alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lynel A. Parsons, Appellant, v James J. Walsh, as Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 853]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered February 2, 2005 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 25 years to life. The judgment of conviction was affirmed upon appeal *(People v Parsons,*270 AD2d 504 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 801 [2001]), and his subsequent motion pursuant to CPL article 440 and a federal writ of habeas corpus were denied. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus contending that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction of depraved indifference murder. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

Inasmuch as petitioner’s claim could have been and, in fact, was raised on his direct appeal and in his CPL article 440 motion, habeas corpus relief is not available here *(see People ex rel. Woodard v Artus,*18 AD3d 1048 [2005]; *People ex rel. Walsh v Sabourin,*305 AD2d 759 [2003]). Nor do we find anything in this matter that warrants a departure from traditional orderly procedures *(see People ex rel. Wright v Miller,*16 AD3d 746 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 703 [2005]; *People ex rel. Woodard v Senkowski,*305 AD2d 879 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 511 [2003]). In any event, contrary to petitioner’s suggestion, *People v Payne*(3 NY3d 266 [2004]) did not declare a retroactive change in the law but, rather, applied existing case law.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

p0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

140253

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140253 COA: 294118 Ottawa CC: 09-033312-FH LUCRETIA YVONNE BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 28, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua T. BROWN.

No. 276P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Joshua T. Brown.

*922John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of May 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2017211EN.01005801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 17.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/58 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2095 of 26 September 2016 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 326 of 1 December 2016](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2016_326_R_TOC)
)

On page 4, in the Annex replacing Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91, in the table on purity characteristics, in the eleventh column (‘Difference: ECN42 (HPLC) and ECN42 (theoretical calculation)’):

for:

‘Difference: ECN42 (HPLC) and ECN42

(theoretical calculation)

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ 0,2 |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ 0,2 |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ 0,3 |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ 0,3 |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ 0,3 |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ 0,6 |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ 0,5 |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ 0,5’ |

read:

‘Difference: ECN42 (HPLC) and ECN42

(theoretical calculation)

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ |0,2| |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ |0,2| |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ |0,3| |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ |0,3| |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ |0,3| |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ |0,6| |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ |0,5| |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ≤ |0,5|’ |

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michael W. DePasquale,certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSBof BIO-key International, Inc. (the “company”);

 

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

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the companyand have:

 

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

 

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of thecompany’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 changein the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the company’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

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

 

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability 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 significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: April 11, 2006       |   |                  |
|----------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
|                       |   |                  |
| /s/ MICHAEL W. DEPASQUALE  |   | Michael W. DePasquale |   |
| Co-Chief Executive Officer |   |                  |
|                            |        |                       |  |

 

----
STATE v. Larry PULLEY.

No. 42P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas H. Lock, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of December 2004 by Defendant for Relief:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of February 2005."
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20739 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAJID KHAN,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-1203

- - - - - - - - - -

April 18, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sajid Khan appeals from the district court's denial of his

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255. Khan argues that ineffective assistance of

counsel deprived him of his right to a direct criminal appeal. 

Khan's failure to raise in the district court the argument that a

meritorious issue for appeal concerned an unfulfilled promise by

the Government and his counsel regarding his sentence precludes

our consideration of this argument. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 
No. 95-20739

-2-

F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). In light of the well-reasoned

memorandum opinion by the district court, see United States v.

Khan, No. H-95-1203 (S.D. Tex. August 1, 1995), we AFFIRM. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.2





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.
C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, G.
Rowland Carey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
USA Superior Energy Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for
the period ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





/S/ G.
Rowland Carey


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


G.
Rowland Carey


Acting
Chief Financial Officer


May 29,
2008








This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ¡ì 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of ¡ì 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# L_2017076EN.01003301.xml

| 22.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 76/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 76/33

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2017/498

of 21 March 2017

implementing Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (1), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/172/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/172/CFSP.

| (2) | Two persons should no longer be kept on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies in the Annex to Decision 2011/172/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Two persons should no longer be kept on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies in the Annex to Decision 2011/172/CFSP.

| (3) | The Annex to Decision 2011/172/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Annex to Decision 2011/172/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2011/172/CFSP is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 21 March 2017.

For the Council

The President

E. SCICLUNA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 63.

1

---

ANNEX

The entries concerning the following persons are deleted:

| 13. | Rachid Mohamed Rachid Hussein. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Rachid Mohamed Rachid Hussein.

| 14. | Hania Mahmoud Abdel Rahman Fahmy. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Hania Mahmoud Abdel Rahman Fahmy.

---
EXHIBIT-99
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

CONVERGENCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

SCHEDULE II: VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

                                                                       Additions
                                                           ----------------------------
                                                           Charged
                                                           to Costs     Charged to
                                          Balance at         and           Other                          Balance at
            Description               Beginning of Year    Expenses      Accounts          Deductions     End of Year
<S>                                        <C>             <C>            <C>               <C>          <C>

Year ended December 31, 2000:

Deducted from assets accounts
Accounts Receivable:
   Allowance                                $ 366,448      $1,387,255                       $528,076      $1,225,627
Inventory:
   Reserve                                    259,579                                         44,925         214,654
Deferred tax assets:
   Valuation allowance                     10,096,368                     $5,512,581                      15,608,949

Year ended December 31,1999:

Deducted from assets accounts
Accounts receivable:
   Allowance                                  328,283         363,005                        324,840         366,448
Inventory:
   Reserve                                    259,579                                                        259,579
Deferred tax assets:
   Valuation allowance                      5,452,292                      4,644,076                      10,096,368

</TABLE>
# L_2018167EN.01003601.xml

| 4.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 167/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 167/36

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and nforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 183 of 8 July 2016
  )

On the Contents Page and on page 1, the title:

for:

‘Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and nforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes’,

read:

‘Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes’.

On page 24, Article 53(1):

for:

‘1.   When a decision must be recognised in accordance with this Chapter, nothing shall prevent the applicant from availing himself of provisional, including protective, measures in accordance with the law of the Member State of enforcement without a declaration of enforceability under Article 46 being required.’,

read:

‘1.   When a decision must be recognised in accordance with this Chapter, nothing shall prevent the applicant from availing himself of provisional, including protective, measures in accordance with the law of the Member State of enforcement without a declaration of enforceability under Article 47 being required.’.

---
STATE v. FRANKUM.

No. COA05-1508.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed July 5, 2006.

Certification Date July 25, 2006.

Appeal from Gaston (05CRS11459, 05CRS11460, 05CRS11461, 05CRS11462, 05CRS11463, 05CRS11464, 05CRS11465, 05CRS11466, 05CRS11467, 05CRS11468, 04CRS63415, 04CRS63416, 04CRS63417, 04CRS63418, 04CRS63419, 04CRS63420, 04CRS63421, 04CRS63422, 04CRS63423, 04CRS63424, 04CRS63425, 04CRS63426, 04CRS63427, 04CRS63428, 04CRS63429, 04CRS63430, 04CRS63431, 04CRS63432, 04CRS63433, 04CRS63434, 04CRS63435, 04CRS63436).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00530-CV

Terry Christopher Bounds and Diana Bounds, Appellants

v.

Bounds and Pinto Marketing, Inc. d/b/a Canyon Lake Visitors Bureau and

f/k/a PBC Marketing Company; Austrends, Inc.; and Randy Osherow,

Trustee of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Estate of Terry Christopher Bounds, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-13-002131, HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties have filed an agreed motion, signed by counsel for all parties, informing

this Court that they have reached a settlement of the underlying dispute, and requesting that we abate

this appeal pending approval of the settlement by the United States BankruptcyCourt. We will abate

the appeal until March 3, 2014. If the parties’ settlement is approved, they are instructed to file a

motion to reinstate and dismiss the appeal in accordance with the settlement agreement. If the

parties have not finalized the settlement by March 3, 2014, they are instructed to file a report

informing this Court as to the status of the appeal and, if necessary, requesting an extension of the

abatement.
__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Goodwin

Bankruptcy

Filed: January 22, 2014

2
Resolutions Adopted by the Board of Union Community Bancorp


    Exhibit
      10.1

     

     

    Resolutions
      Adopted by the Board of Directors

    of
      Union Community Bancorp

     

    WHEREAS,
      the Union Community Bancorp Stock Option Plan (the “Option Plan”) permits the
      Corporation’s Board of Directors to amend the Option Plan, subject to Office of
      Thrift Supervision (the “OTS”) regulations, without shareholder approval except
      in circumstances not here relevant;

     

    WHEREAS,
      the OTS has recently amended its regulations to permit the vesting of stock
      options and management recognition grants in the event of a change in control
      of
      the corporation making such awards.

     

    WHEREAS,
      the Board of Directors deems it advisable to amend the Option Plan to permit
      vesting of options and other awards under the Option Plan in the event of a
      change in control of the Corporation or its savings association
      subsidiary.

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Option Plan shall be amended by adding
      a new
      Section 15 thereto which shall read in its entirety as follows:

     

    
      	 	
                        “21.  Change
                in Control. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Plan, in
                the event
                of a Change in Control, all options previously granted and still
                outstanding under the Plan regardless of their terms shall become
                exercisable in full immediately prior to the consummation of the
                Change in
                Control, and holders of such options, in addition to any other rights
                they
                may have with respect to such options under this Plan and the instrument
                evidencing the grant of the option, shall have thirty (30) days following
                a Change in Control to exercise those options. For this purpose,
“Change
                in Control” shall mean a change in control of the Corporation or of Union,
                within the meaning of 12 C.F.R. § 574.4(a) (other than a change of
                control resulting from a trustee or other fiduciary holding shares
                under
                an employee benefit plan of the Corporation or any of its
                subsidiaries).”

            	 


    

     

    RESOLVED
      FURTHER, that the foregoing amendment to the Option Plan be applied to
      outstanding stock options and that the Corporation’s officers notify the current
      holders of stock options granted under the Option Plan of this amendment and
      advise them of its impact on the vesting of their stock options.
#### Michael Ignaszak, Respondent, v Pamela Ignaszak, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 657]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered June 23, 2004 in a divorce action. The judgment, among other things, directed plaintiff to pay defendant $600 per month in child support.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by providing that each party shall be solely responsible for his or her attorney’s fees and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with thefollowing memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment that adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO) directing plaintiff to pay defendant $600 per month in child support. The JHO set forth his reasons for deviating from the presumptive standard of support calculated pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [f]). The judgment, however, fails to apportion each party’s pro rata share of child care expenses and, because the record is not fully developed on that issue, we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine following a hearing, if necessary, “reasonable child care expenses” *1409and each party’s pro rata share of those expenses and future uncovered health care expenses (§ 240 [1-lb] [c] [4]; *see*§ 240 [1-b] [c] [5]; *Granade-Bastuck v Bastuck,*249 AD2d 444, 446 [1998]). Finally defendant contends that the court erred in failing to rule on her application for attorney’s fees. The JHO determined that “[e]ach party shall be solely responsible for [his or her] attorney’s fees,” but that determination was not incorporated into the judgment of divorce. In our view, the court’s failure to incorporate the JHO’s determination was an oversight, and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.