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

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1097 KA 12-01464**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

JAMES F. O’DELL, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA, THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (ROBERT C. JEFFRIES OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered August 24, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the third degree (four counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: November 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Bruce L. FRANZEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. E.K. MCDANIEL, Warden; Frankie S. Del Papa, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 09-17077.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2010.

Filed Dec. 10, 2010.

John C. Lambrose, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Robert E. Wieland, Esquire, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Reno, NV, for Respondents-Appellees.

*228Before: D.W. NELSON, THOMPSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Bruce Franzen appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition and review its factual findings for clear error. *McMurtrey v. Ryan,*539 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir.2008). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), federal habeas relief may only be granted if the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The standard of review is “highly deferential ... [and] demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” *Woodford v. Visciotti,*537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the Nevada Supreme Court relied on an improper harmless error standard, we “revert to the independent harmless error analysis that we would apply had there been no state court holding.” *See Inthavong v. Lamarque,*420 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir.2005). We acknowledge that several of the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments may have constituted prosecutorial misconduct. However, in light of the evidence of Fran-zen’s guilt, we conclude that the prosecutor’s improper remarks, whether viewed individually or cumulatively, did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” *Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We decline to expand the certificate of appealability with respect to Franzen’s claims that were not certified by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FILED IN6th COURT OF APPEALS    TEXARKANA, TEXAS12/30/2016 2:10:18 PM        DEBBIE AUTREY                Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          26,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      28,984,587
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,856,307
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,937,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,219,517
<BONDS>                                     17,140,807
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,078,319)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,937,337
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,784,230
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  864,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,052,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,269,527)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,269,527)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,269,527)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (49.36)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-58657, No.333-04169, No. 333-56593, No. 333-40328, No. 333-64106, No. 33-65724, No. 333-85204, No. 333-104462and No. 333-114845 of Quiksilver, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report, dated January 12, 2005, whichreport expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding a change inthe Company’s method of accounting for goodwill and intangible assets, appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Quiksilver, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 2004.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Costa Mesa, California
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of MCF Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), we, D. Jonathan Merriman and John D.Hiestand, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| August 9, 2005 |       |                                      |
|---------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                |       |                                      |
|                |       |                                      |
|                | By:        | /s/  D.  JONATHAN MERRIMAN      |   |
|                |       | **D.  Jonathan Merriman**                 |
| ** **          | ** ** | **Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer** |
| ** **          | ** ** | ** **                                |
| ** **          | ** ** | ** **                                |
|                | By:        | /s/ JOHN D.  HIESTAND                |   |
|                |       | **John  D. Hiestand**                     |
| ** **          | ** ** | **Chief  Financial Officer**              |

 

----
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About FMSHRC 
-  Latest FMSHRC News 
-                   Please be advised that the Commission is currently unable to accept facsimile transmissions.               

#   Please be advised that the Commission is currently unable to accept facsimile transmissions. 

The Commission may be contacted by phone, email, mail, or through the Commission's e-filing system, as provided on this website and in the Commission's rules.  

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       221,143
<OTHER-SE>                                   (221,343)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
----

| Pocatello,      Idaho | Amount:      $50,000 |
|-----------------------|----------------------|

|   | 1. | The      loan will have 0% interest if repaid within sixty (60) days of receipt of      funds by the Maker.  If the loan is not repaid within sixty (60)      days of receipt of funds by the Maker, the Maker will be charged 10% to      compensate the Payee for fees associated with securing the loan      funds. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | If      the loan is repaid within one year of receipt of funds by the Maker, no      annual interest rate will be charged.  If the loan is not repaid      within one year of receipt of funds, the annual interest rate will be 6%      starting at the one-year anniversary date of the  loan. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | The      Payee is authorized to convert part or all of the loan balance and accrued      interest to common stock of the Maker at fair market value at any      time. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | TETRIDYN      SOLUTIONS, INC.      |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   |                               |
|   | By:      /s/ David W. Hempstead    |
|   | David      W. Hempstead, President |
|   |                               |
|   | By:      /s/ Antoinette Knapp      |
|   | Antoinette      Knapp, Secretary   |

----
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



Certification of President



I, Wm. Lee Popham, President, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Admiral Financial Corp.;



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;



3.

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



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

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



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.



Dated: November 12, 2010



/s/ Wm. Lee Popham

Wm. Lee Popham, President
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-348]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00-ASO-35]


Amendment of Class D and Class E4 Airspace; Gainesville, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in the geographic position 
coordinates of a final rule that was published in the Federal Register 
on November 13, 2000, (65 FR 67624), Airspace Docket No. 00-ASO-35. The 
final rule amended Class D and Class E4 airspace at Gainesville, FL.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wade T. Carpenter, Jr., Manager, 
Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 
P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 00-28989, Airspace Docket No. 00-ASO-35, 
published on November 13, 2000, (65 FR 67624), amended Class D and 
Class E4 airspace at Gainesville, FL. The airspace description 
inadvertently contained incorrect geographic position coordinates for 
the GATORS VORTAC. This action corrects the error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
airspace description for the Class E4 airspace area Gainesville, FL, 
incorporated by reference at Sec. 71-1 and published in the Federal 
Register on November 13, 2000 (65 FR 67624), is corrected as follows:


Sec. 71.71  [Corrected]

* * * * *

ASO FL E4  Gainesville, FL [Corrected]

    On page 67625, column 2, line 2 of the GATORS VORTAC geographic 
position description, correct the geographic position coordinates by 
substituting ``(lat. 29 deg.41'11"N, long. 82 deg.16'28"W)'' for 
``(lat 29 deg.34'20"N, long. 82 deg.21'45"W)''.
* * * * *

    Dated: Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 7, 2000.
Wade T. Carpenter,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 01-348 Filed 1-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: May 21, 2015 106185 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

NEW YORK,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JORGE MARRERO,

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: March 31, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Rose, JJ.

__________

Andrew Kossover, Public Defender, Kingston (Michael K.

Gould of counsel), for appellant.

D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan

Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County

(Williams, J.), rendered August 15, 2013, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the first

degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with numerous crimes

following an incident in which he shot his girlfriend in the face

at close range causing her serious injuries and rendering her

blind in both eyes. In full satisfaction of the indictment, he

pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree and waived his

right to appeal. In accord with the plea agreement, he was

sentenced to 18 years in prison to be followed by five years of

postrelease supervision. He now appeals.
-2- 106185 

Defendant's sole claim is that his sentence is harsh and

excessive. However, given defendant's valid waiver of the right

to appeal, we are precluded from considering it (see People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Brown, 125 AD3d 1049,

1049 [2015]). We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Rose, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 5 , 2021

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00126

- CR

EX PARTE DORIAN CHRISTOPHER LUGO

On Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court

Waller Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20

- 10

- 1746 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 3, 2021, a

p pellant filed an appeal from the tr ial court ’ s de nial of

h is application for a writ of habeas corpus. On June 22, 2021, this court ordered a hearing to determine why appellant ’ s counsel has not filed a brief in t hi s appeal. On July 14, 2021, a supplemental clerk ’ s record with the findings of facts and

conclu sions of law and the reporter’s record of a hearing held on July 2, 2021

, w as
filed in this court. The trial court ’ s findings and the hearing record refl ect th at appellant no longer w ishes to pursue his appeal.2

Appellant has not filed a written motion to wi thdraw the appeal or a written motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). However, based upon the testimony a t the hearing that appellant do es not want to continue his appeal, we

conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this

case. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Per Curiam

Panel consists of Chief Justice Chri stopher and Justices Zimmerer and Ha ssan.

D o Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).