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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

583 

KA 15-00533 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BERNARD ROBERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ALAN WILLIAMS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County

(Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered February 24, 2015. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the

first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law

§ 125.20 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record

establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived

the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). 

Defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was a “general unrestricted

waiver” that encompasses his contention that the sentence imposed is

unduly harsh and severe (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; see

Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; cf. People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928). 

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                          488,475
<SECURITIES>                    13,382,100
<RECEIVABLES>                   52,761
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                14,095,136
<PP&E>                          75,406
<DEPRECIATION>                  4,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  18,476,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           5,783,228
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        4,870,298
<OTHER-SE>                      7,822,668
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    18,476,194
<SALES>                         576,759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                576,759
<CGS>                           145,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   145,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                985,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (11,069,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                    230,024
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (10,839,424)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (10,839,424)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.97)



</TABLE>
#### Alejandro ORTA-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 05-77102, 06-70558.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.*

Filed Feb. 23, 2007.

Roxana V. Muro, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Margaret K. Taylor, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Orta-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings (No. 05-77102), and its subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider that decision (No. 06-70558). To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or to reconsider. *See Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review.

The BIA denied Orta-Flores’ motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel on the grounds that it was numerically barred and untimely, and OrtaFlores failed to establish he was entitled to equitable tolling. The BIA later denied reconsideration on the basis that even with the benefit of equitable tolling, the motion to reopen was still untimely.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen or the motion to reconsider where the record shows Orta-Flores knew of the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel no later than Decem*572ber 3, 2004, yet did not file a motion to reopen until April 27, 2005. *See Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2003) (recognizing that time and numerical limits may be equitably tolled, but that 90-day deadline begins to run once alleged ineffective assistance of counsel is discovered).

We do not consider the merits of the underlying ineffective assistance of counsel claim. *See Andia v. Ashcroft,*359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”)

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing Orta-Flores’ direct appeal from the immigration judge’s decision because the petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir.1996).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit  32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCM Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned in the capacity and on
the  date  indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant  to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  (18  U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

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.

Date:  November  17,  2003
by:  /s/  Albert  Reda
     -----------------
     Albert  Reda
     Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal  Financial  Officer


                                       20
<PAGE>
#### Patrick L. McDOWELL, Appellant, v. D. DAWSON; Shoup; Bucker; Pettus; Barts; Ballinger; Joe Hoffmeister; J. Wade; Supt. Michael Bowersox; Missouri Department of Corrections, Appellees.

No. 06-1485.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 27, 2007.

Filed: March 2, 2007.

*498Patrick L. McDowell, Bonne Terre, MO, pro se.

Robert L. Ortbals, Jr., Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellees.

Before COLLOTON, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Missouri prisoner Patrick McDowell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against several defendants: the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) and correctional officers Dawson, Shoup, and Pettus, functional unit managers Buckner (sued as “Bucker”) and Wade, staff members Barts, Ballinger, and Hoffmeister, and superintendent Bowersox, all of the South Central Correctional Center. We grant McDowell leave to appeal in forma pauperis, deny all other pending motions, and, for the reasons that follow, affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

We conclude that the district court properly dismissed McDowell’s claims against MDOC, because it is not a “person” under section 1983, see *Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle,*184 F.3d 999, 1010 (8th Cir.1999) (en banc), against Barts, because McDowell failed to serve him, see *Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai,*351 F.3d 825, 830-31 (8th Cir.2003), and against Buckner, Wade, Ballinger, Hoffmeister, and Bowersox, because McDowell made only conclusory allegations that they denied his rights to due process. *See Martin v. Sargent,*780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.1985).

The district court dismissed without prejudice McDowell’s claims against Dawson, Shoup, and Pettus on the ground that McDowell had not demonstrated that he exhausted administrative remedies for all of his claims against all of the defendants. As to these claims, we reverse and remand for further consideration in light of *Jones v. Bock,*— U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 910, 919-26, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). While it is unclear whether McDowell needed to name all three of these defendants in his administrative grievances to proceed against them on his intertwined claims, *see id.*at 923, the Supreme Court has now declared that courts should not dismiss all of a prisoner’s claims when his exhaustion of remedies is incomplete. *See id.*at 925-26. In the instant case, the district court acknowledged that McDowell had exhausted certain claims, but concluded under law of this circuit prior to *Jones*that the case should be dismissed. We remand the case in light of *Jones*and leave for the district court to determine in the first instance which of McDowell’s claims against these three defendants are properly exhausted. *See id.*at 923.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of CEO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alex Yemenidjian, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



Date: April 30, 2004

/s/    ALEX YEMENIDJIANAlex Yemenidjian Chief Executive Officer




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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6506

MARRIS JERMAINE WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORA HUNT, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:05-cv-00270-JAB)

Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marris Jermaine Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, Alvin William Keller, Jr., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Marris Jermaine Wilson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*December 28, 2009*

[Cite as *12/28/2009 Case Announcements,*2009-Ohio-6833.]

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2009-2150.

#### State ex rel. Lundeen v. Ryan.

Franklin App. No. 08AP-601. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that this cause is dismissed due to appellant’s failure to respond to this court’s order requiring him to file an amended notice of appeal with the court of appeals’ judgment entry.
[No. 58226-7-I.

Division One.

September 10, 2007.]

#### *In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*Melanie McFerrin, *Petitioner.*

Petition for relief from personal restraint. *Granted*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
----

----

----

|   | Pacific Office Properties Trust, Inc. |                                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |                                  |   |
|   | By:                                   | /s/ James R. Ingebritsen         |   |
|   |                                  | James R. Ingebritsen                  |   |
|   |                                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                                  |                                  |   |

|   | Pacific Office Properties, L.P. |                                                                       |
|--------|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                            |  By:  Pacific Office Proeprties Trust, Inc., its general partner |   |
|   |                            |  By:  /s/ James R. Ingebritsen                              |   |
|   |                            | James R. Ingebritsen                                                       |   |
|   |                            | President and Chief Executive Officer                                 |   |
|   |                            |                                                                       |   |

|   | Pacific Office Management, Inc. |                      |
|--------|---------------------------------|---------------------------|
|   |                            |                      |   |
|   | By:                             | /s/ Lawrence J. Taff |   |
|   |                            | Lawrence J. Taff          |   |
|   |                            | Executive Vice President  |   |
|   |                            |                      |   |

----
“ ,,

tin. UllJiemJ;:

M&cay, Jr. Chsh,. Railroad C.cin@~aion

of Texas 'J.'~-B++uJ. i _. Austln,Texaa opinion “0.,9-155

1 !?- "._. Re: A~lioablLLtybf the gas uti1it.j

tax,Alacl6 '-6Q6060, 0. c; s., to thexlicti~ of, a &UI pi* u.s .m a+ rivad frai tramportation~.~ &ae. Deezlfr.l-lmrayr

Yonr~plnlonrsqu~.&datedMarohll., 1955,reaaS aa fOiloMii %tlauJn5.ng

that the opsratirJna of a &I3 pipe u.ne are anoh 88 t0 bra it wlthin the definition 6f a &ae utility

m~'stat.ed-fin

Seotioir

2 of Artiole 6050,:R.

C. S.;and therefore subjeottothe prod viaionaof,Artiole 6060,would it be exempt frcm the pageantof the oti-fou+th(l/4)ofone (1) pm o&t gross receipts tax levied

by Article 6060

beoauee.lt

does not take title to gae tramported, doea not make any aalea of tramported &aa, but does bill for and receive payment

for the tran~- portationofeuohgas?" The-pertinent

Language

of Artiole ijo& of Vernon's Texas c1vi1statutesread0 as fouowEl:

YEverygas utility.

. . ahallpay Into the state Trew-at Austti a smnequalto one fourthof oneperoentofthe gross lmxanereoelvedfroma3l budneae done by it within this State during said qua-tar.* By vi&m of Station 10 of Chapter73 of the Aote of the Forty-Seoond tigtilature,

1931,page I.& this tar applies to those utilities

ded ecribed In Seotion 2 of Article 6&O, V.C. S.Hon. Willlem J. blurray,

Jr., page 2 (S-3.55)

Aeeu&qj the'td;rpa$s,la'a utilltjwlthinthe &fMtlon of Seotlon2 of Al

rtlcle 6050, the &estlhi-la whetherthe tax appliesto the lnocme

of euoh utilitydeqlved fYcm the tranepc&atlonof gas.

.

Inouropinioli,

ths'tar

appkee to euoh Inoome. Tbebuelne88 done by euoh~utillty da~evid&md by the definition of Section2 of Article 6050 is,the "trhneportatlon 

### or carriage

o?iaaturalgss, eitherfoypnbllc hire or nok'. Artio3.e 6060.0ynlts?apl.a~s

tdng the gmss luocme

received

fmn such bustieae. Any'foimer &nlon of the Attorney

Gemral, insofar

ae it may conflict

hemwlthj is herebyOverruled.

The gr& l+me i&a fcaa pipe line company

witti'the deflnltlon of Se&i& 2.09W.iCle 605O;~.,C. SL, fra the treneportetion of gae, is eubjeoti‘to thi;“'tax

~&vied-by,&tiole

6063,V. C. S. Any formeropinian,Insofar as It cooflfote'he~ith, 16 hereby overmled.
APPROVRD: YO~VYtraly, 

### A.-’ ~~~ ’

~.- gGeneralof Texae wrt.z3fsarhea k Oil and Gas Division '/~ John AtihifronReviewer " ,~"
J. A.'-, Ji'; Reviewer

. C..'

; : ., Rob&+, S. scrdtti

' "~ ~' HrEt Aasl.8tsnt
SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

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

FORM8-K

CURRENTREPORT

PURSUANTTO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIESAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Dateof report (Date of earliest event reported) January 13, 2006

PetroleumDevelopment Corporation

(ExactName of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

Nevada                                             0-7246                      95-2636730

(Stateor Other Jurisdiction                  (Commission                (IRS Employer

     of Incorporation)                                 File Number)           IdentificationNo.)

 

103  East Main Street; Bridgeport, WV    26330

(Addressof Principal Executive Offices)

Registrant'stelephone number, including area code    304-842-3597

nochange

(FormerName or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

----

Item 8.01.        Otherevents of importance to security holders.

On January 13, 2006,Petroleum Development Corporation announced that its Board of Directors has authorized therepurchase of up to 10% (1,627,500 shares) of the Company's common stock during2006. Stock repurchases under this program may be made in the open market or inprivate transactions, at times and in amounts that management deemsappropriate. The Company may terminate or limit the stock repurchase program atany time.

----

EXHIBITINDEX

Item9.01.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(c)    Exhibits.     

The news release is filed herewith as Exhibit 99.1 andincorporated herein by reference 

----

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to therequirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has dulycaused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto dulyauthorized.

Petroleum DevelopmentCorporation

By                    /s/ Darwin L. Stump      

            Darwin L. Stump

            Chief FinancialOfficer

            Date  January 13, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-1997 
<CASH>                                               736,890
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,911,683
<ALLOWANCES>                                         201,205
<INVENTORY>                                          550,243
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   4,511,042
<PP&E>                                             5,846,160
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1,103,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    18,149,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2,614,086
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              21,904
<OTHER-SE>                                        10,826,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      18,149,061
<SALES>                                            2,823,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   2,823,498
<CGS>                                              1,140,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,140,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,335,365
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   147,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      199,564
<INCOME-TAX>                                          87,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         112,064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .04
        


</TABLE>
FDIC Quarterly FOIA Report

2

nd Quarter 2021 (January 1 – March 31, 2021)

1. Number of requests received during quarter: 77

2. Number of requests processed during quarter: 76

3. Number of requests backlogged at end of quarter: 15

4. Status of the FDIC’s ten overall oldest pending FOIA requests from the previous fiscal 

year: Five (5) requests were closed during FY2021 thus far
From: FSIS User Information - FSIS

To: FSIS - All FSIS Employees

Subject: Interim USDA Guidance on Administrative Leave for COVID-19 Vaccinations

Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 10:06:24 AM

***** Please do not respond to this mailbox. Thank you. ***** 

Dear Colleagues,

COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available in the United States have proven to be highly

effective at preventing the contraction of this infectious disease and may keep individuals

from getting seriously ill. Getting vaccinated also protects those who are at increased risk for

severe illness from COVID-19. FSIS encourages employees to get vaccinated when it is their

turn and managers may authorize up to 4 hours of administrative leave for them to do so for

each dose. This includes travel time to and from the vaccination site. However, managers have

flexibility in compelling circumstances to grant additional leave, so please discuss individual

situations with your immediate supervisor.

The administrative leave is authorized regardless of whether an employee is performing work

on site or in a telework status and is retroactive if you already received the vaccine. For those

who have already received the vaccine, please follow the normal process to submit a corrected

timesheet to FSC. If you have questions or concerns, please contact your supervisor for more

details.

Sincerely,

Paul Kiecker

Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety

Terri Nintemann

Acting Administrator

Lost/stolen laptop, Smartphone or other Personal Data Assistant (PDA) or Personally

Identifiable Information (PII) Incident? Immediately contact USDA at 1-877-Pii2You or 1-

888-926-2373, 24 hours a day, and then contact the FSIS Service Desk at 1 (800) 473-9135.