alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Martin L. Syczyk, Defendant.

County Court, Nassau County,

January 25,1957.

*Martin L. Syczyk,*defendant in person.

*Frank A. Gulotta, District Attorney,*for plaintiff.

*522Cyril J. Brown, J.

Defendant, presently serving a sentence in Sing Sing prison, moves for resentence, requesting that he receive credit for the time served in the Nassau County jail between his apprehension and his release following sentence. Defendant was taken into custody on May 13,1952 and remanded to the county jail where he remained until sentencing on October 17, 1952. On the later date the court imposed a sentence of 5 to 10 years in Sing Sing prison, suspended the execution thereof, and placed the defendant on probation for the maximum period. Subsequently, defendant was found to have violated his probation and on September 8, 1955 was sentenced to 5 to 10 years in Sing Sing prison. Application is now made that credit be given for the time served in the county jail from May 13 to October 17, of 1952.

Section 2193 of the Penal Law of the State of New York provides: “ Any time spent by a person convicted of a crime in a prison or jail prior to his conviction and before sentence has been pronounced upon him, shall become and be calculated as a part of the term or sentence imposed upon him ”.

The District Attorney argues that the time spent by a person convicted of a crime in a prison means the time he was detained in regard to the conviction or judgment under which he is presently detained. Accordingly, he contends that the motion should be denied since defendant’s detention in 1952 does not relate to the conviction or judgment under which he is presently being detained. This court cannot agree with this contention. In *People*v. *Kowalsky*(2 A D 2d 938) the court interpreted section 2193 as meaning that the provision for credit “ obviously refers to time so spent upon the charge of the crime for which the conviction in,question was had.” Violation of probation does not constitute a separate and independent crime, but is merely a breach of probationary rules and conditions which enables the court to review, modify, or otherwise alter its original sentence *(People ex rel. Wilson*v. *Additon,*40 N. Y. S. 2d 669). Here the sentence to a term in Sing Sing prison after the violation of probation by the defendant constituted a revocation of the original sentence. The crime for which the defendant was sentenced and is now being detained is the crime for which he was originally apprehended on May 13,1952. Defendant is therefore entitled to credit for the time spent in the county jail (Penal Law, § 2193). The motion for resentence is accordingly granted.

Submit order.
#### GILLETTE RUBBER CO. v. Adolph L. MARTIN et al.

No. 6325.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 19, 1937.

Alfred Beck, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.

Harold M. Wilkie, of Madison, Wis., and S. E. Quindry, of Chicago, 111., for appellees.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges and LINDLEY, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the decree of the said District Court in this cause appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**
I, William C. Kurtz, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b.  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluations; and  c.  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 a.  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b.  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.       Date:July 13, 2005 By: /s/ William C. Kurtz           William C. Kurtz     Senior Vice President and Treasurer     (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacityand on the date listed below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

ThisCertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, andItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933,as amended, and shall not be deemed part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date:  May 13, 2005 |                                                         |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   /s/  Elliott Balbert                             |   |
|                |   Elliott  Balbert                                 |
|                |   President,  Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |
|                |   (Principal  Executive Officer)                   |

 

----
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 9, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.229 Total Miscellaneous Financial Claims** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Civil Action: 11-cv-02638-MSK-CBS FTR - Reporter Deck-Courtroom A402

Date: February 13, 2012 Courtroom Deputy: Robin Mason

Parties: Counsel:

MARGARET PURNELL,

Plaintiff,

Keith Alan Gantenbein , Jr. 

v.

AMERIFIRST FINANCIAL, INC., an

Arizona Corporation doing business as

Amerifirst Financial Mortgage Bank,

AMERIFIRST MORTGAGE, LLC, an

Arizona Limited Liability Company,

ERIC M. BOWLBY, doing business as

Amerifirst Financial,

MICHAEL J. WANSTEN, individually, and

KATHY KLADNIK-SCHELLHAS,

individually, also known as Kathy Schellhas;

John and Janes Does 1-15, XYZ Corporations

1-15, and ABC Limited Liability Companies

1-15, 

Defendants.

Paul Gordon 

COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER

HEARING: MOTION HEARING

Court in Session: 1:27 p.m.

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

Discussion regarding plaintiff’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Docket No. 10, filed on

11/6/2011), defendant’s Response to #10 Motion to Remand to State Court filed (Docket No. 14,

filed on 11/30/2011), and plaintiff’s Reply to Response to #10 Motion to Remand to State Court

(Docket No. 19, filed on 12/14/2011).

The counsel for the plaintiff presents oral argument to court. The court questions Mr. Gantenbein.

Mr. Gantenbein requests to have a short recess to confer with his client. Court grants oral motion

for a recess.
Court in recess: 1:58 p.m.

Court in session: 2:07 p.m.

Mr. Gantenbein informs the court that his client would like to withdraw her Motion to Remand to

State Court (Docket No. 10, filed on 11/6/2011). 

ORDERED: The court will allow the plaintiff to WITHDRAW Motion to Remand to State Court

(Docket No. 10, filed on 11/6/2011).

HEARING CONCLUDED.

Court in recess: 2:13 p.m.

Total time in court: 00:46

To order transcripts of hearings with Magistrate Judge Shaffer, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303)

825-6119 or toll free at 1-800-962-3345.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 197 (Thursday, October 9, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23917]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 8073]


Income, Excise, and Estate and Gift Taxes; Effective Dates and 
Other Issues Arising Under the Employee Benefit Provisions of the Tax 
Reform Act of 1984; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to temporary regulations 
(TD 8073) that were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, 
February 4, 1986 (51 FR 4312) relating to effective dates and certain 
other issues arising under sections 91, 223, and 511-561 of the Tax 
Reform Act of 1984. This action is necessary because of changes to the 
applicable tax law made by the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The temporary 
regulations will affect qualified employee benefit plans, welfare 
benefit funds and employees receiving benefits through such plans.

DATES: This correction is effective October 9, 2008, and is applicable 
after December 31, 1985.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa A. D'Ambrose, (202) 622-6080 
(not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The temporary regulations that are the subject of this document are 
under sections 72, 79, 125, 133, 402, 404, 419, 461, 463, 505, 512, and 
1042 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, temporary regulations (TD 8073) contain an error that 
may prove to be misleading and is in need of clarification.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Correction of Publication

0
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following 
correcting amendment:

PART 1--INCOME TAXES

0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read, in 
part, as follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *


0
Par. 2. Section 1.512(a)-5T A-3: (b) is amended by revising the second 
sentence to read as follows:


Sec.  1.512(a)-5T  Questions and answers relating to the unrelated 
business taxable income of organizations described in paragraphs (9), 
(17) or (20) of section 501(c) (temporary).

* * * * *
    A-3: * * *
    (b) * * * For purposes of section 512(a)(3)(B), member 
contributions include both employee contributions and employer 
contributions to the VEBA, SUB, or GLSO.
* * * * *

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E8-23917 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A2102. ANTHONY JACKSON v. THE STATE.

Anthony Jackson was convicted of multiple offenses, including two counts of

aggravated assault. We affirmed his convictions and sentence on appeal. Jackson v.

State, 316 Ga. App. 588 (730 SE2d 69) (2012). Since then, Jackson has filed

numerous pro se motions, including a motion to amend sentence computation and a

motion for out-of-time appeal of a void sentence. The trial court denied both of those

motions, and Jackson filed this appeal.

1

 We, however, lack jurisdiction.

First, asto Jackson’smotion to amend the computation of hissentence, Jackson

must seek relief from the Department of Corrections, not from the trial court. See

Cutter v. State, 275 Ga. App. 888, 890 (2) (622 SE2d 96) (2005). Dissatisfaction

with that relief may be asserted in a mandamus or injunction action against the

Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, or in a petition for habeas corpus. 

See id.; Maldonado v. State, 260 Ga. App. 580, 581 (580 SE2d 330) (2003).

Jackson’s second motion also cannot give rise to a valid appeal. A direct

appeal may lie from an order denying or dismissing a motion to vacate a void

sentence, but only if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in

fact, void. See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 217 n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg

v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). A sentence is void only if

it imposes punishment that the law does not allow. Crumbley v. State, 261 Ga. 610,

611 (1) (409 SE2d 517) (1991). “Motions to vacate a void sentence generally are

1

Jackson also filed an application for discretionary review, which we

dismissed. See Case No. A17D0187 (decided December 13, 2016).

September 13, 2018
limited to claimsthat – even assuming the existence and validity of the conviction for

which the sentence was imposed – the law does not authorize that sentence, most

typically because it exceeds the most severe punishment for which the applicable

penal statute provides.” Von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 572 (2) (748 SE2d 446)

(2013).

Here, Jackson claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and

that the sentencing court improperly considered his prior convictions when imposing

his sentence. Neither of these claims are arguments that his sentence exceeds the

maximum allowed by law. Accordingly, they are not valid void-sentence claims.

For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

09/13/2018
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3972

___________

Jeffrey Dean Vogt, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Lawrence E. Barrett, Judge; Timothy * District Court for the

F. Dunning, Sheriff; W. H. Jackson, * District of Nebraska.

Deputy; Howard, Unknown, Badge *

# 1037, Omaha Police Dept. Firearms * [UNPUBLISHED]

Division; Greg Clemens, Deputy; C. J. *

Molek, Badge # 1111 Omaha Police *

Dept. Firearms Division, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 29, 1999

 Filed: May 4, 1999

___________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Dean Vogt appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which

he raised various claims relating to a search and seizure, and his subsequent contacts

with law enforcement officers. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’
1The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

-2-

briefs, we conclude the district court1 properly dismissed the claims against Judge

Lawrence E. Barrett and granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining

defendants.

Accordingly we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.01

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 Sbarro, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Beaudrault, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: May 13, 2009



|                                                                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Peter Beaudrault                                                                                                    
|Peter Beaudrault Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

NOTE: 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND FROM THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         414,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  347,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,551
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      13,801,251
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,507,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,406,286
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     11,236,625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,917,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,406,286
<SALES>                                      3,544,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,577,554
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,416,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             940,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (46,181)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (46,181)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (46,181)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THE PARTNERSHIP HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET; THEREFORE, THE VALUE
IS $0.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 18
May 6, 1999


Spalding Holdings Corporation
425 Meadow Street
Chicopee, MA  01021-0901


At your request, we have read the description included in your Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter
ended April 3, 1999, of the facts relating to the Company's change in its method
of inventory valuation from the Last-in, First-out (LIFO) method to the
First-in, First-out (FIFO) method. We believe, on the basis of the facts so set
forth and other information furnished to us by appropriate officials of the
Company, that the accounting change described in your Form 10-Q is to an
alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.

We have not audited any consolidated financial statements of Spalding Holdings
Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any period
subsequent to December 31, 1998. Therefore, we are unable to express, and we do
not express, an opinion on the facts set forth in the above mentioned Form 10-Q,
on the related information furnished to us by officials of the Company, or on
the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of Spalding
Holdings Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries as of any date or for any
period subsequent to December 31, 1998.


Your truly,


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
#### Math, alias Matthew, ZACKERY v. STATE.

4 Div. 137.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 30, 1935.

Harry Adams, of Enterprise, for appellant.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, Judge.

On conviction the defendant was fined $50, for which he was sentenced twenty days and the court fixed an additional punishment of five months’ hard labor. There is no definite sentence .to pay the costs and that part of the sentence is void. There is no error of a reversible nature in the record, and the judgment and sentence fixing the punishment at five months and twenty days is in all things affirmed.

Affirmed,