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

? Supreme Court, Bronx County (William Martin, J., at hearing and jury trial), rendered April 13, 1988, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]; § 160.10  ) and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 6 to 18 years and of 3 to 9 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of a May 1, 1986 robbery in which he displayed what appeared to be a shotgun. One of the two victims testified that she sensed the weapon against her head. The other described a big gun, with a green handle, which was neither a rifle nor a pistol.

Defendant contends that proof as to the nature of the weapon failed to establish that it "appeared] to be a * * * shotgun”. (Penal Law § 160.15 [4].) We find this claim to be without merit. That a robbery had occurred was conceded at trial. A police witness, without objection, testified that a shotgun had been described to him. Since the witnesses’ testimony plainly established that something resembling a shotgun was displayed and because the main issue at trial was identification, nothing more specific about the object displayed was required in order to support a conviction. *(People v Baskerville,*60 NY2d 374, 381 [1983].)

We also reject defendant’s claim that his conviction should be reversed because the court did not give an alibi charge. While the defendant presented alibi evidence, his counsel neither requested an alibi charge nor objected when the court failed to give one. Thus this claim is unpreserved. (CPL 470.05  ; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983].) In any event, the record shows that counsel had a purposeful strategy. He argued in summation that the issue at trial was the reliability of the identification testimony. He also made the point of saying that the jury did not have to be absolutely sure of the defense evidence, but that it did raise a reasonable doubt.

The defendant’s right to be present at all stages of the trial was not violated when the court sent the jury out to dinner in his absence, and in the absence of defense counsel and the District Attorney. Defense counsel, with the defendant present, had previously sanctioned this procedure, and the court made a record of its brief comments to the jury which amounted to little more than an instruction to enjoy dinner. Accordingly, we find that this procedure neither impermissibly affected " ' "the organization of the court or the mode of *202proceedings prescribed by law” ’ ” *(People v Mehmedi,*69 NY2d 759, 760 [1987], quoting *People v Ahmed,*66 NY2d 307, 310.)

The sentence was also appropriate. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Carro, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6908 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6908

         For the relief of Mykhaylo Gnatyuk and Melnik Gnatyuk.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2022

Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         For the relief of Mykhaylo Gnatyuk and Melnik Gnatyuk.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MYKHAYLO GNATYUK AND MELNIK 
              GNATYUK.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mykhaylo Gnatyuk and Melnik 
Gnatyuk shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Mykhaylo Gnatyuk or Melnik Gnatyuk 
enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and 
remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mykhaylo Gnatyuk and Melnik 
Gnatyuk, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Mykhaylo 
Gnatyuk and Melnik Gnatyuk shall not, by virtue of such relationship, 
be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
Letter Amending Distribution Agreement











February
25, 2005




Mr. Don
Grasso

President
& CEO

Rytec,
Inc.

One Cedar
Parkway

Jackson,
WI 53037




Dear
Don:




It was
good to speak with you again today. The purpose of this letter is highlight the
key points of today’s discussion in which I proposed revisions to the
Distribution Agreement as described below.





	1.  	
      The
      $300,000 that Rytec has paid to Invisa in the “Original Equipment and
      Independent Distribution License Agreement” between Rytec and SmartGate
      dated July 12, 2002 now will be applied as compensation for development
      work performed by Invisa (instead of being applied as a price offset
      against future product delivery).







To
compensate for period engineering expenditures by Invisa in 2005, the $300,000
will be drawn down according to a schedule:





	
      Amount
	
      Date
      of Payment

	
      $75,000
	
      March
      15, 2005

	
      $75,000
	
      June
      15, 2005

	
      $75,000
	
      September
      15, 2005

	
      $75,000
	
      December
      15, 2005








	2.  	
      In
      consideration for the above change in our agreement Exhibit D is updated
      to reflect that Rytec now receives a price reduction on the SmartGate
      units from $370 to MFN (“Most Favored Nation”) pricing. MFN pricing means
      that Rytec will enjoy our lowest pricing for product purchased in similar
      volume under similar terms and conditions.








	3.  	
      In
      Exhibit B of the Distribution Agreement, the term “SmartGate Product”
      shall now be updated to refer to “4th
      generation digital product or any upgrade or replacement thereto which
      provides similar function”.








	4.  	
      As
      SmartGate has been merged into Invisa and no longer is a separate business
      entity, references in the Distribution Agreement to “SmartGate” should be
      updated to “Invisa”.




 

Sincerely,                                                                                            Agreed
to:




	 	 	 	 
	/s/     Herb M.
      Lustig	 	 	/s/     Don
      Grasso
	
      

    	 	 	
      

    
	Name:   Herb M.
      Lustig
Title     President &
      CEO  
More
      Title	 	 	Name:  Don Grasso
Title:  President &
      CEO
More Title
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7022 

To amend the Federal Credit Union Act to modify requirements relating 

to the regulation and examination of credit union organizations and 

service providers, to provide the Director of the Federal Housing Finance 

Agency with the authority to regulate the provision of services provided 

to the Government-sponsored enterprises and Federal Home Loan Banks, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2022 

Mr. FOSTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Credit Union Act to modify requirements relating to the regulation and examination of credit union organizations and service providers, to provide 

the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency 

with the authority to regulate the provision of services 

provided to the Government-sponsored enterprises and 

Federal Home Loan Banks, 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, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7022 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthening Cyber3 security for the Financial Sector Act of 2022’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REGULATION AND EXAMINATION OF CREDIT UNION 

5 ORGANIZATIONS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS. 

6 Section 206A of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 

7 U.S.C. 1786a) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘that’’ and 

9 inserting ‘‘an’’; 

10 (2) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting after 

11 ‘‘shall notify the Board’’ the following: ‘‘, in a man12 ner and method prescribed by the Board,’’; and 

13 (3) by striking subsection (f). 

14 SEC. 3. REGULATION OF SERVICE PROVIDERS BY THE FED15 ERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY. 

16 Subpart A of part 2 of subtitle A of the Federal 

17 Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act 

18 of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4541 et seq.) is amended by adding 

19 at the end the following new section: 

20 ‘‘SEC. 1329. REGULATION AND EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN 

21 SERVICE PROVIDERS. 

22 ‘‘Whenever a regulated entity or the Office of Fi23 nance causes to be performed for itself, by contract or oth24 erwise, any activity that is permissible for the regulated 

25 entity or the Office of Finance, whether on or off its prem26 ises— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7022 IH

1 ‘‘(1) such performance shall be subject to regu2 lation and examination by the Director to the same 

3 extent as if such activity were being performed by 

4 such entity or Office itself on its own premises; and 

5 ‘‘(2) the regulated entity or Office of Finance 

6 shall notify the Director of the existence of the serv7 ice relationship within thirty days after the making 

8 of such service contract or the performance of the 

9 activity by the service provider, whichever occurs 

10 first.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18
of the United States Code

I,
Thomas M. OFlynn, Chief Financial Officer of Public Service Enterprise Group
Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly
Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Public
Service Enterprise Group Incorporated.

| |                                              
| | ---------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Thomas
 M. OFlynn                       
| |                                              
| | Thomas M. OFlynn                            
| | Public
 Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
| | Chief
 Financial Officer                     
| | October 31,
 2008                            

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Valdez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered September 23, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with murder in the second degree *(see,*Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), by intentionally causing the death of Audrey Langman, and manslaughter in the second degree *(see,*Penal Law § 125.15 [1]), by recklessly causing her death.

The defendant contends that the verdict finding him guilty *441of both counts is inconsistent *(see, People v Gallagher,*69 NY2d 525). However, as the defendant did not object to the court’s submission of both homicide counts to the jury, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Satloff,*56 NY2d 745; *People v Carey,*151 AD2d 989). We decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial because of certain comments made by the prosecutor during the trial, is without merit. Many of the comments about which the defendant complains are either unpreserved for appellate review, or were made outside the presence of the jury. With respect to the remaining comments, we find that the Trial Judge’s curative remarks served to dispel any prejudice to the defendant so that he was not deprived of a fair trial *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396).

The defendant’s remaining contention, that his sentence is harsh and excessive, is without merit *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AUGUSTIN SANTOS-SANTOS, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-70650 Age n c y No. A099-460-473 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Oc tobe r 14, 2015 * * B e fore : SILVERM AN, B YB EE, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Augustin Sa

ntos-Sa ntos, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny i ng his m otion to re ope n. W e re vie wfor a

buse of disc re tion the de n i a l of a m otion to re ope n. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).To the e xte nt Sa ntos-Sa ntos pre se nte d non-c um

ulative e vide nc e of ha

rdship re ga rding his c hildre n’ s e duc ationa l ne e ds, the B IA did not a b use its disc re tion in de ny ing the m otion to re ope n whe re the e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt to de m onstra te any like ly im pa c t on the ha

rdship de te rm i nation in Sa ntos-Sa ntos’ s c a s e . S

e e Fe rnande z v . Gonzale

s , 439 F.3d 592, 600 n.6 (9th C ir. 2006) (prim a fa c ie e ligibility for re l ie f is de m onstra

te d whe re “ the e v i de nc e re ve a l s a re a sona ble like lihood tha

t the sta tutory re quire m e nts for re lie f have be e n satisfie d” (inte rna l quota t ions omitte d)). B e c a use the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t Sa ntos-Sa ntos did not de

m o n strate a prim a fa c ie c a se for re lie f is dispositive , we do not re a c h his re m a ining c onte ntions. Se e Sime o nov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ As a ge ne ra l rule c ourts a

nd a ge nc ie s a

re not re quire d to m ake findings on issue s the de c ision of whic h

is unne c e ssa

ry to the re sults they

re a c h.” (c ita

tion a nd quota tion m arks om itte d)). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 1 - 7 0 6 5 0 2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130964 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130964 

 COA: 267742 

Wayne CC: 79-929795-01 

RONALD BENNETT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 16, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

s1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    469,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,270
<PP&E>                                       2,607,991
<DEPRECIATION>                                 895,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,287,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          854,434
<BONDS>                                         83,046
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       353,407
<OTHER-SE>                                     996,196
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,287,083
<SALES>                                      1,033,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,043,460
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,743,126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (723,766)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,088
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (726,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (726,854)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                            Exhibit 11.1


                             PITT-DES MOINES, INC.

                       Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                  (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                        For the three months ended
                                                                                 March 31,
                                                                        -------------------------
                                                                             1997         1996
                                                                          ----------  ----------
<S>                                                                    <C>            <C>
Primary
 Average shares outstanding                                                3,482,966   3,483,142
 Dilutive stock options based on treasury stock
  method using average market price                                           39,217      41,830
                                                                          ----------  ----------
                                                                           3,522,183   3,524,972
                                                                          ==========  ==========
   
 Net income                                                               $2,101,522  $3,174,330
                                                                          ==========  ==========
 Per common share:
   Net income per common share                                            $      .60  $      .90
                                                                          ==========  ==========
 
Fully Diluted
 Average shares outstanding                                                3,482,966   3,483,142
 Dilutive stock options based on treasury stock method
  using greater of period-end or average market price                         48,611      49,972
                                                                          ----------  ----------
                                                                           3,531,577   3,533,114
                                                                          ==========  ==========
 
 Net income                                                               $2,101,522  $3,174,330
                                                                          ==========  ==========
 Per common share:
  Net income per common share                                             $      .60  $      .90
                                                                          ==========  ==========
</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Ann Rader Troitino Johnston, Admitted as Ann Rader Troitino.

Upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, matter remanded to petitioner for a hearing, and respondent suspended, as indicated in the order of this court. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.