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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

180 

KA 09-00724 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL A. TABB, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

ROBERT M. PUSATERI, CONFLICT DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (EDWARD P. PERLMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Richard C.

Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered September 4, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal

Law § 125.20 [1]). Defendant was indicted for murder in the second

degree (§ 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the

second degree (§ 265.03 [1] [b]), but he pleaded guilty to

manslaughter on the condition that he waive his right to appeal. 

Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that he

validly waived his right to appeal. We conclude that County Court did

not indicate to defendant that he automatically forfeited his right to

appeal upon pleading guilty (cf. People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892). 

Rather, the court “engaged in a fuller colloquy, describing the nature

of the right being waived without lumping that right into the panoply

of trial rights automatically forfeited upon pleading guilty” (People

v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257). 

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the

factual sufficiency of the plea colloquy because he neither moved to

withdraw the plea nor moved to vacate the judgment of conviction (see

People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). In any event, that challenge is

encompassed by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see

People v Adzajlic, 74 AD3d 1866). 

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
#### H. J. HAYWOOD v. THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 20 December, 1940.)

1. Trial § 27b: Insurance § 25c — Directed verdict may not be given in favor of party upon whom rests the burden of proof.

In an action on a policy of fire insurance on an automobile, the burden is on plaintiff to prove insurance, loss by fire and damage; and therefore a direction that the jury answer the issues of insurance and loss by fire in favor of plaintiff is error, since the credibility of the evidence is for the jury; and it is also error for the court to fail to place the burden of proof on the issue of damages on plaintiff.

2. Trial § 29c: Evidence § 6—

The burden of proof is a substantial right, and the failure of the charge to properly place the burden of proof is reversible error.

Appeal by defendant from *Sinclair, Emergency Judge,*at May Term, 1940, of CuMBERLAND.

New trial.

Action to recover on a fire insurance policy on an automobile. Plaintiff alleged the execution of the policy and the loss of the automobile by fire. Defendant denied the loss by fire as alleged. Issues addressed to the questions of (1) insurance, (2) loss by fire, and (3) amount of loss were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff. From judgment on the verdict, defendant appealed.

*John H. Gooh and Henry L. Anderson for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Helms & Mulliss, Oates & Quillen, and Robert H. Dye for defendant, appellant.*

DeviN, J.

Defendant’s principal assignment of error relates to the judge’s charge. With reference to the first and second issues the court instructed the jury as follows: “I direct you to answer the first issue ‘Yes,’ and the second issue ‘Yes.’ ” The exception to this instruction must be sustained. The defendant’s denial placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove his case by the greater weight of the evidence, and it was error for the trial judge to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff without leaving it to the jury to determine the credibility of the testimony. McIntosh Practice & Pro., 632.

> “A familiar principle of practice forbids a directed instruction in favor of the party upon whom rests the burden of proof.” *Yarn Mills v. Armstrong,*191 N. C., 125, 131 S. E., 416; *Evans v. Ins. Co.,*213 N. C., 539, 196 S. E., 814; *House v. R. R.,*131 N. C., 103, 42 S. E., 553: *Cox v. R. R..*123 N. C., 604, 31 S. E., 848.

*737Defendant complains also of tbe trial judge’s failure in bis charge to put tbe burden of proof on tbe third issue on tbe plaintiff. The proper placing of tbe burden of proof is regarded as a substantial right. *Arnold v. Trust Co., ante,*433.

For tbe errors pointed out there must be a

New trial.
# Fourth Cour t of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 31, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00175

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.O. ET AL., CHILDREN

,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015PA01646

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED.

Time is extended to January 29, 2018.

It is so ORDERED on January 31, 2018.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________ _

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### STATE v. ORLIE KING.

(Filed 11 April, 1945.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bobbitt, J.,*at September Term, 1944, of Randolph.

Defendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging an assault on one Clyde M. Stafford. There was a verdict of guilty. The court pronounced judgment upon the verdict and the defendant appealed.

*768
      *Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.*

*J. G. Prevette and P. T. Stiers for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe only exceptive assignment of error is directed to tbe alleged error of tbe court below in overruling tbe motion of the defendant to dismiss under G. S., 15-173. A careful examination of tbe record leads us to tbe conclusion that there was sufficient evidence to be submitted to tbe jury. Tbe motion was properly overruled.

In tbe trial below we find

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 249 (Thursday, December 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 67137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31430]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sooner Southwest Bankshares, Inc., et al.; Formations of; 
Acquisitions by; and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied for the Board's 
approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842) and Sec.  225.14 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.14) to 
become a bank holding company or to acquire a bank or bank holding 
company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications 
are set forth in section 3(c) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Each application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Any comment on an application that requests a hearing must 
include a statement of why a written presentation would not suffice in 
lieu of a hearing, identifying specifically any questions of fact that 
are in dispute and summarizing the evidence that would be presented at 
a hearing.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received not later than January 22, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (John E. Yorke, Senior Vice 
President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198:
    1. Sooner Southwest Bankshares, Inc., Bristow, Oklahoma; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of Farmers Exchange Bank, Antlers, 
Oklahoma.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth R. Binning, 
Director, Bank Holding Company) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105:
    1. Shinhan Bank, Seoul, Korea; to become a bank holding company by 
acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Marine National Bank, 
Irvine, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 21, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-31430 Filed 12-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Increase the payroll tax rate (currently 12.4 percent) to 12.6 percent in 2012, 12.9 percent in 2020, 13.3 in percent in 2030, 13.8 percent in 2040, 14.4 percent in 2060, and 14.5 percent in 2075. |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified January 28, 2010 |
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of bebe stores, inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended April 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Walter Parks, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1)                  TheQuarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2)                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: May 12,  2005 | /s/ Walter Parks           |   |
|---------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|                      | Walter Parks               |
|                      | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
Order entered May 9 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01647
- CR JATHAN MEWBOURN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause N o. 002
- 80569
- 2013



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desi res to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court shall co nduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective represen tation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is A BATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30622]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-127-000]


Nordic Electric, L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

December 12, 1995.
    On October 20, 1995, as amended November 1, 1995, Nordic Electric, 
L.L.C. (Nordic) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which Nordic 
will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a 
marketer. Nordic also requested waiver of various Commission 
regulations. In particular, Nordic requested that the Commission grant 
blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of 
securities and assumptions of liability by Nordic.
    On December 1, 1995, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Nordic should file a motion to intervene 
or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 
and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Nordic is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Nordic's issuances of securities or assumptions 
of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is January 2, 1996.
    Copies of the full text of the order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30622 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### Proposed Provision: E2.18. Apply the combined OASDI payroll tax rate on covered earnings above $400,000 paid in 2025 and later, and tax all covered earnings once the current-law taxable maximum exceeds $400,000. Increase the computed level of the AWI for years after 2024 by amounts ranging from 0.5 percent for 2025 to 0.9 percent for 2047 and later. Credit the additional earnings taxed for benefit purposes by: (a) calculating a second average indexed monthly earnings ("AIME+") reflecting only earnings taxed above the current-law taxable maximum, (b) applying a 1 percent factor on this newly computed "AIME+" to develop a second component of the PIA, and (c) adding this second component to the current-law PIA.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Henry Houston, Chief Financial Officer, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of remote knowledge, inc. (the “Corporation”); 

 

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

 

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

 

4. The Corporation’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Corporation, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reports is being prepared; 

 

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. disclosed in this report any change in the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Corporation’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting;and 

 

5. The Corporation’s other certifying office and Ihave disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Corporation’s auditors and the audit committee of Corporation’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Corporation’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Corporation’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b. any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Corporation’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 15, 2004
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 75th 

Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% -0.75% -0.83% -2.75% -5.17%

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Increase benefits by 5 percent for all beneficiaries as of the beginning of 2010 and 

for those newly eligible for benefits after the beginning of 2010.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

November 4, 2009

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10067-10068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4370]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 020895A]


Marine Mammals

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Receipt of application for a scientific research permit (P580).

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Ms. Carol Anne Conway, 407 Garces 
Drive, San Francisco, CA 94132, has applied in due form for a permit to 
import blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) tissue samples from 
Newfoundland, Canada, for purposes of scientific research.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The application and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
    Southwest Region, 501 W. Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 
(310/980-4001).
    Written data or views, or requests for a public hearing on this 
request, should be submitted to the Chief, Permits Division, F/PR1, 
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910, within 30 days of the publication of this notice. 
Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific 
reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.
    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register, the Secretary of Commerce is forwarding copies of this 
application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of 
Scientific Advisors.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject permit is requested under the 
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the Regulations 
Governing the Taking, Importing, and Exporting of Endangered Fish and 
Wildlife (50 CFR part 222).
    The applicant proposes to import blue whale samples from Canada. 
The samples are to be used in a study of the sexual composition of the 
blue whale population off the western coast of the United States using 
molecular genetic techniques. Since the Canadian samples are from ice-
entrapped animals for which the sex was visually determined, they will 
be used as positive controls for the genetic technique. Samples from 
live populations off the western coast were collected under another 
permit (No. 675), and subsamples will be provided to the applicant by 
the permittee.

    [[Page 10068]] Dated: February 16, 1995.
P.A. Montanio,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-4370 Filed 2-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F