION? (Appellant’s Brief at 3)

. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well

- reasoned opinion of the Honorable Thomas C.
Branca, we conclude Appellant’s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented.
( See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 16 , 2017, at 4

- 14) (finding: Pennsylvania law has repeatedly held that defendant has no right to jury trial

for DUI offense, where maximum penalty is six months’ incarceration; crimes
that carry maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment or less are considered “petty offenses” for which no right to jury trial exists;
notwithstanding language of Article I Section 9 of the Pennsylvania

Constitution , on which Appellant relies, Pennsylvania appellate courts have repeatedly held that defendant is not entitled to jury tri al for first offense DUI
under United States and Pennsylvania Constit utions; maximum penalty for Appellant’s DUI offense is six months’ imprisonment; thus, Appellant was notJ

- A10008

- 18

- 3

-

entitled to jury trial). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court
opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judge McLaughlin join s this memorandum. Judge Ransom did not participate in the consideration or decision of this

case. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/3/18Circulated 06/20/2018 03:57 PM
#### UNITED STATES ex rel. ZUCKER v. OSBORNE, Director, Civilian Public Service Camp.

No. 192.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 2, 1945.

Edward N. Mills, Jr., of Buffalo, N. Y. (Julien Cornell, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.

George L. Grobe, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y., for respondent-appellee.

Before CHASE, HUTCHESON, and FRANK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The writ was issued upon the petition of the relator to test the lawfulness of his restraint as a conscientious objector to military service. He has been duly classified IV-E as a conscientious objector under the provisions of § 5(g) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 305(g), and is an assignee presently restrained as such at Civilian Public Service Camp No. 46 at Big Flats, N. Y., of which the respondent is the director. The writ was dismissed after hearing thereon and the relator has appealed.

The order is affirmed on the authority of Brooks v. United States, 147 F.2d 134 (decided herewith), and of Angelus v. Sullivan, 2 Cir., 246 F. 54; Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 36 S.Ct. 258, 60 L.Ed. 672; Selective Draft Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 38 S.Ct. 159, 62 L.Ed. 349, L.R.A.1918C, 361, Ann.Cas.1918B, 856; United States v. Drum, 2 Cir., 107 F.2d 897, 129 A.L.R. 1165; and Seele v. United States, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 1015. See also, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643, 3 Ann.Cas. 765.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's audited financial reports and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,201,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,864,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       2,891,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,776,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,434,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       371,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,870,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,434,100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,945,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,050,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,090,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,105,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,105,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  3,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,102,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Borland Software Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Kenneth R. Hahn, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results
of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ KENNETH R. HAHN    
|Kenneth R. Hahn        
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|August 9, 2005         



This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to Section 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 Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company 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 the Report),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
PROMISSORY NOTE


$775,500


      Within  ten  (10)  days  of  my  voluntary  termination or resignation as
Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer of Standard Management  Corporation,  for
value received,  the  undersigned  (jointly and severally) promise(s) to pay to
the order of Standard Management Corporation  the sum of Seven Hundred Seventy-
Five  Thousand  Five Hundred Dollars ($775,500),  at  9100  Keystone  Crossing,
Indianapolis, Indiana   46240   or at such other place as the holder hereof may
direct in writing, with interest  thereon  at  the rate of zero per centum (0%)
per annum from the date of this instrument until  maturity,  and six per centum
(6%)  per annum after maturity until paid, with attorneys' fees  and  costs  of
collection, and without relief from valuation and appraisement laws.

      The   maker(s)  and  indorser(s)  jointly  and  severally  waive  demand,
presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of nonpayment or dishonor of
this note, and  each  of  them consents to extensions of the time of payment of
this note.

      No delay or omission  on the part of the holder hereof in the exercise of
any right or remedy shall operate as a waiver thereof, and no single or partial
exercise by the holder hereof  of  any  right or remedy shall preclude other or
further exercise thereof or of any other right or remedy.

      Signed and delivered at Indianapolis,  Indiana  this 28th day of October,
1997

Signature:  RONALD D. HUNTER

Printed:    Ronald D. Hunter

Address:    3570 Sedgemoor Circle
            Carmel, Indiana  46032

<PAGE>
                         ADDENDUM TO  PROMISSORY NOTE
                              OF RONALD D. HUNTER
                 DATED OCTOBER 28, 1997 IN THE SUM OF $775,500



      In the event of a termination of the employment of  Ronald D. Hunter with
Standard  Management  Corporation  following  a change-in-control  of  Standard
Management  Corporation, as such term is defined  in  the  Second  Amended  and
Restated Employment  Contract  dated  April  3,  1995  by and between Ronald D.
Hunter and Standard Management Corporation, the Promissory  Note  in the sum of
$775,500 dated October 28, 1997 shall be deemed forgiven in full.  In the event
of  such  termination,  Standard Management Corporation shall pay to Ronald  D.
Hunter a sum of cash equal  to  any  tax  liability, federal and state, owed by
Ronald D. Hunter with respect to note forgiveness,  within  thirty (30) days of
such termination of employment.



STANDARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION


By:   STEPHEN M. COONS
      Stephen M. Coons
      Executive Vice President & Secretary
Matthew MARSHALL, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 17-7869.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

*2678Motion of The Promise of Justice Initiative for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
EXHIBIT
        32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications
  
 The
        undersigned officer certifies that this report fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Bralorne
        Mining Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        The Bralorne Mining Company and will be retained by The Bralorne Mining Company
        and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
 
 
 April
                  13, 2007
              /s/
                  Zheng ShuyingZheng
                  Shuying (Chief Executive Officerand
                  Chief Financial Officer)
Lance LYLES, petitioner, v. Aaron JOYNER, Warden.

No. 17-5468.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
HITACHI METALS, LTD., petitioner, v. ALLIANCE OF RARE-EARTH PERMANENT MAGNET INDUSTRY.

No. 17-768.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
R. Mark ARMSTRONG, petitioner, v. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, et al.

No. 16-9653.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS RODERICK WHITE NO. 

### 2021 KW 1417
JANUARY 11, 2022

In Re: Roderick White, applying for 

### supervisory writs, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 

### 01- 16-0114. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., HOLDRIDGE AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT DENTED. VGW AHP Holdridge, J., 

### dissents in part. For the reasons more 

## fully expressed in my dissent in State v. Armentor, 

### 2019-1267 La. 

### App. 1st Cir. 7/ 31/20), 309 

### So. 3d 762, writ denied, 

### 2020- 

### 01032 ( La. 2/ 17/21), 

### 310 So. 3d 1149. T would grant the writ for the sole purpose of 

### remanding it to the 

### district court for a 

## full evidentiaryhearing on relator's claimthat hewas denied a fair trial because individuals who were born after June 2, 1993, were excluded 

## from participating in the 

## jury venire. See State v. Cannon, 

### 2019-590 ( La. 

### 4/ 18/ 19), 267 So. 3d 585, 

### 585-86 ( per curiam). In all other respects, I would 

## deny the writ application.

COURT OF APPEAL, 

### FIRST CIRCUIT



### DEPU4YLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as 1.5 Lien Trustee, petitioner, v. MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS, INC., et al.

No. 17-1292.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
GREEN, FELTON B. V. McGILL-JOHNSTON, DENISE, ET AL.

No. 17-7345.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
In Re ALLAH, Petitioner.

No. 17-8965.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
# L_2009073EN.01003801.xml

| 19.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 73/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 73/38

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 5/2009

of 5 February 2009

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 98/2008 of 26 September 2008 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 98/2008 of 26 September 2008 (1).

| (2) | Commission Directive 2008/39/EC of 6 March 2008 amending Directive 2002/72/EC relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Directive 2008/39/EC of 6 March 2008 amending Directive 2002/72/EC relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement.

| (3) | This Decision is not to apply to Liechtenstein, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

This Decision is not to apply to Liechtenstein,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 54zzb (Commission Directive 2002/72/EC) of Chapter XII of Annex II to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32008 L 0039: Commission Directive 2008/39/EC of 6 March 2008 (OJ L 63, 7.3.2008, p. 6).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32008 L 0039: Commission Directive 2008/39/EC of 6 March 2008 (OJ L 63, 7.3.2008, p. 6).’

Article 2

The text of Directive 2008/39/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 6 February 2009, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 5 February 2009.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 309, 20.11.2008, p. 19.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 63, 7.3.2008, p. 6.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
# C_2011030EN.01003103.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-44/10) (1)

1

()

2011/C 30/51

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.04.2010.

1

---
EXHIBIT
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Michael J. Loiacono, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
      of
      Global Axcess Corp (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
      knowledge:




(1) the
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the third quarter ended
        September 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
        78m
        or 78o(d)); and





(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      November 6, 2007




/s/
                    Michael J. Loiacono
              Name:
                        Michael J. Loiacono
                      Title:
                        Chief Financial Officer & Chief
                        Accounting
                        Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT







We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement of
Virtual Technology Corporation on Amendment No. 1 to Form S-8 filed on April 15,
1999, related to the 1999 Fontenelle, LLC Consulting Plan of our report dated
April 23, 1999, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Virtual
Technology Corporation for the year ended January 31, 1999.





                                         /s/ LURIE, BESIKOF, LAPIDUS & CO., LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 5, 1999
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60316 Summary Calendar

**Martin Escobedo Andrade,**

Petitioner **,**

versus

**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,**
Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 068 278

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Martin Escobedo Andrade, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of
removal. Escobedo Andrade contends that the IJ erred in finding that he

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not preceden t except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 2, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60316 Document: 00516301952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2022No. 21

- 60316

2 fa iled to demonstrate that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children and that he lacked good moral
character.

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the IJ’s decision only to
the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions , 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal
determinations are reviewed de novo. Guerrero Trejo v. Garland , 3 F.4th 760,

77 4 ( 5th Cir. 2021)

. Cancellation of removal is available to applicants who have been continuously present in the United States for 10 or more years prior to filing an application, who can establish good moral character during that time, who have no disqualify ing convictions, and whose spouse, children, or parent would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if the applicant were removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
Despite Escobedo Andrade ’s assertions to the contrary, the consequences facing his chil dren if he were removed are not “ ‘substantially’ beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves this country .” Guerrero Trejo , 3 F.4th at 77 5 ( quoting In Re
Monreal

- Aguinaga , 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62 (BIA 2001))

. Whil e he claims that
the IJ misconstrued the evidence in determining that his wife could find work; his sister could provide support to his children; and that his oldest son does not have a significant medical condition, these findings are supported by substan tial evidence. See Guerrero Trejo , 3 F.4th at 77 4. Because resolution of this issue is dispositive as to his lack of eligibility for cancellation of removal, s ee § 1229b(b)(1), we need not consider his argument regarding
whether the IJ erred in determining that he failed to establish that he was in

possess ion of good moral character. See INS v. Bagamasbad , 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)

. Accordingly, the petition for review is **DENIED**

. Case: 21-60316 Document: 00516301952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2022
John A. ROSS, petitioner, v. Pelicia E. HALL, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections.

No. 17-5147.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Bryan Kendall PITTSINGER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7568.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.