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

[975 NYS2d 466]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Camacho, J), dated January 27, 2012, which, without a hearing, denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CEL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon a jury verdict, on April 4, 1995.

*956Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the defendant’s motion, in accordance herewith.

The statutory procedures governing the determination of a motion for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 provide, in pertinent part, that “[t]he court shall offer an opportunity for a hearing and bring the applicant before it” (L 2004, ch 738, § 23; *see*CPL 440.46 [3]; *People v Bens,*109 AD3d 664 [2013]; *People v Allen,*105 AD3d 969 [2013]). The defendant’s presence is not required for the court’s threshold determination of the purely legal issue of whether the defendant meets the statutory eligibility requirements for relief pursuant to CPL 440.46 *(see People v Bens,*109 AD3d at 665; *People v Allen,*105 AD3d at 969; *People v Vaughan,*62 AD3d 122, 129 [2009]), but the defendant is entitled to appear before the court and to be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the merits of the resentencing motion *(see People v Bens,*109 AD3d at 665; *People v Allen,*105 AD3d at 969; *People v Moreno,*58 AD3d 643 [2009]).

Here, the defendant was not brought before the Supreme Court prior to the court’s determination that, although he met the statutory eligibility requirements, substantial justice dictated that his motion for resentencing should be denied. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant was ever advised of his statutory right to be brought before the court, or that he knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily chose to relinquish that right *(see People v Moreno,*58 AD3d at 644). The Supreme Court therefore failed to comply with the statutory mandate *(see*L 2004, ch 738, § 23; *People v Bens,*109 AD3d at 665; *People v Allen,*105 AD3d at 969; *People v Moreno,*58 AD3d at 644). Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new determination of the defendant’s motion, to be made after affording him an opportunity to appear before the court, and, if necessary, for the court to conduct a hearing *{see*L 2004, ch 738, § 23). Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

      PURSUANT TO SECTION 13A-14(B) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                           AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sparta Commercial Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date therein  specified (the
"Report"), the undersigned Daniel J. Lanjewar, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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/ Daniel J. Lanjewar
---------------------------
Daniel J. Lanjewar
Principal Financial Officer
Date:  September 14, 2004
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2587 

To provide a definition of reasonable rate for noncontiguous domestic ocean 

trade, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2023 

Mr. CASE (for himself and Mr. MOYLAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide a definition of reasonable rate for noncontiguous 

domestic ocean trade, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Noncontiguous Ship5 ping Reasonable Rate Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NONCONTIGUOUS DOMESTIC OCEAN TRADE. 

7 Section 13701(d) of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the fol9 lowing new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2587 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this sec2 tion, a rate is reasonable if such rate is within 10 

3 percent of a rate set by a comparable international 

4 ocean rate index recognized by the Federal Maritime 

5 Commission.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DUANE BYRON FIELDS, Jr.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30315

D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00022-JKS-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 14, 2013

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit 

Judges.

1. The quantity of cocaine subjecting Fields to increased penalties for his

conspiracy conviction was properly “charged in the indictment, submitted to the

jury, subject to the rules of evidence, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558, 568 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc); see also

FILED

AUG 28 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
page 2

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2155 (2013). The 439

grams found on his person and in his trailer, together with the other evidence of the

conspiracy’s drug-dealing activities, was ample to support the jury’s special verdict

that the conspiracy involved at least 500 grams. See United States v. Reed, 575

F.3d 900, 923 (9th Cir. 2009). 

2. Fields’s acquittal on the firearm charge didn’t preclude the sentencing

judge from considering the gun in applying a two-level enhancement. See United

States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157 (1997) (per curiam). Fields didn’t prove it was

“clearly improbable” that his gun possession was connected to his crimes, so the

enhancement was properly applied. United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d 1183,

1186 (9th Cir. 2006); see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11.

3. Application of the managerial role enhancement to Fields’s sentence was

also proper. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). He twice sent others to deliver cocaine. Even if

these were the only times Fields exerted control over others, they qualify him for

the aggravating role enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d

1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2000). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jan E. Dulman, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Global Gold
Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2007;

2) Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly
Report;

3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

4) The registrant's other certifying officers 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 Quarterly Report is being prepared;

b) [Reserved]

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

d) Disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5) The registrant's other certifying officers 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 the 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 control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2007                                /s/ Jan E. Dulman
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Jan E. Dulman
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate5 <!Court of ~peaI5

for tbe jfeberaI <!Circuit

TERRY L. FARMER,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

2012-7119

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims in case no. 10-2483, Judge Mary J.

Schoelen.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Terry L. Farmer moves without opposition for a 60-

day extension of time to file his reply brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

Case: 12-7119 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2012
TERRY FARMER V. SHINSEKI 2

The motion is granted. Farmer's reply brief is due on

or before January 2,2013.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

s27

Case: 12-7119 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2012
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





Certification of Principal Financial Officer





In connection with the Annual Report of Team Nation Holdings Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Janis D. Okerlund, Principal Financial Officer 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 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.





April 8, 2011





/s/ Janis D. Okerlund
 Janis D. Okerlund
 Principal Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Anthony R., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 236]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about February 1, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the third and fourth degrees, and placed him on probation for a period of 18 months, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the finding as to criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and dismissing that count of the petition, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility and identification, including its resolution of any inconsistency between police testimony and scientific evidence.

The court properly exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and imposing a period of probation of 18 months. Given the seriousness of the offense, consisting of appellant’s possession of a loaded pistol along with strong indications that he fired it, this was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs and the community’s need for protection *(see Matter of Katherine W.,*62 NY2d 947 [1984]).

The fourth-degree possession count should be dismissed as a lesser included offense.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe and Román, JJ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TRAYMONTE SNIPES
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 2731

[ August 5, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Martin County ; Steven J. Levin

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432020CA001066A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin

, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Traymonte Snipes

, Fort Myers

, appellant.

No appearance filed for appellee.

P ER C UR IAM

.

Affirmed.

C ONNER

, C.J., K LINGENSMITH and A RTAU

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### In the Matter of Edward Mateos, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 907]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After petitioner’s urine twice tested positive for opiates, he was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance. Petitioner was found guilty following a tier III disciplinary hearing, although the penalty imposed was modified upon administrative review. The present CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The hearing testimony, misbehavior report and *1128positive drug test results provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Johnson v Fischer,*104 AD3d 1007, 1007 [2013]; *Matter of Smith v Dubray,*58 AD3d 968, 968-969 [2009]). Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the hearing testimony demonstrated that proper testing procedures were followed and that the correction officer who conducted the tests was certified to do so *(see Matter of Bornstorff v Bezio,*73 AD3d 1397, 1397-1398 [2010]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly presented for our review, have been considered and found to lack merit.

Rose, J.P., McCarthy, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         194,951
<SECURITIES>                                 1,062,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                  207,805<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     98,893
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,159,590
<PP&E>                                       1,025,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                 362,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,451,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          269,745
<BONDS>                                        150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,472
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,983,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,451,023
<SALES>                                        441,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               739,695
<CGS>                                           79,817
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               351,779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,446
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                115,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,634
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             87,515
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    87,515
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE PRESENTED NET OF ALLOWANCE FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS IN 
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET.  THE PROVISION FOR LOSSES ON DOUBTFUL
ACCOUNTS IS NOT REPORTED AS A SEPARATE LINE IN THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME OR STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           5

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      SEP-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                              3,318,676
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    3,352,144
<PP&E>                                              10,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                      3,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      3,362,912
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               28,544
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            34,475
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                          4,791,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        3,362,912
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    97,049
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       539,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (442,655)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (442,655)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (442,655)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.13)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-95-281]


San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and 
Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent 
System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange; Notice 
of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on January 9, 2015, Illinova Energy Partners, Inc. 
submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's Opinion No. 
536.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary 
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System 
Operator and the California Power Exchange., 149 FERC ] 61,116 
(2014) (Opinion No. 536).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention 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 electronic 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed 
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14525146575b7a787d7a71476164647b666054727166773a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3a5a6b1a0ac8d8f8a8d86b09693938c9197a385869180cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 30, 2015.

    Dated: January 12, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00806 Filed 1-20-15; 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>