alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward McKay, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered February 22, 1988, which, after jury trial, convicted defendant of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) and sentenced him as a predicate felon to *6V2*to 13 years’ incarceration, unanimously affirmed.

This case involved a Times Square area mugging in which defendant and others accosted the victim and one of the men ripped off his gold chain. Defendant said to one of the perpetrators, "if homeboy doesn’t want to give up his chains, hit him.” That perpetrator immediately complied, hitting the victim on the neck with a stick. The victim fled into a store, and the perpetrators left as he called police. The victim saw defendant crossing the street to Bell Plaza. Police arrived immediately. The victim accompanied the officers into Bell Plaza, and identified defendant. Defendant’s companion was identified by the victim only as a bystander who had not directly participated in the attack. Defendant’s testimony was that he and two companions were running a three-card-monte game, as they usually did, and that the altercation happened to occur nearby. He denied any knowledge of, or involvement in, the altercation.

We are persuaded that under the standards set forth in *People v Bleakley*(69 NY2d 490), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the evidence was legally sufficient. Competing inferences will not render the evidence insufficient *(People v Jackson,*65 NY2d 265, 271).

Defendant’s *Brady*and *Rosario*claims are unpreserved as a matter of law. Although defendant raised these claims in a collateral proceeding pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant never appealed the ruling denying his motion to vacate the judgment, and may not now have that issue reviewed. Nor did *147defendant preserve the *Brady*claim by appropriate objection during trial, by moving for a mistrial, by requesting a curative instruction, or otherwise providing the court with an opportunity to issue a ruling. Hence, the issue is not preserved. *(People v De Jesus,*69 NY2d 855, 857; *People v Osuna,*65 NY2d 822, 824.)

Even if we were to review, we would note that defendant’s argument on appeal is entirely unpersuasive. Similarly, defendant’s *Rosario*claim is meritless. If we were to review, we would note that the subject records were made available to defendant during trial and defendant does not contend that they were unavailable for cross-examination of the complainant, whose statements the records memorialized.

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-123124), Form S-8 (No. 333-141495), Form S-3 (No. 333-142779), Form S-3 (No. 333-142884 and Form S-3 (No. 333-151330) of Raser Technologies, Inc. (a development stageenterprise) of our report, dated March 16, 2009, related to our audits of the consolidated balance sheets of Raser Technologies, Inc. (a development stage enterprise) and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008 and for the period after re-entry into development stage (October 1, 2006 through December 31,2008), and our report dated March 16, 2009 on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Raser Technologies, Inc. (a development stage enterprise) forthe year ended December 31, 2008. 

*/s/ HEIN & ASSOCIATES LLP.*

Denver, Colorado 

March 16, 2009
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard CHRISMER, et al., Appellants.

No. 63041.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Oct. 19, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 9, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 25, 1994.

David O. Danis, Clayton, for appellants.

Scott Reynolds, Wendy McIntyre, Clayton, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Defendants appeal their convictions of trespass in the first degree. We have re*559viewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file in this court-tried case and find no error of law and that an opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the convictions pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### Donald C. DALBOSCO, Petitioner, v. J.D. HUBBARD, II and Michael McGinnis, Respondents.

No. 95-0077.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 11, 1995.

Joe G. Roady, Houston, for petitioner.

Paul J. McConnell, III, Ben A. Baring, Jr., Stephen C. Reid, III, Houston, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s application for writ of error is denied. The Court neither approves nor disapproves of the court of appeals’ discussion of the affirmative defense of justification, excuse or privilege to interfere. 888 S.W.2d 224, 229-30.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JEFFREY M. SISKIND , Appellant,

v.

SOFIYE WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE, SOFIYE WILLIAMS, P.A., TERESA

SANTALUCIA, BELMAR WINDS, INC., and ROBERT A. GIBSON
, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 21

- 3441

[ February 9, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Bradley Harper , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2019

- CA

- 004316

- XXXX

- MB

.

Jeffrey M. Siskind of Siskind Legal, PLLC, Wellington, for appellant.

Sofiye Williams of Sofiye Williams, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellees Sofiye Williams, Sofiye Williams, P.A., and Belmar Winds, Inc

.

Robert Gibson, Lake Worth, pro se.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH
, C.J., W ARNER and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21425-21426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11760]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-103; RM-8794]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Smith, NV

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by 
Donegal Enterprises, Inc., seeking the allotment of Channel 271C3 to 
Smith, Nevada, as the community's first local aural service. Channel 
271C3 can be allotted to Smith in compliance with the Commission's 
minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 3.9 
kilometers (2.4 miles) east, at coordinates 38-47-53 NL; 119-16-55 WL, 
to avoid a short-spacing to Station KSSJ, Channel 270B, Shingle 
Springs, CA.


[[Page 21426]]


DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 27, 1996, and reply 
comments on or before July 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Patrick 
A. Mulreany, President, Donegal Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 123, Smith, 
Nevada 89430 (Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-103, adopted April 22, 
1996, and released May 6, 1996. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
Andrew J. Rhodes,
Acting Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-11760 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.8(a)

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made
and entered into as of October 16, 2006 by and between HELIX BIOMEDIX, INC., a
Delaware corporation ("Helix"), and TIMOTHY FALLA, PH.D. ("Employee").

                                    RECITALS

     WHEREAS, Helix and Employee entered into an Employment Agreement effective
July 1, 2003, as amended (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, Helix and Employee wish to further amend the Agreement as provided
herein.

                                    AGREEMENT

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants of
the parties hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows:

     1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety as follows:

     "Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the term hereof
("Term") shall commence on July 1, 2003 and will continue in effect unless and
until terminated by either the Company or Executive as set forth herein."

     2. The second sentence of Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended
and restated in its entirety as follows:

     "The Board shall review Executive's compensation and performance annually,
and Executive shall be eligible for an increase in his base salary or other
compensation based on such review."

     3. The effective date of this Amendment shall be June 30, 2006.

     4. The parties hereto hereby acknowledge the continuing effect of the
Agreement except as specifically modified by this Amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the day and year first above written.

HELIX BIOMEDIX, INC.                   EXECUTIVE:


------------------------------------   -----------------------------------------
By: R. Stephen Beatty                  Timothy Falla, Ph.D.
    President and CEO
#### Zane B. EDGINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49579.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 25, 1995.

Patricia A. Richter, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ELLIS and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.42
 THIS IS AN ADDENDUM TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED AUGUST 5,
2005 WHEREIN IS REFERRED TO AS LESSOR AND IS REFERRED TO AS
LESSEE FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 235 TENNANT
AVENUE #5, MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
  1.
    
    Additional Space Leased:Lessee had elected to lease unit #4 adjacent to its current unit #5. Therefore, Section 1.2(a)
of this lease shall be amended from a 3,200 square foot unit to a 5,600 square foot unit.
Total rent for the additional 2,400 square feet rented shall be $1,920.00 per month Gross.
This rent amount shall be added with the Lessees current rent schedule under the same
terms and conditions in the above referenced lease.
  READ AND APPROVEDLessee: Save the World Air, Inc.
    
    Lessor: Tom JacksonBy:
    
    /s/ Bruce McKinnon
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Tom Jackson
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11390]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-821-803]


Titanium Sponge From the Russian Federation; Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limits.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit of the preliminary results of the third administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order on titanium sponge from the 
Russian Federation. The review covers one manufacturer/exporter and two 
resellers of the subject merchandise, covering the period August 1, 
1994 through July 31, 1995.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 8, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy S. Wei or Zev Primor, Office of 
Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 
482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it is not practicable to complete 
this review within the time limits mandated by Section 751(a)(3)(A) of 
the Trade and Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act of 1994, the Department is extending the time limit for 
completion of the preliminary results until September 3, 1996. See Memo 
to Susan G. Esserman from Joseph A. Spetrini regarding Extension of 
Time Limit for the Preliminary Results of Administrative Review, April 
25, 1996. We will issue our final results for this review by January 2, 
1997.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(3)(A)).

    Dated: May 1, 1996.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Compliance.
[FR Doc. 96-11390 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Mike NAZEMI, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Leila NORMAND, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 67393.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

April 23, 1996.

Gary M. Siegel, David M. Segall, Gerald M. Poger, St. Louis, for appellant.

Sharon E. Wilkes, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Mike Nazemi appeals from a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Leila Normand, on a claim for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident. We affirm. Respondent’s motion to dismiss and for damages for frivolous appeal is denied.

An extended opinion would serve no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HANA HILSENRATH and OLIVER

HILSENRATH,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 and

NANA HILSENRATH; et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE SWISS CONFEDERATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 07-17127

D.C. No. CV-07-02782-WHA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010 ** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges. 

FILED

NOV 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2- 07-17127

Hana Hilsenrath and Oliver Hilsenrath appeal pro se the district court’s 

judgment dismissing their action against the Swiss Confederation and Swiss

government officials alleging violation of their rights under the United States

Constitution. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Af-Cap, Inc. v. Chevron Overseas (Congo) Ltd., 475 F.3d 1080, 1085-86

(9th Cir. 2007) , and we affirm.

 The Hilsenraths alleged that the Swiss Confederation, the Federal Attorney

General of Switzerland and an employee of the Swiss Attorney General violated

the Hilsenraths’ constitutional rights when they froze the Hilsenraths’ Swiss bank

assets during the course of a criminal investigation into allegedly illicit financial

dealings. The district court properly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction because the Swiss government and its employees are immune from this

action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et

seq. (“FSIA”) and the Hilsenraths did not establish the applicability of any of the

FSIA’s exceptions to sovereign immunity. See Security Pacific Nat. Bank v.

Derderian, 872 F.2d 281, 285 (9th Cir. 1989) (if the “claim does not fall within

one of the exceptions, the court cannot entertain the action” and it must dismiss the

action against the foreign state).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24527-24528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12212]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RTCA, Inc., Joint RTCA Special Committee 180 and Eurocae Working 
Group 46 Meeting; Design Assurance Guidance for Airborne Electronic 
Hardware

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a joint 
RTCA Special Committee 180 and EUROCAE Working Group 46 meeting to be 
held June 18-20, 1996, starting at 8:30 a.m. on June 18. (On subsequent 
days, meeting begins at 8:00 a.m.) The meeting will be held at RTCA, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
    The agenda will be as follows: (1) Chairman's Introductory Remarks; 
(2) Review and Approval of Meeting Agenda; (3) Review and Approval of 
Minutes of Previous Joint Meeting; (4) Leadership Team Meeting Report; 
(5) Consensus Items; (6) Review Action Items; (7) Review Issue Logs; 
(8) Issue Teams' Status, Meeting Plans, New Members; (9) Issue Team 
Working Sessions; (10) Issue Team Reports; (11) New Items for 
Consensus; (12) Other Business; (13) Establish Agenda for Next Meeting; 
(14) Date and Place of Next Meeting.

[[Page 24528]]

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 
833-9339 (phone) or (202) 833-9434 (fax). Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 9, 1996.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 96-12212 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Robert MUNIZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 251-93.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

May 5, 1993.

*521Nancy B. Barohn, San Antonio, for appellant.

Steven C. Hilbig, Dist. Atty., and Scott Sullivan, Phil Kazen and Alan E. Battaglia, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

BAIRD, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and punishment was assessed at eight years confinement, probated, a fine of $1,000.00 and 200 hours of community service. The Court of Appeals affirmed. *Muniz v. State,*844 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1992). Appellant’s petition for discretionary review contends the search warrant and subsequent search were violative of the Texas Constitution. Such contentions, although raised separately from those based on the United States Constitution, were not addressed by the Court of Appeals. Appellant contends his Texas Constitutional arguments are dispos-itive of the case and the Court of Appeals erred by not addressing them. Tex.R.App.Proc. 90(a); *Weatherford v. State,*828 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Cr.App.1992); *Ikner v. State,*848 S.W.2d 161 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). We agree.

The Court of Appeals did not address appellant’s contentions that the search and the warrant such search was based on were violative of the Texas Constitution. Appellant’s arguments under the Texas Constitution were set out and argued apart from those relying on the Federal Constitution and, as such, should have been addressed by the Court of Appeals since analysis of search issues under the State Constitution may well be different than one conducted pursuant to federal constitutional law. *Heitman v. State,*815 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). Therefore, we summarily grant appellant’s petition for discretionary review. Rule 90(a); *Weatherford,*supra; and *Ikner,*supra. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cause remanded to that court for consideration of appellant’s arguments under the Texas Constitution.

McCORMICK, P.J., dissents.
**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1.     | The                accompanying annual report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March                31,                2008 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 such report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of QPC                Lasers,                Inc.                                                             |

|                                               |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/                  George Lintz                  |   |   |   |
| Chief                Financial Officer             |   |   |   |
| (Principal                Financial Officer)  |   |   |   |
|                                               |   |   |   |
| May                15, 2008                        |   |   |   |

----