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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

246 

KA 11-00967 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANA M. HOLLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John L.

DeMarco, J.), rendered February 9, 2011. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon

in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon

in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the

second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]), and one count of

criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]),

defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to suppress his

statements and certain evidence seized from his person when he was

stopped and searched by a Rochester police officer. Specifically,

defendant contends that the officer’s testimony at the suppression

hearing was incredible, and, thus, the court’s determination that the

officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed a

crime is not supported by the evidence. We reject defendant’s

contention. 

The officer testified at the suppression hearing that she heard

shots fired, then observed defendant fire a handgun at a moving

vehicle. She stopped defendant and recovered a semi-automatic handgun

from his pocket. It is well settled that a hearing “court’s

credibility determination is entitled to great deference” (People v

Coleman, 57 AD3d 1519, 1520, lv denied 12 NY3d 782; see generally

People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761), and we conclude that “[t]he

police officer’s testimony at the suppression hearing does not have

all appearances of having been patently tailored to nullify

constitutional objections . . . , and was not so inherently incredible
-2- 246 

KA 11-00967 

or improbable as to warrant disturbing the . . . court’s determination

of credibility” (People v Walters, 52 AD3d 1273, 1274, lv denied 11

NY3d 795 [internal quotation marks omitted]). We therefore see no

basis in the record for disturbing the court’s finding that the

officer had reasonable suspicion to stop and search defendant, or its

ultimate suppression ruling.

Entered: March 27, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT



Board of Directors and Stockholders
Slippery Rock Financial Corporation

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Slippery Rock
Financial Corporation and subsidiary as of March 31, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three-month periods
ended March 31, 2001 and 2000, and the consolidated statement of changes in
stockholders' equity for the three-month period ended March 31, 2001. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report
dated January 26, 2001 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated
financial statements.



Wexford, PA
MAY 11, 2001

                                       17
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

Chief Financial
Officer

I, Manmeet S. Soni, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                                                           
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Manmeet S. Soni                                       
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Manmeet S. Soni                                           
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President,                                 
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                     
|Date: February 13, 2017 |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal financial officer and chief accounting officer)
EXHIBIT 31.1


                                  Certification
                                  -------------

I, Douglas C. Morrison, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
     8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
     periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Citibank
     Credit Card Issuance Trust (issuing entity in respect of the Citiseries
     Class A notes, Class B notes and Class C notes) and Citibank Credit Card
     Master Trust I (issuing entity in respect of the Collateral Certificate);

2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
     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 as of
     the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, (a) the distribution or servicing information
     required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling
     and servicing, or similar, agreement, with respect to Citibank Credit Card
     Master Trust I for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports
     and (b) the distribution or servicing information required to be provided
     to the trustee by the issuance trust under the indenture with respect to
     Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust for inclusion in these reports is
     included in these reports;

4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer
     under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and by the issuance
     trust under the indenture and based upon my knowledge and the annual
     compliance review required under each of those agreements, and except as
     disclosed in the reports, each of the servicer and the issuance trust has
     fulfilled its obligations under the respective agreement; and

5.   The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
     servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
     report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a
     review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
     Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and
     servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.


Date:  March 29, 2006


/s/ Douglas C. Morrison
-----------------------------
Douglas C. Morrison
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Citibank (South Dakota), National Association
ATHLETES / SPORTS COMPETITORS

COACHES & SCOUTS

UMPIRES/REFEREES SPORTS OFFICIALS

Participate in organized, officiated 

sporting events to entertain 

spectators.

Preside over competitive 

athletic or sporting events 

to help maintain standards 

of play and decide on 

penalties according to the 

rules of the game.

Coaches teach athletes 

the skills they need to 

compete, while scouts 

look for players with 

talent—evaluating their 

skills and likelihood to 

succeed at their sport.

14,000

jobs in 2022;

number of jobs

projected for 2032

15,200

•

Median annual wage for 2022

$94,270

275,200

jobs in 2022;

number of jobs

projected for 2032

300,500

•

Median annual wage for 2022

$44,890

20,400

jobs in 2022;

number of jobs

projected for 2032

22,400

•

Median annual wage for 2022

$36,010

TEAMWORK TEAMWORK

COURAGE COURAGE

FOCUS

www.bls.gov/k12

Careers in Sports
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE


To the stockholders of Exult, Inc.:


     We have audited in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in
the United States, the consolidated financial statements included in the Exult,
Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") Form 10-K and have issued our report
thereon dated January 23, 2002. Our audits were made for the purpose of forming
an opinion on those statements taken as a whole. The supplemental Schedule II as
shown in Exhibit 99.2 is the responsibility of the Company's management and is
presented for purposes of complying with the Securities and Exchange
Commission's rules and is not part of the basic consolidated financial
statements. This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied
in the audits of the basic consolidated financial statements and, in our
opinion, fairly states in all material respects the financial data required to
be set forth therein in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements
taken as a whole.




/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
--------------------------------
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Orange County, California
January 23, 2002
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY TOP MANAGEMENT

 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN 
 (January 1, 2009 RESTATEMENT) 
 The J. M. Smucker Company Top
Management Supplemental Retirement Plan, established effective January 1, 1985, as amended and restated effective as of May 1, 1994, May 1, 1999, January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2009 and further amended by the First
Amendment dated April 21, 2011 effective generally January 1, 2011 (the “Plan”), hereby is amended further on this 31st day of August, 2011, effective August 16, 2011; 
 WHEREAS, effective August 16, 2011 (the “Transition Date”), Timothy P. Smucker (“Mr. Smucker”), Chairman of the Board and Co-Chief Executive Officer of The J. M. Smucker Company
(the “Company”), will no longer serve as a Co-Chief Executive Officer but will continue to serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”); 
 WHEREAS, following the Transition Date, the Company desires for Mr. Smucker to continue to provide services to the Company, including focusing his efforts on corporate strategy, succession planning,
serving as an ambassador of the Company with employees and other constituents, and other matters as requested by the Board; 
 WHEREAS, the Plan
provides Mr. Smucker with supplemental retirement benefits upon his cessation of service with the Company; 
 WHEREAS, the Executive
Compensation Committee (the “Committee”), by actions taken on August 16, 2011, has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to authorize the Company to amend the Plan and authorize the Company to enter into such
arrangements as are necessary, based on advice of its outside advisors, such that Mr. Smucker will receive the same level of benefits under the Plan that he would be entitled to receive if he ceased providing services to the Company on the
Transition Date. i.e., approximately $11.4 million; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Plan and the authority delegated by the
Board, the Committee has the power to amend the Plan. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan hereby is amended as follows: 

1. Section 2.3 of the Plan is hereby amended to add a new penultimate paragraph to read as follows: 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 2.3, in no event shall the Monthly Retirement Benefit payable to
Timothy P. Smucker (“Mr. Smucker”) be less than the Monthly Retirement Benefit that he would have been entitled to receive calculated under this Section 2.3 had he ceased providing services to the Company on August 16,
2011.” 
 2. Section 2.6 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following at the end thereof: 







 “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 2.6, the Benefit Target
Date for Mr. Smucker will be August 16, 2011.” 
 Executed at Orrville, Ohio on this 31st day of August, 2011, effective
August 16, 2011. 
  

			
	THE J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY,
	by its duly authorized officer
	
	 /s/ Jeannette L. Knudsen

	By: Jeannette L. Knudsen, Vice President,
	General Counsel and Corporate Secretary


  
 -2-
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willy MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50976

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Patrick B. Montgomery, Law Office of Patrick B. Montgomery, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Willy Mendoza 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). Mendoza has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs 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.
Exhibit 10.20.3








AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) effective September 22, 2011 (“Effective Date”) to the Amended and Restated Master Services Agreement dated as of September 23, 2009 (“Agreement”) hereby modifies and amends that certain Agreement between Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) and PDI, Inc. with offices at Morris Corporate Center 1, 300 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, NJ 07056 (“PDI”).
		
	1.
	The parties intend to extend the length of the term of the Agreement for a period of three (3) years. Accordingly, Section 8.1 of Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 8.1 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


“8.1 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall remain in effect through the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a Task Order has a term that exceeds the term of this Agreement, the parties agree that the term of this Agreement shall be extended until such time as all Services under the applicable Task Order have been completed or the Task Order has been terminated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement”
		
	2.
	Section 12.7 shall be amended to replace PDI's corportate address and fax number with:




Morris Corporate Center 1
300 Interpace Parkway
Parsippany, NJ 07056
Fax No.: 862-207-7899
		
	3.
	Exhibit D to the “Addendum to Amended and Restated Master services agreement between Pfizer Inc. And PDI, Inc., Compliance With Corporate Integrity Agreement and Related Oblications” shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached Exhibit D.




		
	4.
	All other terms and conditions in Agreement that are not hereby amended shall remain in full force and effect.




		
	5.
	In the event of a conflict between the provisions contained in the body of this Agreement and any such Task Order or exhibit, the terms in the Task Order or exhibit shall control.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have each caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed by their respective, duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date.
	
		
	PDI Inc.




By:                                                                          


Name:Nancy Lurker


Title:CEO
	Pfizer Inc.




By:                                                                              


Name:                                                                         


Title:                                                                           















EXHIBIT D to COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM
CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE LIAISON
Chief Compliance Officer
PDI, Inc.
300 Interpace Parkway
Parsippany, NJ 07056
973-795-7777
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Ogarro, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 511]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Calabrese, J.), rendered June 2, 2005, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

As a pretrial hearing on that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence was about to begin, the defendant announced that he had changed his mind and no longer wished to represent himself. The court thereupon directed that assigned counsel, who was the defendant’s sixth assigned attorney and who was present to act as his legal advisor, represent him at the hearing and at trial. Counsel expressed reservations, principally because the defendant had filed a grievance against him. The defendant, however, did not ask for a different attorney. The hearing proceeded and the record reveals that counsel conducted a lengthy cross-examination of the police witness, objected to the introduction of an exhibit, and generally defended the defendant’s interests vigorously and competently. Moreover, counsel subsequently negotiated a plea bargain for the defendant pursuant to which he entered a so-called *Alford/Serrano*plea *(see North Carolina v Alford,*400 US 25 [1970]; *People v Serrano,*15 NY2d 304, 310 [1965]) upon a promise that he would be *1026sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to a term of imprisonment less than, and concurrent with, a sentence imposed in a Bronx County case, and that his conviction would be vacated and his plea withdrawn in the event that the judgment in the Bronx County case was reversed *(see People v Pichardo,*1 NY3d 126 [2003]). On this appeal, the defendant contends, inter alia, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We disagree.

“[T]here is neither a per se rule nor any presumption that defendants who have filed grievances against their attorneys are entitled to substitution of counsel” *(People v Smith,*25 AD3d 573, 575 [2006]). Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendant did not request new counsel *(compare People v Smith, supra; People v Brown*305 AD2d 422 [2003]), and where his attorney competently represented him at the hearing and negotiated a favorable plea bargain on his behalf, the defendant received meaningful and effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Fox,*3 AD3d 577, 579 [2004]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, PJ., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Nolan K. Bushnell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of uWink, Inc.

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant 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
         registrant,  including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to
         us by others within those entities,  particularly  during the period in
         which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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  registrant's  internal
         control over financial  reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most  recent  fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially   affected  or  is
         reasonably  likely to  materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal
         control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies an material weaknesses in the design or
         operation  of  internal  control  over  financial  reporting  which are
         reasonably  likely to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         b) any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
         other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in  the  registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting.


Date:  April 14, 2004


/s/ Nolan K. Bushnell
------------------------------
Nolan K. Bushnell
Chief Financial Officer


                                       1