alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1025

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Gary Alan Lynch, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 2008 Filed: May 9, 2008

___________ Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gary Alan Lynch challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. On appeal , he argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because it did not determine that prison was the most effective means of treatment for his s ubstance abuse problem, and because his 12- month prison sentence is “greater than n ecessary” to meet the statutory goals of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).-2- The district court is not required to explicitly state that prison was the most effective means of treating Lynch’s medical needs. See United States v. White Face , 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district c ourt need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release; all that is required is evidence that court has considered relevant matters and that some reason be stated for its deci sion; if sentencing j udge refers to some considerations contained in § 3553(a), appe llate court is ordinarily satisfied that district court was aware of entire contents of relevant statute). We conclude that Lynch’s se ntence is not unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), (h) (authorizing up to 2-year prison term upon revocation of supervised release where original offe nse was Class C felony; court may also order subsequent supervised release for term not to exceed term of supervised release authorized by statute for original offense minus any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation); United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825-26 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (court reviews revocation sentences under “unreasonableness” standard announced in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 258-63 (2005)). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1370 KA 13-01198**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES L. LINDSAY, III, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID W. FOLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MAYVILLE (JOSEPH M. CALIMERI OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Chautauqua County Court (John L. LaMancuso, A.J.), rendered June 13, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of, inter alia, reckless endangerment in the first degree and driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor (2 counts).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and two counts of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in denying his pro se motion to withdraw his plea without conducting an adequate inquiry. The record establishes that the court afforded defendant the requisite “reasonable opportunity to present his contentions” ( People v Tinsley , 35 NY2d 926, 927; see People v Carter-Doucette , 124 AD3d 1323, 1324, lv denied 25 NY3d 988), and properly denied the motion inasmuch as defendant’s “claims were conclusory and unsubstantiated” ( People v Temple , 89 AD3d 644, 644, lv denied 19 NY3d 968). We also reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in failing to assign him new counsel before making that determination. “[T]he record belies defendant’s contention that defense counsel took a position adverse to that of defendant in his pro se motion to withdraw the plea, and thus there was no reason for the court to assign new counsel” ( People v Rossborough , 105 AD3d 1332, 1333, lv denied 21 NY3d 1045).
Finally, we conclude that defendant’s sentence is not unduly**-2- 1370 KA 13-01198** 

harsh or severe.

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 4.5




EXHIBIT 4.5
AGREEMENT TO FURNISH DEBT INSTRUMENTS 
Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, AutoGenomics, Inc. (the “Company”) has not included as an exhibit to its registration statement on Form S-1 any instrument with respect to long-term debt if the total amount of debt authorized by such instrument does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Company. The Company agrees to furnish a copy of any such instrument to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request. 
 
	
	
	AutoGenomics, Inc.

	 

	/s/ John Zacamy

	John Zacamy
Chief Financial Officer 

	October 7, 2014
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 4.5

(incorporated  by reference from  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 3, 2003)





                                       14
<PAGE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAYMOND LABADIE.

April 18, 1978.

Petition- for certification denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 2

- 00 617

- CR

Rhett Webster Pease , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. 586435 , HONORABLE GISELA D. TRIANA , JUDGE PRESIDING

Rhett Webster Pease filed a A notice of interlocutory appeal @ seeking a determination by this

Court as to A

whether or not the county court [at law] has any jurisdiction in this matter, @ a prosecution for
resisting arrest. The notic e states that the specific issue Pease seeks to address by this interlocutory appeal

is A whether or not de

- facto officers can charge defendant with resisting arrest without warrant supported by

affidavit. @
Courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals unless that
jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law. Apolinar v. State , 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). There is no statutory provision granting a right to appeal the matter at issue here before a final
judgment has been rendered.2 The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

David Puryear, Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Filed: October 17, 2002

Do Not Publish
News United States Air Force
 President lands at Little Rock AFB to view Arkansas tornado damagePublished May 8, 2014
                        
                        By Senior Airman Kaylee Clark
                        
                        
                        19th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASE, Ark. (AFNS) --**
                President Barack Obama landed here, May 6, to tour the local communities damaged by the April 27 tornado.
In his first visit to the state as president, Obama met with victims, local officials and emergency personnel.
"When something happens like this to a community, it happens to all of us," said Obama, during his address to community members in Vilonia.
At least 15 people were killed in Vilonia, White County and Faulkner County. The tornado ripped through Vilonia and Mayflower around 7 p.m. on a Sunday evening, injuring dozens more and destroying multiple homes.
"The folks here are tough, and they look out for each other," he said.
The president spoke with survivors of the tornado and said that although the loss of infrastructure and material things is important, the incident reminds us that nothing is more important than family.
"I could not be more impressed by the spirit of the community that's here," Obama said. "This is a testament to the strength of the community, the state of Arkansas and America."
He also heard concerns of the governor and local officials on the loss of up 85 percent of business in Vilonia.
The National Weather Service announced the final rating as a "high end" EF-4 with winds estimated between 180 and 190 mph. The tornado was reportedly at its strongest in downtown Vilonia.
The President declared a major disaster in the state of Arkansas and ordered federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the area. The severe weather that hit Arkansas was part of a complex of storms that killed at least 35 across the plains and South.
Members of the Arkansas National Guard were mobilized to support the communities of Vilonia and Mayflower April 28. The Guard members assisted local authorities with traffic control, search and rescue, and medical evacuation as well as delivering fresh water trailers to support the needs of local residents and the vast number of volunteers.
The Little Rock Air Force Base Airmen and family readiness center stood up a donation center to collect bottled water, clothing, and other items to assist Airmen and families affected by the tornado.
Vilonia and Mayflower are approximately 20 miles away from Little Rock AFB.President Barack Obama 



tornado 



Little Rock Air Force Base
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 435 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall on December 2, 

2008, for ceremonies and activities held in connection 

with the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center to the 

public. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Emancipation Hall may be used on De3 cember 2, 2008, for ceremonies and activities held in con4 nection with the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center to 

5 the public. Physical preparations for such ceremonies and 

6 activities shall be carried out in accordance 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

HCON 435 RDS 

1 with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may 

2 prescribe. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 

2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
#### J. J. Williams v. The G., C. & St. Fe R. R. Co.

(No. 2568, R. Book No. 4, p. 309.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 312. *Damages against railroad company for obstructing public street and preventing free ingress and egress to adjacent lot; charge of the court.*Where the court charged the jury, “If, from the evidence, you believe that the *132plaintiff was the owner and in possession of said lot, and that the same abutted upon a public street in the city of Fort Worth, and that the defendant, without the consent of the plaintiff, constructed its said road along such street in such a manner as to prevent its use as a street, and that plaintiff was thereby deprived of access to his said property, you should find for the plaintiff such an amount as the proof shows he has been damaged, if any, estimating such damages at the difference in its value with the said means of ingress and egress and its value without the same. You are further instructed that, if you believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of said lot, and that the defendant, without his consent, entered upon said lot and placed thereon any dirt, rock or embankment, then you should find for the plaintiff such an amount as the proof shows the plaintiff to have been damaged, if any. If you find, from the evidence, that no rock or dirt was placed by defendant on said lot, and that the use of said street by defendant does not deprive plaintiff of the means of ingress and egress to and from his said premises, then you should find for the *defendant,”*— held, that this charge was, no doubt, inspired by the opinion of the supreme court in H. & T. C. R. R. Co. v. Odum, 53 Tex. 243, which decision was made with reference to the constitution of 1869, which provided that no person’s property should be taken or applied to the public use without just compensation made. [Const. 1860, Bill of Rights, sec. 14.]

Our bill of rights, section 17 of the present constitution, provides that “no person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for, or applied to public use, without adequate compensation being made.” The word “ *dam*aged” very much enlarges the protection to property. It includes not only property actually taken *for*public use, but also that which has been damaged by such use, although' not taken. [G. C. & St. Fe R. R. Co. v. Graves (Ct. App.), *post,*p. 301; citing Johnson v. City of. *133Parkersburg, 16 W. Va. 402; Pekin v. Brereton, 67 Ill. 377; City of Shawneetown v. Mason, 82 Ill. 337; City of Elgin v. Eaton, 83 Ill. 535.]

April 25, 1883.

§ 313. *Damages; not limited to entire destruction of the easement.*A charge which limits or restricts plaintiff’s right of recovery to the entire destruction of his easement in the street upon which his lot abutted is erroneous. See the whole subject, ably and elaborately discussed, in The New York Elevated Street Railway cases, decided since the decision of this court in the Graves case, *supra.*

Reversed and remanded.
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Ravalli County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Hamilton, Montana. The purpose of the meeting is assigning monitor's contacts.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held September 28, 2010.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be held at 1801 N. First Street. Written comments should be sent to Stevensville RD, 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to                         *dritter@fs.fed.us*                         or via facsimile to 406-777-5461.                    

All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at 88 Main Street, Stevensville, MT 59870. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 406-777-5461 to facilitate entry into the building.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan Ritter or Nancy Trotter, 406-777-5461. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by September 24, 2010 will have the opportunity to address the Council at those sessions.

Dated: September 13, 2010.

Julie K. King,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2010-23302 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            4302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,976
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,547
<PP&E>                                         139,497
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 244,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   244,840
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               199,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,790
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                18,838
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,403
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,346
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,057
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,057
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80


</TABLE>
#### ARISTO-MANIS CORP. v. STRATOS DINERS LTD. AND 246 WANAQUE AVENUE, INC.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

**List of Subsidiaries**

 

Xijiao International Limited (Cayman Islands)

 

Xijiao Hong Kong Limited (Hong Kong)

 

Digital Li-Ning Company Limited (Cayman Islands)

 

2020 GlobalGrowth Equities Limited (Cayman Islands)

 

2020 Global Investments LLC (Delaware)

 

Acquity Group LLC (Delaware)

 

Cool Sports (BVI) Limited (British Virgin Islands)

 

Cool Sports (HK) Limited (Hong Kong)

 

Huaren Kudong Commercial Trading Co., Ltd (PRC)

 

Acquity Group Luxembourg, S.à.r.l. (Luxembourg)

 

Acquity Group Consulting CAN, Inc. (Canada)

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         384,881
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,446,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                   207,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,385,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,641,984
<PP&E>                                      27,107,142
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,095,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,720,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,589,262
<BONDS>                                      8,223,878
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,673
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,951,102
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,720,489
<SALES>                                     34,660,338
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,660,338
<CGS>                                       29,506,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,271,891
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,475,120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,125,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,125,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,125,782)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)


</TABLE>
422 A.2d 1162

#### Commonwealth v. Rodgers, Appellant.

*623Submitted April 12, 1979.

Paulette J. Balogh, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Robert L. Eberhardt, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23509]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending September 4, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0223.
    Date Filed: September 3, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 24, 2010.
    Description: Joint Application of ASTAR Air Cargo, Inc. (``ASTAR'') 
and ASTAR USA, LLC (``AUSA'') requesting the transfer from ASTAR to 
AUSA of ASTAR's certificates of public convenience and necessity 
authorizing ASTAR to engage in interstate and foreign all cargo 
scheduled air transportation.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010- 0225.
    Date Filed: September 2, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 23, 2010.
    Description: Joint Application of Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. 
(``ASA'') and ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. (``ExpressJet'') (together, the 
``Joint Applicants'') requesting approval of the de facto transfer of 
ExpressJet's international route authority, consisting of U.S.-Mexico 
designations, to ASA. In addition, the Joint Applicants ask the 
Department to approve the eventual de jure transfer that will occur 
when ExpressJet and ASA merge as anticipated.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-23509 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P