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

County Court, Erie County,

May 23, 1973.

*Irwin E. Ginsberg*for appellant. *Michael F.*Dillon, *District Attorney (Joseph J. Hodan*of counsel), for respondent.

Frank R. Bayger, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction <of assault in the third degree in violation of subdivision 1 of section 120.00 of the Penal Law in the City Court of Buffalo. The defendant was found guilty by a jury verdict and the court sentenced him to one week in the penitentiary and one year probation.

The defendant was charged with assault in the third degree and the jury came back with a verdict of *“*guilty with leniency ”. Defendant claims this verdict is contrary to law, and requires a hew trial; or in the alternative he requests a modification of sentence.

Although the CPL 310.50, made applicable to jury trials of an information by CPL 360.55, requires that the jury render a verdict in accordance with its instructions, which in this case was guilty or not guilty of assault third as charged in the information, the fact that the jury came in with a verdict of 1 ‘ guilty with leniency ” does hot render the verdict nugatory. Since a recommendation of mercy, in the absence of statute, is not a part of the verdict, that part of the verdict which stated *“*with leniency” will be treated as surplusage, and disregarded or rejected, when to do so would leave a complete and valid verdict. See 5 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure [Anderson ed.], pp. 327-328.) Furthermore, it is doubtful that the defendant preserved this question,for review. (CPLR 470.05, subd. 2.)

However, the sentence imposed by the court is unauthorized. Section 60.00 of the Penal Law sets out the authorized sentences *467which are mandated by law. Subdivision 2 of section 60.10 of the Penal Law allows imprisonment only when there has been no sentence of probation. (See, also, Penal Law, § 65.00, subd. 1, par. [a].) Therefore, a sentence which combines probation with imprisonment would not be authorized by the Penal Law.

Therefore this court modifies the sentence imposed on the defendant to probation for a period of three years in accordance with section 65.00 (subd. 3, par. [b]).
Julia Monique FRIAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6139.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                     LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   JURISDICTION
                                                                        OF
NAME                                                               INCORPORATION
----                                                               -------------
<S>                                                                <C>
F&H Pipeline Company..............................................   Delaware
Grant Gathering Company...........................................   Delaware
Vastar Holdings, Inc..............................................   Delaware
  Vastar Gas Marketing, Inc. ("VGM")..............................   Delaware
  Vastar Power Marketing, Inc. ("VPM")............................   Delaware
    Vastar Energy, Inc. (VGM 99%; VPM 1%).........................   Delaware
Wilburton Hub, Inc................................................   Delaware
</TABLE>
ANDERSON LAW OFFICES, et al., Petitioners, v. COMMON BENEFIT FEE AND COST COMMITTEE.

No. 19-791

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ACT Teleconferencing, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Date: March 30, 2007



By:

/s/ Peter E. SalasPeter E. Salas Executive Chairman
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:23-cv-00390-JRG Document 2 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 21
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 2:23-cv-00390-JRG Document 2 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 22
Exhibit 99.01

AUDIT COMMITTEE CHARTER FOR PAUL-SON GAMING CORPORATION

This
charter shall be reviewed, updated and approved annually by the board of directors.

Role and Independence

The
audit committee of the board of directors assists the board in fulfilling its responsibility for oversight of the quality and integrity of the accounting, auditing and reporting practices of the
corporation and other such duties as directed by the board. The membership of the committee shall consist of at least three directors who are generally knowledgeable in financial and auditing matters,
including at least one member with accounting or related financial management expertise. Each member shall be free of any relationship that, in the opinion of the board, would interfere with his or
her individual exercise of independent judgment, and shall meet the director independence requirements for serving on independent committees as set forth in the corporate governance standards of the
NASDAQ. The committee is expected to maintain free and open communication (including private executive sessions at least annually) with the independent accountants, the internal auditors (if any) and
the management of the corporation. In discharging this oversight role, the committee is empowered to investigate any matter brought to its attention, with full power to retain outside counsel or other
experts for this purpose.

The
board of directors shall appoint one member of its audit committee as chairperson. He or she shall be responsible for leadership of the committee, including preparing the agenda, presiding over
the meetings, making committee assignments and reporting to the board of directors. The chairperson will also maintain regular liaison with the CEO, CFO, the lead independent audit partner and the
director of internal audit (if any).

Responsibilities:

The
audit committee's primary responsibilities include:



---



CHARTER
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

|                                 |  |     
|-------------------------------- |  | ----
|AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON      |  | Date
|AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBER           |  | Date
|AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBER           |  | Date
|Non Audit Committee Board Member |  | Date

---

QuickLinks
Maurice Patrick FORTUNE, III, petitioner v. Mark R. HERRING.

No. 17-8887.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00382

v. (Lead Case)

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/BA VERIZON

WIRELESS.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor, 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00380

v. (Member Case)

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AT&T SERVICES, 

INC., AND AT&T CORP., 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor, 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00381

(Member Case)

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor, 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOVANT-INTERVENOR ERICSSON INC.’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 56-1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 368
Before the Court are Movant-Intervenor Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”)’s Unopposed Motions 

to Intervene. (Dkt. No. ); (Dkt. No. ); (Dkt. No. ). Ericsson moved to intervene 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Having 

considered the Motions, their unopposed nature, and the relevant authorities, the Court finds that 

the Motions should be and hereby are GRANTED. Accordingly, Ericsson is permitted to intervene 

in theses actions and is GRANTED LEAVE to file a responsive pleading in intervention on or 

before . 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 56-1 Filed 12/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 369
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 09/25/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      610,331
COMMITMENTS
  61,281   63,560  167,534  360,606  364,158  589,420  595,252   20,910   15,079

CHANGES FROM 09/18/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -29,037)
  -1,167    9,445  -23,935   -4,515  -12,207  -29,617  -26,697      580   -2,340

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    10.0     10.4     27.4     59.1     59.7     96.6     97.5      3.4      2.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      138)
      32       32       50       66       66      126      122
```

----

Updated September 28, 2012
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELE 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC 09/06/2023 /s/ Neil A. Rubin Neil A. Rubin SBN 250761

RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 

12424 Wilshire Blvd, 12th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90025

nrubin@raklaw.com (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 15 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 74
Erin J. SHEPHERD, et al., Petitioners, v. Angela STUDDARD.

No. 19-609

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 21.1

FARO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                           |  |                                             
|------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------
|Antares LDA                                |  | Antares, Portugal                           
|Cam2 SRL                                   |  | Rivoli, Italy                               
|FARO Benelux BV                            |  | Eindhoven, Netherlands                      
|FARO Business Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. |  | New Delhi, India                            
|FARO Cayman LP                             |  | Georgetown, Cayman Islands                  
|FARO Cayman Ltd                            |  | Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands                
|FARO Delaware Inc                          |  | Wilmington, Delaware, USA                   
|FARO Deutschland Holding GmbH              |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Europe KG                             |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO FHN Netherlands BV                    |  | Amsterdam, Netherlands                      
|FARO Japan Inc.                            |  | Aichi, Japan                                
|FARO Scanning AG                           |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Scanner Production GmbH               |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Shanghai Co, Ltd                      |  | Shanghai, China                             
|FARO Singapore PTE Ltd                     |  | Singapore, Singapore                        
|FARO Spain SL                              |  | Barcelona, Spain                            
|FARO Swiss Holding GmbH                    |  | Beringen, Switzerland                       
|FARO Swiss Manufacturing GmbH              |  | Beringen, Switzerland                       
|FAO Tech Polska                            |  | Poznan, Poland                              
|FARO Verwaltungs GmbH                      |  | Korntal-Münchingen, Germany                 
|FARO Technologies (Thailand) Ltd.          |  | Bangkok,Thailand                            
|Faro Laser Trackers                        |  | Kennett Square, PA USA                      
|3D Measurement Technologies, S de RL de CV |  | Col. Chapultec Morales Cd. De Mexico, Mexico
|FARO France                                |  | Röthenbach/Allgäu, France                   
|FARO UK                                    |  | Coventry, United Kingdom                    
|FARO Australia                             |  | Sydney, Australia
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Sophia A. Campbell, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Orange County,

April 5, 1973.

*Morgan & Nichols (Colemar F. Nichols*of counsel), for petitioner. *Alfred Schleider,*guardian ad litem for John Y. Campbell and another, infants.

Irving A. Green, J.

The will of the above decedent, drafted and executed in England, having been admitted to probate in this court by decree dated March 26,1973, the application, contained in the probate petition, for the issuance of letters of trusteeship thereunder, and the need, if any, for a trustee’s bond, is presented for determination. The will (par. “ Twelfth ”) appoints, as executors and trustees, decedent’s husband and brother. The husband has renounced any right to appointment as executor or *10trustee. Accordingly, the sole testamentary trustee provided for in the will is the brother of decedent.

The trust corpus consists of the residuary estate with income to the husband during his lifetime (with power of invasion as to principal) and “ from and after his death (b) as to the capital and future income thereof upon trust for my descendants in equal shares per stirpes absolutely ”. (Will, par. “ Seventh ”.)

Paragraph “ Twelfth ” of the will also provides:

“ No bond or other security shall be required in any jurisdiction of any Executor herein named or appointed as herein provided.

“ The expression ‘ my Executor(s) ’ used herein shall where the context admits include any Executor Administrator or Trustee who at any time may be acting hereunder whether or not named herein and all powers duties and discretions herein created or conferred shall extend to them all.”

Paragraph “ Eleventh” of the will recites powers conferred by the testatrix upon “ my Executor(s) ” ip addition to those conferred by statute.

The court finds the intent of this testatrix, from the language used by her in the will, is that the *fiduciaries,*or either of them, nominated by her, be permitted to serve under the will without bond or other security. The court further finds that the word, “ Executor ”, as used in the paragraph of the will dispensing with a bond or other security, was intended to generally describe estate fiduciaries including the trustee(s). *(Matter of Fabbri,*2 N Y 2d 236, 239, 240; cf. *Matter of Ransome,*37 Misc 2d 375, 377.) This finding is reinforced by the language of the testatrix, in the same paragraph, ‘ ‘ Twelfth ’ ’, of the will which follows immediately after the bond dispensing provision to the effect that the expression, “my Executor(s) ”, shall include any trustee.

Accordingly, the bond of the trustee hereby is dispensed with and letters of trusteeship may issue herein upon the trustee otherwise qualifying in accordance with law.
EXHIBIT 99.9





CONSENT OF EXPERT
   March 27, 2015
   Eldorado Gold Corporation
  United States Securities and Exchange Commission
  Ladies and Gentlemen:
  Re: Eldorado Gold Corporation
  I, Antony Francis, do hereby consent to the filing of the written disclosure regarding the technical reports entitled (i) the “Skouries Cu/Au Project, Greece – NI43-101 Technical Report” dated July 14, 2011, and (ii) the “Technical Report on the Olympias Project, Au Pb Zn Ag Deposit, Northern Greece” dated July 14, 2011 and of extracts from or a summary of  the technical reports and other information pertaining to these projects, and the use of my name in the Annual Information Form and Annual Report on Form 40-F of Eldorado Gold Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2014 and any amendments thereto and any Registration Statement on Form S-8 incorporating by reference the Company’s Annual Information Form and Annual Report on Form 40-F.
  
  By:
/s/ Antony FrancisAntony Francis, FIMMM
Donna J. HOCKMAN, petitioner, v. Phyllis BASKERVILLE, Warden.

No. 18-7640.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 15, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Sholam WEISS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6983.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2251 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2251

                   For the relief of Renato Rosetti.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 1999

  Mr. Istook introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Renato Rosetti.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Renato Rosetti 
shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the 
United States for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment 
of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Renato Rosetti as 
provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal year the 
total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
Lawton Frederick TYSON, petitioner, v. TEXAS; and Lawton Frederick Tyson, petitioner, v. Texas.

No. 18M66.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 19, 2018.

Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01


                  SUBSIDIARIES OF GUILFORD PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

       Below is a list of direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Corporation.
  All subsidiaries are wholly-owned.

  <TABLE>
  <CAPTION>

<S>     <C>
  1.     GPI Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation

  2.     Guilford Pharmaceutical Products Inc., a Maryland corporation

  3.     GPI Polymer Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation

  4.     GPI NIL Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation

  5.     GPI (Canada) Inc., a Delaware corporation

  6.     Guilford Pharmaceuticals Canada Co., a Nova Scotian unlimited liability company

  7.     Guilford Pharmaceuticals Ltd., an English corporation
  </TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 10, 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, October 10, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18A0336. THE STATE v. DAVID JORDAN SCHWEITZER.
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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JEROME FRANKS,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 593, 2015

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ Cr. ID No. 89KO1032DI

§ 

§

§

Submitted: November 25, 2015

Decided: January 11, 2016

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices.

ORDER

This 11th day of January 2016, after careful consideration of the parties’ 

respective positions, the Court concludes that the judgment below should be 

affirmed for reasons stated in the Superior Court’s decision dated October 15, 

2015. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s seventh 

motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and that the motion failed 

to satisfy the pleading requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2) in 

order to overcome the procedural hurdles. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice