alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6812

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY DARNELL KINTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-98-304, CA-01-636-1) Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 29, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Darnell Kinton, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tony Darnell Kinton appeals the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) petition. Kinton’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Kinton that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Kinton failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Kinton has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In re J.E. & B.E.

Case below: 182 N.C. App. — (17 April 2007)

No. 231A07

1. Respondent’s (Mother) NOA (Dissent) (COA06-1553)

2. Respondent’s (Mother) PDR as to Additional Issues

1. _

2. Denied 06/27/07
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jorge Velez, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 349]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Caesar Cirigliano, J.), rendered April 7, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The People made a sufficiently particularized showing of an overriding interest justifying the court’s exclusion of the general public from the courtroom during the undercover officers’ testimony in order to protect their safety and effectiveness. The officers had numerous other cases pending in the courthouse, continued to work undercover in the vicinity of defendant’s arrest, and took specific precautions upon entering the courthouse because they feared being recognized as police officers *(see People v Ramos,*90 NY2d 490, 498-499 [1997], *cert denied sub nom. Ayala v New York,*522 US 1002 [1997]). The court also accorded any members of defendant’s family who wished to attend a suitable opportunity to do so, and defendant’s argument to the contrary is without merit.

The verdict 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]). The evidence supported the conclusion that defendant acted in concert in the drug transaction by, among other things, appearing at the seller’s apartment shortly before the scheduled time of the sale, staying in close proximity to the undercover officer making the buy, leaving that apartment and riding in a car with the seller and the undercover officer to the location at which the seller obtained the drugs, telling the undercover officer to advise people looking for the seller that he would be back in half an hour, and looking out of the car windows when the seller brought the narcotics to the undercover officer’s car. The evidence did not support any innocent explanation for defendant’s course of conduct, which went far beyond mere presence *(see e.g. People v Rodriguez,*52 AD3d 249 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 741 [2008]; *People v Chatanova,*37 AD3d 178 [2007], *lv denied*8 NY3d 983 [2007]; *People v Williams,*172 AD2d 448 [1991], *affd*79 NY2d 803*491[1991]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Exhibit
10.2


 


ARTISOFT,
INC.


 


Amendment
to 2004 Stock Incentive Plan


 


The 2004 Stock
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) of Artisoft, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is
hereby amended as follows:


 


Section 4(a)(1) of the
Plan is amended and restated as set forth below (without limiting or reducing
the effects of Section 4(a)(2) of the Plan to date and thereby resulting in a
net increase in the total shares of Common Stock authorized for issuance under
the Plan, subject to the terms of the Plan, of 4,352,934):


 


“(1)         6,352,934 shares of Common Stock; plus”


 


Except to the
extent amended hereby, the Plan is in all respects hereby ratified and
confirmed and shall continue in full force and effect.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-17 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements 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 informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports 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 thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 462 

To deauthorize the project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2005 

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To deauthorize the project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, 

Maine. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TENANTS HARBOR, MAINE. 

4 The project for navigation, Tenants Harbor, Maine, 

5 authorized by the first section of the Act of March 2, 1919 

6 (40 Stat. 1275, chapter 95), is not authorized after the 

7 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2358 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Contribution to the 

Clean Technology Fund 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 Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Contribution to the Clean Technology Fund 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 CONTRIBUTION TO THE CLEAN TECHNOLOGY 

5 FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:13 Apr 20, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2358.IH H2358

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2358 IH

1 able for Contribution to the Clean Technology Fund for 

2 fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 10.53







***  Where this marking appears throughout this Exhibit 10.53, information has been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment and such information has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission separately.








FIRST AMENDMENT TO CRUDE OIL STORAGE SERVICES AGREEMENT





This FIRST AMENDMENT TO CRUDE OIL STORAGE SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is effective June 1, 2010 (the “Effective Date”), made by and between Vitol, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referred to as “VITOL”, and SemGroup Energy Partners, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as “SGLP” (each referred to individually as “Party” or collectively as “Parties”).





RECITALS





A.
The Parties previously entered into that certain Crude Oil Storage Services Agreement dated effective June 1, 2008. (the “Agreement”).


B.
The Parties desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter described modifying the fees payable and new term.





NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the undersigned Parties hereto agree as follows:





Capitalized Terms.  All capitalized terms used in this Amendment but not defined shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement.





Terminal Service Fee.  Commencing on the Effective Date, the Payments set forth in Section 3 of the Agreement will change to *** per barrel of Product on the two million (2,000,000) shell capacity of storage, which equals *** per month.





Term.  The amended term will be for one year from the new effective date and shall thereafter upon Customers request automatically renew for a successive one (1) year term.  Customer will have the option to renew for the successive one year term under the same terms by notifying Operator at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the then-current term.





Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and each of which alone, and all of which together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.





Effect of Amendment.  This Amendment shall be effective as of the Effective Date.  Except as expressly amended or modified herein, all other terms, covenants, and conditions of the Agreement shall be unaffected by this Amendment and shall remain in full force and effect.  In the event of conflict between the provisions of this Amendment and the provisions of the Agreement, this Amendment shall control.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the Effective Date.





SEMGROUP ENERGY PARTNERS, L.L.C.








/s/ Peter L. Schwiering


Peter L. Schwiering, Executive


Vice President-Crude Operations








VITOL, INC.








/s/ Chris Brown
#### State v. Caufman

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(3 July 2007)

No. 368P07

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1058)

Denied 10/11/07
---

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

I, Juan Restrepo Gutierrez, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chancery Resources,
      Inc. for the year ended November 30, 2008 (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 Chancery Resources, Inc.                                                               

Dated: March 2, 2009



| | /s/ Juan
Restrepo Gutierrez     
| | --------------------------------
| | Juan Restrepo Gutierrez         
| | Chief Financial Officer         
| | (Principal Financial Officer and
| | Principal Accounting Officer)   
| | Chancery Resources, Inc.        



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chancery
Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Chancery Resources, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Trustees

Mitchell P. Rales, President

Potomac, MD

David M. Rubenstein, Chairman

Washington, DC

Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen

Atherton, CA

Indra Nooyi

Greenwich, CT

Darren Walker

New York, NY

Trustees Emeriti

Frederick W. Beinecke

New York, NY

Julian Ganz, Jr.

Los Angeles, CA

David O. Maxwell

Washington, DC

Sharon Percy Rockefeller

Washington, DC

The Honorable 

Andrew M. Saul

New York, NY

John Wilmerding

New York, NY

Trustees’ Council

W. Russell G. Byers Jr., Cochair

Alexa Davidson Suskin, Cochair

Allen R. Adler

New York, NY

William H. Ahmanson

Beverly Hills, CA

Frances F.L. Beatty (Adler)

New York, NY

Frederick W. Beinecke

New York, NY

Michele L. Beyer

Palm Beach, FL

Louise Bryson

San Marino, CA

Vincent J. Buonanno

Providence, RI

W. Russell G. Byers Jr.

and Anne Byers 

Locust Valley, NY

Jane Lipton Cafritz

Washington, DC

Rose Carter

and Paul Carter 

Paeonian Springs, VA

Leo A. Daly III

Washington, DC

Shannon Fairbanks

and Newman T. Halvorson, Jr.

Washington, DC

Juliet C. Folger

Washington, DC

Marina Kellen French

New York, NY

Julian Ganz, Jr.

Los Angeles, CA

Michael K. Gewirz

Washington, DC

Rose Ellen Meyerhoff Greene

Coral Gables, FL

Joseph P. Gromacki

Chicago, IL
Daniel W. Hamilton

Washington, DC

Benjamin R. Jacobs

Bethesda, MD

Betsy K. Karel

Washington, DC

Linda Hofheimer Kaufman

Norfolk, VA

Susan V. Klein 

and John E. Klein

Washington, DC

Kyle J. Krause

Des Moines, IA

Jo Carole Lauder

and Ronald S. Lauder

New York, NY

David W. Laughlin

New York, NY

Ryan E. Lee

New York, NY

Thomas L. Lloyd

Washington, DC

Nancy Marks 

and Howard S. Marks

East Hampton, NY

Jacqueline B. Mars

The Plains, VA

Siri Marshall

and Bob Marshall

Santa Barbara, CA

David O. Maxwell

Washington, DC

Bonnie McElveen-Hunter

and Gil Kemp

Palm Beach, FL

Constance J. Milstein

Washington, DC

Mary V. Mochary

Washington, DC

Scott Nathan

Washington, DC

D’Ann Norwood 

and John R. Norwood

Midland, TX

Catherine Podell

Hillsborough, CA

Trisja and Tony Podesta

Washington, DC

Marzia Precoda

and Dale Precoda

Palm Beach, FL

Diana C. Prince

Washington, DC

Sharon Percy Rockefeller

Washington, DC

The Honorable

Wilbur L. Ross 

and Mrs. Ross

Palm Beach, FL

Roger W. Sant and 

The Honorable

Doris Matsui

Washington, DC

The Honorable

Andrew M. Saul

New York, NY

Denise Saul

New York, NY

Patricia Saul 

and B. Francis Saul II

Bethesda, MD
Fern M. Schad

New York, NY

Abigail R. Spangler

McLean, VA

Stephen G. Stein 

and Avivah Litan

Washington, DC

Alexa Davidson Suskin

and Marc Suskin

Brooklyn, NY

Argyris Vassiliou

Stamford, CT

Diana Walker

Washington, DC

J. Robinson West

Washington, DC

John Wilmerding

New York, NY

Dian Woodner

New York, NY

as of January 23, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4093 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.4093

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend a 
 suspension of limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are 
                   eligible for guaranteed assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD FOR WHICH BORROWERS ARE 
              ELIGIBLE FOR GUARANTEED ASSISTANCE.

    Section 5102 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(7 U.S.C. 1949 note; Public Law 107-171) is amended by striking 
``December 31, 2006'' and inserting ``September 30, 2007''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
##### 






CALL-NET ENTERPRISES INC.


(IMPORTANT REMINDER)

Dear Call-Net Enterprises Inc. shareholder:

A special meeting of Call-Net Enterprises Inc.
(Call-Net) shareholders has been called to consider
a special resolution with respect to the arrangement (the
Arrangement) involving the acquisition by Rogers
Communications Inc. (RCI) of all of the outstanding
Common and Class B shares of Call-Net. The special meeting
will be held at the Hilton Toronto (Toronto III Room),
145 Richmond Street West, Toronto, Ontario on Wednesday,
June 29, 2005 at 11:00 a.m. (Toronto Time).

Under the Arrangement, you will receive one
(1) Class B Non-Voting Share of RCI for every
4.25 Call-Net shares you hold.

The Board of Directors has determined that the Arrangement is
fair to Call-Nets shareholders and unanimously recommends
that shareholders vote in favour of the Arrangement.

If you have not already returned your Voting Form, a duplicate
one is enclosed for your use. You can vote by telephone at
1-800-474-7493 for English and 1-800-474-7501 for French, by fax
at 905-507-7793 or through the internet at
www.proxyvotecanada.com.

For assistance in voting your shares or if you require
additional copies of the notice of meeting and information
circular, please do not hesitate to contact Georgeson
Shareholder at the number below. Copies of these materials may
also be obtained on SEDAR at www.sedar.com or the SEC at
www.sec.gov.

(GEORGESO LOGO)

Toll Free Number:

1-888-253-0937
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Irineo Jimenez, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 100]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered February 21, 2012, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*741Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the defendant’s plea of guilty is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

To be valid, a plea of guilty must be entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently *(see People v Mox,*20 NY3d 936, 938 [2012]; *People v Hill,*9 NY3d 189, 191 [2007], *cert denied*553 US 1048 [2008]; *People v Grason,*107 AD3d 1015 [2013]). “[W]here the defendant’s recitation of the facts underlying the crime pleaded to clearly casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea, . . . the trial court has a duty to inquire further to ensure [the] guilty plea is knowing and voluntary” *(People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; *see People v Mox,*20 NY3d at 938; *People v Serrano,*15 NY2d 304, 308 [1965]).

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 120.05). At the plea allocution, the defendant indicated that he had a very limited recollection of the incident, but admitted his guilt based on photographs, police reports, and witness statements. The County Court acknowledged that the defendant could not recollect the incident because he had been drinking alcoholic beverages at the time of the assault, and that the defendant’s alleged intoxication at the time of the incident could negate the intent element of the crime of assault in the second degree *(see*Penal Law §§ 15.25, 120.05). While defense counsel stated that he had discussed “a possible intoxication defense” with the defendant and that the defendant understood it, the court made no inquiry of the defendant to ensure that he was aware of the significance of his claim of intoxication *(see People v Mox,*20 NY3d at 939). The court’s failure to conduct any such inquiry of the defendant requires vacatur of the defendant’s plea of guilty *(see id.; People v Grason,*107 AD3d 1015 [2013]; *People v Osgood,*254 AD2d 571, 572 [1998]; *People v Braman,*136 AD2d 382, 384 [1988]; *People v Jimenez,*73 AD2d 533 [1979]; *People v Cintron,*72 AD2d 568 [1979]; *cf. People v Munck,*278 AD2d 662, 663 [2000]; *People v McZorn,*121 AD2d 473 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contention need not be reached in light of our determination.

Accordingly, the defendant’s plea of guilty must be vacated, and the matter remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings on the indictment. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT 15.1 Awareness Letter of Deloitte & Touche LLP Bank of America, N.A. as Trustee
for the Permian Basin Royalty Trust: We have made a review, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial information of
Permian Basin Royalty Trust, for the periods ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, as indicated in our report dated August 5, 2005,
because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. We are aware that Permian Basin Royalty Trust and Burlington Resources Inc. have incorporated by
reference in their Registration Statement No. 333-124056-01 on Form S-3, Permian Basin Royalty
Trusts Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005,
which includes our report dated August 5,
2005, covering the unaudited interim financial information contained
therein. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to
Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act. DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP Dallas, Texas
August 5, 2005