alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[906 NE2d 1070, 879 NYS2d 36]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald France, Appellant.

Decided April 2, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Kristina Schwarz*and *Steven Banks*of counsel), for appellant.

*791
      *Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *(Susan Axelrod*and *Eleanor Ostrow*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Under CPL 710.60 (1), a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a suppression motion only if there is an issue of fact that must be resolved before it can be determined whether suppression is required. Here, evaluating (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) the context of the motion, and (3) the defendant’s access to information *(see People v Mendoza,*82 NY2d 415, 426 [1993]; *see also People v Lopez,*5 NY3d 753, 754 [2005]), the motion was properly denied without a hearing. Despite having sufficient information from the felony complaint and the voluntary disclosure form concerning the factual predicate for his arrest, defendant failed to dispute that the victim told the police that he had been robbed by defendant, that the victim identified him to the police and that defendant admitted possessing a pawnshop receipt for the stolen goods *(cf. People v Bryant,*8 NY3d 530 [2007]). These uncontested facts provide support for the Appellate Division’s conclusion that there was probable cause for the arrest, and thus the Appellate Division correctly concluded that a hearing was unnecessary.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BancTec, Inc, a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, JeffreyD Cushman, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| /s/ Jeffrey D. Cushman                             |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                               |
| Jeffrey D. Cushman                                 |
| Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|                                               |
| May 15, 2007                                       |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by 18 USC Section1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07

- 19

- 00129

- CR

ROBERT TYRONE LILLY , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 104th District Court Taylor County , Texas Trial Court No. 21263

- B , Honorable Lee Hamilton , Presiding



### July 15 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN , C.J. , and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. Robert Tyrone Lilly , appellant , appeals his conviction for evading arrest , enhanced. After an open plea , appellant was found guilty and punishment was assessed at thirty
years ’ imprisonment by the trial court . Appellant filed an appeal and counsel was appointed. 1

1 Because this appeal was transferred from the Eleventh Court of Appeals , we are obligated to apply its precedent when available in the event of a conflict between the precedents of that court and this C ourt

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 41.3.2

Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders 2 brief in the cause. Through those documents , counsel certified that , after diligently searching the record , the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and m otion is a copy of a letter informing appellant of counsel ’ s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant ’ s right to file a response , pro se

. So too did the letter indicate that a copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant. By letter dated June 7 , 2019 , th is Court also notified appellant of h is right to file his own response by July 8 , 201 9

. To date appellant has not filed a response

. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders , appellate counsel discussed several potential area s for appeal , whi ch included whether the indictment was
proper , the voluntariness of appellant ’ s guilty plea , whether the sentence was proper , and ineffective assistance of counsel. However , counsel then explained why the issue s lacked merit. In addition , we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel ’ s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) , and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No such error was uncovered. Accordingly , the motion to withdraw is granted , and the judgment is affirmed. 3

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.

2 See Anders v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738 , 744

– 45 , 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

3 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
DISMISS ; and Opinion Filed April 19, 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 11

- 01672

- CV

WILLIAM BALDWIN , Appellant
V.
THE COLONY ASSETS DE VELOPMENT, L.L.C. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 09

- 00877

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, O’ Neill, and Lewis Opinion by Justice O’ Neill
By postcard notice dated January 17, 2013, t he Court informed appellant that his brief

was past due. We instructed appellant to file a brief along with an extension motion within ten

days and cautioned him that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. As of

today’s date, appellant has not filed a brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1) & 42.3(c).

111672F.P05 /Michael J. O'Neill/
MICHAEL J. O’ NEILL JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WILLIAM BALDWIN, Appellant

No. 05

- 11

- 01672

- CV V.

THE COLONY ASSETS DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 09

- 00877. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill.
Justices Moseley and Lewis participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that appellee, THE COLONY ASSETS DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., recover its costs of this appeal from appellant, WILLIAM BALDWIN.

Jud gment entered this 19 th day of April, 2013.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL
JUSTICE
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATION

I, Matthew Kaltenrieder, certify that:

1. l have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report,
   on Form 10-K of NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-1
   (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole,
   do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered
   by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in
   this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in
   the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
   obligations under the servicing agreement; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
   asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required
   to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
   and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit
   to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
   instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
   this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
Provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Saxon Mortgage
Services, as Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Custodian and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee.


Date: March 27, 2008


/s/Matthew Kaltenrieder
Matthew Kaltenrieder
Vice President
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT





Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of Global Gold Corporation (the "Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that:





(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(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 20, 2011

/s/ Van Z. KrikorianVan Z. KrikorianChairman and Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 20, 2011

/s/ Jan E. DulmanJan E. DulmanChief Financial Officer




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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KIMBERLYWHITE, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, INAND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK;AND THE HONORABLE VINCENT OCHOA, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents. No. 85312


### tuu r SEP .3. 20i2

...NH .7..LER)5.1; )1

,,F.V• ;•• : 12Y *." ORDERDENYING PETITIONFOR WRITOFMANDAMUS Thisoriginal,pro se,emergencypetitionfora writofmandamus challenges multiple interim district court orders in a custody action.

The petition does not comply with several statutory and court rule requirements, such that it appears not all ofthe parties were provided proper notice and this court is unable to fully understand the matters set forth inthepetition. NRAP 21 governswritpetitions filed in this court and requires petitioners to (a) name in the petition's caption and serve the respondentjudge andall realpartiesin interest, and alsoto serve anyother partiesto the district court action, NRAP 21(a)(1) & (2); (b) comply withthe content requirements of NRAP 21(a)(3); (c) include with the petition necessary documentation supporting the request for relief, NRAP 21(a)(4) (petitioner must provide all documents essential to understanding the matters set forth in the petition); (d) verify the petition by affidavit or declaration of the petitioner, NRAP 21(a)(5); see NRS 34.170; (e) include a certificate of compliance with NRAP 21(d)'s page/word count limit, NRAP 21(e); and (f) for emergency petitions, comply with NRAP 27(e)'s certificate requirements. NRAP 21(a)(6). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA III! 147,1 30c1SParraguirre Here, petitioner, the paternal grandmother of the children subject tothecustodyproceeding, failed toname thechildren'sparents, who
are parties below, as real parties in interest and to serve them with the petition. Additionally, although the petition discusses and challenges several orders and rulings issued by the district court in the underlying custody matter, no copies of those orders were submitted in any appendix to the petition, nor was any transcript, copy of court minutes, or other documentation provided.' Finally, petitioner failed to sign the petition and to include an affidavit or declaration verifying the petition, an NRAP 27(e) certificate, and a certificate ofcompliance. In light ofthese defects, we are unable to consider thispetition, and withoutprejudice to petitioner's ability to file a petition that complies with court rules and relevant statutes in the future, we ORDER the petition DENIED.



# .444c..x Hardesty Stiglich
cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge Kimberly White Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk 'Petitioner did provide four photos of the children as exhibits. It is unclear whether those photos are part of the record below. In light of this order, we direct the clerk of this court to return, unfiled, the photos provisionally received on September 12, 2022.
2
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 248 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to exclude certain populations 

of the lesser prairie chicken from the authority of such Act, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2023 

Mr. ESTES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to exclude 

certain populations of the lesser prairie chicken from 

the authority of such Act, 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 ‘‘Promoting Local Man5 agement of the Lesser Prairie Chicken Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 248 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN POPULATIONS OF LESSER 

2 PRAIRIE CHICKEN UNDER ENDANGERED SPE3 CIES ACT OF 1973. 

4 (a) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN POPULATIONS OF LESS5 ER PRAIRIE CHICKEN.—Section 4(a) of the Endangered 

6 Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘The Sec8 retary shall by regulation’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as 

9 provided in paragraph (4), the Secretary shall by 

10 regulation’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(4) APPLICABILITY TO LESSER PRAIRIE CHICK13 EN.—The Secretary may not make a determination under 

14 this subsection that any population of the lesser prairie 

15 chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in Kansas, Okla16 homa, Texas, Colorado, or New Mexico is threatened or 

17 endangered.’’. 

18 (b) DELISTING OF CERTAIN POPULATIONS OF LESS19 ER PRAIRIE CHICKEN.—Not later than 60 days after the 

20 date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary of the 

21 Interior shall remove each population of the lesser prairie 

22 chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) in Kansas, Okla23 homa, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico from the lists 

24 of threatened species and endangered species that are pubVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:37 Jan 20, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H248.IH H248

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 248 IH

1 lished pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

2 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                             611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1578
<ALLOWANCES>                                       201
<INVENTORY>                                       1674
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3766
<PP&E>                                            8943
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3594
<BONDS>                                           1061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                        2889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9508
<SALES>                                           9144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9144
<CGS>                                             4697
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9307
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (146)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        27
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (173)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION





Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,  Denis Iler,  President,  CEO,  and  Acting  Chief  Financial  Officer of
Mountains West Exploration, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that:

1. The  Quarterly  Report on Form  10QSB of the  Company  for the  period  ended
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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 11, 2004      Officer:   Denis Iler

                                        Name:       /s/ Denis Iler
                                                    ----------------------------
                                        Position:  President, CEO
From: The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ELIZABETH PAZERA, *22Defendant,

*21CAUSE NO. DC-07-320 DECISION

*22On December 11, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a period of five (5) years, with two (2) years suspended, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, Fourth or Subsequent Offense, a felony.

On April 3, 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 Kris Copenhaver. 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 she understood this and stated that she 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.

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

Done in open Court this 3rd day of April, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
663 A.2d 639

#### IN THE MATTER OF RICHARD M. PISACANE, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 13, 1995.

ORDER

RICHARD M. PISACANE of WAYNE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1969, having been ordered to show cause on September 12, 1995, why this Court’s Order of temporary suspension should not be continued pending the disposition of ethics proceedings against him, and respondent having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause, and good cause appearing;

*431It is ORDERED that the suspension of RICHARD M. PISA-CANE continue pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics may transfer to the Clerk of the Superior Court for deposit in the Superior Court Trust Fund the attorney account funds held in any financial institution by RICHARD M. PISACANE, which funds were restrained from disbursement by this Court’s Order of July 12,1995.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 August 6, 2004(Date of Report  date of earliest event reported) BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATION (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
  Delaware(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
    
    001-31524(Commission File Number)
    
    37-1446709(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
  12865 Pointe Del Mar
Suite 200
Del Mar, California(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    
    
    92014(Zip Code)
  (858) 481-8500(Registrants Telephone Number, Including Area Code)




---



##### 



Item 7.    Financial Statements and Exhibits.  (c)
    
    Exhibits: 99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Brookfield Homes Corporation on August 6, 2004.
 Item 12.   Results of Operations and Financial Condition. On August 6, 2004, Brookfield Homes Corporation issued a press release
announcing its earnings and results of operations for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2004. A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit
99.1. 1




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized. Date:   August 10, 2004 BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/   PAUL G. KERRIGANPaul G. KerriganExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer 2




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit Number
    
    Exhibit99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Brookfield Homes Corporation on August 6, 2004.