alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Craig A. Eaton, Appellant, v Avrahom Y. Rosenberg et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 52]—

*771In related proceedings, which were consolidated into a single proceeding, pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate the petitions designating certain of the respondents as candidates in a primary election to be held on September 10, 2013, for the party positions of Male and Female Members of the Republican County Committee from the 45th, 50th, 52nd, 54th, and 55th Assembly Districts, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated August 9, 2013, which granted the motions of the respondent candidates to dismiss the underlying petitions on the ground that the petitioner lacked standing to commence the underlying proceedings and, in effect, dismissed the consolidated proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In answering the underlying petitions in this consolidated proceeding, counsel for the respondent candidates (hereinafter the candidates) asserted as an affirmative defense that the petitioner, as Kings County Republican County Chairman, lacked standing to commence the underlying proceedings pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 (1). Counsel for the candidates then moved on behalf of the candidates to dismiss the underlying petitions on that ground. The petitioner conceded that he lacked standing to commence the underlying proceedings pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 (1). However, he argued that, despite the fact that the candidates had served answers, they were in default because counsel did not have the authority to interpose answers on their behalf, and that counsel did not have the authority to move to dismiss the underlying petitions on behalf of the candidates. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s arguments and granted the candidates’ motions to dismiss the underlying petitions on the ground that the petitioner lacked standing.

The Supreme Court properly granted the candidates’ motions to dismiss the underlying petitions on the ground that the petitioner lacked standing. As the petitioner correctly concedes, he did not have standing to commence the underlying proceedings pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 (1) *(see*Election Law § 16-102; *Matter of Levine v Turco,*43 AD3d 618 [2007]; *Matter of Maltese v Anderson,*264 AD2d 457 [1999]; *Matter of D’Alvia v DiGiacomo,*175 AD2d 891 [1991]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the counsel who appeared before the Supreme Court and filed answers on behalf of the candidates had the authority to represent all of the candidates in the consolidated proceeding and to move on their behalf to dismiss the underlying petitions *772(see *generally Hamilton v Wright,*37 NY 502, 505 [1868]; *Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Is.,*108 AD2d 218, 225-226 [1985], *affd*67 NY2d 792 [1986]; *Buxbaum v Assicurazioni Generali,*34 NYS2d 480, 482 [1942], *affd*264 App Div 855 [1942]). Balkin, J.P., Austin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kashone Cooks, Appellant.

[966 NYS2d 211]

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), rendered January 11, 2012, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discre*735tion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s motions to withdraw his plea of guilty. The defendant’s unsupported and conclusory allegations that defense counsel failed to investigate and uncover potentially exculpatory evidence did not warrant the vacatur of his plea of guilty (see *People v Maye,*64 AD3d 617, 618 [2009]; *People v Mitchell,*187 AD2d 676 [1992]; *People v Bourdonnay,*160 AD2d 1014, 1015 [1990]).

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily entered because he was not advised, at the time he entered his plea, that he would be assessed a mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee, and DNA databank fee, and that a DNA sample would be taken, is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Murray,*15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]) and, in any event, without merit, since those assessments were not components of the defendant’s sentence *(see People v Hoti,*12 NY3d 742, 743 [2009]; *People v Guerrero,*12 NY3d 45 [2009]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions rest on matter dehors the record and therefore cannot be reviewed on direct appeal *(see People v Maye,*64 AD3d at 618; *People v DeLuca,*45 AD3d 777 [2007]). Skelos, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Krish A. Prabhu, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Krish Prabhu       
|Krish Prabhu           
|Chief Executive Officer
|Date: May 9, 2007      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.



25
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Delossantos, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 892]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lorenzo, J.), rendered September 18, 2012, convicting him of attempted identity theft in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v Califor-*

*736
      *nia,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
**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**

I, Jeffrey S. Ward, Chairman andChief Executive Officer of Anchor Pacific Underwriters, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| (1)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2002 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| (2)                   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                        |

Dated:   November 21, 2002

|  | /s/   Jeffrey S. Ward |
|--|--------------------------------------|
|  |                                      |
|  | Jeffrey S. Ward                      |
|  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

                 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (No. 333-60350) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-30862, 333-47002, 333-47008,
333-48430, 333-75710 and 333-75712) of Choice One Communications Inc. and
subsidiaries of our report dated March 25, 2004 (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to a going
concern uncertainty and a change in the Company's method of accounting for
goodwill and other intangible assets to conform to Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" and
accounting for redeemable preferred stock to conform to statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 150, "Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with
Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity") relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Choice One Communications Inc. and subsidiaries as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2003, appearing in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Choice One Communications Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Rochester, New York
March 30, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Nathan Lee FOSTER, a/k/a Plum, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-6174.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 22, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 17, 2006.

Nathan Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Winnie Jordan Reaves, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Nathan Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. An-gelone,*369 F.3d 363, 367-69 (4th Cir.2004). *509A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
1

 Because summonses for jurors must be sent out seven to eight weeks in advance of jury

selection, the court cannot wait to see how many of the co-defendants in this case may opt to

enter guilty pleas. Today’s date is seven and a half weeks in advance of jury selection, and the

court must therefore decide the motion on the information extant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL NO. 06-00176-08-CG

)

KEVIN JAVON MOORE, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for a trial in the Northern Division 

of the Southern District of Alabama, at Selma, with a jury drawn from the qualified jury wheel of

the Northern Division. (Doc. 146) As grounds, the defendant asserts that the defendant is a

resident of that division, the offense alleged took place in that division, and the co-defendants are

believed to be residents of that division.

There is no right to have a criminal trial in a particular division of a district, or to have

one’s jury selected from jurors from a particular division. However, upon timely application the

district court may, in its discretion, grant such a request. See United States v. Burns, 662 F.2d

1378, 1382 (11th Cir. 1981) and FED.R.CRIM.P. 18. The application was undoubtedly timely.

However there are logistical problems which this case presents that a trial in the Northern

Division of the District cannot accommodate. There are twelve defendants named in the

indictment, who, presumably, will be tried together. So far, no co-defendant has filed a notice of

intent to plead guilty, and the court therefore assumes that this will be a multi-defendant trial.1

 

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 165 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 2
2

All of the defendants are in custody, and either are, or will be, set for trial during the October

2006 Criminal Jury Term. The Federal Courthouse in Selma is a one-courtroom building, with

either one or two holding cells in the Marshal’s one-room office. It would be impossible to

accommodate the security concerns of a trial involving more than one or two in-custody

defendants, and possibly several in-custody witnesses, with the physical limitations of the

courthouse in Selma. This case has 12 in-custody defendants. The case will be tried in Mobile,

and the defendant’s motion for a Northern Division trial is DENIED.

By previous Order (Doc. 147) , the court has directed that the petit jury to be selected for

the trial of this case be drawn from the District at Large, as provided for in this District’s Jury

Plan.

DONE and ORDERED this 15TH day of August, 2006.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 165 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2204 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2204

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
      of Agriculture, National Forest System for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the 
    Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
      of Agriculture, National Forest System for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, National Forest System for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$1,866,545,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

TRACY PRITCHETT, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0044-C

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this date, it 

is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff benefits be affirmed. 

DONE this the 8th day of October, 2015.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00044-C Document 26 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 10.75**

|                   | ** ** | **iBasis**                                  | ** ** | ** **     |
|-------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|------------|----------------|
| **iBasis,  Inc.** |       | 20 Second Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803 USA  | * *   | *Confidential* |
| ** **        |       | 781 505.7500, FAX  505.7300, **ibasis.net** |       |           |

 

July 10, 2002

Dan Powdermaker

**Re: “Double Jeopardy’’**

Dear Dan:

In the event that iBasis, Inc.(“Company) terminates your employment without cause or you terminate youremployment for good reason, in either case within six months after theoccurrence of an acquisition or change in control, then the Company willcontinue to pay your base salary and provide health benefits for nine monthsand your options and restricted stock, if any, shall immediately vest andbecome exercisable, and each option shall remain exercisable until theexpiration of the option or until it sooner terminates in accordance with itsterms.

|        | Sincerely,               |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | /s/ Gordon VanderBrug    |
|   | Gordon VanderBrug        |
|   | Executive Vice President |

 

cc: Tamah Rosker, Esq.

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bryson L. Simpson, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 387]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, David D. Egan, J.—Robbery, 2nd Degree). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
ScheduleofDirectorCompensationEffectiveJuly12015


EXHIBIT 10.5


QUANTUM FUEL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGIES WORLDWIDE, INC
AMENDED AND RESTATED SUMMOARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Each non-employee director receives the following compensation effective July 1, 2015 unless otherwise noted:  
Stock Awards:
•  Annual grant of restricted stock equal in value to $12,000 issued on the day of the annual meeting.  
Board and Committee Retainers:
Board Retainer:
•All non-employee directors receive an annual retainer of $30,000.
•Chairman of the Board receives an additional annual retainer of $15,000.
Committee Retainers:
•Audit Committee chair receives an additional annual retainer of $14,000.
•All other members of Audit Committee receive an annual retainer of $7,000.
•Compensation Committee chair receives an additional annual retainer of $10,500.
•All other members of Compensation Committee receive an additional retainer of $5,500.
•Nominating and Governance Committee chair receives an additional annual retainer of $7,000.
		
	•
	All other members of Nominating and Governance Committee receive an additional retainer of $3,500.


Meeting Fees:  None
Payment of Board and Committee Retainers:
All retainers are paid in four equal installments following the end of such quarter.  Directors have the option to elect to receive all or part of the Board and Committee retainers in stock.  The number of shares of stock to be received will be based on the fair market value of a share of the Company’s common stock on the last day of the applicable calendar quarter determined in accordance with applicable listing rules. 
Expenses:
Directors are also reimbursed their travel expenses incurred in connection with attending a meeting.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 27, 2015

NO. 03

- 14

- 00333

- CV

In the Matter of M. L

.

APPEAL FROM 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND BOURLAN D

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the order signed by the juvenile court on May 16, 2014. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there w as no reversible error in the

juvenile court’s order . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the juvenile court’s order

. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2170 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2170

     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, National Park Service, Centennial Challenge for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 
Department of Interior, National Park Service, Centennial Challenge for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
              INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for U.S. Department of 
Interior, National Park Service, Centennial Challenge for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $15,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 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 Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July
2, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Krish Prabhu, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |     | 
| | --- | 
| | (1) | 
| | (2) | 

|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Krish Prabhu       
|Krish Prabhu           
|Chief Executive Officer
|Date: August 10, 2004  

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 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.

---