alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, vs. PAUL BLAKELY, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-08-10B DECISION

On May 18, 2009, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: A commitment to the Gallatin County Detention Center for a term of six (6) months, for the offense of Indecent Exposure, a misdemeanor; Count V: A commitment to the Gallatin County Detention Center for a term of six (6) months, for the offense of Indecent Exposure, a misdemeanor; and Count VI: Twenty-five (25) years in the Montana State Prison, with fifteen (15) years suspended, for the offense of Indecent Exposure, a felony. Counts I, V and VI shall run concurrent with each other.

On May 6,2010, 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 Kara Docherty. The state was not represented.

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

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

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

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

Done in open Court this 6th day of May, 2010.

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
Exhibit 32.2

Section 1350 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

In connection with this Annual
Report of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen C. Raffaele,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                                                   
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 2, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/    STEPHEN C.
RAFFAELE                                                                        
|                     |  |     |  | Stephen C. Raffaele Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Sterling Bancshares, Inc.
#### *In re*Johnston.

*(District*Court, *D. New Jersey.*

June 30, 1883.)

Bankrupt’s Discharge—Partnership—Creditors.

Where, deducting from the list of creditors assenting to the discharge of a bankrupt partner those whose claims are against the partnership alone, it appears that one-third in value have not assented to the discharge, it must be refused.

In Bankruptcy. On application for discharge.

*John Linn,*for bankrupt.

*Charles T. Glen,*for creditors opposing discharge.

Nixon, J.

Various specifications are filed against the bankrupt’s discharge. In my view of the case it is only necessary to consider the one charging that not one-fourth of the creditors in number and one-third in value have assented to the discharge. It appears by the schedules of the bankrupt, by the proofs of claim, and by the evidence taken on the reference, that the said bankrupt, at the time he filed his individual petition for the benefit of the act, was also liable for the debts of a partnership of which he had been a member, and which had been dissolved a few years before. The partnership has not been *72brought into bankruptcy, but a number of the claims put in against the individual estate are these partnership debts, and two or three of the creditors assenting to the discharge are only creditors of the partnership, and have no individual claim against the bankrupt. In the schedules the bankrupt estimates his interest in the real and personal estate of the late firm of W. L. & G. W. Johnston, after the settlement of the debts of the partnership, at about $8,000. We cannot, 'therefore, assume that there were no assets of the firm to be administered, and that the case will fall within that class of cases where, in the absence of all partnership assets, the discharge of the bankrupt on his jiersonal petition operates upon his partnership as well as his individual debts. It only discharges his individual obligations. See *In re Little,*1 N. B. R. 341; *In re Bidwell,*2 N. B. R. 229; *Hudgins*v. *Lane,*11 N. B. R. 462; *Crompton*v. *Conkling, 15*N. B. R. 417; *In re Noonan,*10 N. B. R. 331.

It was, doubtless, lawful for the partnership creditors to prove their claims against the individual estate of one of the partners, for they would be entitled to come in and participate in any dividend of the assets, if any should happen to remain after the payment of the individual debts in full. But consenting to the discharge is quite a different matter. The law clearly contemplates that only those creditors should be allowed to assent whose claims will be discharged by the. discharge, of the bankrupt.

Eliminating from the proofs the claim of Elias A. Wilkinson, trustee, for $47,999.26, on which the bankrupt is not liable as principal debtor, and allowing' the other proofs to stand, their aggregate amount is $22,116.18—one-third of which is $7,372.06. Deducting from the list of creditors assenting to the discharge those whose claims are against the partnership alone, it is clear that one-third in value have not assented to the discharge, and the same is therefore refused.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CHARLES MOORE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-10197

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00081-KJD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Charles Moore appeals from the 21-month sentence imposed following the

revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

FILED

NOV 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-10197

Moore contends that the district court erred by basing its sentencing decision

on the seriousness of his underlying offense. The record shows that the district

court took proper account of the seriousness of Moore’s conduct and did not

impose sentence primarily on this basis. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d

1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, in light of the totality of the

circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, the sentence is

substantively reasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.

2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
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








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Arête Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Herzog, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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 result of operations of the Company.







Dated:  December 22, 2010
By:
/s/ John HerzogJohn Herzog, Interim Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Arête Industries, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Central Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, and Beverly Bemiss, Appellant.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided May 7, 2009

Motion by Defense Association of New York, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATION


 I, Donald Rabinovitch Co-Principal Executive Officer of AFP Imaging
Corporation, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging
    Corporation;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this 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 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 enable 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 report is being prepared;

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

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 controls over financial reporting.









Date: February 11, 2005                 /s/  Donald Rabinovitch
                                       ------------------------------
                                             Donald Rabinovitch
                                                 President
                                       Co-Principal Executive Officer






                                       18
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 93 (Friday, May 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 22988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11391]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11740 and <greek-i>11741]


Alabama Disaster <greek-i>AL-00022

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Alabama (FEMA-
1836-DR), dated 05/08/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes, and Straight-line 
Winds.
    Incident Period: 04/10/2009 through 04/13/2009.
    Effective Date: 05/08/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/07/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 02/08/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 05/08/2009, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Cullman, Dekalb, Jackson, Jefferson, Marshall.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit            4.500.
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit            4.000.
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11740B 
and for economic injury is 11741B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11391 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EX-10.3



 





Exhibit 10.3








Computer Associates International, Inc.

Restricted Stock Award Certificate




     





	 	 	 	 	 
	

Name of Participant

	 	

EMPLID
	 	 







	 	 	 
	Grant Number

	 	Option
	 

	 	 
	Total
Number of Restricted Stock Awards Granted

	 	**Total Granted**
	Grant Date

	 	Grant Date
	Stock
Price on Grant Date

	 	Price









	 	 	This Certificate confirms the grant under the Computer Associates
International, Inc. 2002 Incentive Plan, amended and restated effective as of
March 31, 2004 (the “Plan”), to the above-named participant of the amount of
Restricted Stock set forth above. This Certificate merely evidences such
grant, and does not constitute property of any nature or type or confer any
additional rights. This grant is subject in all respects to the applicable
terms of the Plan, which are incorporated by reference in this Certificate. A
copy of the Plan may be obtained at no cost by contacting the Corporate
Treasurer.
	 
	 	 	This Restricted Stock award will vest in equal (or approximately equal)
installments on each of the first three one-year anniversaries of the grant
date of the award. Shares of Restricted Stock that are included in this award
may not be transferred by the participant prior to vesting and shall be
forfeited by the participant upon the participant’s Termination of Employment,
as defined in the Plan, prior to vesting for any reason other than death or
Disability, as defined in the Plan.
	 
	 	 	The Company may satisfy any federal income tax withholding obligations that
arise in connection with the vesting of the Restricted Stock (or in connection
with an election by the participant under section 83(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code, 1986, as amended, with respect to the Restricted Stock) by
withholding shares of Restricted Stock that are part of this award having a
Fair Market Value, as defined in the Plan, on the date the shares of
Restricted Stock first become taxable equal to the minimum statutory
withholding obligation with respect to such taxable shares.





     





	 	 	 	 	 
	By

	 	
	 	 
	

	 	
	 	 
	

	 	Jeff Clarke 	 	 
	

	 	Chief Operating Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jacob Reyes, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 19]

*522Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J), rendered August 9, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

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]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution of inconsistencies in testimony.

The court properly denied defendant’s CPL 330.30 (3) motion to set aside the verdict on the ground of newly discovered evidence relating to an incident in which the People’s eyewitness possessed a small quantity of drugs. This evidence would not have created any reasonable possibility of changing the result, let alone the “probability” required by the statute *(see e.g. People v Taylor,*246 AD2d 410 [1998], *lv denied*91 NY2d 978 [1998]). Although defendant argues that, under the circumstances of the case, this incident was not mere impeachment material, but related to the witness’s alleged motive to falsely inculpate him, we find that argument unpersuasive. In any event, even under defendant’s theory of relevance, the new evidence was entirely cumulative to trial testimony concerning the same incident. To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew Whipple, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: December 19, 2013 | By:                           | /s/ ANDREW WHIPPLE | 
|----------------------- | ----------------------------- | ------------------ | 
|                        | Andrew Whipple                |                   
|                        | Chief Financial Officer       |                   
|                        | (Principal Financial Officer) |
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 788 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 788

    To suspend temporarily the duty on Liquid Crystal Device panel 
  assemblies for use in Liquid Crystal Device direct view televisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2005

  Mr. Santorum introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on Liquid Crystal Device panel 
  assemblies for use in Liquid Crystal Device direct view televisions.

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

SECTION 1. LIQUID CRYSTAL DEVICE PANEL ASSEMBLIES FOR DIRECT VIEW 
              TELEVISIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.85.21    Liquid Crystal    Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     Device (LCD)                                                            31/2008          ''
                     panel                                                                                     .
                     assemblies for
                     use in Liquid
                     Crystal Device
                     direct view
                     televisions
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     9013.80.90)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```