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

[853 NYS2d 777]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. “Trial judges are vested with discretion in deciding plea withdrawal motions because they are best able to determine whether a plea is entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently” *(People v Alexander,*97 NY2d 482, 485 [2002]), and nothing in the record before us calls into question the voluntary, knowing and intelligent nature of defendant’s *1208plea. Contrary to the further contention of defendant, there is no requirement that he personally recite the facts underlying his crime *(see People v Brown,*305 AD2d 1068, 1069 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 579 [2003]). Rather, “it was sufficient that [defendant] provided unequivocal affirmative responses to the court’s questions, never made statements negating his guilt and indicated that he was entering the plea because he was, in fact, guilty” *(People v Williams,*35 AD3d 971, 972 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 928 [2007]). Defendant further contends that his attorney erroneously informed him that he could challenge the court’s *Molineux*ruling on appeal, after entering his guilty plea. That alleged statement by defense counsel “was not placed on the record at the time of the plea [and thus] is not entitled to judicial recognition” *(People v Ramos,*63 NY2d 640, 643 [1984]). “As a general rule, ‘[a]bsent a showing that defendant’s plea is baseless, the Judge to whom the motion [to withdraw the plea] is addressed must be entitled to rely on the record to ascertain whether any promises, representations, implications and the like were made to the defendant’ and induced his plea of guilty” *(id.*at 642; *see People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520, 525 [1978]). We reject the contention of defendant that defense counsel’s erroneous statement constituted ineffective assistance of counsel inasmuch as defendant failed to demonstrate “ ‘that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial’ ” *(People v McDonald,*1 NY3d 109, 115 [2003], quoting *Hill v Lockhart,*474 US 52, 59 [1985]; *see also People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404-405 [1995]). Present— Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32(a)**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Charles T. Munger, Chairman of the Board and President (ChiefExecutive Officer) of Wesco Financial Corporation (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:     (1) the Annual Report onForm 10-K of theCompany for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.Dated: February 27, 2007     /s/ Charles T. Munger       Charles T. Munger     Chairman of the Board and President     (Chief Executive Officer)
1 Se e A nd ers v. C alifo rnia , 386 U .S. 738 , 744- 45 , 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2 d 493 (1967 ). NO. 07-05-0354-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B MAY 10, 2006

______________________________ BUFORD W ILLIAM MEA DOWS, Appellant

v. THE STA

TE OF TEX

AS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 31 ST DISTRICT COURT OF WHEELER COUNTY ; NO. 4163; HON. STEVEN RAY EMMERT, PRE SIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. After a jury trial, appellant Buford Will iam Meadows was convicted of sexually assaulting a child. Punishment was assessed by the jury at 20 years imprison ment. Appellant

timely filed his notice of appeal. Ap pellant's appointed counsel has filed amotion to withdraw, together with an Anders 1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellant's ap peal is without merit. Al ong with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel's belief2

thatthere was no reversible error and of appellant's right to app eal pro se. By letter dated March 29, 2006, this court notified appellant of his right to file h is own brief or response by April 28, 2006, if he wished to do so. T he latter date has passed without the filing of ei ther a motion for exten sion or aresponse
. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders , appellate counsel discussed four potential grounds of

error and then explained why they we re meritless. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the a cc uracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and con cluded that none existed. Accordin gly, the motion to withdraw

is granted and th e judgmen t is affirmed.
Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not pu blish.
#### Halima Abadura BESHIR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-1665.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 11, 2012.

Decided: Jan. 8, 2013.

David Goren, Law Office of David Goren, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Kerry A. Monaco, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*235PER CURIAM:

Halima Abadura Beshir, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision finding Beshir ineligible for adjustment of status as an alien who knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the preponderance of the evidence supports the agency’s finding that Beshir filed a frivolous asylum application. *See Matter of Y-L-,*24 I. & N. Dec. 151, 157, 2007 WL 1213235 (B.I.A.2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Beshir,*(B.I.A.Apr.26, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
### The Honorab le Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Southern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 96-1784

___________ Alan Wayne Neal, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 30, 1996 Filed: October 22, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Alan Wayn e Neal pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1 ) and (b)(1)(B)(ii) (1994) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994), and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1 ) (1994). T he District Court imposed consecutive 60-month sentences; Neal 1 did not appeal. He then filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion, arguin g that in li ght of Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), hi s section 924(c)(1) conviction should be vacated. The District Court denied relief, and Neal appeals. We conclu de Neal's argument is meritless because he admitted at his guilty-plea hearing that he carried a firearm in his vehicle

### -2-

during the drug trafficking offense. See UnitedStates v. Willis , 89 F.3d 1371, 1378-79 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that Bailey left intact "carry " prong of § 924(c)(1), as well as pre- Bailey case s analyzing "carry" prong; holding defendant "ca rried" firearm by transporting firearms in passenger compar tment of vehicle loaded with crack cocaine), cert. denied , 6 5 U.S.L.W. 3265 (U.S. Oct. 8, 1996) (No. 96-5793). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
##### 



EXHIBIT
10.6
 HOME DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
 
 Grant of Non-Qualified Stock Option
  Company Plan Optionee Option
  Option
 Term Exercise Price Expiration
Date Grant Date
 Payment of Option Price Option Price




---



##### 



Exercisability/Vesting and Expiration
 Normal Vesting
 Normal Expiration
 Effect on Vesting and Expiration of Employment Termination
 Termination Other than for Cause or Retirement th th
 Termination for Cause th th
 Termination Due to Death, Disability or Retirement
 2




---



##### 



Effect on Vesting and Expiration of Termination of Directorship or Other Relationship
on Non-Employee with the Company or a Subsidiary
 Acceleration of Vesting Upon Change in Control.
 Procedure for Exercise Exhibit A
 Withholding of Taxes
 Participant Election
 3




---



##### 



Company Requirement
 Transferability of Option
 Conformity with Plan
 Rights of Participants
 4




---



##### 



Adjustments
 Certain Definitions
 Cause
     Director
 Disability
 5




---



##### 



Employee
 Family Member
 Option Shares
 Retirement
 Subsidiary
  Successors and Assigns
 Severability
 6




---



##### 



Counterparts
 Descriptive Headings
 Governing Law
 Notices
 Entire Agreement
  7




---



##### 



Signature Page to Stock Option Award Agreement
 Number of Option Shares:Date of Grant:Exercise Price per Option Share:Vesting Dates of Option Shares:Expiration Date of All Option
Shares:
  Very truly yours,HOME DIAGNOSTICS, INC.By:Name:Title:
 Enclosures:
    
    Extra copy of this letter agreementCopy of the Plan
  OPTIONEE




---



##### 





EXHIBIT A


Form of Letter to be Used to Exercise Stock Option







please check all that apply


o
    
    in casho
    
    if permitted by the Company, by delivery of shares of Common Stock
held by me for at least six-monthso
    
    by means of a broker assisted cashless exerciseo
    
    by a combination of the foregoing, as more fully described below:___% (or $___) in cash___% (or $___) by delivery of shares of Common Stock held by me
for at least six-months___% (or $___) by means of a broker assisted cashless exercise
Exhibit 15.1
   April 27, 2001

   Stratus Properties Inc.
   98 San Jacinto Blvd.
   Austin, TX  78701

   Gentlemen:

   We are aware that Stratus Properties Inc. has incorporated by reference
   in its Registration Statements (File Nos. 33-78798, 333-31059 and 333-
   52995) its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001, which
   includes our report dated April 27, 2001 covering the unaudited
   interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation
   C of  the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), this report is not
   considered a part of the registration statements prepared or certified
   by our firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the
   meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


   Very truly yours,

   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Exhibit 32.2 
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley act of 2002.

In connection with the Annual Report of Gulf Coast Oil & Gas, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Massimiliano Pozzoni, Chief Accounting Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: May 5, 2005   /s/ Massimiliano Pozzoni   Massimiliano Pozzoni,
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


|                        |                                         
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------------
|Date:  January 17, 2012 | Signed:  /s/  "Murray G. Smith"         
|                        | Murray G. Smith,
Chief Financial Officer
remedy to challenge the legality of one's restraint or detention.' 

### See NRS

34.160; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.360. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering j. Parraguirre

Saitta J.

cc: Brian Turner Nye County District Attorney Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk

'Notably, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be filed in the district court in the first instance. 

### See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1); NRAP 22. If there was an error in including case 11TR00027 in the plea negotiations in CR7099, that error should have been litigated within CR7099. We express no opinion as to whether there is any available remedy in CR7099 at this time.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company of our reports dated February 11, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, included in the 2007 Annual Report to Stockholders of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. 

Our auditsalso included the financial statement schedule of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company listed in Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein. 

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements pertaining to the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shelf registration of certainsecurities of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (333-123077 (2005)) on Form S-3, the Wrigley Savings Plan for Wrigley Employees (33-15061 (1987) and 33-43738 (1991)) on Form S-8, the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company Management Incentive Plan (33-22788(1988)) on Form S-8, the 1997 Management Incentive Plan (333-48715 (1998)) on Form S-8, and the 2007 Management Incentive Plan (333-133020 (2006)) on Form S-8, respectively, of our reports dated February 11, 2008, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, incorporated herein by reference and our report included in the preceding paragraph, asto which the date is February 11, 2008, with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP        

Ernst & Young LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

February 11, 2008
**EXHIBIT 31.3**CERTIFICATIONI, Christopher K. Seglem, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K ofWestmoreland Coal Company;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Omitted;  4. Omitted;  5. Omitted.        Date: April 30, 2007 /s/ Christopher K. Seglem   Name:  Christopher K. Seglem   Title:  Chairman of the Board,President and ChiefExecutive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                         PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                            VALENCE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the "Form 10-Q") for
the quarter ended December 31, 2006, of Valence Technology, Inc. (the "Issuer").

         I, James R. Akridge, the Principal Executive Officer of the Issuer,
certify that to the best of my knowledge:

          (i)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section
               13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
               U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

          (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
               all material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Issuer.


Dated:  February 6, 2007                      /s/ James R. Akridge
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              James R. Akridge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                           6,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,901
<PP&E>                                          55,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,915)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,303
<BONDS>                                          6,973
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,900
<COMMON>                                       156,245
<OTHER-SE>                                   (139,995)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,926
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (11,042)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (248)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,242)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,317)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 09-2270

BRIAN K. MILWARD AND LINDA J. MILWARD,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

ACUITY SPECIALTY PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 22, 2011 is amended

as follows:

On page 18, lines 9-10, "consistent with causality" is changed

to "which although not statistically significant was consistent

with causality". 

On page 19, lines 1-2, "cause the type of chromosomal damage

characteristic of APL" is changed to "cause the general types of

cellular damage that are known to cause APL".

On page 29, lines 5-9, "in which the few studies that

differentiate between AML and APL do not offer conclusive

statistically significant evidence either way, in part because the

rarity of APL makes it nearly impossible to perform a large enough

study" is changed to "in which there is a lack of statistically

significant epidemiological evidence, and in which the rarity of

APL and difficulties of data collection in the United States make

it very difficult to perform an epidemiological study of the causes

of APL that would yield statistically significant results". 

On page 29, footnote 18, lines 1-2, "is not contested by

defendants, and it" is deleted.
#### **EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Douglas B. Mackie, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| /s/ Douglas B. Mackie                    |   |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Douglas B. Mackie                        |   |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                  |   |   |
| Date:   November 14, 2006 |   |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and will beretained by Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

1

----