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

County Court, Schenectady County,

January 28, 1957.

*754
      *David B. Alford*for appellant.

*Emmet J. Lynch, District Attorney (Duncan S. McNab*of counsel), for respondent.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

The District Attorney’s office did not participate in the trial and on argument of the appeal stood on the record.

From the record it appears that the information upon which the charge was based, which was signed by G. Valsamedis, State trooper, was not supported by depositions of persons in possession of facts. The said information contains the following concluding sentence: ‘ ‘ This information is based on information and belief of verbal statements and investigation at the scene of the accident.”

Since the “information” was unsupported, no jurisdiction was conferred on the trial court. The resulting conviction was a nullity.

Therefore, the conviction is reversed and the fine of $20 is ordered restored to the defendant.

Submit order.
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect To Certain Terrorist Attacks 

Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States. 

Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008.  Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat. 

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*                    and transmitted to the Congress.                 

[FR Doc. E8-20444

Billing code 3195-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41093

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAUL LATIN, true name Saul Adrian Latin,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-74-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Saul Latin has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Latin has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. Although counsel addresses the validity of Latin’s appeal 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41093 Document: 00513421195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2016
No. 15-41093

2

waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does 

not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this 

issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 

F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 

787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms 

that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-41093 Document: 00513421195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2016
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thurman D. PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50549.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

*405PER CURIAM.*

Court-appointed counsel for Thurman D. Payne has moved for leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Payne has filed a response to the motion, contending that the district court’s determination of drug quantity was arbitrary, that he should have been granted an offense-level reduction as a minimal participant, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and that his counsel had a conflict of interest. Payne moves for leave to file supplements to his *Anders*response, in which he asserts additional sentencing and counsel-conflict issues; those motions are GRANTED.

Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Payne’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Payne waived the right to appeal his sentence except upon limited grounds. The sentencing issues he asserts are waived. *See United States v. Melancon,*972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir.1992). Although Payne’s appeal waiver excepted his claims pertaining to ineffective assistance of counsel, including his conflict-of-interest claim, we decline to address those issues on direct appeal, without prejudice to Payne’s right to assert such claims in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See Massaro v. United States,*— U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 1694, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003); see *also United States v. Bounds,*943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir.1991).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5TH Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<PAGE>

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 Annual Report of Green Irons Holdings Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Andrew
Couvell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2007.

/S/ ANDREW COUVELL
------------------
Andrew Couvell
Chief Financial Officer
## VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday 

## the 18 th 

## day of October, 2002.

James Michael McDaniel, Appellant, against Record No. 020114 Court of Appeals No. 1055-01-3 Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.

Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals of Virginia on the 20th day of December, 2001.

Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and argument of counsel, the Court is of opinion that there is no error in the judgment appealed from. McDaniel argues that the trial court erred in finding that the handgun found in his possession while he also possessed cocaine fits the definition of a “firearm” pursuant to Code § 18.2-308.4. McDaniel maintains that the handgun in question is a rare 7.62 millimeter Model 52 Czechoslovakian handgun manufactured during the

World War I era. He further contends that there is no ammunition readily available for the weapon, which renders it so obsolete that it can be no longer classified as a firearm. At trial, the arresting police officer testified that the weapon was “a 9 millimeter,” and the officer testified that he

used a 9 millimeter blank to test it.In Armstrong v. Commonwealth , 263 Va. 573, 584, 562 S.E.2d 139, 145 (2002), we held that in order to be convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, “the evidence need show only that a person subject to the provisions of that statute possessed an instrument which was designed, made, and intended to expel a projectile by means of an explosion.” The Commonwealth need not show that the “instrument was ‘operable,’ ‘capable’ of being fired, or had the ‘actual capacity to do serous harm.’ ” Id. We cannot say that the trial court’s judgment was plainly wrong or without evidence to support McDaniel’s convictions under Code § 18.2-308.4. In his brief, McDaniel also argues that the trial court erred because he lacked the knowledge of the nature and character of the weapon, and consequently, lacked the necessary mens rea to be convicted of possession of a firearm pursuant to Code § 18.2-308.4. At oral argument, McDaniel conceded that his assignment of error did not encompass this argument. We will not consider it. Rule

5:17. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The appellant shall pay to the appellee thirty dollars damages. This order shall be certified to the Court of Appeals of Virginia and to the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg and shall be published in the Virginia Reports. A Copy,

Teste:David B. Beach, Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Evan Leggett, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: This appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea prior to the imposition of sentence on the ground that he misunderstood the plea bargain agreement *(see,*CPL 220.60 [3]). Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of driving while intoxi*863cated as a felony in return for a negotiated sentence of five years’ probation and a $1,000 fine. The court was aware that defendant was on parole at the time defendant pleaded guilty but made no promise regarding defendant’s parole status. The court imposed the promised sentence.

Where, as here, a sentencing court keeps the promises it made at the time it accepted a plea of guilty, a defendant should not be permitted to withdraw his plea on the sole ground that he misinterpreted or misunderstood the plea bargain agreement *(People v Cataldo,*39 NY2d 578, 580). Since a fair reading of the plea bargain agreement compels but one interpretation, defendant’s subjective misunderstanding of it, or his disappointment upon discovering that the Parole Board would seek to have him incarcerated for a violation of parole, does not provide a reason to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea *(see, People v Welch,*129 AD2d 752; *see also, People v Santana,*151 AD2d 518, 519; *People v Henderson,*130 AD2d 789, 790; *People v Latine,*71 AD2d 697). Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. (Appeal from judgment of Livingston County Court, Houston, J.—felony driving while intoxicated.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6510 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require that certain information with respect to nutrition assistance programs be annually disclosed, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2022 

Ms. ADAMS (for herself, Ms. BROWN of Ohio, and Mrs. HAYES) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 

that certain information with respect to nutrition assistance programs be annually disclosed, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting Trans5 parency to Overcome Poverty and Campus Hunger Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘STOP Campus Hunger Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6510 IH

1 SEC. 2. STUDENT ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION FOR NUTRI2 TION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

3 (a) INFORMATION DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES.— 

4 Section 485(a)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

5 (20 U.S.C. 1092(a)(1)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (U), by striking the ‘‘and’’ 

7 at the end; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (V), by striking the period 

9 at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(W) the most recent relevant student eli12 gibility guidance with respect to the nutrition 

13 assistance programs established under— 

14 ‘‘(i) section 4 of the Food and Nutri15 tion Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014); and 

16 ‘‘(ii) section 17 of the Child Nutrition 

17 Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786); 

18 ‘‘(X) the contact information for the State 

19 agencies responsible for administration of the 

20 programs specified in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub21 paragraph (W); and 

22 ‘‘(Y) the food pantries and other food as23 sistance facilities and services available to stu24 dents enrolled in such institution.’’. 

25 (b) COLLEGE NAVIGATOR WEBSITE.—Not later than 

26 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6510 IH

1 Secretary of Education shall make available and annually 

2 update on the College Navigator Website the most recent 

3 relevant student eligibility guidance with respect to the nu4 trition assistance programs established under— 

5 (1) section 4 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

6 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014); and 

7 (2) section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 

8 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
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 this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Talmer Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to his knowledge:





|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 Company.







/s/ David T. Provost


David T. Provost


Chief Executive Officer


March 30, 2016








/s/ Dennis Klaeser


Dennis Klaeser


Chief Financial Officer


March 30, 2016
EX-10.10



 Exhibit 10.10 
  





 
 October 26, 2011 

Andrea L. Mancuso 
 460 Herndon Parkway 

Suite 150 
 Herndon, VA 20170 

Dear Andrea: 
 On behalf of Primus Telecommunications, Inc. (the
“Company”), it is my pleasure to offer you full-time employment for the position of Associate General Counsel & Assistant Secretary, reporting to John Filipowicz, Acting General Counsel & Chief Administrative Officer
(CAO). You will be based out of the McLean, Virginia office. Your start date will be Monday, November 14, 2011, subject to the conditions set forth herein. 

This offer is subject to written affirmation of the Company’s Code of Ethics, Confidentiality Agreement and other policies and successful completion of a
background check and drug screen within two weeks of the execution of this letter. Your employment with the Company is at-will meaning both you and the Company can end the employment relationship at any time and for any reason. 

Your semi-monthly salary will be $7,083.34, which is $170,000.00 annually. Beginning in 2011, you will be eligible for a prorated annual bonus targeted at 20%
of your annual base salary based upon performance criteria, approved by the Company’s Board of Directors’ Compensation Committee. Your bonus will be payable in the calendar year following the calendar year in which the performance
objectives for such bonus are measured; i.e., March 2012 for 2011 performance provided you are employed on the payment date. 
 You will also have the
opportunity for a future short-term incentive equity grant consistent with other positions at your level, pending approval of the equity grants by the Company’s Board of Directors. 

Effective on your start date, you will be eligible to participate in the Company’s employee benefit plans for health, dental, vision, life insurance,
voluntary life insurance, AD&D, and short-term and long-term disabilities. Providing you have met the minimum age requirement on the 1st of the quarter following your date of hire, you will be
automatically enrolled in the 401(k) Plan. 
 In addition to the benefits listed above, you will be eligible to accrue paid time off (“PTO”) at
7.33 hours per pay period, which equates to 22 days of PTO per completed calendar year. You will be eligible to carry forward a maximum of 5 days of PTO. 

If this offer is acceptable, please sign in the space below and return to me by Tuesday, November 1, 2011. 

 

	
	Kind regards,
	
	/s/ Jamie L. Barkovic
	Jamie L. Barkovic
	Director, Human Resources

  

			
	cc:	  	John Filipowicz, Acting General Counsel & CAO

  

					
	 /s/ Andrea L. Mancuso
	 		 	 10/27/2011

	Agreed and Accepted: Andrea L. Mancuso	 		 	Date
<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 Prime Hospitality Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, A.F.
Petrocelli, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, aS adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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
Company.

/s/ A.F. Petrocelli
------------------------
A.F. Petrocelli
President and Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2003
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                 |  |                                            
|---------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                 |  | /s/ Paul J. Evanson                        
|November 4, 2005 |  | Paul J. Evanson Principal Executive
Officer
Exhibit 10.479


 


ASSIGNMENT


 


This Assignment is
made as of the 23rd day of December, 2004 by INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., an
Illinois corporation (“Assignor”) to and for the benefit of INLAND WESTERN CORAM PLAZA, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”).


 


Assignor does
hereby sell, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto Assignee all of its
right, title and interest as Buyer under that certain Agreement of Purchase and
Sale dated as of September 20, 2004, as amended, and entered into by Coram
Property Development LLC, as Seller, and Inland Real Estate Acquisitions, Inc.,
Assignor, as Buyer (collectively, the “Agreement”), solely as the Agreement
applies to the sale and purchase of the property described by the Agreement,
located in Suffolk County, Coram, New York commonly known as Coram Plaza
shopping center.


 


Assignor
represents and warrants that it is the Buyer under the Agreement, and that it
has not sold, assigned, transferred, or encumbered such interest in any way to
any other person or entity. By acceptance hereof, Assignee accepts the
foregoing Assignment and agrees, from and after the date hereof, to (i) perform
all of the obligations of Buyer under the Agreement, and (ii) indemnify,
defend, protect and hold Assignor harmless from and against all claims and
liabilities arising under the Agreement.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed this instrument as of the date
first written above.


 


	
   

  	
  ASSIGNOR:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INLAND REAL ESTATE
  ACQUISITIONS, INC.,

  an Illinois corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  G. Joseph Cosenza

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
        President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ASSIGNEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INLAND WESTERN CORAM
  PLAZA,

  L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:
  INLAND WESTERN RETAIL REAL

  ESTATE TRUST, INC., its sole member

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
  [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
   

  	
  [ILLEGIBLE]
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                 |  | 
|---------------- |  | 
|                 |  | 
|                 |  | 
|January 23, 2004 |  |