alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff, v. Terry ODOM, Defendant. Terry ODOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 59255, 61549.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Northern Division.

Dec. 1, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 7, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 23, 1993.

*601Cruse, Dempsey & Dempsey, P.C., Louis W. Riggs, Hannibal, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Rudolph R. Rhodes, IY, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

KAROHL, Chief Judge.

In this consolidated appeal, we review a direct appeal and an appeal from dismissal of a 29.15 motion, after defendant was found guilty by a jury and sentenced for stealing under § 570.030 RSMo 1986 and burglary second degree, § 569.170 RSMo 1986. The direct appeal is dismissed as barred by the escape rule. We also find the motion court properly applied the escape rule in dismissing the Rule 29.15 motion.

After two previous trials for the same offense, defendant was found guilty on April 29, 1987 of burglary second degree and stealing. He then filed a Motion for New Trial on April 29, 1987. Defendant, however, was not sentenced until November 2, 1990. The three and a half year delay was the result of defendant’s June 6, 1987 escape.

Defendant’s direct appeal must be dismissed because of the escape rule. Under that rule, a defendant’s right to appeal is denied after an escape. *State v. Wright,*763 S.W.2d 167, 168 (Mo.App.1988). The rationale is a defendant should not be allowed to show disrespect for the judicial system and then reap the benefits. *Id.*In the current case, defendant is attempting to do precisely what the escape rule was designed to prevent. Therefore, defendant’s direct appeal is dismissed.

We also affirm the motion court’s dismissal of defendant’s 29.15 motion because of the escape rule. Although defendant argues this rule is inapplicable to 29.15 proceeding, this court definitively found that the rule does apply in both *State v. Smith,*815 S.W.2d 74, 76 (Mo.App.1991) and *Stradford v. State,*787 S.W.2d 832, 833 (Mo.App.1990). Defendant in the current case, as in these cases, forfeited his right to post conviction relief when he chose the self-help method of escape. Accordingly, we sustain the motion court’s dismissal.

Judgment affirmed.

PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7010

Magna Electronics Technology, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Raymond C. PULLIAM, Appellant. Raymond C. PULLIAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 67744, 68734.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division.

May 7, 1996.

Marsha Brady, Hillsboro, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C.J., and RHODES RUSSELL, and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Raymond C. Pulliam (“defendant”) appeals his convictions after bench trial of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. He was sentenced to two five-year sentences to run concurrently. The sentence was suspended, however, and defendant was placed on five years probation. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The appeals have been consolidated. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence. No error of law appears. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). We attach for *150the parties use only a memorandum opinion explaining our reasoning.
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Interpool, Inc. and subsidiaries

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-138623 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-127088 on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement No. 333-73294 on Form S-8 of Interpool, Inc. and
subsidiaries of our reports dated March 9, 2007, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Interpool, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2006, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2006 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report
on Form 10-K of Interpool, Inc.

As disclosed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company
adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, "Share-Based
Payments" on January 1, 2006.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Short Hills, New Jersey
March 9, 2007
Exhibit 10.15


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT


BETWEEN DOUGLAS R. LEBDA AND TREE.COM, INC.


 


May 10, 2010


 


This
Amendment No. 1 to that certain Stock Option Agreement, dated as of August 21,
2008 (the “Agreement”) between Douglas R. Lebda (“Employee”) and Tree.com (the “Company”)
is effective as of February 25, 2010, unless otherwise indicated.  All capitalized terms used herein without
definition shall have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, subject to the terms and conditions set forth
herein, Employee and the Company wish to make certain amendments to the
Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.             The text accompanying the Vesting
Schedule section of the Notice of the 2008 Stock Option Award shall be deleted
and replaced in its entirety with the following:


 


“Subject
to your continued employment with Tree.com or its Subsidiaries, your Stock
Options shall, subject to the provisions of the 2008 Plan and the Terms and
Conditions for 2008 Stock Option Awards, vest and no longer be subject to any
restriction in full on the fifth anniversary of your
Award Date.”


 


2.             The Vesting section of the Terms
and Conditions for 2008 Stock Option Awards shall be amended by adding the
following sentence to the end thereof:


 


“Notwithstanding
the foregoing, 100% of your then-outstanding and unvested portion of your 2008
Stock Option Award shall vest upon the occurrence of a Change in Control.  The term “Change in Control” is defined in
the Plan, and includes certain events affecting Tree.com (not events only
affecting specific businesses of Tree.com).”


 


2.             Except as explicitly set forth
herein, the remaining provisions of the Agreement will remain in full force and
effect.


 


* * * Signature Page to Follow * * *


 

















 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 as of the
date first set forth above.


 


 


	
   

  	
  TREE.COM,
  INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/
  Claudette Hampton

  
	
   

  	
  By:
  Claudette Hampton

  
	
   

  	
  Senior
  Vice President –

  
	
   

  	
  Human
  Resources

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EMPLOYEE

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/
  Douglas R. Lebda

  
	
   

  	
  Douglas
  R. Lebda
#### Joan Wexler, Respondent, v Martin Wexler, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis B. Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about January 3, 1990, which granted the plaintiff pendente lite maintenance and child support, counsel fees and other monetary awards, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The plaintiff (wife) and defendant (husband) were married in 1971, and have two children, aged 13 and 11. They have not been living together since 1983, and attempts at reconciliation have not been successful. During the period of separation, the defendant has made voluntary support payments for his wife and children in amounts which he claims approximated $80,000 per year, and which the plaintiff claims was considerably *327more. At the time the plaintiff moved to have the court set pendente lite maintenance and child support, the plaintiff was a housewife with no earned income, approximately $20,000 in annual unearned income, and $270,000 in liquid assets. The defendant had income of over $3 million per year and has a net worth in excess of $4 million.

After considering the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) and (7), the court set temporary maintenance in the amount of $1,300 per week and child support of $425 per week. We find these amounts to be reasonable under the circumstances. We also find that the award of $20,000 in counsel fees was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion in light of the litigation history of this case and the parties’ disparate financial situations. That the plaintiff has money of her own is not an automatic bar to an award of counsel fees; it is only one factor to be taken into consideration with all others, including the defendant’s financial position *(Stern v Stern,*67 AD2d 253, 256; *see also, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1152

ROLAND H. CRONER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a

Metlife,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-94-1072-5)

Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 2, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roland H. Croner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Winfield Turley Shaffer,

Michael Thomas Cimino, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia;

Daniel J. Doebele, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, New York,

New York, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although Appellant did not receive the notice required by

Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), we find the

failure to be harmless error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 61.

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment for the Appellee in Appellant's action alleging breach of

contract and fraud. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Croner v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

Co., No. CA-94-1072-5 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 22, 1996). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of BlastGard International, Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the company on Form 10-KSB
for the period ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
companys financial condition and results of operations.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|March 31, 2005                            
|                                          
|/s/ Michael J. Gordon                     
|Michael J. Gordon, Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10612]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Niobrara National Scenic River Advisory Commission

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets the schedule for the forthcoming meeting of 
the Niobrara Advisory Commission. Notice of this meeting is required 
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463).

MEETING DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, May 8, 1996; 1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: American Legion Hall, Bassett, Nebraska.
    The meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make 
oral/written presentation to the Commission or file written statements. 
Requests for time for making presentations may be made to the 
Superintendent prior to the meeting or to the Chairman at the beginning 
of the meeting. In order to accomplish the agenda for the meeting, the 
Chairman may want to limit or schedule public presentations.
    The meeting will be recorded for documentation and a summary in the 
form of minutes will be transcribed for dissemination. Minutes of the 
meeting will be made available to the public after approval by the 
Commission members. Copies of the minutes may be requested by 
contacting the Superintendent. An audio tape of the meeting will be 
available at the headquarters office of the Niobrara/Missouri National 
Scenic Riverways in O'Neill, Nebraska.

Agenda Topics Include

    1. Final review of the Niobrara National Scenic River draft general 
management plan and environmental impact statement.
    2. Review of written comments submitted during the public review 
period for the draft plan.
    3. Discussion and preparation of advisory commission comments to be 
included with the plan when it is submitted for final selection of the 
management alternative.
    4. The opportunity for public comment and proposed agenda, date, 
and time, of the next advisory group meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Commission was established by 
the law that established the Niobrara National Scenic River, Public Law 
102-50. The purpose of the group, according to its charter, is to 
advise the Secretary of the Interior on matters pertaining to the 
development of a management plan and management and operation of the 
Scenic River. The Niobrara National Scenic River includes the 40-mile 
segment from Borman Bridge southeast of Valentine, Nebraska to its 
confluence with Chimney Creek; and the 30-mile segment from the 
confluence with Rock Creek downstream to State Highway 137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Warren Hill, Superintendent, Niobrara/
Missouri National Scenic Riverways, P.O. Box 591, O'Neill, Nebraska 
68763-0591 or telephone 402-336-3970.

    Dated: April 6, 1996.
David N. Given,
Acting Field Director, Midwest Field Area.
[FR Doc. 96-10612 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

411 

KA 13-01959 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DARYLL J. CLARK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (John Lewis

DeMarco, J.), entered October 3, 2013. The order determined that

defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he

is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Contrary to defendant’s contention,

County Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant him a

downward departure from his presumptive risk level. “A defendant

seeking a downward departure has the initial burden of ‘ . . .

identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor,

namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of

reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree,

that is otherwise not adequately taken into account’ ” by the risk

assessment guidelines (People v Watson, 95 AD3d 978, 979). Here,

defendant asserted as mitigating factors that the statutory rape of

which he was convicted does not usually result in a level three risk

assessment and that the risk assessment instrument yielded the minimum

amount of points to qualify as a level three risk, and we conclude

that those are not “appropriate mitigating factor[s]” (id.; cf. People

v Smith, 122 AD3d 1325, 1326; People v Martinez-Guzman, 109 AD3d 462,

462, lv denied 22 NY3d 854). With respect to defendant’s contention

that a downward departure was warranted by his success in treatment,

we agree that “[a]n offender’s response to treatment, if exceptional,

can be the basis for a downward departure” (Sex Offender Registration

Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 17 [2006]). “Even

assuming, arguendo, that defendant established facts that his response

to treatment was exceptional so as to warrant a downward departure, we
-2- 411 

KA 13-01959 

conclude upon examining all of the relevant circumstances that the

court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s

request for a downward departure” (Smith, 122 AD3d at 1326; see People

v Worrell, 113 AD3d 742, 743). 

Entered: March 27, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 15.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-127340 and 333-164696) of our report dated April 11, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Magal Security Systems Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





/s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererTel-Aviv, Israel
KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERERApril 11, 2011
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the Quarterly Report of W. S. INDUSTRIES, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Fraser Campbell, President and Chief Executive Officer, respectively, 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 to my knowledge: 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: January 14, 2011  By: /s/ Fraser Campell  -------------------------------  Fraser Campbell Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
      32








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 Global Music International, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 (the “Report”),
      Corinne Fallacaro, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,
      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 requirement 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 Company’s financial position and results of operations.





Date:
                  May 12, 2006
              By:
                  /s/ Corinne FallacaroCorinne
                  FallacaroPrincipal
                  Executive Officer andPrincipal
                  Accounting
                  Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 BioForce Nanosciences  Holdings,
Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2006, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Eric  Henderson,  Principal  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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; and

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


/S/   ERIC HENDERSON
---------------------------------
Eric Henderson
Principal Accounting Officer
November 9, 2006



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's   Form   10-QSB/A   solely   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) and is not being filed as part
     of the Form 10-QSB/A or as a separate disclosure document.



                                      -18-