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

[808 NYS2d 754]

Appeal by the People from a purported order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated January 7, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment in fiirtherance of justice.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

On January 7, 2003, the Supreme Court orally granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice *(see*CPL 210.40), stating, in pertinent part, “indictment is dismissed. This constitutes the decision and order of the court.” On the same day, an entry was made in what is commonly referred to as the court’s “motion buck sheet” stating, “motion to dismiss granted—decision] and order dictated into record.” The People appeal from this purported motion “buck sheet” order.

CPL 450.20 (a) states that an appeal may be taken as of right to the Appellate Division from “[a]n *order*dismissing an accusatory instrument . . . *entered*pursuant to section . . . 210.20” (motion to dismiss or reduce indictment) (emphasis added). While the Criminal Procedure Law does not define what constitutes an order, there is no statutory language which provides for appeals from decisions, transcripts, or notations. Moreover, there is nothing in the motion buck sheet which would indicate that it was intended to be a court order. For example, there is no recital of the papers considered in support of and in opposition to the motion, nor are there are any decretal paragraphs *(see generally Matter of Dondi,*63 NY2d 331 [1984]). Furthermore, it is significant that the notation on the motion buck sheet specifically states that the “decision] and order [dismissing the indictment had been] dictated into the record.” Such language suggests that even the Supreme Court did not consider the motion buck sheet to be a court order.

Thus, contrary to the People’s contention, no appeal lies from the dismissal of this indictment as expressed in the motion buck sheet. We note, however, that an appeal may be taken after the entry of an appropriate order pursuant to CPL 210.20. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
AMENDMENT
TO EQUITY FINANCING AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT TO EQUITY FINANCING AGREEMENT (the Amendment”) is entered into on April 19, 2019 by and between DSG Global, Inc.,
a Nevada corporation (“DSGT”) and GHS Investments, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (“GHS). Each party
to this Amendment is referred to herein as a “Party,” and collectively as the “Parties.”


 


WHEREAS,
On July 27, 2017, DSGT and GHS entered into an Equity Financing Agreement (the “EFA”) whereby GHS agreed to invest
up to $7,000,000 (the “Commitment Amount”) in DSGT from time to time over the course of twenty-four (24) months after
an effective registration of the underlying shares (the “Open Period”);


 


WHEREAS,
GHS has not invested the full Commitment Amount under the EFA and the Parties desire to extend the Open Period to enable GHS to
invest additional funds under the EFA;


 


WHEREAS,
the terms of the EFA limit the amount DSGT may request from GHS to no greater than $250,000 and the Parties desire to increase
the amount DSGT may request from GHS under the EFA;


 


WHEREAS,
with the exception of the definitions of “Open Period” and “Put Amount” in Section 1 of the EFA, all other
provisions of the EFA shall remain unchanged.


 


NOW
THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, the receipt and sufficiency of which consideration
is hereby acknowledged by all Parties, the Parties have agreed and do hereby agree as follows:


 


1.
Amendments.




 


The
Following definitions in Section 1 of the EFA shall be amended in their entirety to read:


 


“Open
Period” shall mean the period beginning on and including the Trading Day immediately following the Effective Date and
ending on the earlier of (i) the date which is forty-eight (48) months from the Effective Date; or (ii) termination of the Agreement
in accordance with Section 8.


 


“Put
Amount” shall mean the total dollar amount requested by the Company pursuant to an applicable Put. The timing and amounts
of each Put shall be at the discretion of the Company. The maximum dollar amount of each Put will not exceed two hundred percent
(200%) of the average of the daily trading dollar volume for the Company’s Common Stock during the ten (10) trading days
preceding the Put Date. No Put will be made in an amount greater than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000). Puts are further
limited to the Investor owning no more than 9.99% of the outstanding stock of the Company at any given time.


 


2. No
Other Changes.  Other than as specifically set out herein, all other provisions of the EFA shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


3. Counterpart
Execution.  This Amendment may be signed and sent by fax or pdf and in counterpart, and each copy so signed shall be
deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Equity Financing Agreement as of the day and year first above
written.


 


	DSG Global, Inc.	 	GHS Investments, LLC
	 	 	 
	/s/ Bob Silzer	 	/s/ Sarfraz Hajee 
	Bob
Silzer, CEO	 	Sarfraz Hajee, Manager
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22071]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of: EA Industries, Inc., Ebiz Enterprises, Inc., 
and Einstein Noah Bagel Corp. (n/k/a ENBC Corp.); Order of Suspension 
of Trading

September 17, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
EA Industries, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended June 27, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Ebiz Enterprises, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended December 31, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Einstein Noah Bagel Corp. (n/k/a ENBC Corp.) because it has not filed 
any periodic reports since the period ended April 24, 2001.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT 
on September 17, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 30, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22071 Filed 9-17-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thomas Mlodzinski, et al.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00289-JL

Michael F. Lewis, et al.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

October 29, 2008.

 The Discovery Plan (document no. 14) is APPROVED as

submitted.

Based on the discussions between the court and counsel at

the conference, the following are stricken without prejudice to

being reinstated on request if warranted by the evidence:

• plaintiffs’ claims: none

• affirmative defenses: CNHSOU defendants’ ninth defense

(comparative negligence)

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: October 29, 2008

cc: Matthew J. Lahey, Esq.

Charles P. Bauer, Esq.

William G. Scott, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00289-JL Document 16 Filed 10/29/08 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1899

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect to municipal

deposits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 17, 2001

Mr. GILLMOR (for himself, Mr. BEREUTER, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, and Mr.

NEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Financial Services

A BILL

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect

to municipal deposits.

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 ‘‘Municipal Deposit In5 surance Protection Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. FDIC INSURANCE OF MUNICIPAL DEPOSITS.

7 Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance

8 Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the

9 end the following:

10 ‘‘(C) MUNICIPAL DEPOSITORS.—
2

•HR 1899 IH

1 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subpara2 graph (A), the deposits of in-State municipal deposi3 tors at an insured depository institution shall be in4 sured in an aggregate amount not to exceed the

5 total equity capital of the institution.

6 ‘‘(ii) DEFINITIONS.—In this subparagraph—

7 ‘‘(I) the term ‘in-State municipal depositor’

8 means a municipal depositor that is located in

9 the same State as the office or branch of the

10 insured depository institution at which the de11 posits of that depositor are held; and

12 ‘‘(II) the term ‘municipal depositor’ means

13 a depositor described in any of clauses (i)

14 through (v) of subparagraph (A).’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kristyn Graham

v. 07-cv-295-PB

NH State Prison, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated December 13, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

January 12, 2008 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Kristyn Graham, Pro se

James Kennedy, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00295-PB Document 20 Filed 01/12/08 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Advisory Circular 120-16E, Air Carrier Maintenance Programs

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance and availability of 
Advisory Circular (AC) 120-16E, ``Air Carrier Maintenance Programs''. 
This advisory circular (AC) is an update of AC 120-16D that was issued 
in 2003. It describes the scope, content, and functions of air carrier 
aircraft maintenance programs. It explains the background of these 
programs as well as the Federal Aviation Administration's regulatory 
requirements. Each of the 10 elements of air carrier maintenance 
programs is also described and explained. The material in this AC is 
not mandatory and does not constitute a regulation. However, when 
``must'' or ``will'' are used in this AC, such use reflects actual 
regulatory requirements.

DATES: Advisory Circular 120-16E, Air Carrier Maintenance Programs was 
issued by the Office of the Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1 
on September 11, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell S. Unangst, Jr., Technical 
Advisor, Airworthiness, AFS-305, Federal Aviation Administration, 
Aircraft Maintenance Division, Flight Standards Service, 800 
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3786; 
facsimile (202) 267-5115, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6d4d3d5d5c3caca88d3c8c7c8c1d5d2e6c0c7c788c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7200070101171e1e5c071c131c150106321413135c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How to obtain a copy of this AC.
    How To Obtain Copies: This AC can be read or downloaded from the 
Internet at http://rgl.faa.gov/ under the ``Advisory Circular'' 
hyperlink. Paper copies of this AC will be available in approximately 
6-8 weeks from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent 
Distribution Office, SVC-121.23, Ardmore East Business Center, 3341Q 
75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2008.
Carol E. Giles,
Manager, Aircraft Maintenance Division, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E8-22630 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41030

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE LUIS RAMOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(L-01-CR-451-ALL)

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

June 14, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Jose Luis Ramos appeals his sentence,

which was assessed after he was convicted of possession with intent

to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine. Ramos

contends that the district court erred in denying him an offense

level reduction pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines

(U.S.S.G.) § 3B1.2 for his role in the offense. He argues that the

district court applied its de facto policy of refusing the
2

reduction to drug couriers, and that, in ruling on the reduction,

the court failed to consider the Sentencing Commission’s 2001

amendment to the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. 

We review for clear error the sentencing court’s determination

that a defendant did not play a minor role in an offense. United4

States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994). Here, the

district court found that Ramos played an important role in the

distribution of the cocaine when he attempted to transport a large

quantity of the drug through the border patrol checkpoint. These

factual findings, which were specific to Ramos’s offense, are not

clearly erroneous under either the 2000 or 2001 commentary to

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. Marmolejo, 106 F.3d 1213,

1217 (5th Cir. 1997); U.S.S.G. Suppl. to App. C amend. 635; United

States v. Rodriquez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 940-44 (11th Cir.

1999). 

Ramos also asserts that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). As Ramos concedes, however, his argument is foreclosed by

circuit precedent. See United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580,

582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied., 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). For the

foregoing reasons, the sentence imposed by the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11409 and #11410] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 3.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1785-DR), dated 08/26/2008. 

*Incident:*                         Tropical Storm Fay.                     

*Incident Period:*                         08/18/2008 and continuing through 09/12/2008.                     

*Effective Date:*                         09/12/2008.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/27/2008.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/26/2009.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Florida, dated 08/26/2008 is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 08/18/2008 and continuing through 09/12/2008. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-22183 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephen R. Corkum, et al.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-187-JL

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

 O R D E R

Plaintiff’s motion to remand to state court (doc. #5) is

GRANTED. Although, in general, settlement offers (made by

defendants) are not particularly helpful in determining the value

of a case, the plaintiff's demand figure of $33,000 is highly

probative of the "best case scenario" for the plaintiffs. The

defendant has not sustained its burden of demonstrating value

meeting the jurisdictional minimum under the applicable standard,

that the case "could objectively have been viewed as worth the

jurisdictional minimum." See Evans v. Yum Brands, Inc., 326 F.

Supp. 2d 214 (D.N.H. 2004); Lowe v. Sears Holding Corp., Op. No.

2008 DNH 050 (March 4, 2008). 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: June 25, 2008

cc: David P. Slawsky, Esq.

Scott A. Forman, Esq.

Christopher B. Kaczmarek, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00187-JL Document 12 Filed 06/25/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-96-PB

Anthony Sawyer

 O R D E R

The defendant has moved, through counsel, to continue the

trial scheduled for January 5, 2010. I have granted six motions

to continue in this case. Counsel's request for yet another

continuance is based on a claim that he has other cases in other

jurisdictions that give rise to a scheduling conflict. His

motion assumes that the other cases must be tried first, but he

did not mention these cases when he sought his last continuance,

and he does not allege either that the cases that give rise to

the alleged conflict are older than this case or that they have

been continued more times than this case. In short, he has

failed to demonstrate that the government's interest in obtaining

a speedy trial in this case should give way to the interests of

other sovereigns and other defendants in having their cases

resolved expeditiously. 

Case 1:08-cr-00096-PB Document 34 Filed 12/29/09 Page 1 of 2
The motion to continue (Doc. No. 32) is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 29, 2009

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

2

Case 1:08-cr-00096-PB Document 34 Filed 12/29/09 Page 2 of 2
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1996...... 7 0 1 2 4 .031 .000 .003 .009 .017

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... 32 4 6 8 14 .082 .010 .015 .021 .034

2004...... 18 1 5 2 10 .044 .003 .012 .005 .021

2005...... 17 2 11 4 0 .039 .005 .024 .009 .000

2006...... 20 2 6 1 12 .042 .003 .012 .002 .023

2007...... 8 -3 0 5 6 .015 -.006 .000 .009 .011

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-C Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 27, 2022 

 

By:
 
/s/ Kevin J.Cullum

Kevin J. Cullum

President and Chief Executive Officer of

Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC

(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)

 

 
8 

**