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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered on January 4, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]) and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of 6 to 18 years, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

*799Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
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 quarterly report of 24Holdings Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the "Report"),  I, Kirk M. Warshaw,  Chief
Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and

      (2)  The  information  contained  in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
           material respects,  the financial  condition and result of operations
           of the Company.

Dated: October 11, 2007

/s/ Kirk M. Warshaw
-------------------------------
Kirk M. Warshaw
Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  certification  has been  provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and  furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-22-00044-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.R., A CHILD

From the 21st District Court

Burleson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 30,068

ABATEMENT ORDER

We have received the clerk’s record in this proceeding. Upon its review, we have 

noted an issue that must be addressed because it relates to our jurisdiction as to one of 

the parties in the trial court proceeding. See TEX. R. APP P. 25.1(b).

A notice of appeal was filed on February 7, 2022 by attorney Paul K. Sweitzer,

counsel for the Unknown Father of the child. That notice of appeal had not been 

previously forwarded by the clerk to the Court of Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(f). 

The trial court signed two related orders on February 9, 2022. By sub-section 4.1 

of one of the orders, the trial court ordered,

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that PAUL SWEITZER earlier appointed to 

represent UNKNOWN FATHER is relieved of all duties based on a finding 

of good cause.” 
In the Interest of A.M.R. Page 2

On the same date, the trial court signed a separate order that granted Paul K. Sweitzer’s

motion to withdraw as counsel for the Unknown Father. Although the separate order 

has a space for the appointment of new counsel, the line where the name of the new 

counsel was to be inserted is blank. Both orders were subsequently filed in the trial court 

on February 11, 2022. A notice of appeal having been filed, but counsel having been 

allowed to withdraw for “good cause” and without the appointment of new counsel, we 

have an appeal in which we have no party with whom we can communicate and no 

attorney to represent that party. 

Accordingly, this proceeding is ABATED to the trial court to appoint counsel, 

within 7 days from the date of this Order, to proceed with the appeal as it relates to the 

appeal filed on behalf of the Unknown Father of the child. A supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the appointment of counsel must be filed within 14 days from the date of this 

Order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed March 4, 2022

[RWR]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANUHCO,
INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000719271
<NAME> ANUHCO, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            9021
<SECURITIES>                                      9957
<RECEIVABLES>                                    24975
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1188
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 52918
<PP&E>                                           43277
<DEPRECIATION>                                   19887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   86812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11048
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            76
<OTHER-SE>                                       74485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     86812
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                114883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   114037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1739
<INCOME-TAX>                                       887
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                852
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
#### Alphonse Linhart, Doing Business as Linhart Attachment Co., Plaintiff, *v.*Benjamin Parnes, Individually and as President of Local 150, United Mechanics Union, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, A. F. L. — C. I .O., et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 12, 1957.

*J. Kenneth O’Connor*for plaintiff.

*Harold I. Cammer*for defendants.

Irving L. Levey, J.

Motion for an injunction *pendente lite*is granted. The plaintiff has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Local 225, International Jewelry Workers Union, A. F. L. — 0.1. 0. The defendant union, Local 150, commenced picketing the plaintiff’s premises with a sign stating that the plaintiff is on strike. Thereafter the plaintiff received a letter from the National Labor Relations Board, indicating that a petition for certification was filed by Local 150. In view of the fact that the defendant has sought the offices of the National Labor Relations Board in having itself certified as the bargaining agent, it would appear that the picketing at the present time is for an improper purpose.

It is true that the effect of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act is to prevent courts from enjoining peaceful picketing. This proposition has been so stated in *Wood*v. *O’Grady*(307 N. Y. 532) wherein a union was permitted to picket for organizational purposes. The State courts, however, have always enjoined picketing where there has been a finding that the object of such picketing was not to organize employees, but to exert economic pressure upon the employer so that the *874employer will coerce his employees into joining a particular union *(Goodwins, Inc.*v. *Hagedorn,*303 N. Y. 300). Likewise, picketing to compel an employer to recognize a particular labor union while a Labor Relations Board has proceedings pending to determine which union shall be certified as a bargaining agent, will be enjoined *(Goodwins, Inc.*v. *Hagedorn, supra).*

Settle order.
TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.



Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: November 5, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    JEFFREY W. TAYLOR       
|                        |  |  |  | Jeffrey W. Taylor              
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer        
|                        |  | 
|Dated: November 5, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    BRUCE W.
TAYLOR         
|                        |  |  |  | Bruce W. Taylor                
|                        |  |  |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Taylor Capital Group, Inc. and will
be retained by Taylor Capital Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
INRAD, Inc.
                               181 Legrand Avenue
                               Northvale, NJ 07647
                                                                   exhibit 10.20
Mr. Peter Turnquest                                            December 31, 1998
Clarex Limited
P.O. Box N3016
Nassau, Bahamas

Dear Mr. Turnquest:

This letter is written to evidence the agreement between Inrad, Inc. (the
"Company") and you, with respect to your $100,000 principal sum plus $32,500 of
accrued interest to December 31, 1998 which the company presently owes you (the
Indebtedness) on your unsecured demand convertible note of September 27, 1995.

By signing below, you hereby agree that as payment for the entire amount of this
Indebtedness of $132,500 you will receive 132,500 shares of the Company's Common
Stock (the "Shares").

You further acknowledge that the Indebtedness represents the entire amount owed
to you by the Company for borrowed money as of the date hereof (as opposed to
compensation and benefits).

By signing below, you also represent to the Company that: ( i ) you are able to
bear the economic risk of the investment in the Shares, ( ii ) you recognize and
agree that the Shares have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended ( the "Act"), ( iii) you recognize and agree that you will be
required to continue to bear the risk of investment in the Shares for an
indefinite period, ( iv ) you recognize and agree that such Shares must be held
by you indefinitely unless a subsequent disposition is registered under the Act
or is exempted from registration under all applicable federal and state
securities laws, ( v ) you recognize and agree that the Company will enter stop
transfer notations in its records with respect to the stock certificates
representing the shares, ( vi ) you have knowledge and experience with respect
to the Company and its business and in financial and business affairs generally
so that you are capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective
investment; ( vii ) the Shares are being acquired for your own account for
investment purposes and not with the view of resale or distribution thereof by
you and (viii) you recognize and agree that a restrictive legend will be placed
on the certificates representing the Shares summarizing the restrictions on
transferability outlined above. At the request of Clarex, the Company will make
its best efforts to register the Shares, only if it qualifies to use Securities
and Exchange Commission Form S3.

Please confirm your acceptance of the terms of this letter by signing below.

Very truly yours,


James L. Greco
Chief Financial Officer

Agreed to as of the 31st day of December, 1998

Clarex Limited
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.51


                    FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE WATERS CORPORATION
              1996 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

                  WHEREAS, Waters Corporation (the "Company") has established
and maintains a deferred compensation plan for the benefit of non-employee
directors of the Company entitled the Waters Corporation 1996 Non-Employee
Director Deferred Compensation Plan (the "Plan").

                  WHEREAS, the Company has paid a stock dividend effective as of
June 10, 1999 ("Stock Dividend"), in the amount of one share of Common Stock for
each share of Common Stock issued and outstanding and held of record as of May
27, 1999, in connection with which Stock Dividend and pursuant to the Plan, the
Company has authorized that the aggregate number of shares of the Common Stock
that may be issued under the Plan be doubled.

                  WHEREAS, as of June 10, 1999, a total of 99,344 shares of the
Company's Common Stock were reserved for issuance pursuant to the Plan, and that
as a result of the Stock Dividend, such number of shares reserved for issuance
was doubled to 198,688 shares.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the power of amendment contained in
Section 6 of the Plan, the Company having heretofore taken all necessary action
to amend the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended, as follows:

         1.       The references to "One hundred thousand (100,000)" appearing
                  in each of the first two paragraphs of Section 7 of the Plan
                  are deleted and substituted therefor is the following: "Two
                  hundred thousand (200,000)."

         2.       The words "occurring after June 10, 1999," are to be inserted
                  on the second line of the third paragraph of Section 7, after
                  the words " and the like,".

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to
be signed on its behalf by its duly authorized representative this 10th day of
June 1999.

                                       WATERS CORPORATION

                                       By:  /s/ BRIAN K. MAZAR
                                           ---------------------------------


                                       Its: SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
                                           ---------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00362-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

7. SCOTT GOLDBERG,

Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Scott Goldberg’s Unopposed

Motion for Return of Passport filed August 4, 2015. The Court, having reviewed the

motion,

ORDERED that Defendant Scott Goldberg’s Unopposed Motion for Return of

Passport [ECF No. 452] is DENIED AS MOOT. After judgment was entered as to

Mr. Goldberg, his passport was surrendered by the Court to the United States

Department of State. (See Notice Regarding United States Passport for Criminal

Defendant, ECF No. 443.) Thus, the passport is no longer in the Court’s possession.

Dated: August 10, 2015

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00362-WYD Document 454 Filed 08/10/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02483-RPM

BENJAMIN VALDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

APOLLO GROUP, INC., an Arizona corporation,

INSIGHT SCHOOLS, INC., an Oregon corporation

d/b/a Insight School of Colorado and Insight School Colorado at Julesburg,

now a subsidiary of Iowa College Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation,

in turn a subsidiary of Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Pursuant to The Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, filed July 19, 2012 [37], it is

ORDERED that this civil action is dismissed with prejudice with each party to pay his

and its own costs and fees.

DATED: July 20th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/ Richard P. Matsch

_________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02483-RPM Document 38 Filed 07/20/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of US Unwired Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the Report), I, Jerry E. Vaughn, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Jerry E. Vaughn    
|Jerry E. Vaughn        
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|November 1, 2004
From:         Jack Keiser

Date:         April 12, 2000

Re:           Transition Bonus


As you know, Thermo Electron has undertaken an aggressive reorganization plan.
This restructuring is critical for the long term health and success of Thermo
Electron.

This transition will take up to two years to complete. To make the transition
successfully, it is important that we retain your services during this period.

To provide you with an incentive to support the company through this transition,
Thermo Electron is offering you a transition bonus equal to 100% of your annual
base salary. This bonus will be paid to you on July 1, 2001.

Since this bonus will be considered income it will be subject to appropriate
federal, state, city and other tax withholding requirements.

As always, your employment during this period will continue to be as an
employee-at-will. If you elect to leave the company voluntarily Prior to July 1,
2001 you will forfeit this bonus.

If your employment is terminated during this transition period without cause,
your transition bonus will be paid to you at that time.

Termination of your employment for cause during this period (e.g. for gross
personal misconduct, insubordination, misappropriation of funds, fraud,
dishonesty, gross neglect of or failure to perform the duties reasonably
required of you, or any conduct which is in willful violation of any applicable
law or regulation pertaining to Thermo Electron) will also result in the
forfeiture of this bonus.

You will also be paid a prorated portion of your annual reference bonus for the
time you have worked in 2001 at the time your employment is severed.


<PAGE>





This agreement supercedes the bonus offer made to you on January 18,2000 and
constitutes the entire agreement between us. That original bonus commitment is
now null and void.

I appreciate your past contributions to our company and look forward to working
with you as we reorganize our business to assure our future success. If you have
any questions regarding any of the terms of this agreement, please do not
hesitate to contact me.

Once you have read and understood the terms of this offer, please indicate your
agreement by signing below on the line above your typewritten name, make a copy
for your records and return the original document to Joe Momyer.





-------------------------------                  -----------------------
         Barry Lyons                                          Date
#### TOWNSHIP OF LANDIS, PROSECUTOR, v. DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS AND THE BOROUGH OF VINELAND, DEFENDANTS.

Submitted October 7, 1947

Decided November 13, 1947.

Before Justices Donges, Colie and Eastwood.

For the prosecutor, *Solve Tuso*and *Milstead & McElroy.*

For the defendant Borough of Vineland, *Philip L. Lipman*and *William J. Shepp.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Colie, J.

Defendant Borough of Vineland owns and operates an electric power plant located within the limits of the municipality. Certain of its poles, lines and equipment are within the limits of the adjoining Township of Landis to some of whose residents electrical energy is sold. The Township of Landis levied an assessment .of $350,000 for 1943 upon such poles, lines and equipment located within its borders. On appeal the Cumberland County Board of Taxation canceled the assessment and the Division of Tax Appeals on appeal to it affirmed the County Board’s decision. *Certiorari*was allowed to review the latter decision.

The statute here involved is *R. S.*54:4-3.3 reading, so far as pertinent: “the propert}' of the respective * * * taxing districts, when located therein and used for public purposes * * * shall be exempt from taxation * *

*311Although it argues that *R. S.*54:4-3.3 is constitutional, the prosecutor nevertheless contends that the tax should be upheld because the property is not “used for public purposes.” Assuming that *R. S.*54:4-3.3 is constitutional, in *Perth Amboy*v. *Barker,*74 *N. J. L.*127, this court held that the furnishing of a general water supply by a municipality is a public service and we are unable to find any distinguishing feature between the distribution of water and the distribution of electrical energy and therefore hold that in the present case the property sought to be taxed is “used for public purposes.” The attempt to base taxability upon the provisions of *R. S.*40:62 — 23 needs no discussion other than to point out that the statute relied upon is unrelated to the field of taxation.

The writ of *certiorari*is dismissed, with costs.