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

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**562 KA 13-00462** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANDRE TERRY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (ROMANA A. LAVALAS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a resentence of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered November 22, 2011. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of assault in the second degree (three counts), reckless endangerment in the first degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (four counts).

It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted in 2003 upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, three counts of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) and four counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [2]), and County Court failed to impose a period of postrelease supervision with respect to those counts as required by Penal Law § 70.45 (1). Defendant contends that, because he had served nearly eight years of his original 20-year sentence of imprisonment, the sentencing court violated his constitutional rights against double jeopardy and to due process by resentencing him pursuant to Correction Law § 601-d and pronouncing the relevant term of postrelease supervision (PRS). As defendant himself acknowledges, however, the Court of Appeals has explicitly held that a resentencing to correct a failure to pronounce a period of PRS is permissible ( see People v Sparber , 10 NY3d 457, 472), and that such resentencing does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy or the right to due process when it occurs before completion of a defendant’s originally-imposed sentence of imprisonment; moreover, the Court explicitly rejected defendant’s instant contention that he had served a significant portion of his sentence and thus had a reasonable expectation of the finality of his sentence ( see People v Lingle , 16 NY3d 621, 630-633). “Indeed, the court was bound to impose ‘statutorily-required sentences’ ” ( People v Mike , 124 AD3d 1325,**-2- 562 KA 13-00462** 

1325, quoting Lingle , 16 NY3d at 633).

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 / SEC Rule 13a14(a)

I, Jeremy Ferrell, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement 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
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial 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 report;

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

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2006             
|                               
|/s/ Jeremy Ferrell             
|Jeremy Ferrell                 
|Interim Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50338

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAULO TORRES-FACUNDO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-47-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Saulo Torres-Facundo (Torres) appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for attempted illegal reentry of a previously deported alien

and false personation in immigration matters. The district court sentenced

Torres within his advisory guideline sentencing range to 57 months of

imprisonment. Torres argues that his sentence is greater than necessary to

meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and that the Sentencing

Guidelines account for a prior conviction both to increase the offense level and

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 7, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50338 Document: 00511373601 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2011
No. 10-50338

to calculate the criminal history score. He further argues that his guideline

sentencing range overstated the seriousness of his nonviolent offense and did not

properly account for his personal motive for reentering.

We have previously rejected both Torres’s empirical data and his double

counting arguments. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 378 (2009). Torres’s argument concerning the

district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors amounts to a disagreement with

the district court’s weighing of these factors and the appropriateness of a withinrange sentence. The argument is insufficient to rebut the presumption of

reasonableness applicable to Torres’s within-range sentence. See United States

v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). Torres has failed to show that

the district court abused its discretion or that his sentence was substantively

unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The judgment

of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50338 Document: 00511373601 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2011
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-10432

SANY America, Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions.

pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Immunity and Disease Prevention Research: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Laboratories
                        Stephensen Group
                                    Kable Group
                                    Lemay GroupSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Davis, California Western Human Nutrition Research Center Immunity and Disease Prevention Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### F. G. SATTERFIELD, J. S. SATTERFIELD and WALKER STONE, Formerly Trading and Doing Business as SATTERFIELD & STONE, Creditors of the Estate of SALLIE A. RIGSBEE, in Their Own Behalf and in Behalf of All Other Creditors of Said Estate, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN T. MANNING, Successor Administrator of the Estate of SALLIE A. RIGSBEE, Deceased; MATTIE T. BITTING (Divorced); ROSA L. FULFORD and Husband, W. A. FULFORD; ZOA L. HAYWOOD (Widow); MARY E. MIDDLETON (Widow); WILLIS BRIGGS, Guardian of MARY E. MIDDLETON; R. H. RIGSBEE and Wife, LELIA H. RIGSBEE; S. C. BRAWLEY, JR., Administrator c. t. a. of the Estate of W. T. RIGSBEE, Deceased; R. M. BUSSELL and Wife, IDA B. BUSSELL; MRS. WYLANTA R. AYCOCK (Widow); WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Trustee; A. L. CARVER and Wife, MURTIS P. CARVER; CARL H. COZART and Wife, EVELYN F. COZART; WILLIAM W. COZART and Wife, LUCY F. COZART; WILLIE L. CURRIN and Wife, ILA F. CURRIN; NORTHWOOD REALTY COMPANY; DURHAM BANK & TRUST COMPANY; HOME SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; C. S. HICKS, Trustee; THE LIFE *&*CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE, INCORPORATED; SYDNEY F. KEEBLE, Trustee; OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA; C. E. HYRE, Trustee, Defendants.

(Filed 30 January, 1948.)

Appeal by certain offfhe defendants from *Bone, J.,*at October Term, 1947, of Dueham.

Reversed.

This was an action by tbe plaintiffs as creditors of the estate of Sallie A. Rigsbee, deceased, to require the sale of certain real property of which it was alleged she died seized, to make assets to pay the debts of the estate. The defendants, Mrs. Zoa L. Haywood, Willis Briggs, guardian of Mary E. Middleton, R. H. Rigsbee and wife, Rosa L. Fulford and husband, Mattie T. Bitting, and The Life and Casualty Insurance Co. and Keeble, Trustee, demurred to the complaint for the reasons stated in the demurrer, and, from judgment overruling their demurrer, these defendants appealed.

*Fuller, Reade ■& Fuller, Basil M. Watkins, and James L. Newsom for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*Brawley & Brawley, Egbert L. Haywood, and Victor S. Bryant for defendants, appellants.*

DeviN, J.

In view of the opinion in *Satterfield v. Manning, ante,*467, holding that the demurrer to the complaint in that action should have been sustained, and that thus the alleged rights of the plaintiffs as creditors of the estate of Sallie A. Rigsbee were not upheld, it follows *472that plaintiffs’ proceeding as creditors against certain real estate of the decedent must fail.

For this reason, the judgment below must be

Reversed.

Sohenok, Jv took no pai’t in the consideration or decision of this case.
Order entered March 28, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01200-CR

IOANNIS MAKRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-00419-X

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 26, 2019 second motion to extend time to file 

appellant’s brief. We GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or 

before APRIL 25, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by April 25, 2019, this appeal may be 

abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 

38.8(b)(2).

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32  Section 1350 Certification


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 of the
undersigned  officers  of LMI  Aerospace,  Inc.,  a  Missouri  corporation  (the
"Company"), does hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Form
10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and  information  contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 14, 2003              /s/ Ronald S. Saks
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   Ronald S. Saks
                                   Chief Executive Officer and President


Date: August 14, 2003              /s/ Lawrence E. Dickinson
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   Lawrence E. Dickinson
                                   Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to LMI Aerospace,  Inc. and will be retained by LMI Aerospace, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### FIRST SECURITY TRUST COMPANY, Executor of the Will of J. A. LENTZ, Deceased, v. MRS. BLANCHE F. LENTZ, MRS. WINNIE LEE KEEVER and Her Husband, CLARENCE KEEVER, E. W. LENTZ and Wife, BLOSSOM LENTZ, FRANK A. LENTZ and Wife, ANNIE LENTZ, FRANCES E. LENTZ, JOHN A. LENTZ, Jr., and BLANCHE LENTZ, the Last Two Being Minors and Represented by Their Guardian, MRS. BLANCHE F. LENTZ.

(Filed 19 December, 1928.)

For Digest see *Trust Co. v. Lentz, ante,*898.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Finley, J.,*at May Term, 1928, of Catawba.

Special proceedings instituted by First Security Trust Company executor under the will of John A. Lentz, deceased, against the devisees, legatees and afterborn child of the testator, to sell certain real and personal property to make assets for the payment of the debts of the decedent.

From a judgment declining to order a sale of some of the personal property, and directing the executor how to proceed, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors as to said order and directions.

*H. G. Stephens and E. B. Cline for plaintiff.*

*Self & Bagby and Bailey Patrick for defendants, Mrs. Blcmche F. Lentz, John A. Lentz, Jr., and Blanche Lentz.*

*W. B. Councill and Mark Squires for defendants, Winnie Lee Keener, E. W. Lentz, et al.*

Stacy, 0. J.

This is a companion case to another case between the same parties, just decided, and is controlled by what was said in that ease.

The rule respecting the order of affecting assets, or the priority of their application under the provisions of the will as announced in the first case, seems not to have been followed in the court below, hence the present proceedings will be remanded for further action, not inconsistent with the opinion rendered in the other case.

The executor is entitled to proceed in the most expeditious and judicious manner for the settlement of the estate, observing, of course, the order of affecting assets, or the priority of their application, hut it is not required to await the adjustment of ratable contribution among those standing on a parity in this respect.

Error and remanded.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BASIL MONCRIEFFE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D 1 9

- 110

[ April 18, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 5 0 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara Anne

McCarthy , Judge; L.T. Case No. 12

- 4909CF10A

.

Basil Moncrieffe, Madison

, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W AR NER

, D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### STATE v. MARTHA JONES.

(Filed 5 June, 1947.)

Appeal by defendant from *Rousseau, J.,*at November Term, 1946, of FORSYTH.

Criminal prosecution on warrant charging the defendant with disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace, tried originally in the Municipal Court of the City of "Winston-Salem and again *de novo*on appeal to the Superior Court of Forsyth County.

Verdict: Guilty.

Judgment: Thirty days in jail.

The defendant appeals, assigning errors.

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

*William Reid Dalton for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The facts of this record, in so far as they relate to alleged jury defect and bias, are practically identical with those appearing in *S. v. Essie King, ante,*559, herewith decided. The conclusion there is controlling here. Both cases are based on the rulings in the *Koritz Case, ante,*552, herewith decided.

No error.
**Exhibit
10.11**
 **OPTION
AGREEMENT**
 
 
 This
Option Agreement evidences the grant of a stock option (the "Option") to
purchase shares of common stock, par value $.001 (the "Company Stock"), of
Generex Biotechnology Corporation (the "Company") granted to **Rose
Perri** (the
"Optionee") pursuant to the Generex Biotechnology Corporation 2001 Stock Option
Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which is attached to this Option Agreement and
incorporated into this Option Agreement by reference. The Option is subject to
the terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth in the Plan,
including the following:
 
 a.  The date
of grant of the Option is **December
13, 2004** and the
number of shares of Company Stock that may be purchased upon exercise of the
Option is **250,000
(Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars)** .
 
 b.  The
purchase price (the “Exercise Price”) of Company Stock subject to the Option is
 **$0.61** per
share.
 
 c.  The
Option is fully vested upon issuance.
 
 d.  Unless
sooner terminated pursuant to the Plan, the Option shall terminate on **December
13, 2009.** Option
will survive the termination of the Optionee’s employment.
 
 e.  The
Optionee shall pay the Exercise Price for the Option (i) in cash or (ii) by such
other method as may be approved by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s
Board of Directors. The Optionee shall pay the amount of any withholding tax due
at the time of exercise, as provided in the Plan.
 
 f.  The
rights and interests of the Optionee under this Option Agreement may not be
sold, assigned, encumbered or otherwise transferred, except, in the event of the
death of the Optionee, by will or by the laws of descent and
distribution.
 
 g.  Any
notice to the Company, including notice of exercise of an Option, shall be
addressed to the Company in care of Slava Jarnitskii at the Company’s principal
offices.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Option Agreement has been executed on behalf of the
Company by a duly authorized officer and by the Optionee effective as of the
date of grant of the Option.


GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY
      CORPORATION
    
    
    ACCEPTED AND AGREED:By:
    /s/ Rose C. Perri
    
    
    /s/
      Rose PerriROSE C. PERRI
    
    
    Rose Perri