alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Smith, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 540]

*1256Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered September 1, 2000. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of welfare fraud in the fourth degree and offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is modified on the law by reversing that part convicting defendant of welfare fraud in the fourth degree, dismissing the first count of the indictment and vacating the sentence of imprisonment imposed on that conviction and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from that part of a judgment of Supreme Court that convicted him after a nonjury trial of welfare fraud in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 158.10). We agree with defendant that the court erred in admitting in evidence certain payroll documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Pursuant to CPLR 4518 and *People v Cratsley*(86 NY2d 81 [1995]), a document offered in evidence as a business record must meet three foundation requirements: “first, the record must be made in the regular course of business — reflecting a routine, regularly conducted business activity, needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of the business. Second, it must be the regular course of business to make the record — in other words, the record [must be] made pursuant to established procedures for the routine, habitual, systematic making of such a record. Finally, the record must [be] made at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence or event, or within a reasonable time thereafter, assuring that the recollection is fairly accurate and the entries routinely made” *(id.*at 89; *see People v Kennedy,*68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]). Here, the People failed to establish both the second and third foundation requirements, and thus the payroll documents were improperly admitted.

Apart from the payroll documents, the evidence is insufficient to establish the amount that defendant was paid by private employers while he received public assistance benefits, and thus the evidence is insufficient to establish the amount of benefits, if any, improperly received by defendant *(see People v Hunter,*34 NY2d 432, 438-440 [1974]; *see generally People v Pryor,*91 AD2d 826 [1982]). Consequently, we modify the judgment by reversing that part convicting defendant of welfare fraud in the fourth degree as a lesser included offense under the first count *1257of the indictment, dismissing that count of the indictment and vacating the sentence of imprisonment imposed on that conviction. Our determination does not affect the sentences imposed on the remaining counts of the indictment and the restitution order *(see generally People v Horne,*97 NY2d 404, 412-413 [2002]).

All concur, Hayes, J., not participating. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P, Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Harry P. Flores et al., Appellants, v Sabrina J. DeAbreu, Also Known as Sabrina J. Altiery, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 894]

*1026In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for grandparent visitation, the grandparents appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), entered January 3, 2006, as upon re-argument, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated September 2, 2005, dismissing the petition, without a hearing.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, upon reargument, the order dated September 2, 2005 is vacated, and the petition is reinstated; and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Suffolk County, for the appointment of a Law Guardian to represent the interests of the child, and for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Family Court improperly dismissed the grandparents’ petition for visitation with the subject child without first holding a hearing. In considering whether a grandparent is entitled to visitation under Domestic Relations Law § 72 where, as here, both parents are alive, the Family Court must determine, first, whether equitable circumstances exist which provide the grandparent with standing and, if such circumstances exist, whether visitation would be in the grandchild’s best interest (see *Matter of Wilson v McGlinchey, 2*NY3d 375, 380 [2004]; *Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E.,*78 NY2d 178, 181 [1991]). The issue of standing should be determined only after consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances (see *Matter of Ann M.C. v Orange County Dept. of Social Servs.,*250 AD2d 190, 194 [1998]). Here, in light of the factual dispute presented by the parties, a hearing was necessary to determine whether the grandparents had the requisite standing and, if so, whether visitation with the grandparents is in the best interests of the subject child. Crane, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### § 719.9 Summary decision.

The ALJ may render a summary decision disposing of all or part of a proceeding on the motion of any party to the proceeding, provided that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the party is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.
#### § 1.124 Interest, penalties, and costs.

To the extent permitted or required by 31 U.S.C. 3717 or other law, regulation, or order, all interest, penalties, and costs applicable to the debt or incurred in connection with its referral for collection by tax refund offset will be assessed on the debt and thus increase the amount of the offset.
§ 960.13 Licensee-requested modification after license issuance. ( a ) The licensee may request in writing that the Secretary modify the license after the license is issued. Such requests should include the reason for the request and relevant supporting documentation.
( b ) If the Secretary determines that the requested modification of a license would result in its re-categorization from Tier 1 to Tier 2 under § 960.6, the Secretary shall notify the licensee that approval would require issuance of the conditions in § 960.9, and provide the licensee an opportunity to withdraw or revise the request.
( c ) If the Secretary determines that the requested modification of a license would result in its re-categorization from Tier 1 or 2 to Tier 3 under § 960.6, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretaries of Defense or State, as appropriate, to determine whether approval of the request would require additional temporary conditions in accordance with the procedures in § 960.10. If so, the Secretary shall notify the licensee that approval would require such additional temporary conditions, and provide the licensee an opportunity to withdraw or revise the request.
( d ) The Secretary shall approve or deny a modification request after consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and State as appropriate, and shall inform the licensee of the approval or denial within 60 days of the request, unless the Secretary and the applicant mutually agree to extend this review period.
No: II-15-007 March 9, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss Annual Assessment of Turkey Point Nuclear Plant

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house on Wednesday, March 18 

to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance during 2014 at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant.

The plant, operated by Florida Power & Light Co., is located about 25 miles south of Miami near 

Homestead, Fla.

The open house and poster session is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Courtyard by Marriott, 2905 

NE 9th St., in Homestead. NRC staff will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the

plant last year or any other concerns expressed by members of the public. 

“NRC inspectors continually evaluate each nuclear plant’s safety, and each year we take a detailed look 

at that information to identify any trends and help plan future inspections,” said NRC Region II Administrator 

Victor McCree. “Inspection results are available throughout the year, but these annual meetings allow us to 

talk to local residents and answer any questions they may have.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region II office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant 

during 2014 and will serve as the basis for the open house. It is available on the NRC website.

The NRC review concluded that the Turkey Point plant operated in a manner that preserved public 

health and safety and protected the environment. Based on the plant’s performance, the NRC staff plans to 

continue the detailed routine or baseline inspections this year that all nuclear power plants receive.

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess plant performance. 

The colors start with green, which has very low safety significance, to white, yellow or red, based on the 

significance of the issues. Inspection findings and performance indicators are updated on the NRC’s website 

each quarter. 

Current performance information for Turkey Point Unit 3 and Unit 4 is available on the NRC website.
----

|   | (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 Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/ Richard W. McCullough                    |   | January 27, 2011 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|
| Richard W. McCullough                              |   |
| Chief Executive Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |
|                                               |   |
|  /s/ Gysle R. Shellum                         |   | January 27, 2011 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MediciNova, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yuichi Iwaki, as
President and 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, that to my 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: May 16, 2011By:

/S/    YUICHI
IWAKIYuichi Iwaki, M.D., Ph.D. President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and such certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before
or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 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.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Charles Lowen, Deceased. Henry H. Dreyer, One of the Executors and Trustees, etc., Appellant; Isabelle G. Lowen, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., Scott, Dowling, Smith and Page, JJ.
February 26, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-15-0005 – 

RECOMMENDATION TO SUNSET THE DECOMMISSIONING 

TRUST FUND SPOT-CHECK PROGRAM 

The Commission has approved the staff’s recommendation to sunset the decommissioning 

spot-check program in its current form and performing spot-checks only on an as-needed basis. 

The staff should continue to identify regulatory activities that do not return value to our 

regulatory program in the way that was forecast when they were initiated. 

The staff should continue to focus agency resources on activities of greatest impact to safety 

and security. 

The staff should provide the Commission with a Commissioner's Assistant note describing what 

factors will be used to determine when it is appropriate to perform "as-needed" 

decommissioning fund spot-checks moving forward. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4997



# 
J OHN S CHWENGER ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.

W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge.

(CR-01-6) Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 29, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL John Schwenger, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: John Schwenger appeals the district court’s order denying his appeal and affirming the magistrate judge’s order adjudicating himguilty of offenses arising from events at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and the transcript of the proceedings and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Schwenger appeals the district court’s decision not to disturb the magistrate judge’s ruling denying his motion to suppress evidence. Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that motions to suppress evidence must be made before trial. United States v. Wilson , 115 F.3d 1185, 1190 (4th Cir. 1997). Failure to makea motion to suppress before trial constitutes waiver. We find that Schwenger waived the issue of whether evidence should be suppressed. Because the only issue Schwenger raised before the district court was regarding the suppression of evidence, we do not review the other issues raised in his informal brief. 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. AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. S CHWENGER
#### § 1101.2. Scope.

Section 6(b) and these rules apply to information concerning products subject to the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2051-2085), and to the four other acts the Commission administers (transferred acts). These transferred acts are the Flammable Fabrics Act, 15 U.S.C. 1191-1204 (FFA); the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, 15 U.S.C. 1471-1476 (PPPA); the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, 15 U.S.C. 1261-1276 (FHSA); and the Refrigerator Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1211-1214 (RSA). These provisions are now applicable to the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 8003(a); and the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act § 2(a), Public Law 110-278, 122 Stat. 2602 (July 17, 2008).

[73 FR 72334, Nov. 28, 2008]
#### §§ 30.64-30.69 [Reserved]
#### § 971.423 Best available technology.

The Administrator will require in all activities under new permits, and wherever practicable in activities under existing permits, the use of the best available technologies for the protection of safety, health, and the environment wherever such activities would have a significant adverse effect on safety, health, or the environment, (see §§ 971.203(b)(3), 971.602(f), and 971.604(a)), except where the Administrator determines that the incremental benefits are clearly insufficient to justify the incremental costs of using such technologies.
NRC NAMES NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT GINNA NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have 

announced the assignment of Neil Perry as the agency’s Senior Resident 

Inspector at the Ginna nuclear power plant. The Ontario, N.Y., plant is 

operated by Constellation Energy Nuclear Group.

Perry joins resident inspector Doug Dodson at Ginna. Each U.S. 

commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. 

They serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, 

monitoring significant work projects and talking with plant workers and the public. Resident 

inspectors can serve up to seven years at any one site.

“Neil Perry has the experience, training and commitment to safety that will help the NRC 

carry out its mission of protecting people and the environment, and ensure Constellation 

continues to safely operate Ginna,” said NRC Region I Administrator Bill Dean.

Perry joined the NRC as a reactor engineer in 1987. He has been a senior resident 

inspector at Limerick Generating Station in Limerick, Pa., and Yankee Rowe in Rowe, Mass., 

and previously was a resident inspector at Ginna from 1987-1991. In addition, Perry has been a 

senior project engineer and the senior emergency response coordinator in the Regional Office. 

Prior to joining the NRC, he worked as a reactor operator at Seabrook Station in Seabrook, N.H. 

Perry earned a bachelor’s degree in engineering physics at Cornell University. In 

addition, he completed graduate courses in physics and a teaching certification at the University 

of New Hampshire. 

The Ginna resident inspectors can be reached at 315-524-6935.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link on the 

NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's 

website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

2100 Renaissance Blvd., King of Prussia, Pa. 19406-2713

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov 

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. I-12-031

Contact: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330

 Neil Sheehan (610) 337-5331

July 12, 2012

Email: opa1.resource@nrc.gov
### SUBCHAPTER III—FUELS AND TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 68979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26117]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Brian 
Chuchua, et al., (S.D. Cal.), 3:01CV1479 DMS (AJB), was lodged with the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of California on 
November 8, 2004.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States against Brian Chuchua pursuant to section 309(b) and (d) 
of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b) and (d), to obtain injunctive 
relief from and impose civil penalties against the Defendant for 
violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants without a 
permit into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree 
resolves these allegations by requiring Defendant Brian Chuchua to 
mitigate the environmental impacts by purchasing mitigation credits at 
the Pilgrim Creek Mitigation Bank and to pay a civil penalty.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Pamela S. 
Tonglao, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 23986, Washington, 
DC 20026-3986 and refer to United States v. Brian Chuchua et al., (S.D. 
Cal.) 3:01CV1479 DMS (AJB), DJ <greek-i>90-5-1-1-1611.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html.

Stephen Samuels,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment & Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 04-26117 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M