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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered November 13, 1975, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on'the law, by reversing the conviction of sodomy in the first degree and the sentence imposed thereon, with leave to the People to resubmit the sodomy charge to another Grand Jury. As so modified, judgment affirmed. The count of the indictment charging defendant with sodomy in the first degree states: "The defendant, in the City of Mount Vernon, County of Westchester and State of New York, on or about January 6, 1975, engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with * * * by forcible compulsion.” The indictment’s language is a mere repetition of the words of the statute. This court has previously held that the count of an indictment which charges the crime of sodomy in the first degree by simply using the words of the statute is legally insufficient because it fails to state the exact nature of the deviate sexual intercourse with which defendant is charged *(People v Jackson,*60 AD2d 893). Accordingly, the sodomy conviction must be reversed. Mollen, P. J., and Suozzi, J., concur; Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur in the result on the constraint of the decision in *People v Jackson*(60 AD2d 893).
#### Adelaide Myers, Respondent, v. Herbert Taylor, Appellant.

Order reversed and motion granted, without costs. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 217

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 217 appear at 68 FR 51362, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 217.9 Administrative requirements for small recipients.

The Administrator may require any recipient with fewer than fifteen employees, or any class of such recipients, to comply with §§ 217.7 and 217.8 in whole or in part, when the Administrator finds a violation of this part or finds that such compliance will not significantly impair the ability of the recipient or class of recipients to provide benefits or services.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JEFFREY SEGARS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-705

LT Case No. 2020-CF-1016-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed June 6, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Citrus County,

Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Andrew Clayton Mich, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Alphonso M. La Pera, as Executor of Ermenegildo Navone, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of the Accounting of Alphonso M. La Pera, as Executor of Ermenegildo Navone, Deceased. (Proceeding No. 2.) Giuseppina Navone et al., Appellants; Eugene Cantino et al., Respondents.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, without costs. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
4.2


 




	
  

  	
  NOT VALID
  UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED BY TRANSFER AGENT. INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
  STATE OF NEVADA. China Packaging GROUP INC. NUMBER 2011 SHARES CUSIP NO.
  16949R 10 0 AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 190,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE: $0.001
  THIS CERTIFIES THAT IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF Shares of CHINA PACKAGING GROUP INC. Common Stock transferable on the
  books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly
  authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.
  This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and
  registered by the Registrar. Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation
  and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. Dated: CHIEF
  EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHAIRMAN COUNTERSIGNED & REGISTERED COUNTERSIGNED
  Transfer Agent-Authorized Signature SPECIMEN Signature CHIEF EXECUTIVE
  OFFICER Signature CHAIRMAN

  






 















	
  

  	
  The following
  abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
  shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to
  applicable laws or regulations. TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as
  tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of
  survivorship and not as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - Custodian (Cust)
  (Minor) Under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act (State) Additional abbreviations
  may also be used though not in the above list. For Value Received, hereby
  sell, assign and transfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
  IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS,
  INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the capital stock represented by
  the within certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
  Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named
  Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated NOTICE:
  THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN
  UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR
  ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER · NOTICE SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY
  A FIRM WHICH IS A MEMBER OF A REGISTERED NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, OR BY A
  BANK (OTHER THAN A SAVINGS BANK). OR A TRUST COMPANY. THE GUARANTEEING FIRM
  MUST BE A MEMBER OF THE MEDALLION
  GUARANTEE PROGRAM. TRANSFER FEE WILL APPLY FOR MEDALLION GUARANTEE USE
  ONLY SPECIMEN
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Leopold Seyffert, Deceased. Ramona Crehan; Edward Eagan.

Motion for enlargement of time granted only insofar as to extend the claimant’s time to serve and file the record on appeal and appellant’s points to and including January 31, 1961, with notice of argument for the March 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before February 15, 1961. In all other respects the motion is denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,254,645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,992,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,864,898
<PP&E>                                       6,167,990
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,668,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             182,975,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,812,740
<BONDS>                                     76,934,329
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,431
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,550,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               182,975,797
<SALES>                                     19,154,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,846,642
<CGS>                                       18,257,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,626,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,515,988
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,818,503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (7,849,788)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (7,849,788)
<DISCONTINUED>                               3,574,744
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,275,044)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.28)


</TABLE>
#### Jacob M. Goldenkoff, Plaintiff, v. The Albany Law School, Defendant.

We think the papers upon which the county judge based his action in granting the injunction did not state facts sufficient to justify this discretionary order. It is, therefore, vacated. All concur.
§ 192.41 Applicable family benefits. ( a ) An eligible spouse or child shall be paid (by advancement or reimbursement) for expenses incurred for subsistence, tuition, fees, supplies, books and equipment, and other educational expenses while attending an educational or training institution approved in accordance with procedures established by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which shall be comparable to procedures established pursuant to chapters 35 and 36 of title 38 U.S.C.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, payments shall be available under this subsection for an eligible spouse or child for educational training which occurs— ( 1 ) 90 days after the Principal is placed in a captive status, and ( i ) Through the end of any semester or quarter which begins before the date on which the Principal ceases to be in a captive status, or
( ii ) If the educational or training institution is not operated on a semester or quarter system, the earlier of the end of any course which began before such date or the end of the sixteen-week period following that date.
( c ) In special circumstances and within the limitation of § 192.44, the Secretary of State, under the criteria and procedures set forth in § 192.43, may approve payments for education or training under this subsection which occurs after the date determined under paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) In the event a Principal dies and the death is determined by the Agency Head to be incident to that individual being a captive, payments shall be available under this subsection for education or training of a spouse or child of the Principal which occurs after the date of death, up to the maximum that may be authorized under § 192.44.
( e ) Family benefits under this subsection shall not be available for any spouse or child who is eligible for assistance under chapter 35 of title 38 U.S.C., or similar assistance under any other law.
#### § 1422.21 Preferential voting.

In any election in which more than two choices are on the ballot and no choice receives a majority of first preferences the Board shall distribute to the two choices having the most first preferences the preferences as between those two of the other valid ballots cast. The choice receiving a majority of preferences shall be declared the winner. A labor organization which is declared the winner of the election shall be certified by the Board as the exclusive representative.
#### Vernon Lindo, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[716 NYS2d 568]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered March 18, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, denied petitioner’s application to serve a late notice of claim for malicious prosecution, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the application granted and the notice of claim sworn to August 10, 1998 deemed timely filed.

Pursuant to the recent Court of Appeals decision in *Smith-Hunter v Harvey (95 NY2d 191), the*dismissal *of*all pending criminal charges against petitioner pursuant to CPL 30.30 for the People’s failure to be ready for trial was a “favorable termination” as is required to maintain an action for malicious prosecution.

Thus, as the City now concedes, permission to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted.

Reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this Court entered on May 4, 2000 (272 AD2d 90) recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor. Concur — Rubin, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
#### Duane Reade, Appellant, v Kingsland Associates, Respondent.

[716 NYS2d 61]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring, among other things, that the defendant waived a provision in a lease prohibiting the plaintiff from selling food for off-premises consumption, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated January 7, 2000, and (2) an order of the same court, dated May 23, 2000, which, *inter alia,*granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, among other things, declaring that the plaintiff is prohibited from selling food for off-premises consumption other than candies, cookies, confections, and ice cream.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed as no appeal lies from a decision *(see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

*278Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

It is undisputed that the agreement between the plaintiff, Duane Reade, and the defendant, Kingsland Associates, contained a provision that the plaintiff, as tenant, would not sell food for off-premises consumption, except for candies, cookies, confections, and ice cream. It is also undisputed that Duane Reade, in fact, sold food for off-premises consumption, other than those permitted by the lease. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion, *inter alia,*for partial summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff is prohibited from selling food for off-premises consumption, except for candies, cookies, confections, and ice cream *(see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co.,*86 NY2d 543, 548; *Weiner v Anesthesia Assocs.,*203 AD2d 454).

In addition, the Supreme Court properly determined that the nonwaiver provisions included in the lease agreement were enforceable and therefore the defendant had not waived compliance with that provision which prohibited the plaintiff from selling food for off-premises consumption *(see, Renali Realty Group 3 v Robbins MBW Corp.,*259 AD2d 682).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 72195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27255]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than December 27, 2004.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Sue Costello, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Charles C. Brooks, Crawford, Georgia; to acquire additional 
voting shares of TCB Bancshares, Inc., Crawford, Georgia, and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of The Commercial Bank, Crawford, 
Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 7, 
2004.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 04-27255 Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
#### Charles Sorge et al., appellees, v. John E. Tillotson, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,692.

Suit for the surrender and cancellation of a lease as a cloud on the title of complainant and for the surrender of the premises. Decree for complainant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Ira Ryner, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 8, 1922.

Charles L. Cohns, for appellant. Newton R. Gilmore and Daniel Webster, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Morrill

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Brown, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 73]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J, on dismissal motion; Lewis Bart Stone, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered November 5, 2004, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

We need not determine whether the trial court’s statements at the time it determined the evidence was legally sufficient to support the second-degree robbery charge were adequate to preserve defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the physical injury element. In any event, the evidence was legally sufficient and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant hit the victim on her face and the back of her neck, causing severe and persistent pain that required her to take medication *(see People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment, in which defendant alleged a violation of his right to testify before the grand jury. The record supports the motion court’s conclusion that the prosecutor accorded defendant a reasonable opportunity to testify. The prosecutor kept counsel informed of the scheduling of the grand jury proceeding, and adjourned the proceeding at counsel’s request until the time specified for defendant’s release pursuant to CPL 180.80 was about to expire. Nevertheless, counsel failed to make his whereabouts known to the prosecutor on the morning scheduled for completion of the proceeding, and never accounted for his failure to appear timely.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
### §2384. Transfer to governmental entity or private nonprofit organization; determination of transferee

(a) Transfers may be made to one or more of the following, if the entity has the legal authority to receive the installation: (1) the city at the community; (2) the State in which the community is located; (3) any political subdivision or agency of that State; or (4) a private nonprofit organization in the case of the hospital installation or cemetery at the community.

(b) In determining the entity to which school, hospital, and other municipal installations, respectively, shall be transferred, the Commission shall be governed, in order, by

(1) the results of a vote in which the eligible voters in the community expressed themselves directly on the transfer in the vote on the incorporation of the city;

(2) the results of a vote in which the eligible voters have directly expressed themselves on the proposed transfer in a referendum or other officially recognized procedure;

(3) there being only one entity which is legally authorized to receive the municipal installation; or

(4) in the absence of the other alternatives, the Commission has conducted a vote of the eligible voters of the community on the proposed transfer under such procedures as it may establish.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 8, §84, 69 Stat. 481.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27655]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R06-OAR-2004-TX-0002; FRL-7849-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; 
Memorandum of Agreement Between Texas Council on Environmental Quality 
and the North Central Texas Council of Governments Providing Emissions 
Offsets to Dallas Fort Worth International Airport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63066), EPA published a direct 
final rule approving incorporation of a Memorandum of Agreement between 
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and the North Central 
Texas Council of Governments into the Texas SIP. The direct final 
action was published without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no 
adverse comment. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA 
received adverse comment by November 29, 2004, EPA would publish a 
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. EPA subsequently received a 
timely adverse comment on the direct final rule. Therefore, EPA is 
withdrawing the direct final approval. EPA will address the comment in 
a subsequent final action based on the parallel proposal also published 
on October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63112). As stated in the parallel proposal, 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published on October 29, 2004 (69 FR 
63066), is withdrawn as of December 17, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Wade, telephone (214) 665-7247; 
e-mail address [email protected].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 9, 2004.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
Accordingly, the revision to 40 CFR 52.2270 published in the Federal 
Register on October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63066), which was to become 
effective on December 28, 2004, is withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 04-27655 Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
```
#### § 1102.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to prescribe rules, guidelines and procedures to implement the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended on November 21, 1974, by Public Law 93-502, and on October 27, 1986, by Public Law 99-570.
About this capture
Alexa Crawls
Alexa Internet
Wayback Machine
Alexa Crawl EI