alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Arvin Collins, Appellant, v Frances Woodruff, as Inmate Record Coordinator of Shawangunk Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 496]

*1140Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Bradley, J.), entered October 25, 2005 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondents calculating the length of petitioner’s sentence.

In 1988, petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree and sentenced to a prison term of 7 to 14 years. Petitioner was released to parole supervision in 1996. In 2001, petitioner was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree and one count of attempted murder in the second degree. Petitioner was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison on each of the murder convictions and, as a second violent felony offender, to a prison term of 25 years on the attempted murder conviction, all sentences to run concurrent with each other. Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging respondents’ calculation of his sentence, arguing that the 2001 sentence for attempted murder in the second degree must run concurrent with rather than consecutive to the undischarged portion of the 1988 sentence. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s application, and he now appeals.

Petitioner’s sentence for the attempted murder conviction, imposed pursuant to Penal Law § 70.04, is statutorily required to run consecutive to the undischarged portion of his prior sentence *(see*Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]; *Matter of Soriano v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*21 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2005]; *Matter of Slater v Goord,*289 AD2d 884, 884 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 612 [2002]; *Matter of Parrilla v Goord,*274 AD2d 820, 821 [2000]). Respondents’ calculation of petitioner’s sentence is in accordance with this mandate, and also complies with the sentencing and commitment directive that the 2001 sentences run concurrent with each other. Accordingly, we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s application.

Crew III, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 2 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
LEE R. PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. GEORGE P. ELDER; MARILYN S. HUTTON, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-2094 (D.C. No. CIV 97-193 SC/LFG)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judge s.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Plaintiff Lee R. Phillips, appearing pro se, appeal s the district court’s order dismissing her complaint seeking warrants for defen dants’ arrest based on their roles as attorneys for the Air Force and the UnitedStates Government in a prior civil action brought by plaintiff. The district co urt held that plaintiff lacked standing to initiate a criminal prosecution againstanother. We affirm. We review de novo the district court’s order of dis missal with prejudice for lack of standing. See United States v. Colorado Supreme Court , 87 F.3d 1161, 1164 (10th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff, as the party inv oking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden to establish standing. See id. Therefore, she must show that (1) she has suffered an injury in fact, (2) there exists a causal connection between the injury and defendants’ conduct, and (3) it is likel y that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See Bennett v. Spear , 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1161 (1997). An “injury in fact” must invade a legally protectedinterest. See Colorado Supreme Court , 87 F.3d at 1164-65. Here, plaintiff’s complaint seeking prosecution of others did not involve a legally pro tected interest because “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable in terest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n , 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding civil rights plaintiff lacked standing to require disciplinary proceedings-3-

to be filed against another). Accordingly, we conc lude that plaintiff lacks standing to require defendants’ arrest on criminal charges. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthw ith.

Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.15Ba2-6 [Reserved]
#### Noah Fleder, Appellant, v. Max M. Itkin, Doing Business under the Name of Made-Rite Curtain Co., Respondent.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — -Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40237

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN LAURIANO-ESTEBAN, also known as Juanito Esteban Juan,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-1379-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Juan Lauriano-Esteban

raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 

541, 562-63 & n.28 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), in which we held that the generic, 

contemporary definition of sexual abuse of a minor does not require the age of 

consent to be below 17 years old and does not include an age-differential 

requirement. He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40237 Document: 00513722210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
No. 16-40237

2

v. Elizondo-Hernandez, 755 F.3d 779, 781-82 (5th Cir. 2014), which held that 

the Texas offense of indecency with a child by contact satisfied the generic 

definition of sexual abuse of a minor. Accordingly, the motion for summary

disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40237 Document: 00513722210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
#### § 1605.12 Nonexclusive delegation of power.

No provision contained herein delegating any of the Commission's powers shall be construed as limiting the actual authority of the Commission to exercise the same powers.
#### § 312.10 Data retention and deletion requirements.

An operator of a Web site or online service shall retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which the information was collected. The operator must delete such information using reasonable measures to protect against unauthorized access to, or use of, the information in connection with its deletion.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1538-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-1538-DR), dated August 6, 2004, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

December 1, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 6, 2004:

Berks, Bradford, Sullivan, and Susquehanna Counties are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Michael D. Brown,

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 04-27134 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SRM-M150813A:  Affirmation Session-SECY-14-0127-Final Rule:  Petition for Rulemaking Process, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 2 (RIN 3150-AI30)

Accession Number: ML15226A258

Date Released: Friday, August 14, 2015

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML15226A283 - SRM-M150813A: Affirmation Session-SECY-14-0127: Final Rule-Petition for Rulemaking Process, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 2 (RIN 3150-Al30) (1 page(s), 8/13/2015)
    - ML15226A301 - SRM-M1500813A: Enclosure 1 -Final Rule Petition for Rulemaking Process, 10 CFR Part 2 (RIN 3150-Al30) (57 page(s), 8/13/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
No: III-16-005 April 28, 2016

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at Dresden Nuclear Plant

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Roy Elliott Jr. as 

the new resident inspector at the Dresden nuclear power plant in Morris, Ill., 

approximately 25 miles southwest of Joliet. The two-unit nuclear power facility 

is operated by Exelon Generation Co., LLC.

“Roy Elliott’s experience, training and commitment to safety will help 

the NRC fulfill its mission of protecting people and the environment by ensuring 

the Dresden plant meets the high standards set by the NRC,” said Region III 

Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. 

Elliott joined the NRC Region III office in 2012 as a reactor engineer. 

Before being assigned as the resident inspector at Dresden, Elliott was an acting resident inspector at 

the Palisades and Point Beach nuclear power plants. Prior to joining the NRC, he served more than a 

decade in the U.S. Navy submarine force and previously worked as a chemist managing research and 

development for new and improved paper products. Originally from Alton, Ill., Elliott holds a 

bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Morgan State University.

Each commercial nuclear power plant site in the United States has at least two resident 

inspectors who monitor day-to-day operations at the plant. Elliott joins NRC senior resident inspector 

Greg Roach at the Dresden facility. 

The NRC resident inspectors at Dresden can be reached at 815-942-9267.
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.15Ca2-3 Registration of successor to registered government securities broker or government securities dealer. ( a ) In the event that a government securities broker or government securities dealer succeeds to and continues the business of a government securities broker or government securities dealer registered pursuant to section 15C(a)(1)(A) of the Act, the registration of the predecessor shall be deemed to remain effective as the registration of the successor if the successor, within 30 days after such succession, files an application for registration on Form BD, and the predecessor files a notice of withdrawal from registration on Form BDW; *Provided, however,* That the registration of the predecessor government securities broker or government securities dealer will cease to be effective as the registration of the successor government securities broker or government securities dealer 45 days after the application for registration on Form BD is filed by such successor.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, if a government securities broker or government securities dealer succeeds to and continues the business of a predecessor government securities broker or government securities dealer that is registered pursuant to section 15C(a)(1)(A) of the Act, and the succession is based solely on a change in the predecessor's date or state of incorporation, form of organization, or composition of a partnership, the successor may, within 30 days after the succession, amend the registration of the predecessor broker or dealer on Form BD to reflect these changes. This amendment shall be deemed an application for registration filed by the predecessor and adopted by the successor.
[58 FR 11, Jan. 4, 1993]
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.12b-37 Satisfaction of filing requirements.

With regard to issuers eligible to rely on Release No. 34-45589 (March 18, 2002) or Release No. IC-25463 (March 18, 2002) (each of which may be viewed on the Commission's website at *www.sec.gov*), filings made in accordance with the provisions of those Releases shall satisfy the issuer's requirement to make such a filing under Section 13(a), 14 or 15(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 77m(a), 78n or 78o(d)), as applicable, and the Commission's rules and regulations thereunder.

[67 FR 13537, Mar. 22, 2002]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John Mallon, Respondent, against Adolph Lewisohn & Sons, Inc., et al., Respondents, and Blackstone Studios et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by Blackstone Studios, employer, and its insurance carrier, from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board granting disability compensation to claimant against appellants, and discharging Adolph Lewisohn & Sons, Inc., and its carrier from liability. The sole question involved is the identity of claimant’s employer at the time he was accidentally injured. Claimant was employed generally as an elevator operator by Lewisohn & Sons, Inc. His duties in that capacity ended at four o’clock p. m. Blackstone Studios, a tenant in the building, employed claimant to return after hours and clean its premises, for which it paid him extra compensation. On the day in question claimant returned to the building at six o’clock p.m., to do the cleaning for Blackstone Studios, and while engaged in removing the rubbish therefrom to the basement he was *785injured. The board has found claimant was in the employ of Blaekstonc Studios at the time of his injury. There is ample evidence to sustain this factual finding. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents filing a brief. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern

and Imrie, JJ.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**





I,
      Carl
      A. Chase, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Edgeline Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June
      30,
      2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
      10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
      results of operations of Edgeline Holdings, Inc.





Date:
      August 20, 2007














By:
      _/s/ Carl
      A. Chase ____________________________


Carl
      A.
      Chase


Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Charles H. Allardice, Respondent, v. Isthmian Steamship Company, Appellant.

Determination unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Callahan, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ.
§ 242.828 Core Principle 11—Conflicts of interest. ( a ) The security-based swap execution facility shall: ( 1 ) Establish and enforce rules to minimize conflicts of interest in its decision-making process; and
( 2 ) Establish a process for resolving the conflicts of interest.
( b ) A security-based swap execution facility shall comply with the requirements of § 242.834.
546.710 Contract clause. 		    Insert the clause at 552.246-77, Additional Contract Warranty Provisions for Supplies of a Noncomplex Nature, in solicitations and contracts that include the FAR clause at 52.246-17. 	  **Parent topic:** Subpart 546.7 - Warranties
#### § 270.2a19-3 Certain investment company directors not considered interested persons because of ownership of index fund securities.

If a director of a registered investment company (“Fund”) owns shares of a registered investment company (including the Fund) with an investment objective to replicate the performance of one or more broad-based securities indices (“Index Fund”), ownership of the Index Fund shares will not cause the director to be considered an “interested person” of the Fund or of the Fund's investment adviser or principal underwriter (as defined by section 2(a)(19)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(19)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii)).

[66 FR 3758, Jan. 16, 2001]
#### In the Matter of Goldweber & Hershkowitz, Respondent, v Martha Digsby, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 523]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75, Martha Digsby appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated August 3, 2000, which granted the petition of Goldweber & Hershkowitz to vacate an arbitration award dated February 9, 2000 and directed a de novo arbitration, (2) an order of the same court dated April 18, 2001, which granted the petition of Goldweber & Hershkowitz to confirm an arbitration award dated February 20, 2001 and denied her cross petition to vacate that arbitration award, and (3) a judgment of the same court entered April 30, 2001, which, upon the order confirming the arbitration award dated February 20, 2001, is in favor of the petitioner and against her in the principal sum of $30,000.

Ordered that the appeals from the orders are dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the petitioner.

The appeals from the intermediate orders dated August 3, 2000 and April 18, 2001 must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]).

The appellant failed to preserve her right to appellate review of the order dated August 3, 2000 by participating in the second arbitration. If the appellant wished to challenge the propriety of the vacatur of the original award, the correct course was to seek an interim stay pending appeal *(see Matter of Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v Nester,*90 NY2d 255, 262 [1997]; *Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn.,*41 NY2d 578, 583 [1977]; *Matter of One Beacon Ins. Co. v Bloch,*298 AD2d 522, 523 [2002]; *Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Rothbart,*220 AD2d 509 [1995]).

*854Inasmuch as the appellant fails in her brief to address the rationality of the arbitration award dated February 20, 2001 this issue has been abandoned *(see Vasquez v Wood,*18 AD3d 645, 646-647 [2005]; *Kane v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 8*AD3d 239, 242 [2004]; *Matter of Feiner v New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs.,*293 AD2d 607, 608 [2002]; *Matter of Winglovitz v Agway, Inc.,*246 AD2d 684, 685 [1998]). In any event, the award dated February 20, 2001 was properly confirmed *(see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]; *Matter of Ryan & Henderson v Haviv,*309 AD2d 939, 940 [2003]; *Matter of McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams [Killeen],*267 AD2d 919, 920 [1999]). Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 248

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 248 appear at 74 FR 40431, Aug. 11, 2009.

#### § 248.102 Examples.

The examples in this subpart are not exclusive. The examples in this subpart provide guidance concerning the rules' application in ordinary circumstances. The facts and circumstances of each individual situation, however, will determine whether compliance with an example, to the extent applicable, constitutes compliance with this subpart. Examples in a paragraph illustrate only the issue described in the paragraph and do not illustrate any other issue that may arise under this subpart. Similarly, the examples do not illustrate any issues that may arise under other laws or regulations.
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 249.333 [Reserved]