alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §714k. Records; annual report

The Corporation shall at all times maintain complete and accurate books of account and shall file annually with the Secretary of Agriculture a complete report as to the business of the Corporation, a copy of which shall be forwarded by the Secretary of Agriculture to the President for transmission to the Congress. In addition to the annual report, the Corporation shall submit to Congress on a quarterly basis an itemized report of all expenditures over $10,000 made under section 714c or 714i of this title during the period covered by the report, including expenditures in the form of allotments or fund transfers to other agencies and departments of the Federal Government.

(June 29, 1948, ch. 704, §13, 62 Stat. 1073; Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §161(b)(3), Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 934.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–127 inserted at end "In addition to the annual report, the Corporation shall submit to Congress on a quarterly basis an itemized report of all expenditures over $10,000 made under section 714c or 714i of this title during the period covered by the report, including expenditures in the form of allotments or fund transfers to other agencies and departments of the Federal Government."

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

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions of law requiring submittal to Congress of any annual, semiannual, or other regular periodic report listed in House Document No. 103–7 (in which the requirement, under the 1st sentence of this section, to transmit to Congress a complete annual report as to the business of the Corporation, is listed on page 46), see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, and section 1(a)(4) [div. A, §1402] of Pub. L. 106–554, set out as notes under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Exceptions From Transfer of Functions

For exception of functions of corporations of Department of Agriculture from transfer of functions to Secretary of Agriculture by Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1953, see Exceptions From Transfer of Functions note set out under section 712a of this title.

#### Delegation of Certain Reporting Authority

Memorandum of President of the United States, Dec. 8, 2004, 69 F.R. 74941, provided:

Memorandum for the Secretary of Agriculture

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the functions conferred upon the President by section 13 of Public Law 806, 80th Congress (15 U.S.C. 714k), to provide the specified report to the Congress.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

George W. Bush.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Scott Gomes, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John J. DeLury, J.H.O.), rendered April 25, 2017, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of violating Public Health Law ยง 229, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (John J. DeLury, J.H.O.), rendered April 25, 2017, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and fine, if paid, remitted. </p><p>The record fails to support the conclusion that defendant's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, because the court accepted the plea without addressing any of the constitutional rights defendant was waiving, and there are not sufficient circumstances reflecting his consultation with counsel (<i>see People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375, 383-85 [2015]; <i>People v Tyrell</i>, 22 NY3d 359, 365-366 [2013]). Given the relatively minor nature of the offense here charged, we dismiss the accusatory instrument in lieu of remanding the matter (<i>see People v Burwell</i>, 53 NY2d 849, 851 [1981]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 13, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  SBA District Offices 
-  Los Angeles 
-  Doing Business In The Los Angeles District 

# Doing business in the Los Angeles District

## Business requirements

SBA’s Business Guide lists the requirements needed to start, grow, and expand your business. Since laws and taxes vary by state, here’s what you need to do before starting your business in our area.

### Business name and registration

Register your business name with the county clerk where your business is located. If you are a corporation, you will also need to register with the Secretary of State.

### Business licensing and zoning

Licenses are typically administered by a variety of state and local departments. It is important to consider zoning regulations when choosing a site for your business. Contact the local business license office where you plan to locate your business. You may not be permitted to conduct business out of your home or engage in industrial activity in a retail district.

### Taxes

IRS California Taxpayer Assistance Center300 N. Los Angeles St., Room 1259Los Angeles, CA 90012Phone: 213-576-3009

State Tax DepartmentFranchise Tax BoardP.O. Box 942857Sacramento, CA 94257Phone: 800-338-0505

### Health and safety

California Department of Industrial Relations320 W. 4th St.Los Angeles, CA 90013Phone: 213-576-6227

California OSHA1515 Clay St., Suite 1901Oakland, CA 94612Phone: 510-286-7000

## State small business profiles

Need information on the local business landscape? SBA's Office of Advocacy has the latest demographic and statistics on local small business economic activity.

##  Local assistance

          Find counselors        

## SBA lending in our area

-  Loan programs              Learn more about SBA's 7(a) loans, 504 loans, and microloans that you can use for your business.                  Find a loan 
-  Lender Match              Describe your business needs and get matched with an SBA-backed lender in your area.                  Get matched with a lender 
-  Lending activity reports              View 7(a) and 504 lending activity reports from our district.                  View lending reports 

## Additional local resources

###         State and local governments      

                    -  Los Angeles Economic and Workforce Development Department 
                    -  Department of Consumer & Business Affairs 
                    -  California Department of Industrial Relations 

###         Community organizations      

                    -  National Association of Women Business Owners Los Angeles Chapter 

##           Download our guide to SBA resources        

Learn about the opportunities available for small businesses nationwide.

Download English version PDFDownload Spanish version PDF
#### In the Matter of Daniel W. Schiavone, Petitioner, v James P. Punch, as Orleans County Court Judge, et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 736]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to annul a determination of respondent James E Funch, Orleans County Court Judge. The determination revoked petitioner’s pistol permit.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Fetitioner commenced this proceeding to annul the determination revoking his pistol permit. We reject petitioner’s contention that James E Punch, Orleans County Court Judge (respondent), acted in excess of his jurisdiction. Respondent is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to revoke a pistol permit and “may do so for ‘any good cause’ ” *(Matter of Dorsey v Teresi,*26 AD3d 635, 636 [2006]; *see*Penal Law § 400.00 [1], [11]; *Matter of Peterson v Kavanagh,*21 AD3d 617, 618 [2005]). Such good cause includes a finding that the petitioner “lack[s] the essential temperament or character which should be present in one entrusted with a dangerous instrument” (Peterson, 21 AD3d at 618 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Salem v Geraci,*27 AD3d 1175, 1176 [2006]), or that he or she “does not possess the ‘maturity, prudence, carefulness, good character, temperament, demeanor and judgment’ necessary to have a pistol permit” *(Dorsey, 26*AD3d at 636). Based upon those standards, we conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion or act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in permanently revoking petitioner’s pistol permit *(see id.; Matter of Pacicca v Allesandro,*19 AD3d 500, 501 [2005]; *Matter of Mazzone v Czajka,*8 AD3d *1367788 [2004]). Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Pine, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

 Submitted February 11, 2009∗

Decided February 24, 2009

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 08-3302

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAMES W. HARPER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 05-CR-138-C-01

Barbara B. Crabb,

Chief Judge.

Order

James Harper was sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment for crack-cocaine 

offenses. Last year we remanded so that the district court could consider how to use the 

discretion it possesses under Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007). On 

remand the judge reduced Harper’s sentence to 188 months. He has appealed a second 

time, but his lawyer proposes to withdraw, concluding after an analysis under Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 264 (1967), that there is no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Harper was 

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08-3302 Page 2

invited to respond, see Circuit Rule 51, but has not done so.

We agree with counsel that an appeal would be frivolous. Kimbrough holds that 

district judges possess discretion to reduce sentences for crack cocaine, but that decision 

and its successors, such as Spears v. United States, No. 08-5721 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2009), do not 

require the judge to grant any, or any particular, reduction. We do not see any reason 

to think that the district judge misunderstood the extent of her discretion after 

Kimbrough when reducing this sentence by 16 months rather than some different 

amount, or that the judge took any inappropriate matter into account. The judge gave 

Harper the benefit of the lower Guideline for crack cocaine recently established by the 

Sentencing Commission. The sentence, which is at the low end of the range determined 

under the amended crack-cocaine Guideline, is reasonable.

Any other potential argument was raised and rejected in our prior decision.

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-11187

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Larry James Miears, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:20-CR-12-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Larry James Miears has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Miears has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 28, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-11187 Document: 00516033395 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2021
No. 20-11187

2

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 20-11187 Document: 00516033395 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2021
# C_2013352EN.01001202.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Commission

(Case T-474/10) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems (ESP DESIS II) - Classification of a tenderer - Award of the contract - Obligation to state reasons - Transparency - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)

2013/C 352/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens (Greece)) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers,)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: N. Bambara and S. Delaude, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and by O. Graber-Soudry, Solicitor,)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of four Commission decisions communicated in four separate letters of 16 July 2010 to classify the applicant’s tender submitted in the context of the call for tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2009/045, concerning ‘External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems’ (ESP DESIS II) (OJ 2009/S 198-283663), for Lot 1A in second place, for Lot 1B in third place, for Lot 1C in second place and for Lot 3 in third place, and also of all the related decisions of the Commission’s Directorate General for Informatics, including the decisions to award the respective contracts to the tenderers classified in first and second places; and, second, for damages,

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
# C_2010346EN.01004301.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/43

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2010 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-353/10 R)

(Application for interim measures - Financial assistance - Debit note for recovery of financial assistance - Application for suspension of execution - Failure to have regard to formal requirements - Inadmissibility)

2010/C 346/86

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Sauka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of execution of a debit note issued by the Commission on 22 July 2010 for the recovery of the sum of EUR 109 415,20 paid in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed;

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
#### In the Matter of Marcus Hermelin (Also Known as Marc Hermelin), an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

July 2, 1943.

*Einar Chrystie*for petitioner.

*Cornelius J. Smyth*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The Association of the Bar of the City-of New York filed two charges of professional misconduct against the respondent.

An Official Referee has reported that the first charge of misconduct has not been sustáined. The evidence supports that finding, and the charge is dismissed.

The second charge of misconduct has, according to the referee’s report, been established. The record sustains his conclusion. The charge arose from the cashing by respondent of a twenty-seven dollar check for costs, which bore an indorsement and was enclosed with a letter which indicated that the check was to be held in escrow pending the determination of an appeal. The respondent cashed the check. He claims that he had made no agreement to hold it in escrow pending appeal and that he was of the opinion that an attempt was being made £ £ to foist upon him an arrangement to which he had not agreed to be *502a party.” He admits that he may have been hasty and immature in the judgment he used.

In view of these and other mitigating circumstances, we are of the opinion that a censure is sufficient punishment for his misconduct.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Respondent censured.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DELTON SCOTT STEVENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CR-90-310, CA-94-3380-6) Submitted: July 30, 1999 Decided: August 19, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Delton Scott Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Delton Scott Stevens seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Stevens , Nos. CR-90-310;CA-94-3380-6 (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 1998). 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
### §6210. Report to Congress

In the 30-day period beginning 3 years after November 2, 1994, and with the concurrence of the Commission, the Attorney General shall submit, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, a report—

(1) describing how the operation of this chapter has affected the enforcement of the Federal antitrust laws,

(2) describing the extent to which foreign antitrust authorities have complied with the confidentiality requirements applicable under antitrust mutual assistance agreements in effect under this chapter,

(3) specifying separately the identities of the foreign states, regional economic integration organizations, and foreign antitrust authorities that have entered into such agreements and the identities of the foreign antitrust authorities with respect to which such foreign states and such organizations have entered into such agreements,

(4) specifying the identity of each foreign state, and each regional economic integration organization, that has in effect a law similar to this chapter,

(5) giving the approximate number of requests made by the Attorney General and the Commission under such agreements to foreign antitrust authorities for antitrust investigations and for antitrust evidence,

(6) giving the approximate number of requests made by foreign antitrust authorities under such agreements to the Attorney General and the Commission for investigations under section 6202 of this title, for orders under section 6203 of this title, and for antitrust evidence, and

(7) describing any significant problems or concerns of which the Attorney General is aware with respect to the operation of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 103–438, §11, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4602.)
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6187]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,689]


Amdocs, Inc., Global Support Services, Advertising and Media AT&T 
Division, New Haven, CT; Notice of Revised Determination on 
Reconsideration

    By application dated December 22, 2010, the petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding the eligibility of workers and former workers 
of Amdocs, Inc., Global Support Services, Advertising and Media AT&T 
Division, New Haven, Connecticut to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA). On January 21, 2011, the Department issued a Notice 
of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration 
applicable to workers of the subject firm. The Notice was published in 
the Federal Register on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 5831). The subject 
workers are engaged in employment related to the supply of development, 
testing, including sanity and regression testing, and production 
support services related to computer systems.
    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received 
information that revealed that the subject firm had shifted to a 
foreign country a portion of the supply of services like or directly 
competitive with the services supplied by the subject workers, and that 
the shift in services contributed importantly to worker group 
separations at the subject firm.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, I determine that workers of the subject firm, who are 
engaged in employment related to the supply of development, testing, 
including sanity and regression testing, and production support 
services related to computer systems, meet the worker group 
certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 
2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I 
make the following certification:

    All workers of Amdocs, Inc., Global Support Services, 
Advertising and Media AT&T Division, New Haven, Connecticut, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
September 29, 2009, through two years from the date of this revised 
certification, and all workers in the group threatened with total or 
partial separation from employment on date of certification through 
two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 4th day of March 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-6187 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P