alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Stewart A. Swanston, Appellant, v John Pelkey, as Sheriff of Franklin County, Respondent.

[806 NYS2d 440]

Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), entered July 1, 2005, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

In June 2003, a grand jury in Arizona indicted petitioner for the crime of fraudulent schemes and artifices, a class 2 felony, alleging that petitioner defrauded 14 individuals in violation of Arizona laws. Petitioner was located in the Town of Malone, Franklin County, and arrested pursuant to a warrant for extradition issued by the Governor of New York for the return of petitioner to Arizona, which was based on the requisition application of the Governor of Arizona. Petitioner subsequently filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus contesting the extradition request *(see*CPL 570.24).

After a hearing, County Court denied the application and dismissed the writ, but granted a stay of petitioner’s return to Arizona for 30 days in an order entered July 1, 2005. This Court denied petitioner’s request for a stay pending appeal on July 28, *9012005. Petitioner now appeals, alleging that the Arizona indictment failed to “substantially charge” him with a crime in that state in violation of CPL 570.08 and failed to provide him with sufficient information regarding the alleged crimes in violation of his constitutional rights.

However, by order entered August 25, 2005, County Court directed that petitioner be released from custody in the Franklin County jail unless officials of Arizona appear and accept delivery of him for extradition by 4:00 p.m. on August 26, 2005. The County Attorney of Franklin County has informed this Court that petitioner was so returned to Arizona on or about August 26, 2005, where he remains in custody, and is no longer in this jurisdiction. Since petitioner would be entitled to no more than release from custody in this state if his writ were granted, his release and return to Arizona renders this appeal moot *(see People ex rel. De Gina v McMahon,*29 NY2d 550, 551 [1971]; *People ex rel. Schoenwandt v Travis,*23 AD3d 806 [2005]; *People ex rel. Limmer v McKinney,*23 AD3d 806, 807 [2005]; *People ex rel. McKinnon v Infante,*108 AD2d 1026, 1027 [1985], *lv denied*64 NY2d 612 [1985]).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to section 3.22 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Pizza Inn, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain 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 this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: October 9, 2006
    By:
    /s/  Tim P. TaftPresident and Chief Executive OfficerPrincipal Executive Officer)
Director
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01756-DME-MJW

MARCUS L. FREEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

It is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Amend the Complaint (Docket

No. 271) is granted, and the tendered Second Amended Prisoner Complaint (Docket

No. 271-1) is accepted for filing as of the date of this Minute Order. It is thus further

ORDERED that the caption of this case is amended to substitute the United

States of America as the sole named defendant in this case as set forth in the caption

above.

Date: October 8, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-01756-DME-MJW Document 273 Filed 10/08/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 2Federal Reserve Bank of: New YorkFilings received during the week ending March 7, 2020FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodSBD BANCORP, INC.                                                                                                       * 3A1SBD Bancorp, Inc., to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of shares in The Savings Bank of Danbury, both of Danbury, Connecticut, pursuant to Section 3(a)(1) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended and Section 225.15 of Regulation Y.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 03/27/2020
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00345-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. JUAN FRANCISCO-MIGUEL, a/k/a Juan Thomas, a/k/a Juan Andres Francisco,

a/k/a Jesse Martinez ,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

A Notice of Disposition was filed in the above matter on October 6, 2011. A

Change of Plea hearing is set for Monday, November 28, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. 

Accordingly the trial set for October 31, 2011 is VACATED. Counsel for the parties

shall deliver all change of plea documents separately to Judge Daniel’s chambers

AND to the Probation Department not later than 72 HOURS before the hearing

date. If the documents are not timely submitted, the hearing will be VACATED. There

will be no exceptions to this policy, and sanctions may be imposed for failure to

comply.

Dated: October 7, 2011.

Case 1:11-cr-00345-WYD Document 13 Filed 10/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01928-RBJ

VICKI DILLARD, and

PATRICIA EVANS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GARY GREGORY,

TOM FRANK,

THE DENVER CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, and

THE DENVER SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT

PURSUANT to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) and the orders entered in

this case, FINAL JUDGMENT is entered.

I. Pursuant to the Order to Dismiss in Part and to Assign Case to a District Judge

and to a Magistrate Judge #[17] entered by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on November 7, 2011,

which order is incorporation by reference, it is

ORDERED that Defendants the Denver City Attorney’s Office and the Denver

Sheriff’s Department are dismissed as improper parties to this action. It is

FURTHER ORDERED this case shall be assigned to District Judge R. Brooke Jackson,

pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1C.1., and to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland.

Case 1:11-cv-01928-RBJ Document 57 Filed 10/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

II. Pursuant to the Order #[56] entered by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on October 18,

2012, which order is incorporated by reference, it is

ORDERED that the that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#45] is

GRANTED. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court enters its final written judgment dismissing this

civil action and all claims therein with prejudice. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are awarded their costs to be taxed by the Clerk

of the Court pursuant to Fec. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. 

 DATED at Denver, Colorado this 19th day of October, 2012.

FOR THE COURT:

Jeffrey P. Colwell, Clerk

By s/ Edward Butler 

 Edward P. Butler

 Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-01928-RBJ Document 57 Filed 10/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000328 16-MAR-2020 07:59 AM
213 La. 797

#### In re Liquidation of HIBERNIA BANK & TRUST CO. on Opposition of Harry W. Belfor.

No. 38901.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1948.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1948.

Harry W. Belfor, in pro. per.

Dufour, St. Paul & Levy and Montgomery, Fenner & Brown, all of New Orleans, for appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

For the reasons assigned in, 35 So.2d 733, the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00297-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. ERIC SHAWN COPELAND,

Defendant.

ORDER

Pursuant to and in accordance with the sentencing hearing held before the

Honorable Robert E. Blackburn, United States District Judge, on September 26, 2013,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Eric Shawn Copeland is sentenced to time

served.

Dated: September 26, 2013

BY THE COURT:

s/ Robert E. Blackburn 

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00297-REB Document 75 Filed 09/26/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernesto Perez Alvares, Appellant.

[810 NYS2d 124]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered on or about May 17, 2004, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 4Federal Reserve Bank of: ClevelandFilings received during the week ending May 6, 2006FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodFIFTH THIRD BANK                                                                                                        * BranchFifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH to establish a temporary branch at the Highland Hills Golf Club, 7455 Erie Street, Sylvania, OH.Newspaper: 04/29/2006Federal Register: Not applicableFIFTH THIRD BANK                                                                                                        * BranchFifth Third Bank, Cincinnati, OH to establish a branch at the 4020 Indian Road, Toledo, OH.Newspaper: 04/27/2006Federal Register: Not applicable
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Hollis, Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 327]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered December 18, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree and bail jumping in the second degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. As to the bail jumping conviction, the prosecution properly relied on the presumption *320of regularity in judicial proceedings *(see, People v Diaz,*283 AD2d 170, *lv denied*97 NY2d 640) to establish that defendant was aware of the date upon which he was obliged to return to court, in light of the testimony by court personnel regarding the regular practice of informing defendants in writing of their return dates and the absence of any evidence that the regular procedures were not followed.

Defendant’s guilt of the robbery and larceny counts was established by overwhelming evidence. In light of the strong identification by the victim, only minutes after she was robbed, the very minor discrepancies between her testimony and that of the police officer to whom she gave the description of her assailant are inconsequential. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 1Federal Reserve Bank of: BostonFilings received during the week ending August 15, 2015FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBOSTON PRIVATE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.                                                                                 4c8Notification by Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts to acquire up to an additional 3.1% ownership interest in its subsidiary Anchor Capital Advisors, LLC, Boston, Massachusetts, pursuant to section 4(c)(8) and 4(j) of the BHC Act, as amended, and section 225.23 of Regulation Y.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableSOUTH SHORE MUTUAL HOLDING COMPANY                                                                                      * 4c8Filing by South Shore Mutual Holding Company, Weymouth, Massachusetts,  to acquire Satuit MHC, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Scituate Federal Savings Bank, both of Scituate, Massachusetts, pursuant to section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended.Newspaper: 08/19/2015Federal Register: 08/21/2015
SECOND AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT



Exhibit 10.3



FIRST AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


 

This amendment entered this 4th day of January, 1988 by and between INTERSTATE GENERAL PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP S.P., hereinafter referred to as the "Management Agent" and INTERSTATE BUSINESS CORPORATION (SANTA MARIA SHOPPING CENTER), hereinafter referred to as "IBC," the Owner.


WITNESSETH


WHEREAS, Interstate St. Charles, Inc. (SANTA MARIA SHOPPING CENTER) and Interstate General Properties Limited Partnership, S.P. (IGP) entered into a Management Agreement as of January 5, 1987 with respect to the property known as SANTA MARIA SHOPPING CENTER.


WHEREAS, on June 29, 1987 Interstate St. Charles, Inc. changed its name and became Interstate Business Corporation.


WHEREAS, the Management Agent and the Owner desires to further amend the Management Agreement.


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Management Agreement as follows:


FIRST:  That in addition to the management fee stipulated in Paragraph 5 of the Management Agreement, effective January 1, 1988 the Management Agent will charge the Owner and Owner will reimburse the Management Agent for the cost of finance and accounting material and services which will include but will not be limited to salaries, fringe benefits, state and federal taxes, etc.  Such reimbursement will be paid by Owner to Management Agent on a monthly basis together with the amount of management fee specified above.


SECOND:  Except as modified herein, Management Agent and Owner certify and confirm that all the terms and covenants of the Management Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect and the agreement and its amendment shall be construed and read as one instrument.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Amendment to Management Agreement the day, month and year first above written.


 

	
INTERSTATE GENERAL PROPERTIES
	 	
INTERSTATE BUSINESS CORPORATION

	
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP S.P.
	 	
(OWNER)

	
(MANAGEMENT AGENT)
	 	 
	 	 	 
	
/s/ Rogelio Perez-Guzman
	 	
/s/ Donald G. Blakeman

	
Rogelio Perez-Guzman
	 	
Donald G. Blakeman

	
Senior Vice President
	 	
Executive Vice President
#### The People of State of New York ex rel. Anthony M. Campolito, Appellant, v Floyd G. Bennett, Jr., as Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[744 NYS2d 752]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Stone, J.), entered April 24, 2000, which denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Supreme Court properly denied the petition on the merits. Petitioner’s contention with respect to the propriety of the preliminary parole revocation hearing was “subsumed by revocation of petitioner’s *836parole” *(People ex rel. Chavis v McCoy,*236 AD2d 892, 892 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Further, petitioner pleaded guilty to one of the violations charged, and thus there is no merit to his contention that the Division of Parole failed to meet its burden of establishing the violation by a preponderance of the evidence to warrant revocation of his parole *(see*9 NYCRR 8005.20 [b]; *Matter of Montanez v New York State Div. of Parole,*227 AD2d 753, 753-754, *lv denied*88 NY2d 814; *cf. Matter of McCloud v New York State Div. of Parole,*277 AD2d 627, 628, *lv denied*96 NY2d 702; *Matter of Carney v New York State Div. of Parole,*244 AD2d 746, 746). Petitioner has failed to specify the parole violations with which he was originally charged and the violations considered at the preliminary parole revocation hearing, nor does the record so specify. We therefore are unable to review the further contentions of petitioner that he was improperly confronted with additional charges at the preliminary parole revocation hearing without prior notice and that his sentence, which was the result of a plea bargain, was “arbitrary and improper” *(see generally People ex rel. Ayers v Lombard,*87 Misc 2d 355, 358-359, *affd*55 AD2d 1051, *lv denied*41 NY2d 804). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Burns, JJ.
Skip to Content
Release dates
About
Current release
*Other formats:*
 ASCII (48 KB)
PDF (115 KB)
CSV (103 KB)

----

**March 2010**

Section A
Section B

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable (CSV) format contain all available historical data.Section CReserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values   C.1. Non-real-estate Farm Lending Compared with a Year EarlierASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (17 KB)  C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next QuarterASCII (11 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.3. Indicators of Relative Credit AvailabilityASCII (12 KB)PDF (6 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (14 KB)  C.4. Average Fixed Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (10 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (6 KB)  C.5. Average Variable Interest Rates on Farm LoansASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (1 KB)  C.6. Trends in Farm Real Estate Values and Loan VolumeASCII (7 KB)PDF (4 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (12 KB)  C.7. Trends in Farm Income and ExpendituresASCII (4 KB)PDF (3 KB)Screen ReaderCSV (7 KB)Release dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (48 KB) |PDF (115 KB) |CSV (103 KB)
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: March 24, 2010**
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 29, 2022.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 29, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22A1115. SHELBY ELDER v. BEHAVORIAL HEALTH SERVICES OF SOUTH 

GEORGIA.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and 

jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

I, Steven Strasser, Chief Executive Officer of Power EfficiencyCorporation, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.              the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company forthe quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934(U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2.              the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

Date:  August 12, 2005

 
| BY:    | /s/ Steven Strasser     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Steven Strasser         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is notbeing filed as part of a separate disclosure document.

1

----