alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Holly SS, by Sheila TT, et al., Respondents, v John SS, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Essex County, entered May 18, 1976, which sustained the petition for the adoption *682of appellant’s natural child without his consent. The testimony demonstrates that there was little contact between the appellant and his daughter from the time of her birth on September 2, 1970. Despite a court order of support, only one payment was made. Appellant’s last attempt to visit his child was in 1972, when he objected to the mother’s conditions. For at least two years prior to the trial, appellant made no attempt to see his daughter. Cards, presents and telephone calls were virtually nonexistent. Under such circumstances, we see no reason to disturb the trial court’s finding that appellant had "abandoned” his daughter within the meaning of section 111 of the Domestic Relations Law and that his consent to her adoption was, therefore, unnecessary *(Matter of Corey L v Martin L,*55 AD2d 717; *Matter of Wendy B v Ronald B,*53 AD2d 160). Order affirmed, with costs. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Mahoney and Larkin, JJ., concur.
#### § 518.42 Codes of conduct.

The recipient shall maintain written standards of conduct governing the performance of its employees engaged in the award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer, or agent shall participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by Federal funds if a real or apparent conflict of interest would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for an award. The officers, employees, and agents of the recipient shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors, or parties to subagreements. However, recipients may set standards for situations in which the financial interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal value. The standards of conduct shall provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents of the recipient.
AFS-16-2-E December 16, 2015

Exemption No. 10411B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-8750

Mr. Jason M. Smith, GS-12, DAF Director, Credentialing Programs and Co-Chair, JSAMTCC Community College of the Air Force

CCAF/DEAL

100 South Turner Boulevard Maxwell AFB, Gunter Annex, AL 36114-3011

Dear Mr. Smith:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10411, as amended. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the date the exemption ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 9, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of the Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) for an extension of Exemption No. 10411, as amended. That exemption from § 147.31(c)(2)(iii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows CCAF to permit U.S. Air Force aviation maintenance technicians who have completed military aviation maintenance training courses to be evaluated using the same criteria used for the civilian sector.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to CCAF.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10411, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant the Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) an exemption from § 147.31(c)(2)(iii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to allow CCAF to permit U.S. Air Force aviation maintenance technicians who have completed military aviation maintenance training courses to be evaluated using the same

criteria used for the civilian sector.

The Effect of Our Decision

This exemption terminates on February 28, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

//s//

John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB as of and for the fiscal quarter ended
April 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001020448
<NAME>                        Imperial Petroleum Recovery Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         45,764
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  198,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    27,487
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               279,848
<PP&E>                                         129,778
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,067
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 419,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          669,659
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13,657
<OTHER-SE>                                     (567,342)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   419,658
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  628,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (551,851)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (551,851)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                73,484
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (551,851)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.04)
        


</TABLE>
### §3789l. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3789l was editorially reclassified as section 10235 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Trammell, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 234]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was indicted for robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [1]), assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [6]) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [5]). After defendant’s arraignment, the People served a notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 of their intention to offer evidence of a written statement obtained from defendant by the police and “[efyidence of oral statement(s) made by the defendant, to a public servant.” Defendant’s written statement and the investigation report detailing the oral statements resulted from a single interview by one investigator and were attached to the notice. Contained in the investigation report but not in the written statement was a statement of defendant identifying the race of the victim.

At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress the statements, the investigator failed to testify concerning defendant’s statement, set forth in the investigation report, identifying the race of the victim. At trial, however, the investigator testified concerning that statement. Defense counsel objected to that testimony on the ground that it was outside the scope of the suppression hearing. County Court sustained the objection and struck the testimony from the record but denied defense counsel’s motion for a mistrial. The court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony. The jury convicted defendant of all charges.

Defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. We disagree. All of the statements attached to the CPL 710.30 notice were “ ‘part and parcel of the single interview of defendant’ by the investigator” *(People v Cooper,*
      *94878 NY2d 476, 484), and defendant does not contend on appeal that the court erred in concluding that the statements resulting from that interview were voluntarily made *(see generally, People v Witherspoon,*66 NY2d 973, 974; *People v Anderson,*42 NY2d 35, 38-39; *People v Huntley,*15 NY2d 72, 78). We conclude, therefore, that the statement was admissible and thus, a fortiori, a mistrial was not warranted. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Smith, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Law-ton, JJ.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 25, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 25, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16D0371. JUDY HEIDI FLORES v. CHRISTINA LYNN GREENE et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

15CV499
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George Albanese, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for reconsideration of his motion to dispense with printing and for assignment of counsel, heretofore denied by order of this court entered June 27, 1960. Motion for reconsideration granted. Upon reconsideration, the order entered June 27, 1960, is vacated, and the motion to dispense with printing and for assignment of counsel is granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. On the court’s own motion appellant’s time is enlarged to the December 1960 Term. The appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar for said term. Martin Levine, Esquire, 50 Broad Street, New York, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK DALE CONNER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-5781 CRB (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

A recent en banc decision from the Ninth Circuit addressed important issues

relating to federal review of parole decisions in California. See Hayward v. Marshall,

No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). The court

requests that the parties submit supplemental briefs (not to exceed 12 pages in length)

explaining their views on how the Hayward en banc decision applies to this parole

denial habeas case. The court sets the following schedule:

1. Within 10 days of this order, respondent shall send to petitioner a copy

of the Hayward decision. 

2. Within 30 days of this order, respondent shall file with the court and

serve on petitioner a supplemental brief on the impact of Hayward on this action. 

3. Within 15 days thereafter, petitioner may file with the court and serve on

respondent a supplemental brief on the impact of Hayward on this action. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.08\Conner, P1.or2.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-05781-CRB Document 16 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 1
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00121

- CR

Alan Leslie Balderamos

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 372nd District Court

o f Tarr ant County (1090421D )

March 13, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgme nt. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Sue Walker

__________________ Justice Sue Walker
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα L 16I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0669 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | L 016I |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Νομοθεσία | 62ό έτος18 Ιανουαρίου 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0669

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

L 016I

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Νομοθεσία

62ό έτος18 Ιανουαρίου 2019

---

| Περιεχόμενα | | Διορθωτικά | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Διορθωτικό στον εκτελεστικό κανονισμό (ΕΕ) 2019/73 της Επιτροπής, της 17ης Ιανουαρίου 2019, για την επιβολή οριστικού δασμού αντιντάμπινγκ και την οριστική είσπραξη του προσωρινού δασμού που επιβλήθηκε στις εισαγωγές ηλεκτρικών ποδηλάτων καταγωγής Λαϊκής Δημοκρατίας της Κίνας ( ΕΕ L 16 της 18.1.2019 ) | 1 |

Περιεχόμενα

Διορθωτικά

Σελίδα

*

Διορθωτικό στον εκτελεστικό κανονισμό (ΕΕ) 2019/73 της Επιτροπής, της 17ης Ιανουαρίου 2019, για την επιβολή οριστικού δασμού αντιντάμπινγκ και την οριστική είσπραξη του προσωρινού δασμού που επιβλήθηκε στις εισαγωγές ηλεκτρικών ποδηλάτων καταγωγής Λαϊκής Δημοκρατίας της Κίνας ( ΕΕ L 16 της 18.1.2019 )

( ΕΕ L 16 της 18.1.2019 )

1

| EL | Οι πράξεις των οποίων οι τίτλοι έχουν τυπωθεί με λευκά στοιχεία αποτελούν πράξεις τρεχούσης διαχειρίσεως που έχουν θεσπισθεί στο πλαίσιο της γεωργικής πολιτικής και είναι γενικά περιορισμένης χρονικής ισχύος.
  Οι τίτλοι όλων των υπολοίπων πράξεων έχουν τυπωθεί με μαύρα στοιχεία και επισημαίνονται με αστερίσκο. |
| --- | --- |

EL

Οι πράξεις των οποίων οι τίτλοι έχουν τυπωθεί με λευκά στοιχεία αποτελούν πράξεις τρεχούσης διαχειρίσεως που έχουν θεσπισθεί στο πλαίσιο της γεωργικής πολιτικής και είναι γενικά περιορισμένης χρονικής ισχύος.

Οι τίτλοι όλων των υπολοίπων πράξεων έχουν τυπωθεί με μαύρα στοιχεία και επισημαίνονται με αστερίσκο.

---

Διορθωτικά

| 18.1.2019 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | LI 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2019

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

LI 16/1

---

Διορθωτικό στον εκτελεστικό κανονισμό (ΕΕ) 2019/73 της Επιτροπής, της 17ης Ιανουαρίου 2019, για την επιβολή οριστικού δασμού αντιντάμπινγκ και την οριστική είσπραξη του προσωρινού δασμού που επιβλήθηκε στις εισαγωγές ηλεκτρικών ποδηλάτων καταγωγής Λαϊκής Δημοκρατίας της Κίνας

(
  Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης L 16 της 18ης Ιανουαρίου 2019
  )

Στην σελίδα 135, στο άρθρο 4:

αντί:

«Ο παρών κανονισμός είναι δεσμευτικός ως προς όλα τα μέρη του και ισχύει άμεσα σε κάθε κράτος μέλος.»

διάβαζε:

«Ο παρών κανονισμός αρχίζει να ισχύει την επομένη της δημοσίευσής του στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.»

---
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jarrod Michael Taylor, Appellant

No. 06-17-00223-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2017F00167). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jarrod Michael Taylor, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 31, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50281 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ant

v. PABLO ALONZO CARRILLO

- FLORES , Defendant

- Appell ee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:19

- CR

- 292

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Government appeals the dismissal of an indictment charging Pablo Alonzo Carrillo

- Flores with illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court determined that the notice to appear (NTA) that initiated the removal proceedings

— which did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing

— was defective and could not sustain a conviction for illegal reentry.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 1, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50281 Document: 00515436006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2020No. 19

- 50281

2 In United States v. Pedroza

- Rocha , 933 F.3d 490, 492

- 93 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19

- 6588), this court considered a challenge to the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss an indictment charging illegal reentry under § 1326 on the basis that the NTA was defective because it did not specify a date and time for the removal hearing and the prior order of removal was thus void. Applying Pierre

- Paul v. Barr , 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019) , petition for cert. filed , (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19

- 779) , this court reversed and remanded, concluding that the NTA was not deficient, that the subsequent service of a notice of hearing that included the date and time of the removal hearing cured any purported defect in the NTA, that the alleged deficiency did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction, and that the defendant could not collaterally attack his removal order without first exhausting his administrative remedies. Pedroza

- Rocha , 933 F.3d at 496

- 98. The instant case is analogous to Pedroza

- Ro cha . Accordingly, the Government’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as u nnecessary. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Case: 19-50281 Document: 00515436006 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2020
Exhibit 33.7

 

|  |
|--|

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND

EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2019, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank (the “Servicer”).

National Tax Search, LLC (“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2019 and for the period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “CFR”).  NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Only servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report.  NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report.  The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2019 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to Servicer

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo

Executive,Operations

January 30, 2020
### §3154b. Planning performance awards

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may make a planning performance award in connection with a grant made, on or after October 27, 2004, to an eligible recipient for a project under this subchapter located in an economic development district.

#### (b) Eligibility

The Secretary may make a planning performance award to an eligible recipient under subsection (a) in connection with a grant for a project if the Secretary determines before closeout of the project that—

(1) the recipient actively participated in the economic development activities of the economic development district in which the project is located;

(2) the project is consistent with the comprehensive economic development strategy of the district;

(3) the recipient worked with Federal, State, and local economic development entities throughout the development of the project; and

(4) the project was completed in accordance with the comprehensive economic development strategy of the district.

#### (c) Maximum amount

The amount of a planning performance award made under subsection (a) in connection with a grant may not exceed 5 percent of the amount of the grant.

#### (d) Use of awards

A recipient of a planning performance award under subsection (a) shall use the award to increase the Federal share of the cost of a project under this subchapter.

#### (e) Federal share

Notwithstanding section 3144 of this title, the funds of a planning performance award may be used to pay up to 100 percent of the cost of a project under this subchapter.

#### (f) Funding

The Secretary shall use any amounts made available for economic development assistance programs to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title II, §216, as added Pub. L. 108–373, title II, §211(a), Oct. 27, 2004, 118 Stat. 1765.)