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

[801 NYS2d 454]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Peter L. Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered October 16, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting *1404him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). Defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because County Court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry to ascertain whether the waiver was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered. We reject that contention *(see generally People v Brown,*303 AD2d 989 [2003] ). The record establishes that the court asked defendant, inter alia, whether he had a clear mind, whether he understood the proceedings, whether he had sufficient time to discuss the matter with his attorney, and whether he understood that he was giving up certain rights. With respect to the waiver of the right to appeal, defendant indicated that he understood that he was giving up his right to challenge any rulings made by the court, including the court’s ruling following the *Huntley*hearing. “Defendant’s responses to [the c]ourt’s questions unequivocally established that defendant understood the proceedings and was voluntarily waiving the right to appeal” *(People v Gilbert,*17 AD3d 1164, 1164 [2005]; see *People v Jeter,*15 AD3d 885 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 887 [2005]). The waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contentions with respect to the'court’s suppression ruling and the severity of the sentence *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831 [1999]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; *Gilbert,*17 AD3d at 1164; *People v Haupt,*16 AD3d 1079 [2005]; *People v Pittman,*13 AD3d 1145, 1146 [2004] , *lv denied 4*NY3d 801 [2005]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Monster
Worldwide, Inc.
New York, New York

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference, in the previously filed open Registration Statements on Forms S-3 and S-8 (Nos. 333-81843,
333-63631, 333-50699, 333-18937, 333-63499, 333-88193, 333-75031, 333-93065, 333-70795,
333-83131, 333-96101, 333-61400, 333-71062, 333-109598, 333-115007 and 333-116004) of Monster
Worldwide, Inc., of our report dated February 18, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of Monster Worldwide, Inc.'s internal control over
financial reporting, which appear in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|                                 |  | /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLPBDO Seidman, LLP
|-------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|New York, New York
March 1, 2005 |  |                                     

---



QuickLinks
In the Matter of H.S.F. appealed by Mother.

No. 168P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Susan P. Hall, Morganton, for Mother.

Leslie C. Rawls, Charlotte, for Stepfather.

Charles E. Wilson, Jr., Shelby, for Cleveland County DSS.

Rebekah W. Davis, for Father.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 30th day of March 2006 by Respondent (Mother) 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 29th day of June 2006."
Exhibit 10.2


 


CONTENT
CHECKED HOLDINGS, INC.


 


July
17, 2016


 


	To:
    	Kalle Bergman, in connection with the Share Exchange Agreement,

                                                                               dated as of July 17, 2016, by and among Honest Cooking Media LLC, 

                                                                              Kalle Bergman and Content Checked Holdings, Inc.



 


Dear
Mr. Bergman:


 


Reference
is hereby made to the Share Exchange Agreement dated July 17, 2016 (the “SEA”) by and among Honest Cooking Media LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company (“HCM”), Kalle Bergman, the sole member of HCM and Content Checked Holdings,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (collectively, the “Parties”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in the SEA. This letter agreement (this “Agreement”) and the terms hereof shall be effective
as of the Closing Date.


 


For
valuable consideration acknowledged to be received, the Parties wish to enter into this Agreement to reflect supplemental terms
to the SEA and hereby agree as follows:


 


	 	●	Notwithstanding
    the terms of Section 1.1(b) of the SEA, the Parties hereby agree that the Determination Price shall have a floor of $0.50
    (subject to adjustment for forward and reverse stock splits and the like that occur after the date hereof). 


 


This
Agreement is hereby made part of and incorporated into the SEA, with all the terms and conditions of the SEA and other transaction
documents remaining in full force and effect, except to the extent modified hereby.


 


This
Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which may be executed by less than all of the parties and shall be
deemed to be an original instrument which shall be enforceable against the parties actually executing such counterparts and all
of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The exchange of copies of this Agreement and of signature pages
by facsimile transmission or in pdf format shall constitute effective execution and delivery of this Agreement as to the parties
and may be used in lieu of the original letter agreement for all purposes. Signatures of the parties transmitted by facsimile
or in pdf format shall be deemed to be their original signatures for all purposes. This Agreement may be amended only upon the
signatures of all parties hereto.


 


This
Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York.


 


[Signature
page follows]


 




    	 	 	 



    	 



    


 


CONTENT
CHECKED HOLDINGS, INC.


 


The
parties agree for and on behalf of their respective party as of the first date written above.


 


	 	Very Truly Yours,
	 	 	 
	 	CONTENT CHECKED HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:
	/s/
    Kris Finstad
	 	Name:
	Kris
    Finstad
	 	Title:
	CEO


 


	HONEST COOKING MEDIA LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:
    	/s/
    Kalle Bergman	 
	Name:
    	Kalle
    Bergman	 
	Title:
    	Sole
    Member	 


 


	KALLE
    BERGMAN	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Kalle Bergman	 
	Signature
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service 

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App 1, Section 10), that a meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission will be held on September 26, 2005. 

The Commission was reestablished pursuant to Public Law 87-126 as amended by Public Law 105-280. The purpose of the Commission is to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, or her designee, with respect to matters relating to the development of Cape Cod National Seashore, and with respect to carrying out the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act establishing the Seashore. 

The Commission members will meet at 1 p.m. in the meeting room at Headquarters, Marconi Station, Wellfleet, Massachusetts for the regular business meeting to discuss the following: 

1. Adoption of Agenda 

2. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meeting (June 20, 2005) 

3. Reports of Officers 

4. Reports of Subcommittees 

5. Superintendent's Report 

Salt Pond Visitor Center Update 

Highlands Center Update 

Update on Dune Shack Report 

ORV's 

East Harbor/Pilgrim Lake 

Herring River Restoration Project 

Wilderness Areas 

Wind Turbines/Cell Towers 

News from Washington 

6. Old Business 

7. New Business 

8. Date and agenda for next meeting 

9. Public comment and 

10. Adjournment 

The meeting is open to the public. It is expected that 15 persons will be able to attend the meeting in addition to Commission members. 

                    Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Commission during the business meeting or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the park                           ( print page 49946)                        superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting. Further information concerning the meeting may be obtained from the Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet, MA 02667.                 

Dated: July 26, 2005. 

Sue Moynihan, 

Acting Superintendent. 

[FR Doc. 05-16876 Filed 8-24-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
# The Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2013 No. 3169

Civil Aviation

# The Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2013 (revoked)F1

Made

11th December 2013

Laid before Parliament

18th December 2013

Coming into force

27th January 2014

At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 11th day of December 2013

Present,

The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

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

F1Order revoked (25.8.2016) by The Air Navigation Order 2016 (S.I. 2016/765), art. 1, **Sch. 14 Pt. 1** (with arts. 17-23, 274(2)-(4))
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3369 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for relief to 

surviving spouses and children, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2008 

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

MENENDEZ, and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

for relief to surviving spouses and children, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RELIEF FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of section 

5 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

6 (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(or, 

7 if married for less than 2 years at the time of the citizen’s 

8 death, an alien who proves by a preponderance of the evi9 dence that the marriage was entered into in good faith 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3369 IS

1 and not solely for the purpose of obtaining an immigration 

2 benefit)’’ after ‘‘for at least 2 years at the time of the 

3 citizen’s death’’. 

4 (b) APPLICABILITY.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

6 subsection (a) shall apply to all applications and pe7 titions relating to immediate relative status under 

8 section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Na9 tionality Act pending on or after the date of the en10 actment of this Act. 

11 (2) TRANSITION CASES.— 

12 (A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an alien 

13 described in subparagraph (B) who seeks imme14 diate relative status pursuant to the amend15 ment made by subsection (a), the alien shall 

16 have until the date that is 2 years after the 

17 date of the enactment of this Act to file a peti18 tion under section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Immi19 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

20 1154(a)(1)(A)(ii)), notwithstanding any other 

21 provision of law. 

22 (B) ALIENS DESCRIBED.—An alien is de23 scribed in this subparagraph if— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 3369 IS

1 (i) the alien’s United States citizen 

2 spouse died before the date of the enact3 ment of this Act; 

4 (ii) the alien and the citizen spouse 

5 were married for less than 2 years at the 

6 time of the citizen spouse’s death; and 

7 (iii) the alien has not remarried. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NOLAN ALSTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00242-CMC; 3:01-cr-01024-CMC) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: August 31, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nolan Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nolan Alston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
STATE of North Carolina v. Kendall Jermaine BARNETT.

No. 64P01-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Kendall J. Barnett, Pro Se.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Locke Bell, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 20th day of November 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Gaston County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."
Exhibit 32.1

TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) for the quarter ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Thomas A. Hyde, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report is in full compliances with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Thomas A. Hyde, Jr.
|Thomas A. Hyde, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer
|October 4, 2006
# Council Decision of 24 June 2014 appointing an Austrian member of the European Economic and Social Committee (2014/413/EU)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision

# of 24 June 2014

# appointing an Austrian member of the European Economic and Social Committee

# (2014/413/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and                              Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015(1).

(2)A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of                              Mr Gerfried GRUBER,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Mr Andreas THURNER is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the                     current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 2014.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

E. Venizelos                            

1

OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.
# The Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (revoked)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

Statutory Instruments

# 2013 No. 1950

Consumer Protection

Health And Safety

# The Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 (revoked)F1

Made

5th August 2013

Laid before Parliament

6th August 2013

Coming into force

30th August 2013

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

F1Regulations revoked (17.8.2015) by The Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/1553), **reg. 75(1)** (with reg. 75(2)(4))
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Allin Corporation wholly owns the following subsidiaries:

                                                    Additional Names under
                                       State of     which Subsidiary
           Name of Subsidiary       Incorporation   Conducts Business
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allin Consulting of Pennsylvania,   Pennsylvania    Bank Consulting Services,
Inc.                                                Allin Consulting
Allin Corporation of California     California      Allin Consulting
Allin Interactive Corporation       Delaware        Allin Interactive
Allin Digital Imaging Corp.         Delaware        Allin Digital
Allin Network Products, Inc.        California
Allin Holdings Corporation          Delaware

Except as noted above, each subsidiary does business exclusively under its
corporate name, with or without the corporate indicator.
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; Jonathan H.B. Kurens, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 162]

*1252Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1991, was suspended by this Court’s order dated November 20, 1988 for failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (255 AD2d 827 [1998]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts *(see*22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application.

Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5711 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5711

To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish 
    a floor for payment for mammography under the Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2008

  Mr. Weiner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish 
    a floor for payment for mammography under the Medicare Program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Assure Access to Mammography Act of 
2008''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE PAYMENT FLOOR FOR MAMMOGRAPHY.

    Section 1848(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Payment floor for screening and diagnostic 
        mammography.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In the case of mammography, 
                whether screening or diagnostic, performed in a year 
                beginning with 2009, the fee schedule amount shall not 
                be less than the amount specified in subparagraph (B) 
                for that year. Such amount shall be subject to 
                geographic area adjustment in the same manner as for 
                other physicians' services under this section.
                    ``(B) Amount.--The amount specified in this 
                subparagraph--
                            ``(i) for 2009 is 115 percent of the fee 
                        schedule amount under this section with respect 
                        to mammography for 2008, increased by the 
                        percentage increase in the MEI (as defined in 
                        section 1842(i)(3)) for 2008; and
                            ``(ii) for a subsequent year is the amount 
                        specified in this subparagraph for the previous 
                        year increased by the percentage increase in 
                        the MEI (as so defined) for such previous 
                        year.''.
                                 <all>
```