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

[987 NYS2d 535]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Farkas, J), rendered July 12, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). In a separate indictment, defendant was charged with burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30) in connection with an unrelated incident. Prior to sentencing on the robbery conviction, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree in satisfaction of the separate indictment on the “very specific condition” that he waive his right to appeal that conviction and, further, that he waive his right to appeal his robbery conviction. In exchange, the People agreed not to seek a persistent felony offender adjudication in either case, and County Court promised to sentence defendant to concurrent terms of incarceration.

Contrary to the contention of defendant, we conclude that the record establishes that he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the robbery conviction *(see People v Colucci,*94 AD3d 1418, 1419 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 959 [2012]; *see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Defendant’s contention that his waiver of the right to appeal was coerced is belied by the record *(see People v Hayes,*71 AD3d *12871187, 1188 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 852 [2010], *reconsideration denied*15 NY3d 921 [2010]). Further, the fact that defendant waived his right to appeal in exchange for favorable sentencing terms and the People’s withdrawal of their persistent felony offender application does not render the waiver invalid *(see People v Thacker,*47 AD3d 423, 423 [2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 817 [2008]; *People v Greene,*7 AD3d 923, 923 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 659 [2004]; *see generally People v Gast,*114 AD3d 1270, 1270-1271 [2014]).

Defendant’s contentions that, during the robbery trial, the court erred in refusing to admit his codefendant’s out-of-court statement as a declaration against penal interest, and that the court should have provided a missing witness charge, are encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see generally Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255; *People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570, 574 [1998]; *People v Mercer,*81 AD3d 1159, 1160 [2011], *lv denied*19 NY3d 999 [2012]).

Finally, although defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see People v Maracle,*19 NY3d 925, 927 [2012]; *People v Milon,*114 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2014]; *People v Peterson,*111 AD3d 1412, 1412 [2013]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present—Centra, J.P, Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Valentino, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Armando Quinones, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 268]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, Jr., J.), rendered November 13, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his statements to police officials should have been suppressed as they had been rendered involuntary due to his extreme fatigue. However, the evidence does not support a finding that the defendant was so fatigued that he was incapable of intelligently waiving his rights or comprehending the meaning of his statements *(see, People v Swimley,*190 AD2d 1070, 1071; *People v Duffy,*185 AD2d 371, 372).

Further, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the use of two juries was not disruptive, as it did not require frequent removal of his or his codefendant’s jury and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Ricardo B.,*73 NY2d 228, 234; *People v Wallace,*153 AD2d 59, 67).

The sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 9

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Augusta Resource
Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F/A (amendment no. 1) for the period
ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Raghunath Reddy, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

|May 16, 2011 | /s/
  Raghunath Reddy  
|------------ | -----------------------
|             |                        
|             | Raghunath Reddy        
|             | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Augusta Resource Corporation and will be retained by
Augusta Resource Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 7, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01223-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF C.C. AND J.C., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-14586-S 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Schenck 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By 

postcard dated October 8, 2015, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed 

appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days. We expressly cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated October 8, 2015, we 

notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appellant 

to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so 

might result in dismissal of the appeal. By letter dated October 28, 2015, we informed appellant 

the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to 

pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of payment or 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that appellant had been 

found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to 
 –2– 

do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has 

not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, provided the required documentation, or 

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the clerk’s record. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 37.3(b); 42.3(b),(c). 

151223F.P05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF C.C. AND J.C., 

CHILDREN 

No. 05-15-01223-CV 

 On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-09-14586-S. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellee Lyric Rodriguez recover her costs, if any, of this appeal from 

appellant Candelario Chavez. 

Judgment entered December 7, 2015.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Gary Schultheis, President and Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Evolve One, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Evolve One, Inc..

November 15, 2004                      By: /s/ Gary Schultheis
                                       Name: Gary Schultheis
                                       Title: President and Principal Financial
                                              and Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-16-000]


South Central MCN LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On October 19, 2017, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 
EL18-16-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the 
formula rate protocols of South Central MCN LLC may be unjust, 
unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential. South Central MCN 
LLC, 161 FERC 61,053 (2017).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-16-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-16-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as 
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 
days of the date of issuance of the order.

    Dated: October 19, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23294 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 2, 2019

t0325 

# Order

Clerk April 2, 2019

158155

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158155

COA: 341341

Kent CC: 13

- 006262

- FH

KEVIN EUGENE DENGEL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2018 or der of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

VALLEY FORGE MILITARY ACADEMY AND COLLEGE,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM O'BRIEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 86 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of August, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23009]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive Patent License; Taoglas USA, 
Inc.

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent 
to grant an exclusive license to Taoglas USA, Inc. of San Diego, CA. 
The proposed license is a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license 
to practice the invention embodied in U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 15/
267,219: BROADBAND CIRCULARLY POLARIZED ANTENNA in the fields of use of 
automotive and Internet of Things (IoT) throughout the United States, 
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all 
other United States territories and possessions. The Secretary of the 
Navy has an ownership interest in this invention.

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has 
fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice to file written 
objections along with supporting evidence, if any.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Undersea 
Warfare Center Division, Newport, 1176 Howell St., Bldg. 102T, Code 
00T2, Newport, RI 02841.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Theresa A. Baus, Head, Technology 
Partnerships Office, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 
1176 Howell St., Bldg. 102T, Code 00T2, Newport, RI 02841, telephone 
401-832-8728, or Email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4e0dcd1c6d1c7d59ad6d5c1c7f4dad5c2cd9ad9ddd8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51053934233422307f33302422113f3027287f3c383d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404

    Dated: October 17, 2017.
A.M. Nichols,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-23009 Filed 10-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
exv10w38



 





Exhibit 10.38



Penn Octane Corporation

Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P.

820 Gessner Road, Suite 1285

Houston, Texas 77024




March 5, 2007



JBR Capital Resources, Inc.


Attn: Jerome B. Richter, President


335 Tomahawk Drive


Palm Desert, California 92211



Re: Payments Under 2007 Consulting Agreement



Dear Mr. Richter:



Penn Octane Corporation, Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P. and JBR Capital Resources, Inc. are entering into a 2007
Consulting Agreement dated March 5, 2007, with an effective date of November 15, 2006 (the “Consulting Agreement”).
Capitalized terms used, and not otherwise defined, herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Consulting Agreement.
Notwithstanding any contrary provision of the Consulting Agreement, and as a condition of the Company’s execution and
delivery of the Consulting Agreement, the Company shall, in lieu of cash payment pursuant to Section 2.1 of the
Consulting Agreement, apply fifty percent (50%) of the amount of any Fees due and payable to Consultant by the Company
against any amounts owed (whether or not then due or payable) by Consultant or its affiliates to the Company, including
without limitation, any amounts owed by Jerome B. Richter to Penn Octane pursuant to his promissory note dated
April 11, 2000, as such note may be amended from time to time.



If you are in agreement with the foregoing, kindly sign where indicated below and return this letter to my
attention.



Sincerely,



	 	 	 
	PENN OCTANE CORPORATION	 	 	 	 	 	RIO VISTA ENERGY PARTNERS L.P.

	By:

	 	                                         
	 	By:
	 	                                         
	
 
	 	 
	 	 	 
	
 
	 	Ian T. Bothwell

Acting Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	Ian T. Bothwell

Acting Chief Executive Officer
Rio Vista GP LLC, General Partner
	Agreed:     

	 	

	 	

	 	

	JBR CAPITAL RESOURCES, INC.	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	                                         
	 	

	 	

	
 
	 	 
	 	

	 	

	
 
	 	Jerome B. Richter, 
President
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Quest Oil Corporation, a Nevada
      corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the Period ended December 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, James B. Panther, II, President and Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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 the report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.








/s/
                James B. Panther, II
              James
                B. Panther, II
              President
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              
              February
                26, 2007
#### In the Matter of Robert Edwin JACOBSEN, Debtor. Robert Edwin Jacobsen, Appellant v. John Sramek; Bernadette Sramek, Appellees.

No. 13-40926

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 7, 2014.

Mark H. Ralston, Brandon Craig Wilson, Estes Okon Thorne & Carr, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Appellant.

Robert Edwin Jacobsen, Lafayette, CA, pro se.

John Paul Lewis, Jr., Esq., Dallas, TX, for Appellees.

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The appellant has been given extensive process and the claim against the bankruptcy estate was confirmed by this Court on January 25, 2010. With the individual discharge resolved, the bankruptcy court had no other issues and correctly rendered the judgment against the debtor.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Florencia S. TICA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76105.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed April 30, 2008.

Norma M. Molinar, for Petitioner.

Michelle E. Gorden Latour, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Florencia S. Tica, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) exclusion order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

Tica contends that the IJ violated due process by failing to inform her of the availability of relief and by refusing to grant a continuance or administrative closure. Although Tica raised these claims before the BIA, the BIA failed to address them. We therefore remand for further proceedings. *See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales,*486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007) (“When a petitioner raises a claim based on a purported procedural defect of the proceedings before the IJ, the *only*administrative entity capable of independently addressing that claim is the BIA.”); *see also INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
---

Exhibit 9

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

In connection with the annual report of Augusta Resource
Corporation (the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Raghunath Reddy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.



|March 29, 2011 | /s/ Raghunath Reddy    
|-------------- | -----------------------
|               |                        
|               | Raghunath Reddy        
|               | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Augusta Resource Corporation and will be retained by
Augusta Resource Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### Brenda Lee FORD, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-10787

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 27, 2011.

Brenda Lee Ford, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Brenda Lee Ford, federal prisoner # 26255-077, currently is serving a prison sentence for a 1995 conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Ford filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing that the district court erred in applying the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines under the recent decision in *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010).1

The district court dismissed Ford’s § 2241 petition because she did not meet the requirements for proceeding under the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as set forth in *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001). Ford has not shown that the district court erred in its judgment. *See Jeffers v. Chandler,*253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.

1

. We note that in *Johnson,*the Supreme Court addressed the definition of "violent felony” in the Armed Career Criminal Act, § 924(e)(1) and the extent to which a conviction of battery necessarily constituted "use of physical force” for purposes of that definition, Critically, Ford’s prior convictions were not deemed "violent felonies” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Rather, they were deemed "crimes of violence” under the Guidelines. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.