alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Lucia G., Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>In consolidated appeals, defendant appeals from two judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Herbert J. Moses, J. at plea; Joanne B. Watters, J. at sentencing), rendered April 4, 2017, convicting her, upon her pleas of guilty, of two counts of petit larceny, and sentencing her as a youthful offender to three years' probation.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgments of conviction (Herbert J. Moses, J. at plea; Joanne B. Watters, J. at sentencing), rendered April 4, 2017, affirmed.</p><p>As part of a global resolution of three separate criminal prosecutions arising from allegations that defendant sold counterfeit tickets to the Broadway musical "Hamilton" for hundreds of dollars to separate individuals on separate dates, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of petit larceny (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 155.25) under docket number 2016NY030520 and one count of petit larceny under docket number 2016NY030521, in exchange for concurrent three-year terms of probation. The People also agreed to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal under docket ending 529.</p><p>On appeal, defendant alleges that the petit larceny (and other pleaded) charges in the accusatory instrument under docket ending 521 were jurisdictionally defective. Significantly, however, the only relief defendant requests is dismissal of the accusatory instrument under docket ending 520, in addition to dismissal of the alleged facially insufficient charges under docket ending 521, and she expressly requests that we affirm the convictions if it does not grant a dismissal. Even accepting defendant's contention that the pleaded charges under docket ending 521 were jurisdictionally defective, we do not find dismissal of the charges under docket ending 520 would be appropriate. We therefore affirm on this basis.</p><p>Nor does Criminal Court's inability to locate the accusatory instrument under docket ending 520 provide a basis for dismissal. The proper remedy for the loss of this document would be to hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for a reconstruction hearing (<i>see People v Jackson</i>, 98 NY2d 555, 560 [2002]), and defendant has disclaimed any such remedy.</p><p>We perceive no basis for a reduction of the youthful offender probationary sentence imposed in accordance with the plea agreement.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: November 22, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit
32.2




SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, David E. Fractor, hereby certify that the October
31, 2008 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as filed by iDcentrix, Inc. (the
“Company”), which contains the Company’s financial statements, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in such
Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:  December
      15, 2008
              /s/
      David E. FractorDavid
      E. FractorChief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
# C_2009069EN.01003004.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2008 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-474/07) (1)

1

(2009/C 69/58)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 184 (Friday, September 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19032]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notices of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activites; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 05-18466) published on pages 
54746-54747 of the issue for Friday, September 16, 2005.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of New York heading, the entry for 
Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Sydney, Australia, is revised to read 
as follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Jay Bernstein, Bank 
Supervision Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Sydney, Australia; to engage de 
novo through its subsidiary, CommSec LLC, New York, New York, in 
securities brokerage, private placement services, and other 
transactional services, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(7)(i), 
(b)(7)(iii), and (b)(7)(v) of Regulation Y.
    Comments on this application must be received by October 3, 2005.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,September 19, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-19032 Filed 9-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0578 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID LLOYD ORR,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 16, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 31 2022

01/31/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0578
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering—(1115).                    

*Date and Time:*                         October 20, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-7 p.m. October 21, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-2 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Computer History Museum, 1401 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA 94043.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Gwen Barber-Blount, Office of the Assistant Director, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1105, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8900.                    

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To advise NSF on the impact of its policies, programs and activities on the CISE community. To provide advice to the Assistant Director/CISE on issues related to long-range planning, and to form ad hoc subcommittees to carry out needed studies and tasks.                    

*Agenda:*                         Report from the Assistant Director. Discussion of education, diversity, workforce issues in IT; cyberinfrastructure; long-range founding outlook and proposal success rates.                    

Dated: September 20, 2005.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-19080 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-86457, 33-93516, 333-32713 and 333-60651) and
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-19197, 333-60079 and 333-60619) of Winston Hotels, Inc. of
our report dated January 21, 2000 relating to our audits of the consolidated
financial statements and the financial statement schedules of Winston Hotels,
Inc. and of our report dated February 6, 1998 relating to the financial
statements of Winston Hospitality, Inc., which reports appear in this Form
10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
March 16, 2000
In the Matter of the Will of Sarah M. FULLER, Deceased.

No. COA15-125.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  as Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of McLeodUSA Incorporated (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chris A. Davis, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|/s/CHRIS A. DAVISName: Chris A. Davis
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 25, 2005 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Opinion filed October 9, 2008

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11-08-00234-CR

__________

 CARL RAYMOND DOLAN, Appellant

V.

 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 47458

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

Carl Raymond Dolan is attempting to appeal to this court from the trial court’s denial of his

motion requesting DNA testing pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. §§ 64.01–.05 (Vernon

2006 & Supp. 2008). We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

When Dolan’s pro se brief, pro se notice of appeal, and pro se motion to file the notice of

appeal were received in this court, the clerk wrote the parties pointing out that Dolan was

challenging a ruling from a Grayson County district court and that Grayson County was not a county
2

that appealed to this court. The September 19, 2008 letter asked Dolan to respond showing grounds

for continuing this appeal. Dolan has responded.

In his response, Dolan informs this court that, because his underlying criminal conviction had

been transferred to this court in 2000, he filed his brief, notice of appeal, and motion in the DNA

appeal in this court. Dolan’s DNA case is a separate proceeding from his criminal conviction appeal.

Any appeal from the Grayson County trial court will lie with the Fifth Court of Appeals pursuant to

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(f) (Vernon Supp. 2008); therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction

to entertain this appeal. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(l) (Vernon Supp. 2008).

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 9, 2008

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 18, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11898

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 99-00106-CR-J-33

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JERRY REED, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(September 18, 2008)

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James H. Burke, Jr., appointed counsel for Jerry Reed in this appeal, has
2

moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582

is AFFIRMED.
# C_2008051EN.01004002.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/40

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern — Germany) — Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas Schneider v Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD

(Case C-413/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 51/74)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Chalmers Gray BOHANNON, Jr.

No. 253P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Bohannon, Chalmers Gray (Jr.)

Jennie Wilhelm Hauser, Special Deputy Attorney General, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of July 2016 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 22nd of September 2016."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136774 & (45)(46) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136774 

 COA: 274097 

Washtenaw CC: 05-001581-FC 

ROBERT LEE GREEN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 13, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions to 

remand and for a new trial are DENIED. 

p0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
STATE v. JONATHAN DOUGLAS Richardson.

No. 272A14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 9, 2015.

Paul M. Green, Durham, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

David Weiss, Durham, for Richardson, Jonathan Douglas.

Gregory Butler, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Paul Jackson, Assistant District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of December 2015 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of December 2015."
State v. Damien Lanel Gabriel

499P10-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Ms. Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, For State of N.C.

Mr. Damien L. Gabriel, Pro se.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 8th of November 2016 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
# C_2008223EN.01004401.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/44

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2008 — WellBiz v OHIM — Wild (WELLBIZ)

(Case T-451/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2008/C 223/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: WellBiz Verein (Eschen, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Schnetzer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG (Eppelheim, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2007 (Case R 1575/2006-1) concerning opposition proceedings between WellBiz Verein and Rudolf Wild GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action;

| 2. | The applicant and the defendant are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the defendant are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2 2008.

1

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4052 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a standard home 

office deduction. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 

Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a standard home office deduction. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Helping Our Middle5 Class Entrepreneurs Act’’ or the ‘‘HOME Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR BUSINESS USE OF 

7 HOME. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 280A of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following new paragraph: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4052 IH

1 ‘‘(7) STANDARD HOME OFFICE DEDUCTION.— 

2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an indi3 vidual who is allowed a deduction for the use of 

4 a home office because of a use described in 

5 paragraph (1), (2), or (4), notwithstanding the 

6 limitations of paragraph (5), if such individual 

7 elects the application of this paragraph for the 

8 taxable year, such individual shall be allowed a 

9 deduction equal to the standard home office de10 duction for the taxable year in lieu of the de11 ductions otherwise allowable under this chapter 

12 for such taxable year by reason of such use. 

13 ‘‘(B) STANDARD HOME OFFICE DEDUC14 TION.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

15 standard home office deduction is the lesser 

16 of— 

17 ‘‘(i) $1,500, or 

18 ‘‘(ii) the gross income derived from 

19 the individual’s trade or business for which 

20 such use occurs. 

21 ‘‘(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the 

22 case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar 

23 year after 2014, the dollar amount in subpara24 graph (B)(i) shall be increased by an amount 

25 equal to— 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4052 IH

1 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

2 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de3 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal4 endar year in which the taxable year be5 gins, determined by substituting ‘2013’ for 

6 ‘1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof. 

7 Any increase determined under the preceding 

8 sentence shall be rounded to the nearest mul9 tiple of $100.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 16, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

COLORADO,

Plaintiff - Counter-Defendant -

Appellee,

v.

BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS OF SAN

MIGUEL COUNTY, State of

Colorado; ELAINE FISHER, San

Miguel County Commissioner in her

official capacity; ART GOODTIMES,

San Miguel County Commissioner in

his official capacity; VERNON

EBERT, San Miguel County

Commissioner in his official capacity;

THE SAN MIGUEL COUNTY

PLANNING DEPARTMENT, State of

Colorado; MICHAEL ROZYCKI, San

Miguel County Planning Director, in

his official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees,

PATHFINDER DEVELOPMENT,

INC.,

Defendant - Counter-Claimant -

Appellee,

WILLARD F. JANKE,

Intervenor - Appellant.

No. 06-1187

(D.C. No. 1:04-CV-1828-RB-CBS)

(D. Colo.)
 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the *

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 (eff. Dec.

1, 2006) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1 (eff. Jan. 1, 2007).

-2-

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before BRISCOE, HOLLOWAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Willard F. Janke appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to

intervene in Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, No. 04-RB-1828

(D. Colo. Sept. 2, 2004). Because we determined that case is moot, we remanded

with instructions to dismiss. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs,

Nos. 05-1295 & 05-1321 (10th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Janke’s appeal is

DISMISSED as moot.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge