alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JAMES SWANK, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. CDC-03-202 DECISION

On March 3,2009, the defendant was sentenced, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a period of four (4) years, with two (2) years suspended, for the offense of Count I: Assault With a Weapon, a felony.

On August 6, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Steve Eschenbacher. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

*61Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of August, 2009.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
#### Debra H., Appellant, v Janice R., Respondent.

Submitted August 10, 2009;

decided September 1, 2009

Reported below, 61 AD3d 460.

*755Motion by the New York City Bar Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted, three copies of the brief to be served and an original and 24 copies filed within 30 days.
#### Lilia Kudrina, Appellant, v 82-04 Lefferts Tenants Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[973 NYS2d 364]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered December 1, 2011, which granted the motion of the defendants 82-04 Lefferts Tenants Corp. and LTD Management for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries when she fell on the sidewalk abutting premises owned by the defendant 82-04 Lefferts Tenants Corp., and managed by the defendant LTD Management (hereinafter together the moving defendants). The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against the moving defendants, among others. The moving defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court granted the mo*964tion on the ground that the moving defendants did not create the alleged hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it. We affirm, albeit on a different ground.

To impose liability upon the moving defendants for the plaintiff’s injuries, there must be evidence showing the existence of a dangerous or defective condition, and that the moving defendants either created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it and failed to remedy it within a reasonable time *(see Winder v Executive Cleaning Servs., LLC,*91 AD3d 865 [2012]; *Davis v Rochdale Vil., Inc.,*63 AD3d 870 [2009]; *Starling v Suffolk County Water Auth.,*63 AD3d 822 [2009]; *Medina v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*41 AD3d 798 [2007]). A plaintiff’s inability to identify what had caused him or her to fall is fatal to his or her case, and a defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing the complaint can meet its initial burden as the movant simply by demonstrating that the plaintiff did not know what had caused him or her to fall *(see Dennis v Lakhani,*102 AD3d 651 [2013]; *Zalot v Zieba,*81 AD3d 935 [2011]). Here, the moving defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting, inter alia, a transcript of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, which showed that the plaintiff merely speculated as to the cause of her fall *(see Hunt v Meyers,*63 AD3d 685 [2009]; *Ludin v Crestwood Country Day School, Inc.,*36 AD3d 866 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Litvinoff v Kaur,*102 AD3d 928 [2013]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the moving defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patricia Tufano, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 584]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J., at suppression hearing; Arlene D. Goldberg, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered April 7, 2011, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The police had, at least, a founded suspicion that defendant was involved in her companions’ criminal activity, thereby justifying a common-law inquiry. The record establishes that the officers did not exceed the bounds of such an inquiry. When defendant approached an officer to ask why he was detaining her friends, *649the officer told her to remain with her friends, who were near a wall, while he questioned them. The record establishes that the police had reasonable suspicion to warrant a level three detention. During defendant’s encounter with the police an officer saw what he recognized as a gravity knife protruding from defendant’s pocket, and this provided probable cause for her arrest.

Since defendant received the minimum sentence permitted by law, we have no authority to reduce it unless we find, as a matter of constitutional law, that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Defendant’s constitutional challenge to her sentence is unpreserved *(see People v*Ingram, 67 NY2d 897, 899 [1986]) and without merit *(see People v Thompson,*83 NY2d 477, 480 [1994]; *People v Broadie,*37 NY2d 100 [1975], *cert denied*423 US 950 [1975]).

Concur—Tom, J.E, Acosta, Román, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hessler MENDOZA-MENDOZA, a/k/a Hessler David Mendoza, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50859.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 30, 2006.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Shannon P. Ryan, Esq., United States Attorney Asst. U.S. Attorney, Narcotics Section, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Davina T. Chen, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Hessler Mendoza-Mendoza appeals from the 77-month sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm and remand.

Appellant contends his sentence is unreasonable because the sentencing judge “misapprehended” the amount of time he had previously served in prison for a prior state conviction. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. *See United States v. Plouffe,*445 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

Appellant also contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Weiland,*420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir .2005).

In accordance with *United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete from the judgment the incorrect reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). *See United States v. Herrera-Blanco,*232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th *848Cir.2000) (remanding sua sponte to delete the reference to § 1326(b)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-9018-8]

                    RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or                     *http://www.epa.gov/​compliance/​nepa/​*.                

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements

Filed 12/29/2014 Through 01/02/2015

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

## Notice:

                    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *http://www.epa.gov/​compliance/​nepa/​eisdata.html*.                

*EIS No. 20140384, Draft EIS, FAA, AK,*                     Angoon Airport Project, Comment Period Ends: 03/11/2015, Contact: Leslie Grey 907-271-5453                

*EIS No. 20140385, Final EIS, BLM, NV,*                     Long Canyon Mine, Review Period Ends: 02/09/2015, Contact: Whitney Wirthlin, 775-861-6568                

*EIS No. 20150000, Draft Supplement, GSA, VA,*                     USDOS Foreign Affairs Security Training Center (FASTC), Comment Period Ends: 02/23/2015, Contact: Myles Vaughan 215-756-5948                

Dated: January 6, 2015.

Cliff Rader,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2015-00172 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mountains West Exploration, Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").

     I, Lee Wiskowski, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.

Dated: November 20, 2006


                                            /s/ Lee Wiskowski
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Lee Wiskowski, President
                                            (principal executive officer)
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Richard W. Donaldson, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Pengram Corporation (the Company), hereby 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:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended November 30, 2008, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                     



| | By:    | /s/
      Richard W. Donaldson
| | ------ | ------------------------------
| |        |                               
| | Name:  | RICHARD W. DONALDSON          
| |        |                               
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and   
| |        | Chief Financial Officer       
| |        |                               
| | Date:  | March
      13, 2009          



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
JPALT 2007-A1 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS MASTER SERVICER 1123 CERTIFICATION **Re: J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2007-A1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates**Pursuant to the pooling and servicing agreement, the undersigned Officer, to the best of his/her knowledge, hereby certifies to the following obligations as set forth in Item 1123 of Regulation AB applicable to it: (A) a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or such other applicable agreement in the case of a Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's supervision and, (B) to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, in all material respects throughout such year or portion thereof. U.S. Bank National Association, as Master Servicer _/s/: Bryan R. Calder__________ Name:  Bryan R. Calder Title:    Executive Vice President Date: March 1, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Virgilio Rodriguez, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 692]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sullivan, J.), rendered January 20, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth 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 the appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*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.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-84,969-01

EX P ARTE LUIS GUERRERO-MA RTINEZ, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CM-14- 290 IN THE 278 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM LEON COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 6 7 ). Ap p licant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault of a child and sentenced t o fi ft ee n y ear s’ i mprisonment for each count. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his tria l counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive assistanc e by g iving him ba d advice reg ardinghis parole e ligibility date. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte2

Moussazadeh , 361 S.W .3d 684, 690 (Tex. Cr i m. App. 2012). I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial cour

t is the a ppropriate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffe ctive assistance of couns el

. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f t he trial court elects t o hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall ap p o i nt an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t an d conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so , wh et her counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fact and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be re s o l v ed wi t h in 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwar ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. Any extensions of t ime shall be obtained f

rom this Court. Filed: May

25, 2016 Do not publish
Amendment No. 2 to the Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan



 Exhibit 10(c) 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 to the 
 CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC 
 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN 
 (as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2001) 
 WHEREAS, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc (“Cleveland Cliffs” has established the Cleveland-Cliffs Inc Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, Cleveland-Cliffs has reserved, in Paragraph 7.A of the Plan, the right to amend the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, Cleveland-Cliffs hereby amends the Plan as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Paragraph 3C of the Plan is amended to read: 

 C. A Participant’s unpaid Supplemental Pension Plan Benefit accrued at the end of each calendar year (or more frequently as determined by the Committee) shall be distributed to the Participant as soon as practicable following such
date. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, a Participant’s incremental Supplemental Pension Plan Benefit accrued for each calendar year commencing with 2001 shall be distributed as soon as practicable following the end of such year
and, in any event, for distributions on or after January 1, 2005, no later than the March 15th of the calendar year immediately following the calendar year of accrual. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any Participant who
retires on or after July 1, 2006, any remaining accrued Supplemental Pension Plan Benefit shall be distributed as soon as reasonably possible after the date of such Participant’s retirement. 
 2. Effective Dates. The portion of this Amendment No. 2 that requires distribution be made by the March 15th of the calendar year
immediately following the calendar year of accrual is effective for all distributions payable on or after January 1, 2005. The portion of this Amendment No. 2 that ties distribution directly to a Participant’s retirement date, rather
than the end of the calendar year of such retirement date, is effective for all Participants who retire on or after July 1, 2006. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc, pursuant to the order of its Board of Directors, has executed
this Amendment No. 2 to the Cleveland-Cliffs Inc Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan (most recently restated effective January 1, 2001) at Cleveland, Ohio as of the 11 day of September, 2006. 
  

			
	CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ R. L. Kummer

		 	Senior Vice President - Human Resources