alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 522399 

________________________________

In the Matter of ANTHONY 

FOSTER, 

Appellant, 

v

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALBERT PRACK, as Director of 

Special Housing and Inmate

Disciplinary Programs, 

et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: September 20, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Devine and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Anthony Foster, Attica, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth

of counsel), for respondents.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hayden, J.),

entered October 5, 2015 in Chemung County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of

Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty

of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with use of

a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for

the presence of cannabinoids. Following a tier III disciplinary

hearing, petitioner was found guilty and that determination was

affirmed upon administrative appeal. Petitioner commenced this

CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination and,
-2- 522399 

following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. 

This appeal ensued. 

We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that the

Hearing Officer erred in denying petitioner's request to call

certain witnesses. The proffered testimony of inmate witnesses

with regard to their personal experience with drug-related

testing, as well as documentation in connection with another

inmate's disciplinary hearing, were irrelevant as to whether

petitioner was guilty of the charge (see Matter of Mullamphy v

Fischer, 112 AD3d 1177, 1177 [2013]; Matter of Williams v

Fischer, 73 AD3d 1364, 1365 [2010]). Furthermore, the additional

information sought regarding the authorization for the urinalysis

testing was properly considered redundant given the testimony

already received (see Matter of Sheppard v Bezio, 62 AD3d 1189,

1190 [2009]; Matter of Antinuche v Goord, 16 AD3d 743, 744

[2005]). To the extent that petitioner claims that he was

improperly denied the right to counsel, it is well settled that

an inmate has no right to counsel during a disciplinary hearing

(see Matter of Laureano v Kuhlmann, 75 NY2d 141, 146 [1990];

Matter of Jeckel v New York State Dept. of Corr., 111 AD3d 1180,

1181 [2013]). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining

contentions and find them to be without merit.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr., Devine and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
## 

EXHIBIT 12.1

PACCAR Financial Corp.  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTING REQUIREMENTS  (Thousands of Dollars)

|                                   |                                    | Nine Months Ended
September 30 |        
|---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | -------
|
|FIXED CHARGES                      |                                    |                                |        
|                                   | Interest expense                   |                                | $      
|                                   | Portion of rentals deemed interest |                                |        
|                                   |                                    |                                |        
|TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                |                                    | $                              | 149,901
|                                   |                                    |                                |        
|EARNINGS                           |                                    |                                |        
|                                   | Income before taxes                |                                | $      
|                                   | Fixed charges                      |                                |        
|                                   |                                    |                                |        
|EARNINGS AS DEFINED                |                                    | $                              | 193,061
|                                   |                                    |                                |        
|RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES |                                    |                                | 1.29   

The
method of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges shown above complies with SEC reporting requirements but differs from the method called for in the Support Agreement
between the Company and PACCAR. See Exhibit 12.2.

12

---

## QuickLinks
#### § 10.908 Can an employee designate alternate beneficiaries to receive a portion of the death gratuity payment?

An employee may designate another person or persons to receive not more than 50 percent of the death gratuity payment pursuant to the designation procedures in § 10.909. Only living persons, rather than trusts, corporations or other legal entities, may be designated under this subsection. The balance of the death gratuity will be paid according to the order of precedence described in § 10.907.
EXHIBIT 12(b)

FORM 10-Q

PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP.

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

PURSUANT TO THE SUPPORT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND PACCAR

(Millions of Dollars)



|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ----- | ---- | - | -----
|                                   |  | Six months endedJune 30
|                                   |  | 2010                    |       | 2009
|FIXED CHARGES                      |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|Interest expense                   |  | $                       | 48.5  |      | $ | 68.7 
|Facility and equipment rental      |  |                         | 1.1   |      |   | 1.1  
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                |  | $                       | 49.6  |      | $ | 69.8 
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|EARNINGS                           |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|Income before taxes                |  | $                       | 23.2  |      | $ | 22.6 
|Depreciation                       |  |                         | 67.4  |      |   | 57.9 
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         | 90.6  |      |   | 80.5 
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|FIXED CHARGES                      |  |                         | 49.6  |      |   | 69.8 
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|EARNINGS AS DEFINED                |  | $                       | 140.2 |      | $ | 150.3
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |      
|RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES |  |                         | 2.83X |      |   | 2.15X
|                                   |  |                         |       |      |   |
475 P.2d 470

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James William HINTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 488.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Sept. 25, 1970.

Asa Kelly, Jr., Silver City, for defendant-appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., John A. Darden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

SPIESS, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying relief pursuant to Rule 93, § 21-1-1 (93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1969). The defendant, appellant, entered a plea of guilty on the 9th day of May, 1960, to an information charging rape. He was sentenced to serve a term in the Penitentiary of New Mexico of not less than one year, nor more than ninety-nine years.

Defendant bases his right to post-conviction relief upon the allegation that his plea of guilty was induced by a promise made by the District Attorney that “ * * * if he stood trial, he would get 99 years, but if he made a statement and waivered (sic) counsel, and plead guilty he would only get one to five years.”

After hearing evidence presented by defendant and the person who was the District Attorney at the time defendant’s plea was entered and accepted, the Court made the following findings of fact:

> “The defendant’s waiver of his right of counsel and of his right to a preliminary hearing was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made with full knowledge of his constitutional rights and guarantees.”

*77“The defendant’s plea of guilty before Judge Vearle Payne on May 9, 1960, in the District Court of Grant County, New Mexico, was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made and entered with full knowledge of his right to have all of the constitutional guarantees and safeguards that were available to him and the District Attorney did not by any conduct nor statements do or say anything that would lead the defendant to believe he would receive a lighter sentence if he pleaded guilty.”

The judgment dismissing the proceedings was thereupon entered, from which this appeal was prosecuted.

To detail the testimony which was presented would serve no worthwhile purpose. The record contains ample evidence to sustain the findings of the trial judge and support the judgment.

The judgment should be.affirmed.

It is so ordered

OMAN and WOOD, JJ., concur.
---

Exhibit 99.5

|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                    
|---------------------------------------------
|18 U.S.C. §1350,                             
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Silver Wheaton Corp.
(the Company) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Randy V. J. Smallwood, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)       The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

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

|March 31, 2015 | By: /s/
      Randy V. J. Smallwood
|-------------- | -----------------------------------
|               | Randy V. J. Smallwood              
|               | Chief Executive Officer            

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 41

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 41 (formerly part 275) appear at T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39093, July 27, 2001.

#### § 41.195 Trade name certificate.

Every person that files an application for a permit as an importer of tobacco products operating under a trade name must furnish with the application for the permit required by § 41.191 a true copy of the certificate or other document, if any, issued by a State, county, or municipal authority in connection with the transaction of business under the trade name. If no such certificate or other document is issued by the State, county, or municipal authority, a written statement, in duplicate, to that effect by the person will be sufficient for purposes of this section.

[78 FR 38571, June 27, 2013]
1 Mears, Gilbert

From: Fred Welty <fdwelt@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 8:07 AM To: Mears, Gilbert Subject: TRI, Docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Gilbert Mears Toxics Release Inventory Program Divi sion, Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460 mears.gilbert@epa.gov Docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281
Dear Mr. Mears,
I am writing in regard to the loophole which the oil and gas industry has wh ich enables it to avoid reporting the release of toxic chemicals under the Toxic Release Inventory. This is wrong policy. It endangers the public. Please revise EPA policy so as to bring the industry into compliance under TPI. I live in NE Ohio in an area which will soon experience fracking. I am personally endangered by the possible-- probably likely--release of t oxic chemicals by the oil and gas drillers. I at least deserve to know which chemicals might be causing me harm. This pertains to Dock et #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281 Thank you. Sincerely, Fred Welty 11630 Butternut Rd. Chardon, OH 44024
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 558

 568

 560

 574

 562

 562

 597

 581

 581

 558

 571

 561

 562

 559

 558

 555

 548

 528

 525

 534

 536

 492

 494

 511

 521

 518

 521

 657

 674

 676

 684

 329

 341

 338

 344

 350

 354

 353

 349

 350

 344

 349

 351

 352

 350

 346

 349

 345

 345

 336

 337

 349

 341

 339

 341

 343

 341

 341

 335

 383

 385

 383

 413

 420

 411

 428

 420

 434

 434

 421

 411

 406

 404

 416

 403

 407

 399

 407

 408

 399

 408

 414

 409

 386

 378

 392

 399

 403

 399

 424

 471

 466

 472

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2020 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 12, 2020

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
PHANTOM Upgrade Kit Product Release Notes

© 2013 DJI Innovations. All Rights Reserved.

Date: 2013/08/05

NAZA-M firmware version: 3.14 or above

NAZA-M assistant software version: 2.14 or above

NAZA-M quick start guide version: 1.14

PHANTOM quick start manual version: 1.6

PHANTOM advanced manual version: 1.4

Battery and Charger instruction: 1.0

PHANTOM prop guard assembly instruction: 1.0

PHANTOM slide lever instruction: 1.00

P330CB-H3-2D instruction: 1.00

What’s new?

PHANTOM upgrade kit provides a convenient solution for using Zenmuse H3-2D with PHANTOM.

P330CB-H3-2D instruction: 

P330CB-H3-2D is an upgrade accessory for the PHANTOM; it’s designed to replace the center board inside the PHANTOM. P330CB-H3-2D 

retains the functions of the original center board but also has the following added functionality:

 Integrated Power Management Unit 

 Integrated Gimbal Control Unit for H3-2D, a 6-pin port is used to connect to a wireless video transmission module and 8-pin port is used 

to connect to Zenmuse H3-2D.

PHANTOM slide lever instruction: 

PHANTOM slide lever is an upgrade accessory for the PHANTOM transmitter; the slide lever can be used for gimbal tilt control.

Important:

 After this update, make sure to reconfigure parameters and do X1 calibration in the assistant software, compass calibration is also 

required.
PHANTOM Upgrade Kit Product Release Notes

© 2013 DJI Innovations. All Rights Reserved.
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3714 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow the Small Business Administration to establish size standards for small 

agricultural enterprises using the same process for establishing size standards for small business concerns, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3714 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Agriculture Pro3 ducer Size Standards Improvements Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL 

5 ENTERPRISES. 

6 Paragraph (1) of section 18(b) of the Small Business 

7 Act (15 U.S.C. 647(b)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘busi8 nesses’’ and inserting ‘‘small business concerns’’. 

9 SEC. 3. EQUAL TREATMENT OF SMALL FARMS. 

10 Paragraph (1) of section 3(a) of the Small Business 

11 Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘oper12 ation: Provided,’’ and all that follows through the period 

13 at the end and inserting ‘‘operation.’’. 

14 SEC. 4. UPDATED SIZE STANDARDS. 

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 18 months after 

16 the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 

17 the Small Business Administration shall, by rule, establish 

18 size standards in accordance with section 3 of the Small 

19 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632) for agricultural enterprises 

20 (as such term is defined in section 18(b)(1) of such Act). 

21 (b) REVIEW.—Size standards established under sub22 section (a) are subject to the rolling review procedures es-
3 

•HR 3714 EH

1 tablished under section 1344(a) of the Small Business 

2 Jobs Act of 2010 (15 U.S.C. 632 note). 

Passed the House of Representatives April 19, 2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3714 

AN ACT 

To amend the Small Business Act to allow the 

poses. for small business concerns, and for other purthe same process for establishing size standards standards for small agricultural enterprises using Small Business Administration to establish size
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In Re: Dolores Narvaez, Luis Narvaez, 

Eduardo Velarde, Jose Juan Velarde, 

Julieta Duran, Luz Magdalena Escobar and 

Jose Antonio Velarde Juarez,

 

 Relators.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00133-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

O R D E R

The Court has considered Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion 

that the case should be set for submission without oral argument. A submission date has not yet 

been determined. The parties will be provided with advanced notice of the setting. See 

Tex.R.App.P. 39.8

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of September, 2019.

PER CURIAM
|   | Exhibit 32.1 |
|--------|--------------|

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, Doyle R. Simons, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Temple-Inland Inc.

 

 

|   | /s/ Doyle R. Simons     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Doyle R. Simons         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | August 7, 2009          |

 

 

 

36
#### Ib Chr Sonnesen, Respondent, v. Panama Transport Company, Appellant.

■ Motion for reargument of motion for reargument of appeal granted. Upon reargument, the motion is denied, without costs. Present — Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [See 272 App. Div. 1071.]
Exhibit 99.8







CONSENT OF G. MACFARLANE



I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents, which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statement on Form 40-F of Silver Wheaton Corp. (the Company) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission:



1.

The technical report dated December 13, 2004, entitled A Technical Review of the Zinkgruvan Mine in South-Central Sweden for Silver Wheaton Corp. (the  Zinkgruvan Report);



2.

The technical report dated April 10, 2006 entitled A Technical Review on the Yauliyacu Lead/Zinc Mine, Junin Province, Peru for Silver Wheaton Corp (the Yauliyacu Report);



3.

The technical report dated March 9, 2005, entitled An Audit of the Mineral Reserves/Resources for Tayolita, Santa Rita, San Antonio, and San Martin Mines (the Tayolita Report); and



4.

The annual information form of the Company dated March 23, 2007, which includes reference to my name in connection with information relating to the Zinkgruvan, Yaliyacu and Tayolita Reports, and the properties described therein.





March 23, 2007



/s/ G. MacFarlane

G. MacFarlane
```

[113th Congress Public Law 184]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1951]]

Public Law 113-184
113th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Providing for the appointment of Michael Lynton as a citizen regent of 
 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. <<NOTE: Sept. 29, 
                        2014 -  [S.J. Res. 40]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the 
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 
Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the resignation of France A. 
Cordova of Indiana on March 13, 2014, is filled by the appointment of 
Michael Lynton of California. The <<NOTE: Effective date.>>  appointment 
is for a term of 6 years, beginning on the date of enactment of this 
joint resolution.

    Approved September 29, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 40:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            July 23, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 18, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```