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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

443 

KA 11-01061 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TRACY L. JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L.

Michalski, A.J.), rendered July 14, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted sexual abuse in the

first degree. 

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 attempted sexual abuse in the first degree

(Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.65 [1]). We agree with defendant that his

waiver of the right to appeal is invalid. Supreme Court’s “brief

reference to the waiver of the right to appeal during the plea

colloquy was insufficient to establish that the waiver was a knowing

and voluntary choice” (People v Littleton, 62 AD3d 1267, 1268, lv

denied 12 NY3d 926). Thus, defendant’s challenge to the severity of

the sentence and his contention regarding ineffective assistance of

counsel are not encompassed by his waiver of the right to appeal. 

Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or

severe. To the extent that defendant’s contention that he was denied

effective assistance of counsel with respect to sentencing is not

forfeited by the plea (see People v Shubert, 83 AD3d 1577, 1578), it

is lacking in merit (see generally People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404). 

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 906**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry L. Stevens, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ TERRYL.STEVENS                                         |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry L. StevensVice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| August 9, 2007                                   |   |
#### T.V.W., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D09-3145.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 20, 2011.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

*1179Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tonja Rene Vickers, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.

KELLY, Judge.

T.V.W. appeals the trial court’s order withholding adjudication and placing him on probation for battery. The State correctly concedes that the trial court erred in finding T.V.W. guilty of battery as a permissive lesser-included offense to the charge of attempted robbery where the elements of the crime of battery were not charged in the petition for delinquency. *N.H.M. v. State,*974 So.2d 484, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Accordingly, we reverse the order withholding adjudication that finds T.V.W. guilty of battery and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

DAVIS and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1
                            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 Northfield Laboratories Inc.
on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven A. Gould,
M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., 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 results of
               operations of Northfield Laboratories Inc.


Date: January 14, 2003


/s/ STEVEN A. GOULD, M.D.
-------------------------
Steven A. Gould, M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
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

I, David M. Bronson, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended January 1, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David M. Bronson                                
|David M. Bronson                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

February 10, 2010
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry B. GIVENS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4225.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 21, 2000.

Decided Jan. 9, 2001.

*161Jeffrey L. Everhart, Rice & Everhart, Richmond, VA, for appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, John S. Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Jerry B. Givens appeals his criminal conviction for money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a) (1994). We affirm.

Givens raises two issues on appeal. First he contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his money laundering conviction. To sustain a conviction, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, must be sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. *Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). In making this assessment, the government is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the facts established to those sought to be established. *United States v. Tresvant,*677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir.1982). Our review of the record in light of this standard leads us to conclude that Givens’ conviction was supported by substantial evidence.

Givens next contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based upon his assertion that the Government committed a *Brady*violation. A defendant must prove three elements to establish a due process violation under *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963):(1) the prosecution withheld or suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence is favorable; and (3) the evidence is material to the defense. *Moore v. Illinois,*408 U.S. 786, 794-95, 92 S.Ct. 2562, 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972). Evidence is material when there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. *United States v. Bagley,*473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Givens has not met this standard and that the district court therefore did not err in denying his motion for a new trial on this basis.

Accordingly, we affirm Givens’ conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,023
<SECURITIES>                                    20,065
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       417
<INVENTORY>                                      5,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,601
<PP&E>                                           4,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,117
<SALES>                                         29,897
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,897
<CGS>                                           23,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    737
<INCOME-TAX>                                       180
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                557
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       557
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Michael WALDEN.

No. 2010-KP-0301.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div, F, No. 06F0415; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-272-KH.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      12,002,653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,333,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 21,370,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,558,730
<PP&E>                                       9,782,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             103,382,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,404,749
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     23,420
<COMMON>                                        31,958
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,095,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,827,294
<SALES>                                     42,727,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,727,862
<CGS>                                       27,918,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,918,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,366,675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,578,177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,135,186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,147,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,257,529
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   109,747
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)



</TABLE>
#### John KOSZOLA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D08-4225.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 13, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 2010.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Dea Abramschmitt, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, and John Kosz-ola, Downers Grove, Illinois, appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence in this appeal, which was brought pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). However, we remand,for correction of the judgment of conviction to reflect that the battery conviction was pursuant to section 784.03(1), not section 784.08(1), Florida Statutes. The judgment and orders of probation should also be corrected to reflect that appellant was found guilty after a jury trial, not that he entered a plea of guilty.

*333
      *Affirmed and remanded for correction of judgment and sentence.*

WARNER, POLEN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1722 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1722

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, as the ``Leonard W. Herman 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2007

 Mr. Wexler (for himself, Ms. Castor, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Miller 
of Florida, Mr. Crenshaw, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, 
    Mr. Buchanan, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Hastings of 
  Florida, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. 
Mahoney of Florida, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. 
 Mack, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Keller of Florida, 
 Mr. Stearns, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Mica, Mr. Young of 
  Florida, and Mr. Weldon of Florida) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, as the ``Leonard W. Herman 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LEONARD W. HERMAN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Leonard W. Herman Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Leonard W. 
Herman Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MEADOWRIDGE HEALTH SERVICES, L.L.C. v. Bryan BLANCHARD.

No. 2012-C-0561.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Blanchard, Bryan; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 103122; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0370.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61729-61730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25084]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

September 23, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1089-003.
    Applicants: Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Cheniere Creole Trail Pipeline, L.P. submits tariff 
filing per 154.203: 2nd Correction Compliance Filing to be effective 9/
30/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100922-5127.

[[Page 61730]]

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 4, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1235-001.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Empire Pipeline, Inc. submits tariff filing per 
154.203: Correction to ACA filing to be effective 10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/22/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100922-5099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 4, 2010.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment 
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all 
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e7a1a2b5a4a8898b8e8982b4929797889593a781829584c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9efecfbeae6c7c5c0c7ccfadcd9d9c6dbdde9cfccdbca87cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25084 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2000 and the Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the six months ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921112
<NAME> LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,655
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,306
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,079,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                 302,572
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,209,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,563,552
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    120,814
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,185,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,209,844
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,005
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,017
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,205
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             89,205
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,103)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    71,700
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06


</TABLE>