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

[801 NYS2d 468]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, J.), rendered April 20, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]). We agree with defendant that reversal is required because County Court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror who gave equivocal answers during voir dire and thus failed to establish her ability to be impartial. When asked whether the fact that her husband was a correction officer and her son a police officer would impair her ability to be fair, she replied that she “would hope not,” and she acknowledged that there was a possibility that she would tend to credit the testimony of correction officers over that of other witnesses. In addition, she stated that it would be “difficult” for her to be fair and that she could only “think [she] could say [she’d] try to be fair.” Moreover, the prospective juror was twice asked whether she would feel comfortable being judged by someone with her mindset before she gave an affirmative response to that question. The statements of the *1393prospective juror “raise [d] a serious doubt regarding [her] ability to be impartial,” which mandated that she be excused unless she “ state [d] unequivocally on the record that . . . she [could] be fair and impartial” *(People v LaValle,*3 NY3d 88, 103 [2004]; *see People v Nicholas,*286 AD2d 861, 862 [2001], *affd*98 NY2d 749 [2002]; *People v Bludson,*97 NY2d 644, 645 [2001]; *People v Arnold,*96 NY2d 358, 362-364 [2001]), and she did not do so. “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror’s impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have ‘replaced one impartial juror with another’ ” *(Arnold,*96 NY2d at 362; *see People v Ocean,*294 AD2d 824 [2002]; *People v Escoto,*283 AD2d 962, 963 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 901 [2001]). We therefore reverse the judgment and grant a new trial. We have examined the remaining contentions of defendant, including those raised in the pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that they are lacking in merit. Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.01***CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER***          I, Bruce Cleland, the Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc. as managingoperator, of The Campbell Fund Trust, certify that (i) the Form 10K for the year ended December 31,2005 of The Campbell Fund Trust fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10K for the yearended December 31, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of The Campbell Fund Trust.         THE CAMPBELL FUND TRUST     By: Campbell & Company, Inc., managing operator           By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland       Bruce L. Cleland      Chief Executive Officer      March 31, 2006  
E 4
STATE of North Carolina v. Lauren Elizabeth CROWE.

No. 98P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2008.

Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Vincent F. Rabil, for Crowe.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 656 S.E.2d 688.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 6th day of March 2008 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the *313Court of Appeals, 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 11th day of June 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of March 2008 by State of NC 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 11th day of June 2008."
<PAGE>
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-71865) and the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-75123), each of E-TEK Dynamics, Inc., of our
report dated July 20, 1999, except as to Note 14 which is as of July 27, 1999,
relating to the financial statements included in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San Jose, California
August 13, 1999
RABIL v. FOOD LION, LLC.

No. COA07-706.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 15, 2008.

Certification Date May 5, 2008.

Appeal from Nash (05CVS2063).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10(a)


Amendments to Wells Fargo & Company Deferred Compensation Plan (“DCP”)




		
	1.
	Section 2(F) of the DCP is amended effective January 1, 2017 to revise subsection


(5) to read in full as follows:


		
	(5)
	bonus amounts payable after the March 1 immediately following the date the Employee incurs a Separation from Service, unless the Eligible Employee elected payment in annual installments and Section 9(I) does not apply.




		
	2.
	Section 2(L) of the DCP is amended effective August 1, 2016 to read in full as follows:




		
	(L)
	Fund Option.  An earnings option based on a selection of registered investment companies, collective investment funds, private portfolios, or other comparable investment media chosen from time to time by the Company’s Employee Benefit Review Committee, unless or until the Plan Administrator appoints a different individual or committee to select all or some of the earnings options.




3    Section 2(P) of the DCP  is amended effective August 1, 2016 to read in full as follows:


		
	(P)
	Plan Administrator.  For purposes of Section 3(16)(A) of ERISA, the Human Resources Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors has designated that the Plan Administrator shall be the Company’s Director of Human Resources or the Director of Compensation and Benefits. Each of those officers, acting individually, can take action as the Plan Administrator.




Except as herein expressly amended, all the terms and provisions of the DCP shall continue in full force and effect.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3602 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3602

  To authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to 
    provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal 
   Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 25 (legislative day, September 17), 2008

    Mr. Kyl introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to 
    provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal 
   Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 103(b) of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
405; 118 Stat. 2264) is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
            ``(1) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010, 2011, 2012, 
        2013, and 2014 to the Office for Victims of Crime of the 
        Department of Justice for United States Attorneys Offices for 
        Victim/Witnesses Assistance Programs only for victim advocates 
        and their administrative support to provide direct services to 
        victims of crimes;''; and
            (2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(3) $500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010, 2011, 
        2012, 2013, and 2014 to the Office for Victims of Crime of the 
        Department of Justice for staff to administer the appropriation 
        for the support of organizations as designated under paragraph 
        (4);
            ``(4) $11,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010, 2011, 
        2012, 2013, and 2014, to the Office for Victims of Crime of the 
        Department of Justice, for the National Crime Victim Law 
        Institute to provide legal counsel and support services for 
        victims in criminal cases for the enforcement of crime victims' 
        rights in Federal jurisdictions, and in States and tribal 
        governments that have laws substantially equivalent to the 
        provisions of chapter 237 of title 18, United States Code; 
        and''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              439476
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          69146
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    133398
<PP&E>                                             1262505
<DEPRECIATION>                                      337809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     4143818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               466978
<BONDS>                                              20409
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             17100
<OTHER-SE>                                         3639321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       4143818
<SALES>                                            3774366
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   3774366
<CGS>                                              1887946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1887946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2174814
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   11166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (737611)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (737611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (737611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.43)
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each ofthe undersigned officers of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (the “Company”), doeshereby certify that:
     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in theQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: November 12, 2003 /s/ Robert W. O’Leary    Robert W. O’Leary  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer   Date: November 12, 2003 /s/ Bary G. Bailey    Bary G. Bailey  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.1


AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
TO THE CHEVRON CORPORATION
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ EQUITY COMPENSATION AND
DEFERRAL PLAN


WHEREAS, Chevron Corporation (the “Corporation”) maintains the Chevron Corporation Non-Employee Directors’ Equity Compensation and Deferral Plan (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section XII.(a) of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the “Board”) has the authority to amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares subject to the Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, the Plan is hereby amended, effective May 25, 2016, as follows:
		
	1.
	Section IV.(b) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“(b)    Shares Subject to the Plan.  The maximum number of Shares for which Awards may be granted under the Plan is 1,600,000 Shares, which includes Shares previously authorized under this Plan on March 26, 2003.  The limitation as to the maximum number of Shares set forth in this Section IV.(b) shall be subject to adjustment as provided in Section X.”
		
	2.
	Section IV(e) of the Plan is hereby added:


“(e)    Annual Award Limits.  The maximum number of Shares with respect to which any Options, Stock Units or Restricted Stock Award may be granted to any Non-Employee Director in any calendar year shall be 40,000 Shares, subject to adjustments made in accordance with Section X. hereof, or the cash equivalent thereof to the extent such Awards are payable in cash or property.
*    *    *
Date:  March 30, 2016
 By:    /s/ Ronald D. Sugar    
Ronald D. Sugar, Lead Director
Chevron Corporation
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund VIII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F.
Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the
Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies 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 operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                  
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive Officer November 7, 2003



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMSDouglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer November 7, 2003
STATE v. BLACKWELL.

No. COA08-289.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 1, 2008.

Certification Date July 21, 2008.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CRS206240).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit 14.1
                                 CODE OF ETHICS

                              ORALABS HOLDING CORP.
                           CODE OF ETHICS (March 2004)

This Code of Ethics applies to the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company"). The purpose of this
Code of Ethics is to promote honest and ethical conduct and compliance with the
law, particularly as related to the maintenance of the Company's financial books
and records and the preparation of its financial statements. The obligations of
this Code of Ethics supplement, but do not replace, any code of conduct or
ethics policy that may be applicable to all employees.

As an officer of the Company, you are expected to:

Engage in and promote ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of
actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
relationships, and to disclose to the chair of the Audit Committee of the Board
of Directors or to the Chief Executive Officer who will forward the disclosure
to the Audit Committee chair, any material transaction or relationship that
reasonably could be expected to give rise to such a conflict;

Carry out your responsibilities honestly, in good faith and with integrity,
due care and diligence, exercising at all times the best independent judgment;

Assist in the production of full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable
disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files with, or submits to,
the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators and in other public
communications made by the Company;

Comply with applicable government laws, rules and regulations;

Promptly report (anonymously, if you wish to do so) to the Audit Committee
of the Board of Directors any violation of this Code of Ethics or any other
matters that would compromise the integrity of the Company's financial
statements. You may contact the chair of the Audit Committee, by mail: Michael
I. Friess, 5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 101, Boulder, CO 80303; or by phone at:
303-499-6000, x-18; and

Never take, directly or indirectly, any action to coerce, manipulate,
mislead or fraudulently influence the Company's independent auditors in the
performance of their audit or review of the Company's financial statements.

Compliance with this Code of Ethics is a term and condition of your
employment. The Company will take all necessary actions to enforce this Code,
which may include immediate dismissal. Violations of this Code of Ethics may
also constitute violations of law which may expose both you and the Company to
criminal or civil penalties.
STATE of North Carolina v. Brian Keith MURPHY.

No. 149P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Asheboro, for Murphy.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Belinda J. Foster, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th day of March 2007 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 27th day of June 2007."
THOMAS v. THOMAS.

No. COA07-957.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 4, 2008.

Certification Date March 24, 2008.

Appeal from Stanly (04CVD531).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2014 of 27 January 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 141/2013 implementing Regulation (EC)            No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on public health and health and safety            at work, as regards statistics based on the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) by reason of the accession of Croatia            to the European Union (Text with EEA relevance)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 68/2014                     

# of 27 January 2014

# amending Regulation (EU) No 141/2013 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council                        on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work, as regards statistics based on the European Health                        Interview Survey (EHIS) by reason of the accession of Croatia to the European Union                     

# (Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Community                           statistics on public health and health and safety at work(1), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Annex II to Commission Regulation (EU) No 141/2013(2) provides for the minimum effective sample size, calculated on the assumption of simple random sampling.

(2)It is necessary to adapt Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 141/2013 to take into account the accession of Croatia.

(3)Regulation (EU) No 141/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 141/2013 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 27 January 2014.

*For the Commission*                            

*The President*                            

José Manuel Barroso                            

## ANNEXU.K.

### “ANNEX II

#### **Final sample sizes to be achieved**

1

OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 70.                           

2

Commission Regulation (EU) No 141/2013 of 19 February 2013 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1338/2008 of the European Parliament                              and of the Council on Community statistics on public health and health and safety at work, as regards statistics based on                              the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) (OJ L 47, 20.2.2013, p. 20).
STATE of North Carolina v. Ruben WRIGHT, Jr.

No. 614P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

James R. Parish, Fayetteville, for Wright.

*394Tiare B. Smiley, Special Deputy Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: 184 N.C.App. 464, 646 S.E.2d 625.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th day of December 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, 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 10th day of April 2008."