alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1"> The People of the State of New York,<br><br>against<br><br>Samuel Cherry, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered December 6, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of occupying multiple seats on a subway car and placing a foot on a subway seat car, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Ann E. Scherzer, J.), rendered December 6, 2016, affirmed.</p><p>The verdict convicting defendant of occupying multiple seats on a subway car (<i>see</i> 21 NYCRR 1050.7[j][1]) and placing a foot on a subway seat car (<i>see </i>21 NYCRR 1050.7[j][2]) was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The credibility issues raised by defendant were properly placed before the trier of fact and we find no reason on the record before us to disturb the court's determination to credit the police officers' eyewitness testimony that, in violation of New York City Transit Authority Rules, defendant was sleeping across multiple seats in a crowded subway car with his foot on a seat. </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. </p><br>I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 22, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from June 30,
2000 10-QSB and is qualified in it's entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             261,890
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,793,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                        47,290
<INVENTORY>                                        535,088
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,709,261
<PP&E>                                           9,104,487
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,188,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,824,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,809,376
<BONDS>                                          4,866,641
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             3,456
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,145,477
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,824,950
<SALES>                                          6,484,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,484,665
<CGS>                                            4,313,925
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,207,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   525,376
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 361,051
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (985,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (985,722)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (985,722)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.19)



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Victor Woodard, Appellant, v John W. Burge, as Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[856 NYS2d 889]

Petitioner is currently serving an aggregate prison sentence of 25 years to life for his convictions, in 1993, of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree and, in 1994, of possession of burglar’s tools. The judgments of conviction were af*1093firmed upon appeal *(People v Woodard,*234 AD2d 613 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 989 [1997], *cert denied*520 US 1266 [1997]; *People v Woodard,*221 AD2d 493 [1995], *lv denied*88 NY2d 888 [1996]) and, since then, petitioner has made numerous unsuccessful motions and applications challenging his convictions. In this application for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner claims that his latest CPL article 440 motion was improperly denied, as was his subsequent motion to reargue. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

Initially, a habeas corpus proceeding is not the proper means by which to challenge an order denying a CPL article 440 motion. Rather, petitioner’s challenge is appropriately presented in the context of a direct appeal from that order. In that regard, petitioner advises that his application for leave to appeal from the order denying his CPL article 440 motion is pending in the Second Department. In any event, even if we were to consider his arguments and find them to have merit, petitioner would not be entitled to immediate release from custody and, thus, habeas corpus relief is not available to him here *(see People ex rel. Price v West,*30 AD3d 852, 853 [2006]; *People ex rel. Sandson v Duncan,*306 AD2d 716, 716-717 [2003], *lv denied*1 NY3d 501 [2003]). Accordingly, Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition was appropriate.

Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Rose, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Focus Enhancements, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gary L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.
| /s/Gary L. Williams     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| Gary L. Williams        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 14, 2006         |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6984

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NAFFORD WATSON CLARKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CR-95-200-F, CA-97-288-5-F)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nafford Watson Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Clarke, Nos. CR-95-200-F; CA-97-288-5-F

(E.D.N.C. June 3, 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.

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael K. WALLENS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-11103

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael K. Wallens, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Wal-lens has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant *338portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
February 3, 1997


Transmitted Via EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington D.C., 20549
Attn:     Filing Desk, Stop 1 - 4

     RE:  Tax-Exempt California Money Market Fund
            File No. 33-12938 (Post-Effective Amendment No. 10)
            File No. 811-5076 (Amendment No. 11)

Dear Sir or Madam:

     Tax-Exempt California Money Market Fund (the "Registrant")
hereby certifies, pursuant to Rule 497 (j) of the Securities Act of
1933, that (i) the form of prospectus and Statement of Additional
Information that would have been filed under paragraph (c) of Rule
497 would not have differed from that contained in the above-
referenced, most recently filed amendment to the registration
statement of the Registrant (the "Amendment"), and (ii) the text of
the Amendment has been filed electronically.

                              Tax-Exempt California
                                Money Market Fund


                           By:  /s/ Philip J. Collora
                              --------------------------
                              Philip J. Collora
                              Vice President and Secretary
JPS/jps
AMENDMENT TO CUSTODIAN AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment, dated as of May 1, 2014, amendsthe Global Custody Agreement, dated as of December 14, 2006 as amended to date (the "Custodian Agreement"), by and betweenState Street Bank and Trust Company (the “Bank”) and each of the investment companies and other pooled investment vehicles(which may be organized as corporations, business or other trusts, limited liability companies, partnerships or other entities)managed by Capital Research and Management Company and listed on Appendix A thereto, as amended from time to time (each, a "Customer").

 

The Bank and each Customer hereby agree to replacethe existing Appendix A to the Custodian Agreement with the updated appendix below, to reflect all Customers who are parties tothe Custodian Agreement as of such date.

 

APPENDIX A

 

CUSTOMERS AND PORTFOLIOS

 

Dated as of May 1, 2014

 

The following is a list of Customers and theirrespective Portfolios for which the Bank shall serve under this Agreement.

 

 

 

 

*[Signature page follows]*
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

            In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of WhittierEnergy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year endedDecember 31, 2004 (the “Report”), I, Michael B. Young, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                 |   |   | /s/ Michael B. Young    |
|----------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------|
| Date: March 30, 2005 |   |   | MICHAEL B. YOUNG        |
|                 |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,985
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           8,128
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     20,300
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,640
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,720
<LOANS>                                        160,707
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,336
<DEPOSITS>                                     194,108
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,157
<LONG-TERM>                                        331
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           691
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 220,336
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,595
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  301
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   226
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,122
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,697
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,702
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,420
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      105
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,161
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,161
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       813
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.36
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,156
<LOANS-PAST>                                        47
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,410
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       67
<RECOVERIES>                                        21
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,469
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,469
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            613
        

</TABLE>
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00398

- CR

D ANIEL W ILLIAM M OHLER

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County ( 1345064D )

October 15 , 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

Dissenting Memorandum Opinion by

Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record o n appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial cou rt’s judgment. W e reverse the trial court ’ s judg ment showing

a convic tion for “ indecency with a child

— co ntact, by touching the anus ( les ser [

-] in cluded offense of coun t one)

, ” and we refo r m that judg ment to de lete that

con viction

.

W e af firm the trial court’s judgment showing a con viction for “ ind e cen c y with

a child

— contac t, by touching the geni tals (lesser [

- ] included offense of count one)

. ”

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 18, 2023

No. 04-23-00637-CR

IN RE Ramon Oniel SARAVIA-BONILLA

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On June 29, 2023, Relator, Ramon Oniel Saravia-Bonilla, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s June 15, 2023, order. Relator also filed a motion to 

stay the underlying proceedings, which we granted on June 30, 2023.

On June 21, 2023, we issued an opinion holding that equal protection claims are cognizable 

in a pre-trial application for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex parte Aparacio, 672 S.W.3d 696, 713 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, pet. granted) (en banc). We believe the trial court should have an 

opportunity to reconsider its decision in light of our recent opinion. Therefore, we DENY the 

petition for writ of mandamus WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Relator’s seeking relief, if necessary, 

after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its ruling. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

The stay issued on June 30, 2023, is LIFTED. 

It is so ORDERED on October 18, 2023.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of October, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11490CR, styled State of Texas v. Ramon Oniel Saravia-Bonilla, pending 

in the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Susan D. Reed presiding.
Exhibit 4.6(f)

___________

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE

Dated as of October 18, 2002

to

INDENTURE

Dated as of November 21, 2001

among

VAIL RESORTS, INC., as Issuer,

the Guarantors named therein, as Guarantors,

and

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Trustee

____________________

up to $300,000,000

8 3/4 % Senior Subordinated Notes due 2009

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, dated as of October 18, 2002, among Vail Resorts, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Issuer"), the Guarantors named on the signature pages hereto (the "Guarantors"), the Additional Guarantors named on the signature pages hereto (collectively the "Additional Guarantors"), and The Bank of New York, as Trustee (the "Trustee").

WHEREAS, the Issuer and the Guarantors have heretofore executed and delivered to the Trustee an Indenture dated as of November 21, 2001, as amended and supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture dated as of January 16, 2002 (together, the "Indenture"), providing for the issuance of up to $300,000,000 aggregate principal amount of 8 3/4% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2009 of the Company (the "Notes"); and

WHEREAS, subsequent to the execution of the Indenture and the issuance of $160,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Notes, each of the Additional Guarantors have become guarantors under the Credit Agreement; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to and as contemplated by Sections 4.18 and 9.01 of the Indenture, the parties hereto desire to execute and deliver this Second Supplemental Indenture for the purpose of providing for the Additional Guarantors to expressly assume all the obligations of a Guarantor under the Notes and the Indenture;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, each party agrees, for the benefit of the other and for the equal and ratable benefit of the Holders of the Notes, as follows:

I.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Guadalupe RAMIREZ-SOSA, also known as Jose Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40124

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Stolarczyk P.L.L.C., Boerne, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe Ramirez-Sosa has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Ramirez-Sosa has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### WEISS v. ISBRANDTSEN S. S. CO., Inc. et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Feb. 7, 1952.

Thacher, Proffitt, Prizer, Crawley & Wood, New York City, for plaintiff, Joseph M. Brush, Edward C. Kalaidjian, New York City, of counsel.

Lord, Day & Lord, New York City, for defendant, John W. Castles, 3rd, New York City, of counsel.

McGOHEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves pursuant to Rule 34, Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., for discovery of a statement by one Chwae Yung Shulc which is in defendants’ possession. Defendants oppose on the ground that good cause is not shown. I disagree. The action is for damages sustained, it is alleged, through defendants’ failure to deliver plaintiff’s cargo at Inchon, Korea, in December, 1947. Chwae Yung Shuk was the manager of the Inchon branch of the Korea Forwarding Company, which defendants concede “participated in the handling, discharging and delivery of the cargo involved in this action.”

Plaintiff’s attempt to discover facts from local witnesses has been thwarted by the military action in Korea. His counsel in *257Seoul has not been heard from since the outbreak of hostilities in June, 1950. This circumstance alone distinguishes this case from Gebhard v. Isbrandtsen, S.D.N.Y., 10 F.R.D. 119, urged by the defendants. In that case there was no showing that plaintiff had made any prior effort to locate witnesses and no showing that those whose names he was to get from the defendants could not be readily examined in this jurisdiction.

I think that the plaintiff’s affidavit establishes good cause for the relief sought and, accordingly, the motion is granted.