alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

800 

KA 12-02113 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAKOTA W. BARNES, ALSO KNOWN AS “KNEES,”

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny

M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered July 13, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is

reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for

further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: 

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of

guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20 [1]). 

As the People correctly concede, Supreme Court erred in failing to

determine whether defendant, an apparently eligible youth, was

eligible for youthful offender status. Indeed, there was no mention

at the plea proceeding whether he would be afforded youthful offender

treatment. “Upon conviction of an eligible youth, the court must

order a [presentence] investigation of the defendant. After receipt

of a written report of the investigation and at the time of

pronouncing sentence the court must determine whether or not the

eligible youth is a youthful offender” (CPL 720.20 [1]). A sentencing

court must determine whether to grant youthful offender status to

every defendant who is eligible for it because, inter alia, “[t]he

judgment of a court as to which young people have a real likelihood of

turning their lives around is just too valuable, both to the offender

and to the community, to be sacrificed in plea bargaining” (People v

Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497, 501).

We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter

to Supreme Court to make and state for the record a determination 
-2- 800 

KA 12-02113 

whether defendant should be afforded youthful offender status. 

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Document

Exhibit 10.2

FIRST AMENDMENT
To
ROPER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2020)
The Roper Technologies, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective July 1, 2020)  (the “Plan”), is hereby amended, pursuant to Section 16 of the Plan, as follows effective as of July 1, 2022:
1.    Section 3.(a) is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended and restated as follows:
“(a)  Any Employee who has been employed by a Plan Sponsor before the Beginning Date (defined below) of an Offering Period (defined below) shall be eligible to participate in the Plan for that Offering Period.”
2.    In all other respects the Plan, as amended herein, is hereby ratified and confirmed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Roper Technologies, Inc. has caused this First Amendment to the Plan to be executed effective as of the 1st day of July, 2022, but on the actual date below.
ROPER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
/s/ John K. Stipancich    
By:    John K. Stipancich
Title:     Executive Vice President, General     Counsel and Corporate Secretary


Date: June 16, 2022
#### Tom Trala, Appellant, v Delta Sonic Carwash Systems, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 916]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Kevin M. Dillon, J.), entered September 19, 2012. The order denied the motion of plaintiff to strike the answer of defendants.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation discontinuing appeal signed by the attorneys for the parties on December 12, 2013,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 106 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13102]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Circadian-Coupled Cellular Function in 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Tissue.
    Date: June 16, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Sheraton Columbia Hotel, 10207 Wincopin Circle, Columbia, 
MD 21044.
    Contact Person: David A Wilson, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 7204, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0299, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#691e00051a06070d085b290701050b0047070001470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ceb9a7a2bda1a0aaaffc8ea0a6a2aca7e0a0a7a6e0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Microbiome of the Lung and Respiratory Tract 
in HIV-Infected Individuals and HIV-Uninfected Controls.
    Date: June 29, 2009.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Holly K. Krull, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 7188, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0280, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e38891968f8f8ba38d8b8f818acd8d8a8bcd848c95"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="472c35322b2b2f07292f2b252e69292e2f69202831">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 29, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-13102 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00279-CV

Platinum Energy Solutions, Inc., Platinum Pressure Pumping, Inc., Whitebox MultiStrategy Partners, L.P. and Whitebox Credit Partners, L.P.

v.

Lazarus Operating LLC, John Robert Beeler and Brenda Beeler, Individually and as 

Trustees of The John Robert Beeler and Brenda Beeler Trust, John Robert Beeler 

Revocable Trust and as General Partner of the Beeler Neyland Family Limited 

Partnership, and the Beeler Neyland Family Limited Partnership

On Appeal from the

369th District Court of Leon County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. NOT-13-00230

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 13, 2022
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 19, 2010 

jam 

Order 

 

October 19, 2010 

141920 (23) 

LONNER MELTON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 141920 

 COA: 297601 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

 Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $3.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

 If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$372.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. 

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

 The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Lutheran 
Brotherhood Realty Fund I Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended September 30, 1996 
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,970
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,970
<PP&E>                                           2,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                     345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              108
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,649
<SALES>                                          1,345
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,404
<CGS>                                              229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,029
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,029
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,029
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
*Opinion Amended August 21, 2006:*

#### 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford County,

No. 128788.

On order of the Court, on the Court’s own motion, the opinion of July 28, 2006, reported at 476 Mich 131, is amended as follows:

On page 27 of the slip opinion, the third sentence of the first full paragraph which currently reads:

> “Where the total or line item appropriation is insufficient, the court must go back to the county board of commissioners to seek an additional appropriation.”

is inconsistent with Administrative Order No. 1998-5. AO 1998-5 states that a trial court may not move funds between line items absent the prior approval of the funding unit in only two situations, in order to: (a) create new personnel positions or to supplement existing wage scales or benefits; or (b) reclassify an employee to a higher level of an existing category. For all other transfers between line items, AO 1998-5 merely requires courts to “notify the funding unit... of transfers between lines within 10 business days of the transfer.” Thus, the common understanding of the AO has been that a court may transfer funds between line items, thereby exceeding the amount appropriated within one of the lines, absent prior approval of the funding unit — subject to the two exceptions above — as long as it gives notice within 10 days and does not exceed the total appropriation.

Accordingly, the third sentence of the first full paragraph on page 27 of the slip opinion is corrected to read as follows:

> “Where the total or line item appropriation is insufficient, the court must follow the procedures set forth in AO 1998-5.”
Order entered October 27, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 01220
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF N .A. A CHILD On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD
- 14
- 01218
- X



### O R DER
T he reporter’s record in this termination of parental rights appeal is overdue. By postcard dated October 13, 2015, we notified Court Reporter Pamela Sumler that the reporter’s record was
overdue in this case. We directed Ms. Sumler to file the reco rd within ten days and cautioned that any request for an extension must be submitted in writing explaining the extraordinary reasons for the delay. To date, the Court has not received a response. Accordingly, we ORDER Pamela Sumler, Official Court Reporte r for the 305th Judicial District Court, to file, within TEN DAYS , either (1) the reporter’s record; or (2) written verification that appellant has not requested the record. Because this is a parental termination case, we remind both the trial court and the court reporter that it is the responsibility of the court reporter to prepare, certify, and timely file the reporter’s record and that the trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commencethe preparation of the reporter’s record. The trial court must arrange a substitute reporter if

necessary. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28.4(b)(1). We notify appellant that if we receive verification that no request for the record has been made, the appeal will be submitted without the reporter’s record. See T E X
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c).
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the following persons:
Honorable Cheryl Lee Shannon Presiding Judge of the 305th Judicial District Court Pamela Sumler Official Court Rep orter, 305th Judicial District Court All parties

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Michael J. LaVelle, Chief Executive Officer,certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of AnalystsInternational Corporation (the Registrant);

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:

 

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalent function):

 

a)     all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Dated:  March  18, 2004 | By:    | /s/ Michael J. LaVelle                |
|------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                         |   | Michael J. LaVelle                    |
|                         |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
Exhibit
23.1











INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT














We consent
to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Andrea
Electronics Corporation on Form S-3 (333-114245, 333-69248, 333-51424,
333-83173, 333-61115), and Form S-8 (333-133090, 333-82738, 333-31946,
333-82375, 333-52129, 333-45421, 333-38609, 333-35687, 033-84092, 333-14385,
333-142548) of our report dated March 27, 2009 with respect to our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Andrea Electronics Corporation and
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for the years ended, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Andrea Electronics
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008.











/s/ Marcum
and Kliegman LLP








Marcum and
Kliegman LLP


Melville,
New York


March 27,
2009
# Rocky Mountain Type 1 IMT- PIO Transition

**Fire Name __________________    Date ________________**

**PIO _______________________    Phone _______________**

�

Page 1 of 3
#### Jane Doe, Respondent, v North Tonawanda Central School District, Appellant.

Submitted March 12, 2012;

decided May 3, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1331

NELLIE H. ROBERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-94-1182-23) Submitted: June 12, 1997 Decided: June 17, 1997 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nellie H. Roberson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Lamar Paxton, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to affirm the Commissioner's denial of social security benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Roberson v. Chater , No. CA-94-1182-23 (D.S.C. Jan. 23, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

CHAIR’S NOTICE – Chairman E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

Visit www.NIGC.gov to learn more about the NIGC 3 For 35 Project— a 

year-long project emphasizing the importance of conversations among 

the tribal gaming regulatory community about workforce preparedness.

Date: 9 March, 2023

RE: EPHS focus day, NIGC National Training Conference, 

Miccosukee 

This morning I opened the third day of NIGC’s National Training 

Conference (NTC) at the Miccosukee Nation near Miami, FL. The 

third day’s day-long discussion on preparedness in the Indian 

gaming regulatory community involved tribal gaming regulators 

from across the country as both in-person and virtual attendees. 

The NIGC panels and case study exercises included a number of 

federal and tribal officials with respected expertise on topics 

related to preparedness.

As we discussed emerging needs related to community safety it 

was clear that gaming floors can often be the largest and most 

technologically complex spaces in many communities. Critical 

event responses in areas such as human trafficking, active 

shooters, natural disaster response and cyber security, gaming 

regulators can support tribal law makers decision making on 

appropriate measures and standards for each community.

I am especially grateful to Mr. Eddie Ilko, NIGC’s Safety 

Occupation and Health Manger (SOHM), for all his work, including 

assembling many experts to participate in the sessions and share 

their decades of industry experience. The Agency established the 

SOHM position after building on lessons learned during the early 

stages of the pandemic. As an external facing part of the 

Agency’s work and its overall compliance strategy, the SOHM is 

an important part of advancing the NIGC’s strategic goal of 

promoting preparedness across Indian gaming’s regulatory 

community. Mr. Ilko’s expertise and leadership has helped to 

promote the tools and awareness related to a number of the 

topics necessary for risk assessment and mitigation at the local 

level.

This well attended potion of NIGC’s NTC is a positive addition 

to the Agency’s growing outreach through its training program. I 

look forward to continuing to build this area of the Agency’s 

work with important and valued insight from tribes and respected 

experts.

###