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

[976 NYS2d 564]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J), rendered December 20, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and criminal contempt in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal *(see People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255-256).

The defendant’s contentions concerning the duration of a final order of protection survives his valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Cedeno,*107 AD3d 734 [2013]). The defendant, however, failed to preserve those contentions for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Nieves,*2 NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]; *People v Cedeno,*107 AD3d at 734; *People v Sanchez,*105 AD3d 1064 [2013]; *People v Remington,*90 AD3d 678, 679 [2011]; *People v Maxineau,*78 AD3d 732, 732 [2010]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Skelos, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 29 Misc 3d 1056.]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TONI PATRICK,

 Appellant,

v.

BOLD ROOFING CO., 

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00148-CV

Appeal from

193rd District Court

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # DC-14-06390)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the joint motion to vacate the trial court’s 

judgment and concludes the joint motion should be granted, in accordance with the opinion of 

this Court. Therefore the trial court’s judgment is set aside and the cause is remanded to the trial 

court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement. No order regarding 

costs is made. We further order that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTA ENA LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 72449

Agency No. A205

- 515

- 800

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Marta Ena Lopez , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigrat ion Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

MAY 20 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 72449

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We revi ew for substantial evidence

the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th

Cir. 2020). We deny t he petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency ’ s determination that Lopez failed

to establish that the Salva doran government was or would be unable or unwilling

to protect her from the persecution she fears

. See Truong v. Holder , 613 F.3d 938,

941

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (record did not compel the conclusion that the government

was unable or unwilling to control the individuals feared); see also Sanjaa v.

Sessions , 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (“To reverse the BIA, we must

determine that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels

it .

. . . ” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ). Thus, Lopez’s asylum

and withholding of removal claims fail.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Lopez ’s remaining contentions

regarding the merits of h er asylum and withholding of removal claim s

. See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are

not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief be cause

Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the

consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. See Aden v.

Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).3 15

- 72449

The temporary stay of removal remain s in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary E. White, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[976 NYS2d 912]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered February 21, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v White*(112 AD3d 1332 [2013]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
#### Robert Angotta, Plaintiff, v Scott D. Zelezny, Defendant. Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., Nonparty Appellant; Brody, O’Connor & O’Connor, Nonparty Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 893]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, nonparty Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, PC., the plaintiff’s current counsel, appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), entered April 6, 2012, which granted the motion of nonparty Brody, O’Connor & O’Connor, the plaintiffs former counsel, for an award of an attorney’s fee, and directed it to pay nonparty Brody, O’Connor & O’Connor the sum of $4,333.33, representing 65% of the total amount of the attorney’s fee held in escrow, and (2), as limited by its brief, from so much of an amended order of the same court, dated August 23, 2012, as granted that branch of the motion of nonparty Brody, O’Connor & O’Connor which was to adjust the previous award of an attorney’s fee to reflect 65% of the correct total amount in escrow, and directed it to pay nonparty Brody, O’Connor & O’Connor the sum of $5,134.84, representing 65% of the corrected total amount of the attorney’s fee held in escrow.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 6, 2012, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the amended order dated August 23, 2012; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended order dated August 23, 3012, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to nonparty Brody, O’Connor & O’Connor.

The contention of Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, *571P.C., the plaintiffs current counsel (hereinafter the appellant), that the plaintiff discharged his former counsel, Brody, O’Connor & O’Connor (hereinafter the respondent), for cause, which was not raised before the Supreme Court, is not properly before this Court (see *Matter of Benjamin E. Setareh, P.C. v Cammarasana & Bilello Esqs.,*35 AD3d 600 [2006]; *Hildreth-Henry v*Henry, 27 AD3d 419, 420 [2006]; *Gomez v Bicknell,*302 AD2d 107, 115 [2002]).

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not determine that the respondent was entitled to an attorney’s fee based upon a charging lien pursuant to Judiciary Law § 475. Rather, the Supreme Court properly awarded the respondent an attorney’s fee in quantum meruit *(see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co.,*73 NY2d 454, 458-459 [1989]; *Matter of Queller, Fisher, Washor, Fuchs & Kool, LLP v Law Offs. of Lawrence P. Biondi,*94 AD3d 1127 [2012]).

The Supreme Court properly awarded the respondent 65% of the total attorney’s fee held in escrow by the appellant based upon the “ ‘evidence of the time and skill required in [the] case, the complexity of the matter, the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation, the client’s benefit from the services, and the fee usually charged by other attorneys for similar services’ ” *(Padilla v Sansivieri,*31 AD3d 64, 67 [2006], quoting *Rosenzweig v Gomez,*250 AD2d 664, 664 [1998]). Angiolillo, J.E, Dickerson, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________**
No. 23

- 50910 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,** 

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Bradley Fariss Pieper,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:23

- CR

- 1926

- 1

**_______________ _______________**  Before **Elrod, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
Bradley Fariss Pieper was charged with using interstate commerce to induce or coerce or attempt to induce or coerce a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He appeals an order by the district court affirming the magistrate judge’s ord er of detention and requiring him to remain detained pending trial.

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 22, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50910 Document: 00517039881 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2024No. 23

- 50910

2 Pieper contends that the district court failed to consider the relevant
factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) in finding that his appearance at trial and the safety of the community could not have been reasonably assured by conditions of pretrial release. He specifically argues that he rebutted the presumption against release that applies where probable cause supports that the defendant violated § 2422(b), see § 3142(e)(3)(E) , by providing evidence of his personal history and characteristics to show that he is not a danger to the community. That evidence includ ed his lack of criminal history, United States citizenship, and family ties in New Mexico , where he can reside with his pa rents

. We apply a deferential standard of review that “equate[s] to the
abuse

- of

- discretion standard” when considering a district court’s pretrial
detention order. See United States v. Rueben , 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Hare , 87 3 F.2d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 1989). Even if evidence is produced to rebut the presumption against release under § 3142(e)(3), the presumption still “ may be weighed in the evidentiary
balance.” Hare , 873 F.2d at 799. Reviewing the record as a whole , we

conc lude that Pieper is not entitled to relief. The district court’s order is supported by at least three of the four § 3142(g) factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against him , and the seriousness of the d anger to any person or the community that would be posed by his release . Thus, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court in ordering Pieper detained pending trial. See Rueben , 974 F.2d at 586;
Hare , 873 F.2d at 798.

The order of detention pending trial is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-50910 Document: 00517039881 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2024
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 116 (Thursday, June 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14332]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,979]


Fiberweb, PLC, Simpsonville, SC; Notice of Negative Determination 
on Reconsideration

    On May 12, 2009, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former 
workers of the subject firm. The notice will soon be published in the 
Federal Register.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of filtration media did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no 
shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the 
workers of the subject firm also produced non-filtration products, 
specifically nonwoven fabrics used in medical applications, hygiene 
applications and nonwoven rolled goods. The petitioner also alleged 
that the subject firm shifted production of non-filtration products 
abroad and that there was an increase in imports of non-filtration 
products.
    The Department of Labor contacted a company official to verify this 
information. The company official stated that the subject firm ceased 
production of the non-filtration products at the end of 2006 and that 
none of the articles outlined by the petitioner were manufactured by 
workers of the subject firm since 2006.
    When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively 
considers production and import impact during the relevant time period 
(one year prior to the date of the petition). Therefore, events 
occurring prior to January 22, 2008 are outside of the relevant period 
and are not relevant in this investigation.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance 
for workers and former workers of Fiberweb, PLC, Simpsonville, South 
Carolina.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of June 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-14332 Filed 6-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-C ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 14th day of May, 2004.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-C
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-C and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-C and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

STEPHEN J. SZABO AND MARY B. SZABO,

Respondents

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 184 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12 th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all

remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) By failing to file preliminary objections pursuant to section 306 of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa.C.S. § 306 , did Respondents waive their right to assert ownership and seek additional just compensation for the condemnation of two parcels which were allegedly mistakenly depicted as belonging to two other legal entities in plans attached to the declaration of

taki ng?

(2) Did Petitioner’s alleged mistake in the plans attached to a declaration of taking, constitute the failure to adequately establish the extent or effect of the taking, thereby excusing Respondents from filing preliminary objections under section 306 of the E minent Domain Code. See

P ennsylvania Dep’t Gen. Servs. , 714 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Commw. 1998) and Pennsylvania Dep’t Trans. v. Greenfield Twp. Prop. Owners , 582 A.2d 41 (Pa. Commw. 1990) ?
No. 4936.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### LOUISA GREEN vs. YOUNG LADIES’ OF CHARITY BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION.

G. Fernandez for plaintiff and appellant.

Louis A. Hubert for defendant and appellant..

DTJFOTJR, J.

Alleging that she was illegally fined and dropped from the rolls as a member of the defendant association because she made a charge before a recorder against a fellow-member, the plaintiff brought suit and obtained a judgment ordering her re-instatement and awarding her $25 damages.

She ascribes to malice the .association’s conduct, claims that it was intended to punish her for going to ‘ ‘ a white man’s court” to make an affidavit against a fellow-member, and further says that, she was not present when the fine was imposed and was never notified of any charge.

Her only witness says that she was present at the meeting when the occurrence took place.

The defendant’s evidence overwhelmingly shows that the charge was the use ‘ ‘ of insulting language within the limits of the hall,” and bore no reference to the occurence before the recorder, when the charge was made by the accusing witness, and that she was asked what she had to sáy and declined to answer.

She made no protest and urged no objection to the jurisdiction of the association or the mode of procedure *328or the imposition of the fine, she was not expelled, but failure to pay the fine caused the loss of her membership.

April 4, 1910.

She had herself helped to frame the rules under which she was tried, and the proof is that she was fairly and honestly tried in accordance with the custom of the association.

She was confronted with her accuser, heard the complaint and made no defense; it is now too late for her to complain.

Where, in a benevolent association composed of ignorant colored persons, substantial justice has been done, after full notice of a charge and full opportunity for defence has been given, we are not apt to lay much stress on mere technicalities and insist on parliamentary observances.

That malice was not the motive of the act is shown by the fact that the amount of the fine was only one-half of the maximum allowed by the rules.

The complaint is groundless.

Judgment reversed and plaintiff’s demand rejected at her costs in both courts.
S. 3567 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Broadway 

in Lynbrook, New York, as the ‘‘Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NAVY CORPSMAN JEFFREY L. WIENER POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Certification  Pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to the best of such officer's  knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)  The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003
     (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company 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  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all
     materials  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



Dated:  November 12, 2003                       /s/ Frank B. Manning
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Frank B. Manning
                                            Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Certification  Pursuant  to  Section  906 of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to the best of such officer's  knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)  The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003
     (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company 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  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all
     materials  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
     the Company.

Dated:  November 12, 2003                       /s/ Robert A. Crist
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Robert A. Crist
                                            Chief Financial Officer