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

[976 NYS2d 886]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), imposed May 30, 2012, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, EJ., Rivera, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis Ford, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 904]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), dated January 27, 2012, as, after a hearing, designated him a level three offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was properly assessed points under risk factor 12 for not accepting responsibility for his conduct. The Supreme Court properly considered the defendant’s lengthy disciplinary record while incarcerated, which prevented him from participating in a sex offender treatment program, as evidence of a refusal of treatment *(see People v Peana,*68 AD3d 737 [2009]; *People v Mercado,*55 AD3d 583 [2008]). Accordingly, the court’s determination designating the defendant a level three offender is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, Elwood Shepard, certify that: 1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Heavenly Hot Dogs, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008;  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.  The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  May 6, 2008  /s/ Elwood Shepard Elwood Shepard President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Union Security Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter A. Walker, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | 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: November 20, 2006



/s/ Peter A. WalkerPeter A. Walker Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer
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 the Interior

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Termination of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park, and Preserve, Chalmette Battlefield, and National Cemetery General Management Plan Amendment.

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Park Service (NPS) is terminating the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, Chalmette Battlefield, and National Cemetery General Management Plan Amendment (GMPA). A Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on May 2, 2003. After public scoping and a preliminary analysis of impacts related to the GMPA alternatives, the NPS determined that the impacts of the alternatives considered would be at or below the minor/negligible level. Consequently, the EIS is not necessary and NPS decided to terminate the EIS. The NPS intends to continue the GMPA process by completing an Environmental Assessment.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        National Park Service, Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve, 419 Decatur Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-1035,                         *telephone:*                         504-589-3882,                         *e-mail:**JELA_Superintendent@nps.gov.*

The authority for publishing this notice is 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C).

The responsible official for this EIS is David Vela, Regional Director, Southeast Region, National Park Service, 100 Alabama Street, SW., 1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Dated: May 7, 2009.

Art Frederick,

Acting Regional Director, Southeast Region.

[FR Doc. E9-13325 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-VE-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Legend
Properties, Inc and Subsidiaries Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such June 30,
2000 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      14,296,269
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,456,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 74,445,847
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      31,011,673
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,691,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             123,398,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     19,474,924
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,117
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,003,349)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               123,398,715
<SALES>                                     20,453,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,137,959
<CGS>                                       15,976,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,584,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,756,512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,931,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,691,009)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,240,446)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,240,446)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.52)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11

                      AIR & WATER TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (in thousands except per share amounts)




                                     Three Months Ended         Six Months Ended
                                           April 30,                April 30,

[CAPTION]
<TABLE>
                                          1997      1996       1997       1996
                                          ----      ----       ----       ----
Primary Earnings (Loss) Per Share:
<C> <S>                                <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>
 1.  Net loss                           $(63,986) $(1,305)  $(76,516)  $(4,250)
 2.  Less preferred dividends               (825)    (825)    (1,650)   (1,650)
                                        --------  --------  --------   --------
 3.  Net loss applicable to common
     shareholders                        (64,811)  (2,130)   (78,166)   (5,900)
                                        --------  --------  --------  --------
 4.  Weighted average shares
     outstanding                          32,019   32,018     32,019    32,018
                                        -------- --------   --------  --------
 5.  Net loss per share                 $  (2.02) $  (.07)   $ (2.44)  $  (.18)
                                        ========= ========   ========  ========

Fully Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share:

 6.  Line 3. above                      $(64,811) $(2,130)  $(78,166)  $(5,900)
 7.  Add back preferred dividends            825      825      1,650     1,650
 8.  Add back interest, on assumed
      conversion of the Company's 8% 
      Convertible Debentures               2,300    2,300      4,600     4,600
                                        --------  --------  --------  --------
 9.  Net income (loss)                  $(61,686) $   995   $(71,916)      350
                                        --------  --------  --------  --------
10.  Weighted average shares 
     outstanding (Line 4)                 32,019   32,018     32,019    32,018
11.  Add additional shares issuable
     upon assumed conversion of 
     preferred shares                      4,800    4,800      4,800     4,800
12.  Add additional shares issuable 
     upon assumed conversion of the 
     Company's 8% Convertible
      Debentures                           3,833    3,833      3,833     3,833
                                        --------  --------  --------  --------
13.  Adjusted weighted average shares
     outstanding                          40,652   40,651     40,652    40,651
                                        --------  --------  --------  --------
14.  Net income (loss) per share (9/13)* $ (1.52) $   .02    $ (1.77)  $   .01
                                         ======== ========  =========  ========
</TABLE>
*  Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share are not presented as the assumed 
   conversions are anti-dilutive.
EX-10.4


  Exhibit 10.4

  LIFESTANCE HEALTH GROUP, INC.
2021 Equity Incentive Plan 

   

  AMENDMENT TO
Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement

   

  THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) amends the Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement by and between LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (the “Company”), and Gwendolyn Booth (the “Participant”), dated June 9, 2021 (the “Agreement”), and is made as of June 30, 2022.  Any capitalized term not defined herein shall have the meaning provided in the Agreement.

  RECITALS

  WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the Participant was granted 550,988 restricted stock units on the terms provided therein and in the Plan; and

  Whereas, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement to modify the vesting schedule of such restricted stock units.

  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Participant hereby agree as follows:

   

  1.Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


  “Subject to the Participant’s continued Employment through each applicable vesting date, (i) thirty-three and one-third percent (331⁄3%) of the Restricted Stock Units shall vest on the first anniversary of the Date of Grant; and (ii) the remaining sixty-six and two-thirds percent (66 2/3%) of the Restricted Stock Units shall vest on the second anniversary thereof, such that the Restricted Stock Units will be one hundred percent (100%) vested on the second (2nd) anniversary of the Date of Grant.” 

    

   

  

   

  Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement will continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.  This Amendment sets forth the entire understanding of the parties, and, as of the date of this Amendment, supersedes all prior agreements and all other arrangements and communications, whether oral or written, with respect to the subject matter hereof.  This Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.  This Amendment is a Delaware contract and shall be governed by and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provisions (whether Delaware or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction other than Delaware.

   

  [Signature Page to Amendment Follows]

   

  	2

   

  

   

  	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Participant have executed and delivered this Amendment as of June 30, 2022. 

   

   

  		
	THE COMPANY:

	 
	 

	LifeStance Health Group, Inc.

	 
	 

	Signature:
	/s/ Ryan Pardo

	Name:
	Ryan Pardo

	Title:
	Chief Legal Officer

	 
	 

	THE PARTICIPANT:

	 
	 

	Signature:
	/s/ Gwendolyn Booth

	 
	Gwendolyn Booth



   

  	3
#### In the Matter of Davina A., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 875]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about November 29, 2012, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that she committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, menacing in the second degree, attempted assault in the third degree, and that she also committed the act of unlawful possession of a weapon by a person under 16, and placed her on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding 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 court’s credibility determinations. The victim’s testimony established each of the charged offenses.

The court properly exercised its discretion in adjudicating appellant a juvenile delinquent and placing her on probation rather than adjudicating her a person in need of supervision. *444This was the least restrictive dispositional alternative consistent with appellant’s needs a::.d the community’s need for protection *(see Matter of Katherine W.,*62 NY2d 947 [1984]), in view of appellant’s violent conduct in the underlying incident, which included threatening her mother with a knife, as well as appellant’s history of violence and other misconduct *(see e.g. Matter of Jade Q.,*41 AD3d 327 [1st Dept 2007]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
Exhibit 32(j)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,



|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.









|/s/ Carolyn C. ShanksCarolyn C. Shanks
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 1, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis Sharma, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 468]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered December 22, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

*495The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence warranted the conclusion that when defendant displayed a knife to a store employee who was attempting to stop him from stealing merchandise, defendant threatened the immediate use of a dangerous instrument for the purpose of preventing or overcoming resistance to his retention of the property *(see e.g. People v Boisseau,*33 AD3d 568 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 844 [2007]; *People v Young,*16 AD3d 196 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 858 [2005]; *People v Thompson,*273 AD2d 153 [1st Dept 2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 908 [2000]). Even if, in the abstract, the display of an instrument does not necessarily constitute a threat to use it, here, given the circumstances, there was no reasonable explanation of defendant’s conduct other than an implied threat to use the knife against the employee. Accordingly, the display, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, satisfied the “threatened use” element of Penal Law § 160.15 (3), and defendant’s statutory interpretation argument is unavailing.

The court appropriately exercised its discretion under *People v Molineux*(168 NY 264 [1901]) in admitting testimony with respect to the employee’s prior encounters with defendant in the store. This evidence was relevant as background information to explain the reaction of the store employee upon seeing defendant carrying the merchandise, and any prejudicial effect of its admission was mitigated by the court’s extensive limiting instructions. We find that, under the circumstances here, the court did not abuse its discretion by failing to employ other less prejudicial means of filling the narrative gap *(see People v Morris,*21 NY3d 588 [2013]). Defendant did not preserve his challenge to a detective’s testimony about the circumstances under which defendant became a suspect in this case, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.