alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JOHN ZERBST, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-06-458 DECISION

On February 9, 2010, the defendant was sentenced for violations of the conditions of a deferred sentence to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, with eight (8) years suspended, for the offense of Count I: Issuing a Bad Check (Common Scheme), a felony. The Court recommends that the Defendant be screened for the pre-release program as soon as possible and that the Sentence Review Board review the report submitted by Dr. Shea attached to the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.

On August 5,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

*73The defendant was not present. However, his case manager, Aaron Hedges, appeared via teleconference and spoke on behalf of the defendant. The defendant was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

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 5th day of August, 2010.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7504
TYRONE WAYNE MOORE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAYNE L. EMERY, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Ric hard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-408) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Wayne Moore, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom , 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny leave to proceed informa pauperis 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
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2012

d0514 

# Order

May 21, 2012

143839(66)

AARON RICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143839 COA: 297353 Wayne CC: 10-000273-CZ SCHNEIDERMAN & SHERMAN, P.C., Defendant-Appellee, and

GMAC MORTGAGE, and MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s January 30, 2012 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 22


                        INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT


The Shareholders and Board of Directors
PennCorp Financial Group, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-2930 and 333-2928) on Form S-8 of PennCorp Financial Group, Inc. of our
report dated February 28, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
PennCorp Financial Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and
1995, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 1996, and all related schedules, which report appears in the December 31,
1996 annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 of PennCorp Financial Group,
Inc.


KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina
July 1, 1997
#### In the Matter of Lorcen Burroughs, Petitioner, v Daniel Martuscello, as Superintendent of Coxsackie Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 703]

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

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner’s inmate account. As such, petitioner has been afforded all the relief to which he is entitled, and the petition must be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Lopez v Fischer,*102 AD3d 1025, 1025 [2013]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
<PAGE>

                                    Exhibit 10.4
                                          
                              RICHEY ELECTRONICS, INC.


                                          
                                  October 1, 1998

Mr. William C. Cacciatore
7441 Lincoln Way
Garden Grove, CA 92642


               Re:  Employment Agreement
                    --------------------

Dear Bill:

          Reference is made to the Employment Agreement dated as of April 1,
1993, between you and Brajdas Corporation, as amended by the Addendum to
Employment Agreement dated as of February 21, 1995 between you and Richey
Electronics, Inc. (the "Company"), and as further amended by the Second Addendum
to Employment Agreement dated as of May 17, 1995 between you and the Company (as
so amended, the "Employment Agreement").

          The Company hereby notifies you pursuant to Section 2 of the
Employment Agreement that your employment under the Employment Agreement shall
terminate upon the expiration of the current Additional Two-Year Period (as
defined in the Employment Agreement) on April 6, 1999.


                              Very truly yours,

                              /s/ Donald I. Zimmerman
                              -----------------------
                              Donald I. Zimmerman
                              Chairman of the Compensation
                              Committee

Receipt Acknowledged


/s/ William C. Cacciatore
-------------------------
William C. Cacciatore
#### Hollister *v.*Bell.1 James *v.*Same.

*(Circuit Court, D. California.*

October 16, 1882.)

1. Removal of Causes.

The second clause of section 639 of the Revised Statutes was repealed by the act of congress of March 3, 1875.

1

 From f-’th Sawyer.

Sawyer, J.

This action was brought in the state court of Santa Barbara county, and removed by B. S. Ben as to himself, under the second clause of section 639 of the Revised Statutes, on the ground of citizenship, and that there was a controversy which could be wholly determined as to him, without the presence of other parties.

At the last term of the supreme court of the United States it was held, in *Hyde*v. *Ruble,*that “the second clause of section 639 of the Revised Statutes was repealed by the act of 1875.” *Hyde*v. *Ruble,*104 U. S. 407.

The law under which the removal was had having been repealed long before the removal, it was not removable. The case must, therefore, be remanded to the state court for want of jurisdiction, and it is so ordered. _

As to repeal of first clause of section 639 of the Revised Statutes, see *Slate*v. *Lewis,*14 Fed. Rep. 65; and as to repeal of third clause, *Miller*v. *Chicago. B. & Q. R. Co., ante,*97.—[ED.
#### State v. Hatchett

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 812

No. 356P06

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-680)

Denied 01/25/07
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James Thorburn, as Chief Executive Officer of ZiLOG, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ZiLOG, Inc.



Date: May 5, 2005/s/ James M. ThorburnJames M. ThorburnChairman and Chief Executive Officer




This certification accompanies
the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by ZiLOG, Inc. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.



In connection with the Quarterly Report of ZiLOG, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Perry J. Grace, as Chief Financial Officer of ZiLOG, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ZiLOG, Inc.



Date: May 5, 2005/s/ Perry J. GracePerry J. GraceVice President and Chief Financial Officer




This certification accompanies
the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by ZiLOG, Inc. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ginger L. Ladieu, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 482]

Rose, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), rendered November 4, 2011, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Defendant waived indictment and agreed to be prosecuted by a superior court information charging her with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. She pleaded guilty to this charge and waived her right to appeal. She was thereafter sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to five years in prison followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, upon reviewing the record, we find that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was invalid given that she was not advised that the waiver was separate and distinct from the other rights she was relinquishing by pleading guilty *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Klages,*90 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 925 [2012]; *People v Mosher,*79 AD3d 1272, 1273 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 834 [2011]). However, her contentions that her guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent and that she was denied the effective *1266assistance of counsel, which caused her to enter a defective guilty plea, have not been preserved for our review inasmuch as the record does not reveal that defendant made a motion to withdraw her plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see *People v McGowan,*98 AD3d 1192, 1192 [2012]; *People v Doe,*95 AD3d 1449, 1449 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 995 [2012]). The narrow exception to the preservation requirement is inapplicable insofar as defendant did not make any statements during the plea allocution that negated a material element of the crime or otherwise cast doubt upon her guilt *(see People v Doe,*95 AD3d at 1449; *People v Burnett,*93 AD3d 993, 993 [2012]). Further, defendant’s contentions regarding her ineffective assistance of counsel claim concern matters largely outside the record that cannot be examined on direct appeal. Lastly, we are not persuaded by defendant’s contention that her sentence is harsh and excessive. She received the sentence agreed to under the terms of the plea agreement, and we find no extraordinary circumstances or any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice.

Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Lisa M. Yaeger, an Attorney, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 843]

— Order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f). Present — Centra, J.E, Peradotto, Lindley and WTialen, JJ. (Filed Oct. 23, 2013.)
## In the Court of Appeal s Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Wort h

_______ ____________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00486

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 481st District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. 21

- 8447

- 16
Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker 

### A NTHONY 

### S EWELL 

### , Appellant

V



### . A NGELA 

### S EWELL 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDU M OPINION
In this divorce action , the trial court signed i ts final decree of divorce on August 11, 2022

. Ap pellant Anthony Sewell filed his motion for new trial on September 12, 2022, thus extending his deadline for filing a no tice of appea l t o N ovember 9, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P . 26.1 ( a)(1) (re quiring after the filing of motion
for new trial that notice of appeal be filed wi thin ninety days after the judgment is signed). Although the motion was overruled by operation of law on October 25, 2022, see T ex. R. Civ. P. 329b (c) , o n No vember 9, 2022, the trial court signed an order denying Sewell ’ s motion for new tr ial. Sew ell then filed his notice of appeal on
Dece mber 9, 2022

. On December 12, 2022, we i nformed Sewell of our con cern that we lacked jurisdiction over his appeal becaus e his not ice of appeal was not timely filed. We
further informed him tha t, unless he or any party des iring to continue the appeal filed
on or before Decembe r 22, 2022, a response showing groun ds for c ontinuing this appeal, it might be d ismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a). We
received no such response.
A fter the timely filing of a motion for new trial, Appellat e courts h ave jurisdiction to consider an appeal only if the no tice of appeal was filed within ninety days of the final jud gment. Tex. R. App. P . 26.1 ( a)(1)

. An order denying a motion for
new trial does not extend this deadline. Naaman v. Grider , 126 S. W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003)

.3

Because Sewell ’ s notice of appeal was filed 120 days after the trial court ’ s final
divorce decree , he did not tim ely perfe ct his appeal

. T h us, w e must dismiss his appeal for want of jurisdiction. S ee id

. ; see also Tex. R. Ap p. P. 26.(1)(a), 42.3(a) , 43.2(f)

.

/s/ Br ian Walker
Brian Walker Justice
De livere d: January 12, 202 3
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.6

                               Amendment Number 2

         WHEREAS, Hanover Direct, Inc. (the "Company") maintains the Hanover
Direct, Inc. Key Executive Six Month Compensation Continuation Plan (the
"Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9 of the Plan, the Company's Board of
Directors (the "Board") has the right at any time to amend the Plan (except
under certain circumstances set forth in said Section 9 which are not applicable
in the instant case); and

         WHEREAS, the Board now desires to amend the Plan to reflect the
reorganization of the Company's subsidiaries which occurred on December 28,
2002;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of December
28, 2002, as follows:

         FIRST: The Plan is hereby amended by deleting Appendix A thereto in its
entirety and by substituting the following therefore:

                                   "APPENDIX A

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
LEGAL ENTITY                           FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
------------                           -----------------------------
<S>                                    <C>
American Down & Textile, LLC           01-0757279
Brawn of California, Inc.              95-2908436
Clearance World Outlets, LLC           22-3700615
D.M. Advertising, LLC                  22-3760990
Domestications, LLC                    54-1893520
Gump's By Mail, Inc.                   94-3222698
Gump's Corp.                           22-3236243
Hanover Company Store, LLC             22-3579201
Hanover Gifts, Inc.                    22-3776438
Hanover Home Fashions Group, LLC       54-1893519
Hanover Realty, Inc.                   22-3248825
Keystone Internet Services, LLC        01-0757274
La Crosse Fulfillment, LLC             22-3700603
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<S>                                    <C>
Scandia Down, LLC                      22-3652293
Silhouettes, LLC                       22-3579197
The Company Office, Inc.               39-1766577
The Company Store Factory, Inc.        39-1766578
The Company Store Group, LLC           01-0757269
The Horn & Hardart Company, Inc.       13-2770055"
</TABLE>

         SECOND: Except to the extent hereinabove set forth, the Plan shall
remain in full force and effect without change or modification.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as evidence of the adoption of the foregoing,
the Company has caused this Amendment Number 2 to be executed by a duly
authorized officer this 4th day of November, 2003.

                              HANOVER DIRECT, INC.


                              By: /s/ Brian C. Harriss
                                  ----------------------

                              Name: Brian C. Harriss

                              Title: EVP HR & Legal

                                       2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration 

          - [AC 187-1C] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability. 

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is announcing the availability of Advisory Circular (AC) 187-1C which transmits an updated schedule of charges for services of FAA Flight Standards Aviation Safety Inspectors outside the United States. The advisory circular has been updated in accordance with the procedures listed in 14 CFR Part 187, Appendix A. 

# DATES:

This AC is effective on June 1, 2009. 

# ADDRESSES:

*How to obtain copies:*                         A copy of this publication may be downloaded from:                         *http://rgl.faa.gov/​Regulatory_​and_​Guidance_​Library/​rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/​0/​b38e4a75d8e55cae862575b6004e937a/​$FILE/​AC%20187-1C.pdf*.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Geoff McIntyre, Flight Standards Service, AFS-51, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 385-8139. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 14, 2009. 

John W. McGraw, 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. E9-11926 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### SAIKEVICZ v. BLAZO et al.

Civil Action No. 3641.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 3, 1946.

Jacob Finks, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Margaret W. Blazo, pro se.

Nathaniel Ellis, of Boston, Mass., for defendants.

WYZANSKI, District Judge.

Counsel for both parties conferred with me in my chambers with respect to this case.

They informed me that on February 16, 1946, the Court entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $149.32; that on March 11, 1946, plaintiff secured an execution on that judgment; that with the consent of Judge HEALEY defendant on March 14, 1946, filed a motion for a new trial; and that Judge HEALEY scheduled the motion for hearing tomorrow, April 4, 1946. Judge HEALEY having been taken ill, he will be unable to hear the motion tomorrow. The defendant seeks to have a stay of execution until such time as Judge HEALEY can act upon the motion for a new trial.

Under Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, a judge in his discretion and on such conditions for the security of the adverse party as are proper may stay the execution pending the disposition of a motion for a new trial. In accordance with that authority I hereby stay the execution heretofore issued for whichever of the following two periods is the shorter: (1) Until the date that Judge HEALEY has acted upon the motion for a new trial, or (2) until October 1, 1946, it being understood that if Judge HEALEY has been unable to pass upon the motion for a new trial prior to September 1, 1946, the defendant may present the motion for a new *115trial to any other judge of this Court during September 1946. A condition of this stay is that defendant shall within 48 hours deposit with the Clerk of the United States District Court $200 as security for the payment of whatever judgment may be in effect after the disposition of the pending motion for a new trial.