alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

533 

KA 13-01590 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GEORGE CAMPBELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NATHANIEL C.

KAPPERMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P.

Franczyk, J.), rendered May 10, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon

in the second degree, driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor,

driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or

of alcohol and any drug or drugs, improper automobile equipment and

improper license plates. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a

weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). We reject

defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to

establish the element of possession with respect to that crime (see

generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The loaded handgun

was discovered inside a sock on the floor under the driver’s seat of

the vehicle defendant was driving, and DNA taken from the sock was

consistent with defendant’s DNA. That evidence, along with the

statutory presumption of possession set forth in Penal Law § 265.15

(3), is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s constructive

possession of the handgun (see People v Ward, 104 AD3d 1323, 1324, lv

denied 21 NY3d 1011). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his

further challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with

respect to the operability of the weapon (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d

10, 19). Furthermore, inasmuch as that challenge to the legal

sufficiency of the evidence lacks merit (see People v Cavines, 70 NY2d

882, 883; see also People v Brown, 107 AD3d 1477, 1478, lv denied 21

NY3d 1040), defense counsel’s failure to preserve it for our review

does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v

Cole, 111 AD3d 1301, 1302). Finally, viewing the evidence in light of
-2- 533 

KA 13-01590 

the elements of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the

second degree in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d

342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of

the evidence with respect to that crime (see generally Bleakley, 69

NY2d at 495).

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2001
<CASH>                                           1,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,159
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,717)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,403
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,737
<PP&E>                                           4,014
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,492
<BONDS>                                          4,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,902)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,693
<SALES>                                          9,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,325
<CGS>                                            5,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   399
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,524)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (6)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,530)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>
IJKITED STrZTES DISTRICT COUK'I' 

SOGTHERN DISTRICT OF YEW' 1-ORK 

........ ".......... 

IN RE: 

This Uocumen~ Relcz(e.s To .-Ill .-lzlions 

MLZSTER FILE 

1 106-Mn- 1 789 (JFK) 

ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE 

C'onsidcrins thc C'ct-titic'atc' i1f Good Standing and ail other docunlc~~ts required by Case 

hla~~rlgcmcnt Ordcr No. 5 suht~~irrcd by counscl, IT JS HEREBY OKLIEKED that: 

Applicant's Namc: Dana Pctcrscn Moore 

Firm Name: Venablr. LLl' 

Address: 750 E. Pratl Street, Suite 900 

CilyIStateIZip: Baltimore, Maryland 2 1202 ._ ..._-.._. ! i . - 4-r-03 __ ,-__--. --r----,- 

TelephoneIFax: (4 10) 244-7799 (4 1 0) 244-7742 

li "- - . + -..-- --'- -- -- --' I- 

_ .& ._--- &--. 

Elnail Address: dpmoore3@ver1able.cam 

is admitted to practice pro hac vice as counsel for Merck LP. Cu.. lnc. in thc above captioncd cast 

Court for the Southern Districl of Ncw Yorli. 

Dated: b, 2008 

Ticw York. N~N: York \\ , - -7 

1- --. . . .- 

United Stales L)lstr~ct Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03294-JFK Document 32 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 2
Certificate of Good 

Standing 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 

I, Felicia C. Cannon, Clerk of the United States District Court for the District 

of hlaryland, 

DO HEREBY CERTIFY that DANA PETERSEN MOORE, ESQ., 

BAR NUMBER 03632, was duly admitted to practice in the United States 

District Court for the District of hlaryland on DECEMBER 9, 1983, and is currently 

in good standing as a member of the bar of this Court. 

Dated at Baltimore, Maryland 

Date: August 19,2008 

FELlClA C. CANNON 

Clerk 

Catherine Scaffidi - ~dput~aerk 

Case 1:07-cv-03294-JFK Document 32 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant Energy Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

October 31, 2008
Case 1:07-cv-03301-SAS Document 2 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 12.2

INTERSTATE POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
     AND PREFERRED DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS

|                                                  | Three Months          |      
|------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | -----
|                                                  | Ended March 31,       |      
|                                                  |                       |      
|                                                  | 2006                  | 2005 
|                                                  |                       |      
|                                                  | (dollars in millions)
|EARNINGS:                                         |                       |      
|Net income                                        | $37.0                 | $22.5
|Income taxes                                      | 9.9                   | 15.1 
|                                                  |                       |      
|Income before income taxes                        | 46.9                  | 37.6 
|Fixed charges as defined                          | 18.0                  | 18.5 
|                                                  |                       |      
|Total earnings as defined                         | $64.9                 | $56.1
|                                                  |                       |      
|FIXED CHARGES:                                   
|Interest expense                                  | $17.5                 | $17.5
|Estimated interest component of rent expense      | 0.5                   | 1.0  
|                                                  |                       |      
|Total fixed charges as defined                    | $18.0                 | $18.5
|                                                  |                       |      
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    | 3.61                  | 3.03 
|                                                  |                       |      
|Preferred dividend requirements (pre-tax basis) * | $4.9                  | $6.5 
|                                                  |                       |      
|Fixed charges and preferred dividend requirements | $22.9                 | $25.0
|                                                  |                       |      
|Ratio of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and  
|Preferred Dividend Requirements (Unaudited)       | 2.83                  | 2.24 
|                                                  |                       |      

* Preferred dividend requirements
(pre-tax basis) are computed by dividing the preferred dividend requirements by one
hundred percent minus the respective year-to-date effective income tax rate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ISOMET CORP
AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,965
<PP&E>                                           2,509
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,421
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,928
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,382
<SALES>                                          2,122
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,159
<CGS>                                            1,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,727
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    432
<INCOME-TAX>                                       162
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                270
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       270
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22353]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Sanders County Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Lolo and Kootenai 
National Forests' Sanders County Resource Advisory Committee will meet 
on November 17 at 7 p.m. in Thompson Falls, Montana for a business 
meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: November 17, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Thompson Falls Courthouse, 
1111 Main Street, Thompson Falls, MT 59873.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Hojem, Designated Federal 
Official (DFO), District Ranger, Plains Ranger District, Lolo National 
Forest at (406) 826-3821.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics include reviewing progress on 
current RAC projects, and receiving public comment. If the meeting 
location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, 
including the Clark Fork Valley Press, and Sanders County Ledger.

    Dated: November 1, 2005.
Randy Hojem,
DFO, Plains Ranger District, Lolo National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05-22353 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 4 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 5 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 6 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 7 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 8 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 9 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 10 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 11 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 12 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 13 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 14 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 15 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 16 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 17 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 18 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 19 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 20 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 21 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 22 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 23 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 24 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 25 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 26 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 27 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 28 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 29 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 30 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 31 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 32 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 33 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 34 of 35
Case 1:07-cv-03308-TPG Document 6 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 35 of 35
#### LIBERTY/UA, INC. v. TAPE CORP.

No. 48.

Case below: 11 N.C. App. 20.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 10 June 1971. Motion of plaintiff to dismiss appeal of defendants allowed 10 June 1971.
[Cite as State ex rel. Bandy v. Villanueva , 2012-Ohio-1551.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97870



## STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.,
WILLIE BANDY

RELATOR

vs.



## JUDGE JOSE VILLANUEVA

RESPONDENT



### JUDGMENT:

WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion Nos. 452029, 452313, 452332, and 452333

Order No. 453717

RELEASE DATE: April 3, 2012FOR RELATOR

Willie Bandy, pro se
Inmate No. 431-465
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 South Avon Belden Road Grafton, OH 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor

By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center, 9 th Floor
1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J.:

{¶1} Relator, Willie Bandy, requests that this court compel respondent judge to rule

on twelve motions in State v. Bandy , Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No.

CR-417888.

{¶2} Respondent filed a motion to dismiss attached to which is a copy of a journal

entry issued by respondent and received for filing by the clerk on February 3, 2012 in which

respondent disposed of all twelve motions. Previously, this court granted respondent ’ s motion

to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Relator has not opposed

the motion. Respondent argues that this action in mandamus is, therefore, moot. We agree.

{¶3} Accordingly, respondent ’ s motion to dismiss, which we converted to a motion

for summary judgment, is granted. Relator to pay costs. The clerk is directed to serve upon

the parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58(B).

Writ denied.

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., PRESIDING JUDGE

JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3901

_____________________________
L. S., mother o f T. C., minor

c hild
, Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT O F C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Jonathan Sjostrom , Judge

. April 23, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , W INOKUR , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Ronald Newlin
, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Sarah J. Rumph, Appellate Counsel for Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee

. Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals for Gua rdian Ad Litem Program, Sanford, for Guardian Ad Litem.
# L_2007054EN.01000301.xml

| 22.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 54/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 54/3

---

ADDENDUM

to Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality

(Official Journal of the European Union L 403 of 30 December 2006)

The following statement is added to the Regulation:

‘STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COMMISSION

Equality between men and women is a fundamental principle of the European Union. The Council, European Parliament and the European Commission aim to increase the awareness, the pooling of resources and the exchange of experience in the area of gender equality, in particular through the establishment of a European Institute for Gender Equality.

With regard to the organisation of the Institute, the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission state that the management structure, and in particular the number of representatives of the Member States on the Management Board, is determined by reference to the specific nature of the European Institute for Gender Equality and does not therefore constitute a precedent for other agencies in the future.

In order to ensure an orderly rotation of the members appointed by the Council, the Member States shall be divided into three groups of nine in the order of the forthcoming Presidencies. For the first term of office, the Council representatives shall be composed of members drawn from the first two groups of Member States; for the second term of office, the Council representatives shall be drawn from the third and first groups and for the third term of office from the second and third groups, and so on for subsequent terms of office (1). In the event of any future enlargement the rotation system will be adjusted accordingly.’

---

(1)  First term (2007 to 2009):

1

| i) | DE, PT, SI, FR, CZ, SE, ES, BE, HU; (ii) PL, DK, CY, IE, LT, EL, IT, LV, LU; |
| --- | --- |

i)

DE, PT, SI, FR, CZ, SE, ES, BE, HU; (ii) PL, DK, CY, IE, LT, EL, IT, LV, LU;

Second term (2010 to 2012):

| i) | NL, SK, MT, UK, EE, BG, AT, RO, FI; (i) DE, PT, SI, FR, CZ, SE, ES, BE, HU; |
| --- | --- |

i)

NL, SK, MT, UK, EE, BG, AT, RO, FI; (i) DE, PT, SI, FR, CZ, SE, ES, BE, HU;

Third term (2013 to 2015):

| i) | PL, DK, CY, IE, LT, EL, IT, LV, LU; (iii) NL, SK, MT, UK, EE, BG, AT, RO, FI. |
| --- | --- |

i)

PL, DK, CY, IE, LT, EL, IT, LV, LU; (iii) NL, SK, MT, UK, EE, BG, AT, RO, FI.

---
#### STATE v. MASON

No. 123 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 433.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 July 1973.