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

[826 NYS2d 288]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered June 15, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty *(see People v Alexander,*97 NY2d 482, 485 [2002]). The record amply supports the court’s determination that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his rights by pleading guilty, and that he made a full factual allocution admitting his guilt of the charged offense *(see People v Doherty,*134 AD2d 513 [1987]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his plea allocution was sufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the first degree without an admission that he was aware that his accomplices were armed with deadly weapons. The defendant’s guilt is predicated upon the forcible taking of property, coupled with the aggravating factor of any participant in the crime being armed with a deadly weapon *(see*Eenal Law § 160.15 [2]; *People v Miller,*87 NY2d 211, 216-217 [1995]). Accordingly, the defendant’s knowledge that an accomplice was armed with a deadly weapon is not an element of robbery in the first degree *(see People v Howard,*24 AD3d 798 [2005]; *People v Garcia,*302 AD2d 474 [2003]; *People v Murdough,*287 AD2d 658 [2001]).

Viewing the record as a whole, we find that the defendant was afforded meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Miller, J.E, Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50859

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JERRY THOMAS MAXWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CA-145

- - - - - - - - - -

November 6, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Thomas Maxwell appeals from the district court’s

denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court

did not commit reversible error in rejecting Maxwell’s due

process argument, which raises a factual issue concerning the

amount of cocaine attributable to him. This issue was decided

against him by this court in United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d

1350 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1861 (1994). See
No. 95-50859

- 2 -

United States v. Kalish, 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 476 U.S. 1118 (1986). Nor did the district court err in

rejecting Maxwell’s contention that his counsel was ineffective

for failing to require the district court to resolve disputed

factual issues at the sentencing hearing. See Spriggs v.

Collins, 993 F.2d 85, 88 (5th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Maria Auqui, as Guardian of the Property of Jose Verdugo, et al., Respondents, v Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 1, 2013;

decided June 27, 2013

Motion by Workers Injury Law & Advocacy Group for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motions for reargument herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed *[see*20 NY3d 1035 (2013)].

Judges Rivera and Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
Order filed May 24, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00357-CV

____________

SEECO, INC. AND SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY, Appellants

V.

K.T. ROCK, L.L.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-69705

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed April 11, 2012. To date, the filing fee of $175.00 has 

not been paid. No evidence that appellants are excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure from paying costs has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the 

following order. 

Appellants are ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the Clerk of this court 

on or before June 8, 2012. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellants fail to timely pay the filing fee in 

accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000987

23-AUG-2017

08:10 AM
Exhibit
4.2


 


Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


 


We
have issued our report dated August 16, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2125 contained
in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-266212) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use
of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the
caption “Experts”.


 


	 	/s/
    Grant Thornton LLP


 


Chicago,
Illinois


August
16, 2022
NINDS Extramural Training 

and Career Development

Programs

F30C

Residents & 

Fellows R25C,I

NINDS

K12sC,I

K08/K23C K02C

C-Clinician-scientist

G-General

Summer Research R25G,I

F31G

BRAIN

F32G

NINDS

F32*

G

*Eligibility measured

from date joined lab

Postdoc

 K01G

Parent & HEAL 

K99/R00G

Loan Repayment ProgramG

Re-Entry SupplementsG

JSPTPN 

T32sG,I NINDS T32G,I

General R25G,I

D-Diversity

Diversity Research Supplements (AD/ADRD, BRAIN, SBIR/STTR, HEAL)D

ENDURE

R25 D,I

DR Program 

R25 D,I Advancing Diversity R25 ProgramsD,I

F31D

BP & BRAIN 

F99/K00D

BRAIN, HEAL, AD/ 

ADRD, MOSAIC 

K99/R00D

Faculty K01D

I-Institutional

High School 

Student

Undergraduate 

Student

Postbaccalaureate

Graduate/ 

Medical Student Postdoc New Faculty
# Division of Data Science and Technology (DST)

## Overview

The Division of Data Science and Technology (DST) supports basic and applied research related to the development of scientific tools, technologies, and approaches related to brain and behavioral research. 

In addition to developing new ways to collect data, DST supports informatics research and provides infrastructure related to understanding mental illness. Those research efforts involve software development, new data analysis approaches, establishing and promulgating data standards, and supporting the infrastructure needed to store various types of data. 

Finally, DST supports infrastructure efforts such as the NeuroBioBank program and non-human primate colonies for neuroscience research. Tools and technologies supported by DST are expected to be broadly applicable to the mission of NIMH. 

These programs provide support through a variety of grant and contract mechanisms.
                  - Develop and direct initiatives to advance technology development and scientific informatics in the service of NIMH's mission
                  - Coordinate NIMH’s participation in the BRAIN Initiative 
                  - Oversee and coordinate all NIMH efforts related to research and development of technologies and scientific informatics to ensure a coherent strategic approach to the research. This includes implementing strategies to link data across new and existing NIMH and NIH data resources.
                  - Manage the NIMH Data Archive
                  - Manage infrastructure projects that are needed to support mental health research
                  - Serve as the main NIMH point of contact and representative to all trans-NIH committees and groups dealing with technology development and informatics.

## Contact

Gregory K. Farber, Ph.D.Director, Division of Data Science and Technology301-435-0778, FarberG@mail.nih.gov
Order entered July 10, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00476-CV

LYNDA BLISS, Appellant

V.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-04804-2016

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 5, 2018 unopposed second motion for an extension of 

time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to August 6, 2018. We caution 

appellant that further requests for extension will be disfavored.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40618

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE GILBERTO VILLATORO-ORTEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-63

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Gilberto Villatoro-Ortez (Villatoro) appeals the sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United 

States following removal. He argues that the district court erred by applying 

a 16-level enhancement for his being removed following a conviction for a drug 

trafficking offense for which the sentence was greater than 13 months of 

imprisonment.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-40618 Document: 00513113754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2015
No. 13-40618

2

Villatoro’s sentence has expired, and he has been released. Accordingly, 

the appeal of his sentence is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 

483 F.3d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Ramon, 320 F.3d 519, 519-

20 (5th Cir. 2003).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

 Case: 13-40618 Document: 00513113754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2015
##### 



Exhibit 4.10
  
  Terms of appointment as non-executive director
 Bank
 Disclosure of interests and other relevant information
  APRA
 Remuneration and expenses
 NEDSP




---



##### 



Term of appointment and vacation of office
       Board meetings




---



##### 



Board committees
  Time commitment envisaged
   Indemnity, insurance and access to Bank documents
  Charters and policies
  
    
    Board charter;
    
    Board Corporate Governance Guidelines;
    
    The Banks Constitution;
    
    Securities trading guidelines;
    
    Guidelines for communication between the Bank and shareholders;
    
    Taking of independent professional advice by directors;
    
    Code of ethics entitled Statement of Professional Practice;
    
    External Auditor Services Policy;
    
    Equal Employment Opportunity Policy; and
    
    Occupational Health and Safety Systems.
  Notification of interests to ASX




---



##### 



Continuing education arrangements
       John M Schubert
 Acknowledgment
  /s/ Tony Daniels
    
    22/07/05Signature
    
    Date
EXHIBIT 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In connection with the filing by Camelot Corporation (the "Company") of the
Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  April  30,  2005  (the
"Report"), I, Danny Wettreich,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  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)
               and 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
               operation of the Company.







                                               /s/ Danny Wettreich
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Danny Wettreich
                                               Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  July 28, 2005
#     Sophie (Hyun Joo) Cho, M.D.  

Movement Disorders, Dystonia, Tremor, Functional Neurological Disorders

hyunjoo.cho@nih.gov

301-529-7157

----

Board-certified neurologist specialized in movement disorders. Special research interest in functional movement disorders, dystonia and tremor.
Exhibit 4.1




 





 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


July 30, 2013


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Adelante REIT Growth & Income
Trust, Series 2


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Adelante REIT Growth & Income Trust, Series 2 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on July 30, 2013, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-188667) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 




 





	Very truly yours,
	 
	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	Gerardo Cipriano
	Vice President
#### Bryan’s Quality Plus, LLC, Appellant, v Serge Dorime, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[977 NYS2d 376]

In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated May 2, 2012, as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Serge Dorime moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and the plaintiff cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint. In an order dated May 2, 2012, the Supreme Court denied Dorime’s motion. It also denied that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint on the ground that a triable issue of fact existed as to whether payment in full was made by Dorime, as the owner of the subject property, to the general contractor at the time the notice of the mechanic’s lien was filed. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from, albeit on a ground different from that relied on by the Supreme Court.

As the proponent of a motion for summary judgment on a cause of action based upon a mechanic’s lien, the plaintiff had the burden of presenting “evidentiary facts showing the existence of a valid lien and that there were funds due and owing ... to which the lien could attach” *(L & W Supply Corp. v A.D.F. Drywall, Inc.,*55 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2008]; *see Nouveau El. Indus., Inc. v Tracey Towers Hous. Co.,*95 AD3d 616, 617 [2012]; *Tomaselli v Oneida County Indus. Dev. Agency,*77 AD3d 1315, 1316 [2010]).

*871Here, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of demonstrating its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. It failed to establish the value or the agreed-upon price of the labor it contended that it was owed, as set forth in its mechanic’s lien *(see*Lien Law §§ 3, 4), and, thus, failed to demonstrate the existence of a valid lien.

Given the plaintiffs failure to met its burden, we need not address the sufficiency of Dorime’s opposition papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs cross motion which was for summary judgment on the complaint. Balkin, J.B, Lott, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Maria Auqui, as Guardian of the Property of Jose Verdugo, et al., Respondents, v Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 25, 2013;

decided June 27, 2013

Motion by defendants for reargument granted and case set down for a future session of this Court *[see 20*NY3d 1035 (2013)].

Judges Rivera and Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Base Ten Systems, Inc.
Trenton, New Jersey 08619

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements No.
33-89712, No. 33-60454, No. 33-55752 and Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 2-84451 of Base Ten Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 and
the Registration Statement No. 33-89710 of Base Ten Systems, Inc. and
Subsidiaries on Form S-3 of our report dated December 15, 1995, appearing in
this annual report on Form 10-K of Base Ten Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the year ended October 31, 1995.





DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Parsippany, New Jersey
January 26, 1996
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Donald E. Brandt, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Arizona Public ServiceCompany; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
 

 

 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 15, 2004.     /s/ Donald E. Brandt   Donald E. Brandt
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3525 

To repeal the Jones Act restrictions on coastwise trade, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23, 2010 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL 

To repeal the Jones Act restrictions on coastwise trade, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Open America’s Wa5 ters Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF JONES ACT LIMITATIONS ON COAST7 WISE TRADE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 12112(a) of title 46, 

9 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3525 IS

1 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A coastwise endorsement may be 

2 issued for a vessel that qualifies under the laws of the 

3 United States to engage in the coastwise trade.’’. 

4 (b) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 90 days after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, the Commandant of 

6 the United States Coast Guard shall issue regulations to 

7 implement the amendment made by subsection (a). Such 

8 regulations shall require that a vessel permitted to en9 gaged in the coastwise trade meets all appropriate safety 

10 and security requirements. 

11 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

12 (1) TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION STAND13 ARDS.—Section 3703a(c)(1)(C) of title 46, United 

14 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Coast Guard 

15 and is qualified for documentation as a wrecked ves16 sel under section 12112 of this title.’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘Coast Guard.’’. 

18 (2) LIQUIFIED GAS TANKERS.—Section 12120 

19 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by strik20 ing ‘‘United States,’’ and all that follows and insert21 ing ‘‘United States.’’. 

22 (3) SMALL PASSENGER VESSELS.—Section 

23 12121(b) of title 46, United States Code, is amend24 ed by striking ‘‘12112,’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3525 IS

1 (4) LOSS OF COASTWISE TRADE PRIVILEGES.— 

2 Section 12132 of title 46, United States Code, is re3 pealed. 

4 (5) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections 

5 for chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, is 

6 amended by striking the item relating to section 

7 12132. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
38 ilo 5 | “03

(ORE: CAUSE 119650

WRIT OFMANDAMYS nee
° ape RECEIVEDIN ~~

MATLED ‘To CRIM. APPEALS. ___cOURT-OF CRIFHINAL APPEALS.

ON ©@©-29-15 > No Reply —_ a WE 13-2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk, bet Acosta, Clerk

Relator ts concerned because its heente' days

and there has been no reply from this Courtas ‘tothe
_______ filtng_aind_presenh'ng of the above writ’

Perhaps youve just prepared felators notice

and_tts in the mail. Please disteguard this reletors

_ Concern if thats the case. Howeves if youve not:

@ received the above Writ: Pease let this relator. ynow, |

-__ = and o replacement will be drawn up.
A copy of the above Writ was nailed tothe

Judge DWIGHT L. PHIFER, Po. Box 287, Rusk Tx 75785
wd too; Aachel L. Ratton, District Atk, ROBox 490

Bpsk AX 715785 onthe 22 doy & Sune, dois

Teffrey L. Ward FLAtetq

Wynne Vint Blo EM 282) __

Hunteville Texas 77349