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

[800 NYS2d 548]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered October 17, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, forgery in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree and petit larceny, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that he was absent from various conferences during jury selection and at other points in the trial *(see People v Velasquez,*1 NY3d 44, 47-48 [2003]). On the contrary, the record warrants the conclusion that defendant was present for each of the conferences at issue. In particular, the record indicates that voir dire of individual venirepersons took place in open court while the balance of the panel waited outside the courtroom. Furthermore, the other colloquies challenged by defendant on appeal involved purely legal matters at which his presence was not required *(People v Fabricio,*3 NY3d 402 [2004]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting evidence of defendant’s prior forgery conviction and a portion of the plea allocution of the underlying incident in which defendant admitted he had forged a postal service form in the name of a girlfriend with the intent to defraud various credit card companies to obtain credit cards in her name. This evidence was highly probative of the contested issues of intent to defraud and steal from the credit card companies, which was the central *744issue in the case, as well as identity *(see People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]). Upon receipt of this evidence, the court immediately instructed the jury that it could not consider it for propensity but only on the issues of intent, knowledge, identity, common scheme or plan and motive. Defendant’s challenge to the court’s limiting instruction in this regard is unpreserved and unavailing. In its final charge, the court repeated this instruction more fully, to which defendant took no exception.

Although some of the prosecutor’s summation comments might have been better left unsaid, the errors were harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14(A) AND 15D-14(A),
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Salvatore Iannuzzi, certify that:

(1)   I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Monster Worldwide, Inc.;

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

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

(4)   The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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



|Date: February 21, 2008 |  | By: | /s/SALVATORE IANNUZZISalvatore Iannuzzi
      Chairman of the Board, President and
      Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                    YOUNG BROADCASTING INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                        ---------------------------
                                           MARCH 31,     MARCH 31,
                                             1996          1997
                                        ---------------------------
<S>                                       <C>           <C>
SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OUTSTANDING
 FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD................     10,548,181    14,230,357

ISSUANCE OF 27,685 SHARES OF COMMON
 STOCK TO THE COMPANY'S DEFINED
 CONTRIBUTION PLAN....................         26,164             -

REPURCHASE OF 111,383 SHARES OF COMMON
 STOCK FROM J.P. MORGAN CAPITAL
 CORPORATION..........................       (107,711)            -

ISSUANCE OF 28,481 SHARES OF COMMON
 STOCK TO THE COMPANY'S DEFINED
 CONTRIBUTION PLAN....................              -        25,316
                                        ---------------------------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OF COMMON
 STOCK OUTSTANDING....................     10,466,634    14,255,673
                                        ---------------------------

NET INCOME (LOSS).....................    ($3,338,446)  ($5,566,042)
                                        ===========================

NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

       NET INCOME (LOSS)..............         ($0.32)       ($0.39)
                                        ===========================
 
</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2187

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Lance Pegues, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 29, 2007

Filed: April 6, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lance Pegues appeals the 24-month prison term imposed by the district court1

following revocation of his supervised release. He argues that it was error for the

court to order his sentence to be served consecutively to an undischarged state term

of imprisonment.

We disagree. At the revocation hearing, many matters relevant to sentencing

were brought to the district court’s attention, including Pegues’s repeated violations
-2-

of the law, his poor response to supervision, and his need for psychological and

substance-abuse treatment. The district court heard and rejected Pegues’s lengthy

argument for a concurrent sentence, instead choosing to impose a consecutive

sentence as advised in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f), and commenting in particular that two

years of federal custody would afford Pegues an opportunity to get the help he needed.

We conclude that the sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Larison,

432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006) (court reviews revocation sentences for

unreasonableness); United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005)

(district court must consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in determining revocation

sentence, but need not make specific findings on each factor; all that is required is

evidence that court considered relevant matters in imposing sentence).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
STATE v. COBLE

No. COA06-1544.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (05CRS23184, 05CRS82794, 05CRS82795, 05CRS82796).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Nove mber 15 , 2016 Session **STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICKY THOMPSON**  **Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No**  **. 104175 G. Scott Green, Judge** 

**No. E2015 -**  **02464 -**  **CCA -** **R3 -**  **CD**

D. KELLY THOMAS , JR ., J ., dissenting
. I agree with the majority’s discussion of the photographs and subsequent legal analysis of their admissibility; however, I do not agree that the error in admitting the surgical photographs was harmless. In determining whether non- constitutional errors are harmless, “Tennessee law places the burden on the defendant who is seeking to invalidate his or her conviction to demonstrate that the error ‘more probably than not affected the judgment or would result in prejudice to the judicial process.’” State v. Rodriguez , 254 S.W.3d 3 61, 372 (Tenn. 2008) (quoting Tenn. R. App. P. 36(b)). “When assessing the impact of a nonconstitutional error, appellate courts must review the record as a whole, considering prop erly admitted evidence of the defendant’ s guilt.” State v. Curtis Scott Harper, No. E2014
- 01077
- CCA
- R3
- CD, 2015 WL 6736747, at *17 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 3, 2015) (citing Rodriguez , 254 S.W.3d at 372 ). “The greater the amount of evidence of guilt, the heavier the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that a non- constitutional error involving a substantial right more probably than not affect [ed] the outcome of the trial. ” Id. Here, as evidenced by the jury verdict, the evidence of guilt against the De fendant for aggravated assault and robbery was weak. The record clearly establishes that the victim suffered serious bodily injury; however, there was conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances of how the victim obtained these injuries. The victim admitted to being intoxicated on the evening of the incident, and the testimony of Marquita Cruze , a disinterested witness, directly contradicted the victim’s version of events. The jury was 04/27/2017tasked with weighing evidence from persons of questionable credibility and, apparently,

discounted significant portions of the victim’s testimony in that the Defendant was acquitted of the robbery charge . But for the gruesome surgical photographs, the jury may have acquitted the Defendant of both robbery and reckless aggravated assault
. Convicting the Defendant of the lesser
- included offense of reckless aggravated assault does not necessarily mean that the jury’s decision was not improperly influenced
. The surgical photographs were inflammatory and their probative value does not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice
. Thus, given the weakness of the State’s proof against the Defendant, it is more probable than not that these photographs affected the jury’s decision and resulted in prejudic e to the judic ial process. Respectfully, I would reverse the conviction.

___ _________________________________ D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 824/2013Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 824/2013 of 28 August 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Norwegian waters            of I and II by vessels flying the flag of Portugal         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 824/2013                     

# of 28 August 2013

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for cod in Norwegian waters of I and II by vessels flying the flag of Portugal

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and,                              to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international                              negotiations or agreements(2), lays down quotas for 2013.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2013.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

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

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 August 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 54.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING BALANCE SHEETS OF ORPHAN MEDICAL, INC. AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE
RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             2,154,069
<SECURITIES>                                       4,031,557
<RECEIVABLES>                                        648,860
<ALLOWANCES>                                          22,622
<INVENTORY>                                          128,270
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   7,032,056
<PP&E>                                               576,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                       293,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     7,325,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              3,243,448
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                               78
<COMMON>                                              65,627
<OTHER-SE>                                         4,016,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       7,325,968
<SALES>                                            1,401,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   1,401,839
<CGS>                                                248,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        248,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2,759,773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (85,920)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1,520,939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,520,939)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,663,189)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.25)
        

</TABLE>
# Council Regulation (EU) No 627/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Council Regulation (EU) No 627/2013 of 27 June 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 opening and providing for the management            of autonomous tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and industrial products (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Regulation (EU) No 627/2013                     

# of 27 June 2013

# amending Regulation (EU) No 7/2010 opening and providing for the management of autonomous tariff quotas of the Union for certain                        agricultural and industrial products (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Council Regulation (EU) No 1388/2013 of 17 December 2013 opening and providing for the management of autonomous tariff quotas                                 of the Union for certain agricultural and industrial products, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 7/2010.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1137 

KA 15-00656 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIAN ALLPORT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BENJAMIN L. NELSON OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch,

J.), entered March 4, 2015. The order determined that defendant is a

level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order classifying him as a level

two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ([SORA]

Correction Law § 168 et seq.), defendant contends that he was denied

effective assistance of counsel at the SORA classification proceeding. 

We reject that contention. Defendant’s contention that his attorney

at the classification proceeding should have challenged each of the

points assessed is without merit. “It is well established that ‘[a]

defendant is not denied effective assistance of . . . counsel merely

because counsel does not make a motion or argument that has little or

no chance of success’ ” (People v Greenfield, 126 AD3d 1488, 1489, lv

denied 26 NY3d 903, quoting People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287, rearg

denied 3 NY3d 702). Here, the record establishes that there was no

colorable basis for challenging any of the points assessed. With

respect to defendant’s further contention that counsel was ineffective

in failing to seek a downward departure from defendant’s presumptive

risk level, “we conclude that there are no ‘mitigating factors

warranting a downward departure from his risk level’ ” (id.). Thus,

contrary to defendant’s contention, “[c]ounsel could have reasonably

concluded that there was nothing to litigate at the hearing” (People v

Reid, 59 AD3d 158, 159, lv denied 12 NY3d 708; see People v Westfall,

114 AD3d 1264, 1264; see also People v Bowles, 89 AD3d 171, 181, lv

denied 18 NY3d 807).

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# L_2014059DE.01004701.xml

| 28.2.2014 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 59/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2014

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 59/47

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 577/2013 der Kommission vom 28. Juni 2013 zu den Muster-Identifizierungsdokumenten für die Verbringung von Hunden, Katzen und Frettchen zu anderen als Handelszwecken, zur Erstellung der Listen der Gebiete und Drittländer sowie zur Festlegung der Anforderungen an Format, Layout und Sprache der Erklärungen zur Bestätigung der Einhaltung bestimmter Bedingungen gemäß der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 576/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 178 vom 28. Juni 2013
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 178 vom 28. Juni 2013

Auf Seite 118 wird die Rubrik „Erläuterungen für das Ausfüllen des Ausweises“ des Heimtierausweises wie folgt korrigiert:

Image

Image

Auf Seite 119 wird die Rubrik „Erläuterungen für das Ausfüllen des Ausweises“ des Heimtierausweises wie folgt korrigiert:

Image

Auf Seite 121 wird die Rubrik „V. TOLLWUTIMPFUNG“ des Heimtierausweises wie folgt korrigiert:

Image

Auf Seite 122 wird die Rubrik „VI. Test zur Titrierung von Tollwutantikörpern“ des Heimtierausweises wie folgt korrigiert:

Image

Auf Seite 123 wird die Rubrik „IM FALL EINER WEITEREN UNTERSUCHUNG“ des Heimtierausweises wie folgt korrigiert:

Image

Auf Seite 135 wird die Rubrik „VI. TEST ZUR TITRIERUNG VON ANTIKÖRPERN“ des Heimtierausweises wie folgt korrigiert:

Image

Auf Seite 136 wird die Rubrik „IM FALL EINER WEITEREN UNTERSUCHUNG“ des Heimtierausweises wie folgt korrigiert:

Image

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,607
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,750
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,259
<PP&E>                                         222,467
<DEPRECIATION>                                 139,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 776,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,736
<BONDS>                                        565,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   776,225
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,164
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,498
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,651
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,520
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,885
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,885
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71


</TABLE>