alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1356
KA 10-00460

PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICKEY WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered March 17, 2010 pursuant to the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. The order denied defendant’s application to be resentenced upon defendant’s 1995 conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and on the law and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying his application for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46, the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. We conclude that the record is insufficient to support the determination of Supreme Court that defendant was ineligible for resentencing on the ground that his 1976 conviction of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10) constituted an “exclusion offense” as defined in CPL 440.46 (5) (a) (i). We agree with defendant that the record fails to establish “the time of commission of the previous felony” and whether the court properly calculated the look-back period of 10 years as tolled by defendant’s periods of incarceration (CPL 440.46 [5] [a]). Although defendant failed to preserve those contentions for our review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]), we nevertheless exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Further, we are unable to conclude on the record before us whether defendant’s prior conviction of robbery in the second degree was a second violent felony offense rendering him ineligible for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 (5) (b). We therefore reverse the order, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine the date on which defendant committed the prior offense of robbery in the second degree and to-2- 1356
KA 10-00460

calculate the periods for which defendant was incarcerated after that offense in order to determine if that offense constituted an exclusion offense pursuant to CPL 440.46 (5) (a) (i). Upon remittal, the court must also determine whether that offense was a second violent felony offense that constitutes an exclusion offense pursuant to CPL 440.46 (5) (b).

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Written Statement
Pursuant To
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 The undersigned, Steven G. Murdock, the Chief Executive Officer of Meade
Instruments Corp. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, hereby
certifies that: (i) the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2004 of the
Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Date: May 28, 2004 By: /s/ Steven G. Murdock This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 147 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to exempt elementary and 

secondary schools from the fee imposed on employers filing petitions 

with respect to non-immigrant workers under the H–1B program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to exempt 

elementary and secondary schools from the fee imposed 

on employers filing petitions with respect to non-immigrant workers under the H–1B program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM FILING FEES FOR SCHOOLS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 214(c)(9)(A) of the Immi5 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(9)(A)) is 

6 amended by inserting ‘‘an employer that is a public or pri7 vate elementary or secondary school and’’ after ‘‘(exclud8 ing’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 147 IH

1 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub2 section (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act and shall apply to petitions filed under section 

4 214(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act on or 

5 after such date and before October 1, 2001. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### SOD FARM, L.L.C. v. LAKEWOOD DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.

No. 2011-CC-0585.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Lakewood Development L.L.C; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2008-12719; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2129.

Denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131789 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131789 

 COA: 267056 

St. Clair CC: 87-000121-FH 

DEBRA LYNN KING,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23 - 0356

______________________________________________________________________________ DONALD AARON HESSER, JR. , Petitioner and Appellant vs. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

______________________________________________________________________________

**Order Extending Deadline to File Opening Brief** 

______________________________________________________________________________ Upo n reviewing the Petitioner/Appellant’s Second Unopposed Motion to Extension of Deadline to Fil e Appellant’s Opening Brief, good cause exists to grant the motion. Pursuant to the authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until October 31 , 2023, to file and serve the opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 28 2023

09/28/2023 Case Number: DA 23-0356
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.32
-------------

     Amendment to the Faroudja, Inc. Performance Stock Option Plan, dated 
January 2, 1997 and amended on June 13, 1997 (the "1997 Plan"), approved at 
the Faroudja, Inc. Annual Meeting of Stockholders on June 10, 1998.
     
     Article III, Paragraph 3.1 of the 1997 Plan is amended and restated in 
its entirety, to read as follows:
     
     "3.1 NUMBER OF SHARES:  The total number of shares of Common Stock which 
are available for granting Options hereunder shall be one million one hundred 
and twenty-five thousand (1,125,000) (subject to adjustment as provided below 
in Section 3.3 and in Article VII hereof)."
     
     Article III of the 1997 Plan is amended by adding Paragraph 3.4, to read 
as follows:
     
     "3.4  LIMITATION ON GRANTS:  In no event shall Options be granted to any 
Grantee in any one fiscal year to purchase more than an aggregate of 500,000 
shares of Common Stock."
#### In re Michael R. BARK.

No. 2009-B-2300.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 22, 2009.

*902ORDER

Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension for Threat of Harm filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Michael R. Bark, Louisiana Bar Roll number 24014, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.2, pending further orders of this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may seek the appointment of a trustee(s) to protect the interests of respondent’s clients pursuant to the provisions of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 27, if appropriate.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately-

/s/ John L. Weimer

Justice, Supreme Court of Louisiana
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at December 31, 1999 and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Year Ended December 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001033643
<NAME>                 OCWEN ASSET INVESTMENT CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
<CURRENCY>                          USD

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1
<CASH>                           79,116
<SECURITIES>                    156,138
<RECEIVABLES>                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                          261,615
<DEPRECIATION>                   (9,011)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  688,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            21,190
<BONDS>                         306,404
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                      138,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    688,933
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                100,953
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 72,134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    746
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               46,823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (18,750)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (18,750)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    (18,750)
<EPS-BASIC>                        0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.00


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24369]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records Notices; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission published a document in the 
Federal Rgister of August 27, 2010, revising several of the notices 
that it is required to publish under the Privacy Act of 1974 to 
describe its systems of records about individuals. The document 
contained an incorrect change to one of the notices, FTC-I-1, System 
Name: Nonpublic Investigational and Other Nonpublic Legal Program 
Records. The heading under routine uses was improperly identified and 
this notice corrects that paragraphing error. We have also clarified 
that the records subject to this routine usage involve only the 
specific types of debt-related records as set out in the correction 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information 
should be addressed to Richard Gold, Attorney, Office of the General 
Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., H-576, 
Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3355.
    Correction: In the Federal Register of August 27, 2010, in FR Doc. 
2010-21318, on page 52750, in the second column, under FTC-I-1, System 
Name: Nonpublic Investigational and Other Nonpublic Legal Program 
Records, correct starting at the third line to read:

``Routine Uses Of Records Maintained In The System, Including 
Categories Of Users And The Purposes Of Such Uses:

* * * * *
    (5) Disclosed, to the extent that the records relate to a debt owed 
to the United States, through one or more of its departments and 
agencies; and/or States, territories and commonwealths of the United 
States, and the District of Columbia, for any other routine use set 
forth in the Government-wide system of records notice published for 
this system by the Department of Treasury, Financial Management System, 
see TREASURY/FMS.014, or any successor TREASURY/FMS system notice that 
may be published for this system (visit (http://www.ustreas.gov) for 
more information).''

David C. Shonka,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-24369 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
#### STATE ex rel. David JOHNSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2471.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Johnson, David; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 4, No. 219,715; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46-012-KH.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Raymond BLACHER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0786.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Blacher, Raymond; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 4-99-795; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0047.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172. Cf. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).
#### Mark JONES and Misty Foxworth, individually and on behalf of their minor child, Abigail Foxworth Jones v. BELLELO’S FURNITURE AND APPLIANCE, INC. and Whalen Furniture Manufactory, Inc.—Rita Akehurst and David Bravo.

No. 2011-CC-1632.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Foxworth, Misty; Jones, Mark et al.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of W. Baton Rouge, 18th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 35,419; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0720.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          52,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,734
<PP&E>                                         106,378
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 383,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,089,524
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,258
<OTHER-SE>                                   (710,997)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   383,764
<SALES>                                         90,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,194
<CGS>                                           18,252
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,056,685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,014,593)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,014,593)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,014,593)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Cresud S.A.C.I.F. y A (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Alejandro G. Elsztain, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 and 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.





Cresud S.A.C.I.F y A.October 30, 2013
By:
/s/ Alejandro G. ElsztainAlejandro G. ElsztainChief Executive Officer


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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1442 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

to eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for discretionary appropriations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2007 

Mr. GOHMERT (for himself, Mr. HENSARLING, Ms. FOXX, Mr. CULBERSON, 

Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. AKIN, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. 

FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. HALL of 

Texas, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. TERRY, and Mr. SENSENBRENNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to eliminate automatic increases for 

inflation from CBO baseline projections for discretionary 

appropriations, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Zero Baseline Budget 

5 Act of 2007’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1442 IH

1 SEC. 2. CHANGES IN THE BASELINE. 

2 Section 257(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emer3 gency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended— 

4 (1) in the second sentence of paragraph (1), by 

5 striking everything that follows ‘‘current year,’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘excluding resources designated as an 

7 emergency requirement and any resources provided 

8 in supplemental appropriation laws.’’; 

9 (2) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and 

10 (5); 

11 (3) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para12 graph (2); and 

13 (4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol14 lowing new paragraph: 

15 ‘‘(3) NO ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—No 

16 adjustment shall be made for inflation or for any 

17 other factor.’’. 

18 SEC. 3. EXTENSION. 

19 The second sentence of section 275(b) of the Bal20 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

21 is amended by inserting ‘‘other than subsections (a) 

22 through (d) of section 257’’ after ‘‘title’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
financial statements of Summit Properties Partnership L.P. for the year ended
December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 
financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                 0001034235        
<NAME>     Summit                   
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2,837
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         1,206,536
<DEPRECIATION>                                 115,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,199,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        726,703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     416,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,199,067
<SALES>                                        145,656
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,569
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  51,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             33,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                66,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            66,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                594
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   65,881    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  2.26

        


</TABLE>
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
   EMPLOYMENT
  POSITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
  TERMS AND DUTIES
 Period of Employment
  Duties




---



##### 



COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
 Compensation
  Base Salary
   Annual Incentive Awards
  Additional Benefits
  2




---



##### 



BUSINESS EXPENSES
  DISABILITY
    DEATH
  3




---



##### 



EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
 th rd
      4




---



##### 



Stock Option Repurchase
  OTHER DUTIES OF THE EXECUTIVE DURING  AND AFTER THE PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT
    5




---



##### 



INDEMNIFICATION, LITIGATION
  CHANGE IN CONTROL
  6




---



##### 



PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING  THE APPLICATION OF CODE SECTION 409A
  7




---



##### 



WITHHOLDING TAXES
  EFFECTIVE PRIOR AGREEMENTS
  CONSOLIDATION, MERGER OR SALE OF ASSETS
  MODIFICATION
  GOVERNING LAW; ARBITRATION
   8




---



##### 



NOTICES
    BINDING AGREEMENT
   ADVOCAT INC.By:
    /s/ William R. Council, IIIWilliam R. Council, IIITitle:
    President and Chief Executive OfficerEXECUTIVE:/s/ William David HoughtonWilliam David Houghton 9