alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Certain *1338Interests in the Carousel Center Site for the Phased Public Project Known as DestiNY USA. Borders, Inc., Appellant; Carousel Center Company, L.P., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 5.)

[821 NYS2d 515]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John V Centra, J.), entered May 12, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to EDPL article *4.*The order, among other things, denied the motion of respondent Borders, Inc. to dismiss the petition, granted the petition and authorized petitioner to acquire by condemnation certain Carousel Center interests of that respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.*— Carousel *Ctr. Co., L.P.)*(32 AD3d 1332 [2006]).

All concur except Hurlbutt, J.P., who dissents and votes to reverse in accordance with the same dissenting Memorandum as in *Matter of City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.*— Carousel *Ctr. Co., L.P.)*(32 AD3d 1332 [2006]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 27, 

2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00094-CV

MARIA CHRISTINA CHIROLLA DONNELLY, Appellant

V.

JOHN P. DONNELLY, ERIC DONNELLY, & MARK DONNELLY, 

Appellees

On Appeal from Probate Court No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 477195-401

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Appellant filed a response, and appellee filed a reply. 

This attempted appeal is from an order granting a motion for summary 

judgment signed January 29, 2021. Generally, appeals may be taken only from 

final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). 
2

When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders remain 

interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is signed unless a statutory 

exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 

2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). The order is not a final order for the purposes of an interlocutory

appeal under the Estates Code. Tex. Est. Code Ann. § 32.001(c); see Crowson v. 

Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, 783 (Tex. 1995) (interpretating former Probate Code 

section 5(f), since repealed); The trial court’s order in this case is interlocutory and

not subject to immediate appeal because it does not dispose of all parties or issues 

in a particular phase of the proceedings below. See Asafi v. Rauscher, No. 14-09-

00800-CV, 2009 WL 4346067, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 3, 

2009, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see also De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 

(Tex. 2006) (The order must dispose of all issues in the “phase of the proceeding” 

for which it was brought to be considered final).

Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction over the appeal. We grant 

appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Spain.
#### JOHN DEERE PLOW CO. v. LAKESIDE STATE BANK.

A motion for new trial being based, in part at least, upon a purported bill of exceptions, which has been stricken from the record, there is nothing before the Supreme Court upon which it can base a decision on an appeal from an order granting the new trial.

(Opinion filed, June 4, 1910.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Charles Mix County. Hon. EG. Smith, Judge.

Action by the John Deere Plow Company against the Lakeside State Bank. Verdict for defendant, and, from an order granting a new trial, it appeals.

Affirmed.

*G. M. Caster,*for appellant.

J. *W. Lindsay*and *A. B. Beck,*for respondent.

WHITING, P. J.

This cause is before this court upon an appeal from the order of the trial court granting a new trial. Upon motion of respondent, and after due notice, this court on March 2, 1910, struck from the record herein the purported bill of exceptions, and granted to appellant “to take such steps as he may see fit to have settled a proper bill of exceptions herein.” On December 11, 1909, appellant filed in this court its abstract upon appeal, which said abstract sets forth a record, a large part of which is based upon such purported bill of exceptions.

On April 25, 1910, the parties hereto, through their counsel, entered into a stipulation in words as follows: “It is hereby mutually stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the bill of exceptions and abstract heretofore filed by the defe'ndant and appellant and the amended abstract filed by plaintiff and respondent shall, by leave of the court, stand as a true and correct and settled bill of exceptions and as a true and correct abstract of this case, and that this cause shall be submitted to the court upon the briefs to be hereafter filed by the respective *527parties as soon as the same is reached in its regular order upon the calendar. It is further stipulated that the defendant and appellant 'shall have *20*days from this date in which to prepare, serve, and file its briefs herein, and that the plaintiff and respondent shall have 30 days thereafter in which to serve and file its briefs. •Dated at Lake Andes, South Dakota, this 18th day of April, 1910.” The above stipulation was never approved by this court, and appellant has wholly failed to take any steps to settle a proper bill of exceptions. This cause appears upon the calendar of this court as set for final submission on April 26, 1910. Appellant has wholly failed to present to this court any brief upon his appeal, or to ask for further time within which to submit brief, or appear and argue said cause, but has abandoned such appeal. Moreover, from the abstract upon file, it would appear that the motion for new trial was based, in part at least, upon the purported 'bill of exceptions', which being stricken from the records leaves nothing before this court upon which we could base a decision upon the merits of the appeal herein.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

SMITH, J., taking no part in this decision.
#### § 1221.1 Scope.

This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for play yards manufactured or imported on or after January 20, 2020.

[84 FR 56689, Oct. 23, 2019]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 28,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Raouf Y. Halim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as ofthe date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

 
|   | (1)    | the Report fully complies with the requirements of  Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 as of the dates and for the periods indicated. |

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not bedeemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 
| Dated: May 6, 2008 |   | /s/ RAOUF Y. HALIM      |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   | Raouf Y. Halim          |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
### §12202. State immunity

A State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in 1 Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter. In any action against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action against any public or private entity other than a State.

(Pub. L. 101–336, title V, §502, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 370.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 101–336, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 327, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 12101 of this title and Tables.

1 So in original. Probably should be "in a".
**MENU**
Preface
Introduction

In Search of an Identity

Photofile

Bibliography

Notes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C
No. 07-089                         July 25, 2007

CALVERT CLIFFS ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT AVAILABLE,PUBLIC MEETING AUGUST 14 IN SOLOMONS, MARYLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today made available the environmental reportportion of a combined license (COL) application for a new reactor at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear powerplant in Lusby, Md. The agency will discuss its COL review process during a public meeting Aug. 14in Solomons, Md. Details of the meeting will be announced separately.

The applicant, UniStar, submitted the report and associated information July 13. The report isavailable on the NRC Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html. 

Agency regulations allow an applicant to submit one part of a COL application up to sixmonths before the remainder is submitted to NRC. A COL application has primarily two parts: a safetyanalysis and an environmental report.  

UniStar’s COL application will seek approval to build and operate an EPR reactor at theCalvert Cliffs site, approximately 40 miles south of Annapolis. The EPR is a large pressurized waterreactor of evolutionary design.

The NRC staff is currently conducting an initial check of the environmental report to determinewhether it contains sufficient information required for a formal review. If this part of the applicationhas sufficient information, the NRC will “docket,” or accept it for reiew. The agency will notice anopportunity for the public to request an adjudicatory hearing on the application once Unistar submitsthe remainder of the application and it passes its initial check. 

Additional details of the Aug. 14 meeting will be provided in an upcoming meeting notice andpress release. More information about the NRC’s review of COL applications is available on the NRCWeb site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor-licensing.html. 

###

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html .  The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.

NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   

Office of Public Affairs              Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001       E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68969-68970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26179]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


North American Wetlands Conservation Council Meeting Announcement

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council) 
will meet to select North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) 
grant proposals for recommendation to the Migratory Bird Conservation 
Commission (Commission). The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: December 7, 2004, 1-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hotel Playa Mazatlan, 
Mazatlan, Mexico. The Council Coordinator is located at the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop: MBSP 4501-4075, 
Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Smith, Council Coordinator, 
(703) 358-1784 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97f3f5fff4d7f1e0e4b9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d595f555e7d5b4a4e135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 
103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended), the State-private-
Federal Council meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, 
enhancement, and management projects for recommendation to, and final 
funding approval by, the Commission. Proposal due dates, application 
instructions, and eligibility requirements are available through the 
NAWCA Web site at http://birdhabitat.fws.gov. Proposals require a 
minimum of 50 percent non-Federal matching funds. Mexican and U.S. 
Standard grant proposals will be considered at the Council meeting. The 
tentative date for the Commission meeting is March 2, 2005.


[[Page 68970]]


    Dated: November 15, 2004.
Paul Schmidt,
Assistant Director--Migratory Birds and State Programs.
[FR Doc. 04-26179 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §12401. Finding, purposes, and definitions

#### (a) Finding

Congress finds that it is in the national interest to accelerate efforts to develop a domestic capability to economically produce hydrogen in quantities that will make a significant contribution toward reducing the Nation's dependence on conventional fuels.

#### (b) Purposes

The purposes of this chapter are—

(1) to direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct a research, development, and demonstration program leading to the production, storage, transport, and use of hydrogen for industrial, residential, transportation, and utility applications;

(2) to direct the Secretary to develop a technology assessment and information transfer program among the Federal agencies and aerospace, transportation, energy, and other entities; and

(3) to develop renewable energy resources as a primary source of energy for the production of hydrogen.

#### (c) Definitions

As used in this chapter, the term:

(1) "critical technology" (or "critical technical issue") means a technology (or issue) that, in the opinion of the Secretary, requires understanding and development in order to take the next needed step in the development of hydrogen as an economic fuel or storage medium;

(2) "Department" means the Department of Energy; and

(3) "Secretary" means the Secretary of Energy.

(Pub. L. 101–566, §102, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2797; Pub. L. 104–271, title I, §101, Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3304.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 104–271, §101(a), amended par. (1) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (1) read as follows: "to direct the Secretary to prepare a comprehensive 5-year comprehensive program management plan that will identify and resolve critical technical issues necessary for the realization of a domestic capability to produce, distribute, and use hydrogen economically within the shortest time practicable;".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–271, §101(b), added par. (2) and redesignated former par. (2) as (3).

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

#### Short Title of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–271, §1, Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3304, provided that: "This Act [enacting section 7238 of this title, amending this section and sections 12402 to 12405, 12407, 12408, and 13436 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 7238, 12403, and 13436 of this title] may be cited as the 'Hydrogen Future Act of 1996'."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 101–566, title I, §101, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2797, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter] may be referred to as the 'Spark M. Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1990'."
No: 14-076 November 4, 2014

CONTACT: Eliot Brenner, 301-415-8200 

***MEDIA ADVISORY*** 

NRC Chairman Macfarlane to speak at National Press Club

NRC Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane will speak at a Nov. 17 National Press Club luncheon at 

the National Press Club, 529 14th St. N.W., Washington, D.C.

Macfarlane, who recently announced she will be leaving the position she has held since July, 

2012, will reflect on the agency’s accomplishments and challenges during her tenure and talk about the 

issues facing the agency going forward.

The luncheon is open to the media and public. To make a reservation, please promptly contact 

the Press Club at: http://www.press.org/events/npc-luncheon-allison-macfarlane-chairman-nuclearregulatory-commission
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster # 10001]
 Allegany County and the contiguous counties of Garrett and Washington in the State of Maryland; Bedford, Fulton, 
                    ( print page 68436)
                    and Somerset Counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and Hampshire, Mineral, and Morgan Counties in the State of West Virginia constitute a disaster area as a result of heavy rains caused by the remnants of Hurricane Frances and Hurricane Ivan that occurred on September 6, 2004. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of the disaster may be filed until the close of business on January 18, 2005, and for economic injury until the close of business on August 16, 2005, at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners with credit available elsewhere
6.375Homeowners without credit available elsewhere
3.187Businesses with credit available elsewhere
5.800Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
2.900Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere
4.875For Economic Injury:Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere
2.900
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10001 for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 10002 for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008.) Dated: November 16, 2004. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 04-26016 Filed 11-23-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
### SUBCHAPTER I—FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
### Part B—Procedural and General Provisions
### Part N—National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This part was formerly set out preceding part M of this subchapter.
§ 923.95 Approval of applications. ( a ) The application for a grant by any coastal State which complies with the policies and requirements of the Act and these guidelines shall be approved by the NOAA Grants Officer, upon recommendation by the Assistant Administrator, assuming available funding.
( b ) Should an application be found deficient, the Assistant Administrator will notify the applicant in detail of any deficiency when an application fails to conform to the requirements of the Act or these regulations. Conferences may be held on these matters. Corrections or adjustments to the application will provide the basis for resubmittal of the application for further consideration and review.
( c ) The NOAA Grants Officer, upon recommendation by the Assistant Administrator, may waive appropriate administrative requirements contained in this subpart, upon finding of extenuating circumstances relating to applications for assistance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rogelio Holder, Appellant.

*[820*NYS2d 795]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J., at plea; Herbert Adlerberg, J., at sentence), rendered July 28,1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, and order, same court (Arlene R. Silverman, J.), entered on or about March 3, 2005, which granted defendant’s motion to reargue his prior CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, and, upon reargument, adhered to its original decision denying the motion, unanimously affirmed.

On the record before the court, defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards *(see People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). The motion court properly denied, without a hearing, his CPL 440.10 motion claiming ineffective assistance *(see People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 799-800 [1985]). Even assuming the truth of defendant’s assertion that his attorney failed to advise him that his plea would result in deportation, such failure does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel *(see People v McDonald,*1 NY3d 109, 114 [2003], citing *People v Ford,*86 NY2d at 404). Unlike *McDonald,*defendant makes no claim that counsel provided incorrect advice. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments concerning this issue.

Defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence is not unconstitutional *(see People v Thompson,*83 NY2d 477, 480 [1994]; *People v Broadie,*37 NY2d 100 [1975], *cert denied*423 US 950 [1975]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.