alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: April 23, 2015 519364

________________________________ In the Matter of DARRYL SHELTON, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: February 24, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________ Darryl Shelton, Stormville, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating two prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the disciplinary determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been refunded to him, and requests that the proceeding be dismissed as moot. Although petitioner opposes respondent's request to the-2- 519364

extent that he seeks to be returned to the correctional facility where he was housed prior to the disciplinary determination, "inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing status" (Matter of Hernandez v Goord, 279 AD2d 919, 919 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Foley v Fischer, 79 AD3d 1488, 1488 [2010]). We do note, however, that the loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the determination should be restored (see Matter of Hayes v Annucci, 122 AD3d 992, 992 [2014]). Otherwise, petitioner has been afforded all the relief to which he is entitled and the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Bank v Racette, 122 AD3d 991, 992 [2014]). Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT      32(a)**

| 1) |   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|----|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2) |   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Registrant. |
|----|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                          |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|  BY:/s/              Michael J. Quillen                                  |   |
|                  Michael J.                Quillen                       |   |   |
| Chairman                of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
| (Principal                Executive Officer)                                  |   |   |

----
NO.12-15-00080-CV ,TH IN THE 12,n COURT OF APPEALS TYLER. TEXAS 75702 

## ROBERTL.ROBERTS7:_ ... ^wrii uVAPPEALS 12th Court pf Appeals District ProSe 

### Appellant Vs Heather Dixon Council H. Black 2510 Lee St 

### Greenville Tx, 75401 

### Appellee APPELLANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CORRECTED BRIEF. 

## THE APPELLANT REQUESTS LEAVE TO FILE FORTHE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTED A CORRECTED BRIEF CONTAINING PAGES OMITTED FROM THE ORIGINALCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### The undersigned council certifies thatthis motion has been served onthe 

## following lead council for all parties to the trial court's order orjudgment as follows

Robert L. Roberts Pro se

Date served 8-10-2015 Manner served US Mail H Black 2510 Lee St 

### Greenville, TX 75701 

### Repesenting HeatherDixon
Form of Guarantee



 EXHIBIT 4.4 

[FORM OF NOTATION OF GUARANTEE] 

For value received, each Guarantor (which term includes any successor Person under the Indenture) has, jointly and severally,
unconditionally guaranteed, to the extent set forth in the Indenture and subject to the provisions in the Indenture dated as of May 7, 2010 (the “Indenture”) among Susser Holdings, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
(the “Company”), Susser Finance Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“SFC” and, together with the Company, the “Issuers”), the Guarantors party thereto and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee (the
“Trustee”), (a) the due and punctual payment of the principal of, premium and Additional Interest, if any, and interest on, the Notes, whether at maturity, by acceleration, redemption or otherwise, the due and punctual payment
of interest on overdue principal of and interest on the Notes, if any, if lawful, and the due and punctual performance of all other obligations under the Indenture of the Issuers to the Holders and the Trustee all in accordance with the terms of the
Indenture and (b) in case of any extension of time of payment or renewal of any Notes or any of such other obligations, that the same will be promptly paid in full when due or performed in accordance with the terms of the extension or renewal,
whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise. The obligations of the Guarantors to the Holders and the Trustee pursuant to the Note Guarantee and the Indenture are expressly set forth in Article 11 of the Indenture and reference is
hereby made to the Indenture for the precise terms of the Note Guarantee. 







 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings given to them in the
Indenture. 
  

			
	[NAME OF GUARANTOR(S)]
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:
#### CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Peggy M. ST. CIN, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 68603.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

June 18, 1996.

F. Patrick Davis, William Z. Shobet, Finch, Bradshaw, Strom & Steele, Cape Girardeau, for appellant.

Nelson L. Mitten, Riezman & Blitz, Clayton, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C. J., AHRENS, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment awarding plaintiff creditor possession of a vehicle and $4,080.00 for damages and costs. We affirm.

The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
#### Voyka Kutanovski, Respondent, v Milan Kutanovski, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 2, 1982, the defendant husband appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.), dated April 4, 1989, which, *inter alia,*awarded the plaintiff wife the principal sum of $16,104.42, for arrears of maintenance, and denied the defendant husband’s cross mo*663tion to punish the plaintiff for contempt for failing to effectuate the sale of the marital residence.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The record does not support the defendant’s assertion that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in refusing to hold the plaintiff in contempt, as neither party exercised reasonable efforts to effectuate the sale of the marital residence in accordance with repeated orders of the court *(see, Garrison Fuel Oil v Grippo,*127 Misc 2d 275). In addition, the defendant has failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice to his rights to support a finding of civil contempt *(see,*Judiciary Law § 753 [A] [3]; *City of Poughkeepsie v Hetey,*121 AD2d 496).

Because the defendant never moved for a downward modification of the plaintiff’s maintenance award, and simply allowed the arrears to accrue, the trial court properly entered judgment for the arrears. The defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to apply for downward modification prior to the accrual of the arrears (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; *Maloney v Maloney,*137 AD2d 666; *Penziner v Penziner,*123 AD2d 674).

Concerning the defendant’s challenge to a portion of an order of the same court dated December 23, 1988, directing that a hearing be held on the issue of the plaintiff’s counsel fees, we note that no appeal from that order is before us. The order and judgment appealed from does not address the question of counsel fees; therefore that issue is not brought up for review on the appeal from the order and judgment. In any case, no appeal as of right lies from an order directing a hearing *(see, Bagdy v Progresso Foods Corp.,*86 AD2d 589). Bracken, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION




OF




CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER




AND




CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
Richard Man Fai Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31,
2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise,
Inc.




I, Joseph
Tik Tung Wong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31,
2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise,
Inc.





May
      17, 2010
                          By:
                          /s/ Richard Man Fai LeeRichard
      Man Fai LeeChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      17, 2010
                          By:
                          /s/ Joseph Tik Tung WongJoseph
      Tik Tung WongChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary





This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, Inc. under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
|Exhibit 99.11


LETTER TO
COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T


March 20, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20549-0408


Ladies and General:


Pursuant
to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, Interpool, Inc. has obtained a
letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) stating that the
December 31, 2001 audit was subject to their quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of national office
consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant
to this audit.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Very truly yours,INTERPOOL, INC./s/ Mitchell I . GordonMitchell I. GordonExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIG/DM
1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2800

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jason Nathaniel Williamson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 5, 2007

Filed: November 8, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jason Nathaniel Williamson appeals the 235-month prison sentences the district

court1

 imposed after he pleaded guilty to bank robbery with a dangerous weapon, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and money laundering, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentences, at the top of the

advisory Guidelines range, are unreasonable, because the court gave undue weight to
-2-

a robbery victim’s testimony as compared to Williamson’s mental illness and

sentenced him beyond what was minimally sufficient.

The presumption of reasonableness accorded a sentence within the Guidelines

range, see Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007), may be rebutted by

showing that the district court failed to consider a factor that should have received

significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant factor, or otherwise

committed a clear error of judgment, see United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 741

(8th Cir. 2006). The record supports that the district court properly considered only

relevant factors, including the offense circumstances and Williamson’s extensive

criminal history, as well as his serious mental illness; and that the court did not

commit a clear error of judgment in choosing sentences at the top of the Guidelines

range. Thus, we conclude that the sentences are not unreasonable. See United States

v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). 

Having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant

about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 quarterly report of Brooklyn Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Angelo J. Di Lorenzo, Chief Executive Officer and President 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:

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Date:  February 14, 2006

/s/ Angelo J. Di Lorenzo
-------------------------------------
Angelo J. Di Lorenzo
President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       23
Exhibit 13.1



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 20-F for the
fiscal year ended November 30, 2004 of Stolt Offshore S.A. (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tom Ehret, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, that:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                   |  |                                  
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------
|Date: May 31, 2005 |  | /s/    TOM EHRET                 
|                   |  | Tom Ehret Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Stolt Offshore S.A. and will be retained by Stolt Offshore S.A. and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONSOF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Terry G.Roussel, certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cornerstone Core PropertiesREIT, Inc.;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;and

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)    designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)    evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this reported our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)    disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a)    allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
|                    |             | /s/ TERRY G. ROUSSEL                                   |   |
|--------------------|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: May 11, 2007 | Terry G. Roussel |
|               |             | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

1

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James J. BOLEY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 68073.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 21, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 26, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 20, 1996.

Margulis & Grant, P.C., Arthur S. Margu-lis, William S. Margulis, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of conviction for assault in the first degree and armed criminal action in connection with the arsenic poisoning of Donna Boley, defendant’s wife. Defendant alleges the trial court erred in admitting his *116confession; refusing to dismiss the armed criminal action charge; admitting certain evidence that was not relevant and, in admitting a hair sample without an adequate chain of custody. We have carefully considered the evidence and the record and find no error. Therefore, an extended opinion would be of no jurisprudential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b) and Rule 30.25(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.