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

[974 NYS2d 737]

*1326Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered February 28, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in refusing to suppress a gun seized by the police from defendant and statements made by defendant to the police as the result of an allegedly illegal stop and frisk. Two anonymous 911 calls reported a homicide and gave a description of two suspects, one of whom was an African-American male in his twenties wearing dark clothing and a red top. In addition, a police radio dispatch described one of the suspects as an African-American male last seen in the vicinity of the area in which defendant was stopped, wearing a black leather jacket, black jeans and “something red on the top area.” A police officer testified that he observed defendant, an African-American male in a black leather jacket, black pants and a red shirt, near the location where the suspect had last been seen. The officer further testified that defendant was standing at an angle with his left side away from the officer and that defendant’s arm was clenched at his left side. Defendant was not responsive when the officer asked him what was wrong with his arm, and the officer then conducted a pat down of defendant and recovered a gun. Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that the officer had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant under level three of *People v De Bour*(40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; *see People v Thompson,*107 AD3d 1609, 1610 [2013]; *People v Powell,*101 AD3d 1783, 1785 [2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 1102 [2013]; *see generally People v Moore,*6 NY3d 496, 498-499 [2006]). Defendant matched the description of the suspect in the 911 calls and the police radio dispatch, and the officer observed defendant acting in a suspicious manner *(see Moore,*6 NY3d at 500-501; *see also People v Zeigler,*61 AD3d 1398, 1399 [2009], *lv denied*13 NY3d 864 [2009]).

Finally, we conclude that defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Fahey, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:

/s/  Dennis J. PaulsDennis J. PaulsChief Financial Officer and Vice President  4
Exhibit 10(b)
Adopted August 13, 2003
**2002 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN**
     **WHEREAS,**the 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan (the “Plan”) waseffective upon the approval of shareholders on May 9, 2002.
     **WHEREAS**, on June 30, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission approvednew rules proposed and adopted by the New York Stock Exchange that provide,among other things, that if an equity-compensation plan of a listed companycontains a formula for automatic increases in the shares available or forautomatic grants pursuant to a formula, each such increase or grant will beconsidered a revision requiring shareholder approval unless the plan has a termof not more than ten years; and
     **WHEREAS**, the Board of Directors desires to amend the Plan to clarify thatthe Plan has a term of not more than ten years.
     **NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,**that the penultimate sentence of the**PURPOSE**section of the Plan be and it hereby is amended and restated in itsentirety as follows:
   “No grants shall be made under the Plan after the earlier of the date ofthe annual meeting of the Company’s shareholders (“annual meeting”) heldin the year 2012 or May 8, 2012.”
     **FURTHER RESOLVED**, that the officers of the Corporation are authorized todo or cause to be done, in the name and on behalf of the Corporation, any andall such acts and things, and to execute, deliver and file, in the name and onbehalf of the Corporation, any and all such agreements, applications,certificates and other documents and instruments, as any such officer may deemnecessary, advisable or appropriate to effectuate the foregoing resolutionconsistent with the limitations imposed therein.
#### Joseph P. Maxon, Appellant, v Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 16, 2009;

decided May 7, 2009

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order affirming the denial of appellant’s disqualification motion, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
**SOX 302 CERTIFICATION**        Exhibit 31.1

 

I, Tommy Harris, as senior officer in charge of the master servicing function of CitiMortgage, Inc., certify that:

1.    I 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 Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc., Series 2007-AR5 (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 the report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.     I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicers compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements, in all material respects; 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:  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

 

March 31, 2008

 

CitiMortgage, Inc.

 

By: /s/ Tommy Harris

Name:  Tommy Harris

Title:  Senior Vice President – Master Servicing
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
								 EXHIBIT 12(a)


						 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
					      SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES


<CAPTION>      

						 Twelve       Six
						 Months       Months
						 Ended        Ended
						 Jun. 28,     Jun. 28,                      Year Ended
						 1997         1997
(millions, except ratios)                        (unaudited)  (unaudited)    1996     1995     1994     1993     1992
<S>                                                 <C>          <C>          <C>      <C>     <C>       <C>     <C>
Fixed Charges                          
 Interest and amortization of debt discount 
  and expense on all indebtedness                $1,372          $693       $1,365   $1,373   $1,279   $1,318   $1,389

 Add interest element implicit in rentals           154            74          121      119      114      105      165
						  1,526           767        1,486    1,492    1,393    1,423    1,554
 Interest capitalized                                 4             2            5        4        1        3       23
Total fixed charges                              $1,530          $769       $1,491   $1,496   $1,394   $1,426   $1,577

Income (loss)
 Income (loss) from continuing operations        $1,145          $299       $1,271   $1,025     $857     $625  ($1,812)
 Deduct undistributed net income (loss)
  of unconsolidated companies                         3             3            8        9       (7)       6       (4)
						  1,142           296        1,263    1,016      864      619  ( 1,808)
Add 
 Fixed charges (excluding interest capitalized)   1,526           767        1,486    1,492    1,393    1,423    1,554
 Income taxes (benefit)                             858           308          834      703      614      329  ( 1,039)
    Income (loss) before fixed charges and 
     income taxes                                $3,526        $1,371       $3,583   $3,211   $2,871   $2,371  ($1,293)

Ratio of income to fixed charges                   2.31          1.78         2.40     2.15     2.06     1.66     (A)

<FN>
(A)  As a result of the loss for the year ended December 31, 1992, earnings did not cover
     fixed charges by $2,870 million.
</FN>                                                                                                
</TABLE>
#### Cadlerock, L.L.C., Appellant-Respondent, v Jan Z. Renner, Respondent-Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 90]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered August 15, 2012, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs cross motion to strike defendant’s affirmative defense of equitable estoppel and for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, the cross motion granted, the matter remanded for a determination of attorneys’ fees and expenses, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*476In this action to recover on a promissory note, we had found an issue of fact as to whether the action is barred as a result of equitable estoppel arising from plaintiffs failure until commencement of the action in April 2008 to seek recovery of arrears since the January 2003 sale of the cooperative unit that the note financed (72 AD3d 454 [2010]). Even if, arguendo, silence is sufficient to support an estoppel, we find that, on this second motion for summary judgment after discovery, defendant failed to demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as a result of plaintiffs inaction. We disagree with the motion court’s perception that defendant misunderstood the question about prejudice posed to him at his deposition, as well as with its conclusion that his failure to articulate any change in position resulting from plaintiffs inaction nevertheless constituted prejudice *(see BWA Corp. v Alltrans Express U.S.A.,*112 AD2d 850, 853 [1st Dept 1985]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Acosta, Renwick, Richter and Gische, JJ.
Tho mpso n v . S tate , No. 12-05-00328- CR, 2006 Tex . App. LEXI S 10796, at 12-17 1 (Tex. App.—Tyler De c. 20, 2006) ( designated f or publication). 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS N O . P D - 135- 07
JO H N TH O M PSO N , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON APP ELLANT’ S PET I TI ON FOR DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW

FROM THE TW ELF TH CO URT O F AP PEALS

S M I TH CO UNTY P e r c u r i a m. O P I N I O N Jo h n T h o m p so n w a s co n v icte d o f th e f t an d se n ten c e d to tw o y e a rs’ im p riso n m e n t in
a s t at e j ai l fac i l i t y , w hi ch w as t hen pr obat ed forfi ve y ear s . T hom ps on appea l ed, cl ai m i ng t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s mot i o n f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t b e c a u s e t h e evi dence
w as i ns uffi ci entt o pr ove t hatvenue w as pr operi n Sm i t h C ount y . T he Ty l erC o ur tof 1T H O M P S O N —2

I d. at18. 2 Id
. at18- 25. 3 I d. at24- 28. 4 A p p ea ls he l d t hatt he t r i al j udge err ed. Fi ndi ng t he err ors ubj ectt o t he harm l es s er r or 2 anal y s i s s etout i n T exas R ul e of A ppel l at e P r ocedur e 44. 2( b) , t he cour t concl uded t hatt he
er r ordi d notaff

ectT hom ps on’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s and w as t her efo re har m l es s . A ft er 3 det er m i ni ng t hatt he evi dence w as fac t ual l ys uffi ci entt o s uppor t t he j ur y ’ s gui l t yver di ct , t he
c o u rt a f f irm e d th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e trial c o u rt. 4 T hom ps on pet i t i oned for r evi ew , w hi ch w e gr ant ed t o cons i derw het her“t he cour tof app eal s, i n aff

i rm i ng [T ho m pson ’s ] con vict i on , err ed i n findi ng t hat deny i ng [T ho m pson ’s ]
m ot i on fori ns t r uct ed ver di ctw as har m l es s er r or . ” Ha v i n g e x a mi n e d t h e r e c o r d a n d b r i e f s a n d c o n s i d e r e d t h e a r g u me n t s i n t h e c a s e , we
con cl ud e t hat our deci si on to g ra n t r e view w as i m provident. W e t herefore di sm i ss T hom ps on’ s pet i t i on as i m pr ovi dent l ygr ant ed.

D A T E D E L I V E R E D : D ece m ber12, 2007 D O N O T PU BL I SH
<PAGE>
<TABLE>

								       EXHIBIT 12(b)



						 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
							    AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
						  SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
<CAPTION>

						     
						     
						      
										  Year Ended
						   
(millions, except ratios)                                       1996      1995       1994       1993       
<S>                                                              <C>       <C>        <C>        <C>       

Fixed Charges
 Interest and amortization of debt discount
  and expense on all indebtedness                               $1,365    $1,373     $1,279     $1,318     
 Add interest element implicit in rentals                          121       119        114        105     
								 1,486     1,492      1,393      1,423

 Preferred dividend factor                                          41        89        234        209
 Interest capitalized                                                5         4          1          3
Total fixed charges                                             $1,532    $1,585     $1,628     $1,635


Income (loss)
 Income (loss) from continuing operations                       $1,271    $1,025     $  857     $  625
 Deduct undistributed net income (loss)
  of unconsolidated companies                                        8         9         (7)         6
								 1,263      1,016        864       619

Add
 Fixed charges (excluding interest capitalized
  and preferred dividend factor)                                 1,486      1,492      1,393     1,423
 Income taxes (benefit)                                            834        703        614       329
    Income (loss) before fixed charges and
     income taxes                                               $3,583     $3,211     $2,871    $2,371
Ratio of income to combined fixed charges
 and preferred share dividends                                    2.34       2.03       1.76      1.45      

<FN>
In 1996, all the outstanding 8.88% Preferred Shares, First Series were redeemed and thereafter the Company made no
other preferred share dividend payments.

</FN>
</TABLE>
Opinion issued September 5, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00735-CR

———————————

IN RE WILLIAM H. WARD, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, William H. Ward, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus 

requesting that we compel the trial court to rule on a “Motion to Vacate.”

1

 

We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.

 

1

The underlying case is cause no. 9508871, in the Harris County Criminal Court at 

Law No. 5, the Hon. Margaret Harris presiding.
2

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
ANNUAL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
 Pooling
and Servicing Agreement dated April 1, 2007 (the "Pooling and
Servicing
 Agreement")
by and among Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., as
Depositor,
 Wachovia
Bank, National Association as Master Servicer No. 1, Wells Fargo
Bank,
 National
Association as Master Servicer No.2, LaSalle Bank National Association,
as
 Trustee,
and LNR Partners, Inc., as Special Servicer
 ML-CFC
2007-6
 I, Susan
K. Chapman, a Vice President of LNR Partners, Inc. as Special Servicer under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement, on behalf of the Special Servicer and not in my
individual capacity, hereby certify that:
 1.
                I
      have reviewed the activities performed by the Special Servicer under the
      Pooling and
      Servicing Agreement during the period commencing on January 1, 2007 and
      ending
      on October 18, 2007 (the "Reporting
      Period") and the Special Servicer's performance
      under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision;
      and
 
 2.
                To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has
      fulfilled
      its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material
      respects
      throughout the Reporting
Period.
 
 LNR
PARTNERS, INC.
  By:    
 /s/ Susan K.
Chapman
 Susan K.
Chapman
 Vice
President
**Exhibit 23.3**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement (Nos. 333-158737 and 333-150563) on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement (Nos. 333-157881 and 333-155595) on Form S-3 of Boise Inc. of our report dated February 21, 2008, relating to our audit of the consolidatedfinancial statements of Aldabra 2 Acquisition Corp. which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Boise Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP 

**McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP**

New York, New York 

February 25, 2010
----

| 1.     | the      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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      at and for the year ended December 31,2007. |

| March 31,      2008 | /s/ Dana C. Gavenda                                      |   |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date                | Dana      C. Gavenda                                     |   |
|                | President      and Chief Executive Officer               |   |
|                |                                                     |   |
|                |                                                     |   |
| March 31,      2008 | /s/ Kevin D. Maroney                                     |   |
| Date                | Kevin      D. Maroney                                    |   |
|                | Executive      Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131394(69) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, MARIZA LAFFIN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 131394 

 COA: 265125 

Oakland CC: 04-061790-NM 

DAVID M. CAPLAN and CAPLAN & 

ASSOCIATES, PC, a/k/a DAVID M CAPLAN, PC,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s August 29, 

2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Presidential Documents

609 

Federal Register 

Vol. 74, No. 4 

Wednesday, January 7, 2009 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8333 of December 30, 2008 

National Mentoring Month, 2009 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

During National Mentoring Month, we recognize the millions of individuals 

who dedicate themselves to making a difference in the lives of others, 

and we underscore our commitment to supporting these soldiers in America’s 

armies of compassion. 

Every day across our great Nation, men and women of many different 

backgrounds work to inspire our next generation of leaders. By sharing 

their time and experiences, mentors help instill important values that encourage America’s youth to set high goals and achieve their dreams. Mentors 

demonstrate that the strength of our Nation lies in the hearts and souls 

of our citizens and that a positive influence in someone’s life helps them 

secure a more hopeful future. 

My Administration has been committed to building a culture of service, 

citizenship, and responsibility. Through the Mentoring Children of Prisoners 

program, volunteers help provide consistent guidance and support so that 

these children can lead lives of opportunity and achievement. The USA 

Freedom Corps is strengthening mentoring opportunities in America and 

spreading a message of hope across our Nation. The Helping America’s 

Youth initiative, led by First Lady Laura Bush, motivates caring adults 

to connect with youth to help them to grow up to be responsible and 

successful adults. By working together, we can enrich the lives of our 

next generation and continue a legacy of kindness and encouragement. 

I appreciate our Nation’s mentors and all those who contribute to their 

community by helping to change a child’s life. For more information on 

volunteering to be a mentor, visit volunteer.gov. During National Mentoring 

Month, we honor the many Americans who have touched the lives of others 

with their compassion, and we reflect on their efforts toward building a 

stronger and brighter future for all. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 2009 as National 

Mentoring Month. I call upon the people of the United States to recognize 

the importance of mentoring, to look for opportunities to serve as mentors 

in their communities, and to observe this month with appropriate activities 

and programs. 

610 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 4 / Wednesday, January 7, 2009 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day 

of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third. 

[FR Doc. E9–113 

Filed 1–6–09; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3195–W9–P 


GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>