alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul D. Wallach, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 464]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Berke, J.), rendered July 1, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant entered an *Alford*plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree following his sale of *914heroin to a confidential police informant in 2003. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to 5 to 10 years in prison. His subsequent CPL article 440 motion was denied and he was denied permission to appeal from that order. He now appeals from the judgment of conviction.

Initially, we find no merit to defendant’s claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive. Defendant has an extensive criminal background, which includes two prior drug-related convictions, and the negotiated sentence he received was significantly less than the sentence that could have been imposed if he were convicted after trial. Therefore, we do not find the existence of extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Cartwright,*301 AD2d 682 [2003]; *People v Daniels,*281 AD2d 651 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 900 [2001]). In addition, because defendant committed the crime well before the effective date of the Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Act *(see*L 2004, ch 738, § 41 [d-1]), we reject his contention that he should have been sentenced under the new law *(see People v Walker,*26 AD3d 676 [2006]). Finally, defendant’s equal protection challenge has been considered and found to be unavailing.

Mercure, J.P, Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         $28,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (140,311)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,556
<PP&E>                                          71,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          474,620
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           80,450
<PREFERRED>                                     20,766
<COMMON>                                       285,890
<OTHER-SE>                                    (788,048)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,678
<SALES>                                         41,651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,651
<CGS>                                           19,009
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               570,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (547,560)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (547,560)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                243,614
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (303,946)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher J. Feidner, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 608]—

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered December 22, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second 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 burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). Defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does not survive his guilty plea because “[t]here is no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance” *(People v*Robinson, 39 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 869 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant purported to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we would not entertain that challenge on this appeal from the judgment entered upon his guilty plea; indeed, “it would be logically inconsistent to permit a defendant to enter a plea of guilty based on particular admitted facts, yet to allow that defendant contemporaneously to reserve the right to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of those facts to support a conviction, had there been a trial” *(People v Plunkett,*19 NY3d 400, 405-406 [2012]). Moreover, we agree with the People that defendant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence is “inapplicable” inasmuch as he was convicted upon his plea of guilty, rather than upon a verdict following a trial *(cfi People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, RJ., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

HARRY DANTZLER,

Petitioner

v.

JOE YOUNG AND WEALTH 

INVESTMENT,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 495 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1950 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, 

National Veteran’s Employment and Training Services Institute 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 Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, National Veteran’s Employment and 

Training Services Institute for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, NATIONAL VET5 ERAN’S EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERV6 ICES INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Labor, National Veteran’s EmVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:33 Apr 14, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1950.IH H1950

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1950 IH

1 ployment and Training Services Institute for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $3,414,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
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 Security National Financial Corporation
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, George R. Quist, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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 14, 2008
            s/s George R.
      QuistGeorge
      R. QuistChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer










40
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 on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of Colorado
      Wyoming Reserve Company (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
      I,
      Kim Fuerst, the 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, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge
      and
      belief:




(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.


Date
              May 12,
              2006
            /s/
              Kim
              FuerstKim FuerstChief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00173]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday January 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. and Its 
Continuation on Thursday January 15, 2015 at the Conclusion of the Open 
Meeting.

PLACE: 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. 
Internal personnel rules and internal rules and practices. Matters 
concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
* * * * *

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

 Shelley E. Garr,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-00173 Filed 1-6-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ola Highsmith, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 919]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated September 19, 2005 *(People v Highsmith,*21 AD3d 1037 [2005]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered June 13, 2003.

*868Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz, 2*NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, EJ., Mastro, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00434-CR

ALEX GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 339th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1368857).

TO THE 339TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 21st day of April 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or 

to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed 

by the trial court on May 22, 2014. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms 

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.

Judgment rendered April 21, 2015.
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Keyes.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

October 2, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51057

c/w No. 03-51058

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANGEL MAGALLANES-TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-99-CR-312-PRM

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Angel Magallanes-Torres appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Magallanes-Torres complains that his sentence was improperly

enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior

conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is

unconstitutional. Magallanes-Torres thus contends that his
No. 03-51057

c/w 03-51058

-2-

sentence should not exceed the two-year maximum terms of

imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Magallanes-Torres acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States, et al. v. 
XTO Energy, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00218-IMK, was lodged with 
the United States District Court for the Northern District of West 
Virginia, Clarksburg Division, on December 22, 2014.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States and the State of West Virginia against XTO Energy, Inc., 
pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), 
and the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act, W. Va. Code Chapter 
22, Article 11, et seq., to obtain injunctive relief from, and impose 
civil penalties on, the Defendant in connection with alleged discharges 
of pollutants at various locations in Harrison, Marion, and Upshur 
Counties in West Virginia and for violating the Clean Water Act by 
discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United 
States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these allegations by 
requiring the Defendant to restore the impacted areas and/or perform 
mitigation and to pay a civil penalty.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Kenneth C. 
Amaditz, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense 
Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044 and refer to United 
States, et al. v. XTO Energy, Inc., DJ # 90-5-1-1-19518.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the Northern District of West 
Virginia, Clarksburg Division, 500 West Pike Street, Room 301, 
Clarksburg, WV 26302. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be 
examined electronically at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-30904 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of Bentley Commerce Corp.
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Bruce Kamm, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Bentley Commerce Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible

for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: October 15, 2004

/s/ Bruce Kamm
-----------------
Bruce Kamm
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
31.1





STATMON
TEHCNOLOGIES CORP.





CERTIFICATIONS





I,
Geoffrey P. Talbot, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008
of Statmon Technologies Corp.




2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a)           Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and




(c)Disclosed
in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and




5.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a)           All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b)           Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial
reporting.




Date:
March 23, 2009




/s/
      Geoffrey P. TalbotGeoffrey P. TalbotChief
      Executive Officer