alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1000.179 What happens if the Tribe/Consortium and bureau negotiators fail to reach an agreement? ( a ) If the Tribe/Consortium and bureau representatives do not reach agreement during the negotiation phase by the mutually agreed to date for completing negotiations, the Tribe/Consortium and the bureau may each make a last and best offer to the other party.
( b ) If a last and best offer is not accepted within 15 days, the bureau will provide a written explanation to the Tribe/Consortium explaining its reasons for not entering into an AFA for the requested program, together with the applicable statement prescribed in subpart R of this part, concerning appeal or review rights.
( c ) The Tribe/Consortium has 30 days from receipt of the bureau's written explanation to file an appeal. Appeals are handled in accordance with subpart R of this part.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Runway Repair Exercise Builds Bilateral Relations

By Senior Airman Omari Bernard18th Wing Public Affairs

**KADENA AIR BASE, Japan**

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News/Articles
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Barrington, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 285]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William I. Mogulescu, J., at hearing; Edward M. Davidowitz, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered July 2, 2003, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 20 years, and order, same court (Edward M. Davidowitz, J.), entered November 29, 2005, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The statement he volunteered during a lawful gunpoint seizure was spontaneous, and was not the product of custodial interrogation requiring *Miranda*warnings. When the officer told de*342fendant that he was being detained because of an incident that had just occurred involving gunshots, and that defendant would be free to leave if he was not involved, the officer was simply informing him of “the specific, limited purpose of the detention” (P*eople v Hicks,*68 NY2d 234, 240 [1986]), and was not making a statement reasonably likely to produce an incriminating response. In any event, the record also supports the hearing court’s alternative conclusion that even if the officer’s statement could be viewed as a question, it constituted the type of clarifying question that does not require *Miranda*warnings *(see People v Huffman,*41 NY2d 29, 34 [1976]).

Defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714, [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]), and the court properly denied his CPL 440.10 motion claiming ineffective assistance. As to one of the first-degree robbery counts, the court instructed the jury on the affirmative defense that the displayed firearms were not loaded and operable (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]). Counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to dismiss that count on the ground that, as a matter of law, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated the inoperability of the pistols that were displayed during the robbery and subsequently recovered by the police. Such a motion would have been futile, because the circumstances explained how the pistols may have been damaged after the robbery, and the evidence that one or both of the pistols had been operable at the time of the robbery was sufficient to warrant submitting the issue to the jury *(see People v Williams, 15*AD3d 244, 245 [2005], *lv denied 5*NY3d 771 [2005]).

Defendant’s arguments concerning the People’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
#### Groenendyke *v.*Groenendyke.

[No. 11,948.

Filed December 4, 1924.]

From Pulaski Circuit Court; *W. C. Pentecost,*Judge.

Action between William H. Groenendyke and Clara Groenendyke. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*Harry C. Miller,*for appellant.

*James C. Fletcher*and *William J. Reed,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.
### §8334. Higher grade after 30 years of service: warrant officers and enlisted members

(a) Each member of the naval service covered by subsection (b) who, after December 4, 1987, is retired with less than 30 years of active service or is transferred to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve is entitled, when his active service plus his service on the retired list or his service in the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve totals 30 years, to be advanced on the retired list to the highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the Navy.

(b) This section applies to—

(1) warrant officers of the naval service;

(2) enlisted members of the Regular Navy and Regular Marine Corps; and

(3) reserve enlisted members of the Navy and Marine Corps who, at the time of retirement or transfer to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, are serving on active duty.

(c) An enlisted member of the naval service who is advanced on the retired list under this section is entitled to recompute his retired or retainer pay under formula A of the following table, and a warrant officer of the naval service so advanced is entitled to recompute his retired pay under formula B of that table. The amount recomputed, if not a multiple of $1, shall be rounded to the next lower multiple of $1.

| Formula | Column 1 Take | Column 2 Multiply by |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A | Retired pay base as computed under section 1406(d) or 1407 of this title | The retired pay multiplier prescribed in section 1409 of this title for the number of years creditable for his retainer or retired pay at the time of retirement.1 |
| B | Retired pay base as computed under section 1406(d) of this title | The retired pay multiplier prescribed in section 1409 of this title for the number of years credited to him under section 1405 of this title. |

1 In determining the retired pay multiplier, credit each full month of service that is in addition to the number of full years of service creditable to the member as 1/12 of a year and disregard any remaining fractional part of a month.

(Added Pub. L. 100–180, div. A, title V, §512(b), Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1089, §6334; amended Pub. L. 101–189, div. A, title XVI, §1622(g), Nov. 29, 1989, 103 Stat. 1605; renumbered §8334, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(15), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6334 of this title as this section.

1989—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–189 substituted "December 4, 1987" for "the date of the enactment of this section".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
### §7217. Duties: chaplains; assistance required of commanding officers

(a) Each chaplain shall, when practicable, hold appropriate religious services at least once on each Sunday for the command to which he is assigned, and shall perform appropriate religious burial services for members of the Army who die while in that command.

(b) Each commanding officer shall furnish facilities, including necessary transportation, to any chaplain assigned to his command, to assist the chaplain in performing his duties.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 203, §3547; renumbered §7217, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §808(b)(6), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1838.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3547(a) | 10:238. | R.S. 1125. |
| 3547(b) | 10:239. | R.S. 1127. |
| | [Uncodified: Feb. 2, 1901, ch. 192, §12 (last sentence), 31 Stat. 750]. | Feb. 2, 1901, ch. 192, §12 (last sentence), 31 Stat. 750. |

In subsection (a), the words "members of the Army" are substituted for the words "officers and soldiers".

In subsection (b), the words "regiments, hospitals, and posts", in 10:239, are omitted, since at the time of the enactment of section 1127 of the Revised Statutes, chaplains were authorized only for regiments, hospitals, and posts. The revised section preserves the broad coverage of the original statute. The words "Each commanding officer shall" are substituted for the words "It shall be the duty of commanders", in 10:239. The word "furnish" is substituted for the words "to afford", in 10:239. The words "including necessary transportation" are substituted for the last sentence of section 12 of the Act of February 2, 1901, ch. 192, 31 Stat. 750. The words "his command" are substituted for the words "the same", in 10:239. The words "to assist" are substituted for the words "as may aid them", in 10:239.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 7217, act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 445, related to reports to Congress concerning appropriations for Department of the Navy, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XIII, §1322(a)(15), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1672.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 3547 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Electric Power
Trust V (the “Trust”) for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each
of the undersigned officers of the Trust hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of 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 Trust.








/s/
      Randall D. HolmesName:
              Randall
      D. HolmesTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)Date:
              March
      19, 2008
    /s/
      Jeffrey H. StrasbergName:
                Jeffrey
      H. StrasbergTitle:
                Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                  (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:
                March
      19, 2008
### Regional gravity survey along the central and southern Wasatch Front, Utah

By: K. L. CookJ.W. Berg Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp316E

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
sooner than it was actually ordered to be returned and the purported 

unconstitutionality of EDCR 7.42(b), which provides that "[a] corporation 

may not appear in proper person." Generally, appellant asks this court to 

"consider striking EDCR 7.42(b)," and order that he be paid damages for 

losses he suffered related to this case. 

Having considered appellant's arguments and the record 

before this court, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider these 

arguments. To the extent that appellant argues that the district court 

denied him relief based on EDCR 7.42(b), no written order in the district 

court record denies appellant relief based on this rule.' Although 

appellant asserts in his notice of appeal that his wife's October 7, 2008, 

motion to request amendment of a record was denied on this basis, there is 

no written order in the record resolving that motion. And, even assuming 

that appellant would be able to appeal from such a written order, any oral 

ruling by the district court in this regard is not appealable. See Div. of 

Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 454, 

92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) ("[D]ispositional court orders that are not 

administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of 

the underlying controversy, must be written, signed, and filed before they 

become effective."). 

Additionally, to the extent that appellant seeks damages 

related to the district court's failure to order that certain property be 

'We note that the district court is obligated to enter written orders 

resolving matters pending before it so that this court may properly review 

the district court's decisions on appeal. If any written orders have been 

entered in the district court in regard to the matters discussed above, they 

were not transmitted to this court in the record on appeal. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e. 
Saitta 

C.J. 

returned to appellant earlier than it was actually ordered to be returned, 

the district court addressed appellant's request for damages in its May 7, 

2013, order on petition for compensatory damages. Notice of entry of that 

order was served on appellant and filed in the district court on May 9, 

2013. Thus, any notice of appeal from that order was due to be filed by 

June 11, 2013. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(c). Appellant did not file his 

notice of appeal, however, until July 2, 2014, more than a year after the 

time for filing a notice of appeal had passed. Thus, to the extent that 

appellant seeks to challenge the denial of relief based on EDCR 7.42(b) or 

the denial of additional damages, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal. We therefore order the appeal dismissed insofar as it 

seeks to challenge these rulings. 

It is so ORDERED. 2 

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge 

Richard Pedersen 

Lawyerswest, Inc. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2In light of this order, we deny as moot all other requests for relief 

pending in this proceeding. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 3 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A en
#### J. L. Brasher, et al., v. H. M. McCaskrin.

Gen. No. 4,522.

1. *Consideration—what, sufficient, to supxiort agreement to release.*Compliance with a condition named by a lessor to a lessee, is a sufficient consideration to support an agreement by the former to release the latter from the obligations of his contract. *Held,*in this case, proof of compliance was not made.

Action of assumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Rock Island Count}'-: the Hon. William H. Gest, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the April term, 1905.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 25, 1905.

Sturgeon, Stelck & Sturgeon, for appellants.

H. M. McCaskrin, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Dibell

delivered the opinion of the court.

H. M. McCaskrin recovered against J. L. and Mary O. Brasher, both before a justice and in the Circuit Court on appeal, a judgment for $16 for the rent of certain premises in the city of Bock Island, due February 1, 1903, for that month, under a written lease from plaintiff to defendants. Defendants prosecute this further appeal. The proofs make an undisputed case for plaintiff unless defendants proved that after the lease was executed plaintiff released them therefrom for a valuable consideration, or said that to them which created an estoppel. J. L. Brasher testified that after the lease was executed plaintiff told him that if he could get a house with a barn suitable for his horse plaintiff would release him from the contract, and that the witness afterward leased another house. Defendants do not prove that they or J. L. Brasher leased a house with a barn suitable for a horse, or with a barn of any kind (in which respect appellants’ abstract and briefs are misleading), nor did they prove when" this conversation was had nor when the witness leased the other house. This may all have been after the month of February, for the suit was not begun till September. If we concede that if defendants had complied with the conditions specified, namely, *344that they get a house with a barn suitable for their horse, that act by them would furnish a consideration sufficient to support a promise by plaintiff to release them from their contract with him, still they did not show that they complied with that condition. The court therefore properly instructed the jury to find for plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
§ 162.002 How is this part subdivided? ( a ) This part includes multiple subparts relating to: ( 1 ) General Provisions (Subpart A);
( 2 ) Agricultural Leases (Subpart B);
( 3 ) Residential Leases (Subpart C);
( 4 ) Business Leases (Subpart D);
( 5 ) Wind Energy Evaluation, Wind Resource, and Solar Resource Leases (Subpart E);
( 6 ) Special Requirements for Certain Reservations (Subpart F); and
( 7 ) Records (Subpart G).
( b ) Leases covered by subpart B are not subject to the provisions in subpart A. Leases covered by subpart B are subject to the provisions in subpart G, except that if a provision in subpart B conflicts with a provision of subpart G, then the provision in subpart B will govern.
( c ) Subpart F applies only to leases made under special acts of Congress covering particular Indian reservations. Leases covered by subpart F are also subject to the provisions in subparts A through G, except to the extent that subparts A through G are inconsistent with the provisions in subpart F or any act of Congress under which the lease is made, in which case the provisions in subpart F or any act of Congress under which the lease is made will govern.
#### Barney Cohen, Respondent, v. Isaac Regierer and Another, Appellants.

Motion denied, with costs, Present — Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
# C_2013273EN.01000101.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/1

---

Decisions in the context of the monitoring of the implementation of decisions regarding restructuring and liquidation aid for financial institutions

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 273/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 10.8.2012 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | SA.34747 (12/NN) |
| Member State | Latvia |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Amendments to Parex restructuring plan |
| Type of decision | New decision related to the following Commission decision: C 26/2009 — SA.28561 |
| Content | Adaptation of the burden-sharing arrangements, Adaptation of the schedule or conditions for the repayment of State aid, Other adaptation |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

10.8.2012

Reference number of the aid

SA.34747 (12/NN)

Member State

Latvia

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Amendments to Parex restructuring plan

Type of decision

New decision related to the following Commission decision: C 26/2009 — SA.28561

Content

Adaptation of the burden-sharing arrangements, Adaptation of the schedule or conditions for the repayment of State aid, Other adaptation

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/register/

---