alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of W. Children, Children Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Venoria W., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

*243[716 NYS2d 677]

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Kings County (Staton, J.), dated July 22, 1997, made after a hearing, as found that she had neglected the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Administration for Children’s Services (hereinafter ACS) established a prima facie case that she neglected her three children Shatica, Shameek, and Vernice W. *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; *Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Dantia M.] v Denise J.,*87 NY2d 73). An ACS caseworker testified that Vernice had a positive toxicology at birth, that the caseworker had taken the appellant to a drug rehabilitation program several times before Vernice tested positive, and that the appellant’s older children were removed from her custody after she was found to have neglected them. Additionally, Shatica’s foster mother and a doctor testified that Shatica and Shameek reported that the appellant used drugs in their presence. Specifically, the doctor testified that Shatica reported that the appellant “does drugs and beats her.” The statements of the children corroborated each other and their statements regarding the appellant’s drug use were additionally corroborated by Vernice’s positive toxicology *(see, Matter of Nicole V.,*71 NY2d 112, 123-124). In addition, the appellant admitted using drugs and also admitted that Shameek had a positive toxicology at birth.

A fair interpretation of the evidence supported the Family Court’s finding that the children’s physical, mental, or emotional condition was in imminent danger of being impaired by the appellant’s conduct *(see, Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. [Dantia M.] v Denise J., supra).*Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### § 1000.308 Who can make modifications to the IHBG formula?

HUD can make modifications in accordance with § 1000.304 and § 1000.306 provided that any changes proposed by HUD are published and made available for public comment in accordance with applicable law before their implementation.
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE;

CASE NO. 09-0499; PAGE 1 OF 1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BERRY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA/“UCSF,”

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Case No. 09-0499 (EMC)

Hon. Edward M. Chen

[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING 

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

The parties having stipulated to dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to their 

settlement of the claims therein;

This case is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice. The parties shall bear their own costs 

and attorney fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January ___, 2010 

EDWARD M. CHEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00499-EMC Document 43 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In re BOLLES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

In the Matter of Eva G. Bolles. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs.
1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-2601

___________ Dana Thompson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. T. C. Outlaw, Warden, FCI Waseca, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 7, 2005 Filed: July 15, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Dana Thompson appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Following our de novo review, seeUnited States v. Lurie , 207 F.3d 1075, 1076 (8th Cir. 2000), we agree with the district court that the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) properly concluded that Thompson was ineligible for early release based on his robbery conviction, and that he could not pursue his-2- Administrative Procedure Act-based claim because he failed to exhaust relevant administrative remedies. See Lopez v. Davis , 531 U.S. 230, 242-44 (2001) (holding that 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 is reasonable interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) both in taking account of preconviction conduct and in making categorical exclusions); United States v. Chappel , 208 F.3d 1069, 1069 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s dismissal--for failure to exhaust administrative remedies--of inmate’s § 2241 petition seeking an order addressing right to pretrial credit against federal sentence); Zachar v. Tippy , 202 F.3d 1039, 1044 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding denial of early release to inmate who completed Residential Drug Abuse Program because his earlier conviction in California for aggravated assault, which was listed in § 550.58, met the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting definition); 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(iv) (as exercise of discretion vested in director of BOP, inmates who have prior felony or misdemeanor conviction for, inter alia, robbery are not eligible for early release). Accordingly, we affirm under 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

______________________________
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 200.620 Requirements. With respect to all FHA subsidized or unsubsidized programs in which the applicant hereafter participates (except for housing for which a conditional commitment has been issued prior to the effective date of these regulations), the applicant shall meet the following requirements or, if he contracts marketing responsibility to another party, be responsible for that party's carrying out the requirements: ( a ) Carry out an affirmative program to attract buyers or tenants, regardless of sex, handicap or familial status, of all minority and majority groups to the housing for initial sale or rental. An affirmative marketing program shall be in effect for each multifamily project throughout the life of the mortgage. Such a program shall typically involve publicizing to minority persons the availability of housing opportunities regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap or familial status or national origin, through the type of media customarily utilized by the applicant, including minority publications or other minority outlets which are available in the housing market area. All advertising shall include either the Department-approved Equal Housing Opportunity logo or slogan or statement and all advertising depicting persons shall depict persons of majority and minority groups, including both sexes.
( b ) Maintain a nondiscriminatory hiring policy in recruiting from both minority and majority groups, including both sexes and the handicapped, for staff engaged in the sale or rental of properties.
( c ) Instruct all employees and agents in writing and orally in the policy of nondiscrimination and fair housing.
( d ) Specifically solicit eligible buyers or tenants reported to the applicant by the Area or Insuring Office.
( e ) Prominently display in all offices in which sale or rental activity pertaining to the project or subdivision takes place the Department-approved Fair Housing Poster and include in any printed material used in connection with sales or rentals, the Department-approved Equal Housing Opportunity logo or slogan or statement.
( f ) Post in a conspicuous position on all FHA project sites a sign displaying prominently either the Department-approved Equal Housing Opportunity logo or slogan or statement.
[37 FR 75, Jan. 5, 1972, as amended at 40 FR 20080, May 8, 1975; 40 FR 53008, Nov. 14, 1975; 58 FR 41337, Aug. 3, 1993]
Exhibit 32.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF JEFFERY M. JACKSON

On this day, Sabre Holdings Corporation (the "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2006 (the "Report").

This
written statement accompanied the Report.

I,
Jeffery M. Jackson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that:



|/s/JEFFERY M. JACKSONJeffery M. Jackson
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
August 4, 2006 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vertrue Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary A.
Johnson, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company,
certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and 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.



/s/ Gary A. Johnson
-------------------
Gary A. Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Vertrue Incorporated
February 9, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the Claim for Benefits of Francis B. Smith, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, without costs, unless appellant perfects appeal, files note of issue, and files and serves record and brief on or before August 1, 1960 and is ready for argument at the September Term of this court, in which event the motion is denied. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
#### Irving Spieler, Respondent, v. Alfred Gottesman et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Orders, entered on or about August 19, 1960, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, and motion by defendant-appellant Gottesman to vacate warrant of attachment and to dismiss complaint for insufficiency granted, with $10 costs and motion by defendants-appellants Gutman, Goldberg and Null to dismiss complaint granted, with $10 costs. This action for alleged libel is based upon the alleged publication of defamatory matter in a pleading in a prior action to which the plaintiff here was not a party. Such matter, however, is not “clearly impertinent or beyond the scope of the issues involved ” in such prior action, and, therefore, it is absolutely privileged. *(Goldwater*v. *Merchants Importing,*6 A D 2d 777, and cases cited; also *Marson*v. *Darrow,*8 A D 2d 307; Prosser, Torts [2d ed.], pp. 608, 609.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
#### § 0.1 Cross-reference to employees ethical conduct standards and financial disclosure regulations.

Employees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Department) are subject to the executive branch-wide standards of ethical conduct at 5 CFR part 2635, the Department's regulation at 5 CFR part 7501 which supplements the executive branch-wide standards, and the executive branch-wide financial disclosure regulation at 5 CFR part 2634.

5 U.S.C. 301, 7301; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d)

[61 FR 36251, July 9, 1996]
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

January 22, 2015

The Honorable John Quigley

Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Dear Acting Secretary Quigley:

On December 23, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a 

revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection. The SIP revision requests redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment, and approval of the maintenance plan of the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 area. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and 

technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Rose Quinto, Office 

of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-2182. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

 Sincerely, 

/s/

David L. Arnold, Acting Director

 Air Protection Division 

cc: Joyce E. Epps, Director, PADEP Bureau of Air Quality
#### § 9a.8 Physical protection.

Except as provided in § 9a.7, the physical protection of information or material classified under this regulation shall be governed by the appropriate provisions of 22 CFR 9.45 through 9.49.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6194-6195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2836]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 03-4121, MM Docket No. 96-100; RM-9963]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Amherst and Lynchburg, VA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: At the request of Greater Lynchburg Stereo Broadcasters, this 
document allots Channel 229A to Lynchburg, Virginia, and denies a 
proposal to allot Channel 294A to Amherst, Virginia. See 65 FR 59164, 
published October 4, 2000. The reference coordinates for the Channel 
229A allotment at Lynchburg, Virginia, are 37-21-33 and 79-09-37.

DATES: Effective March 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hayne, Media Bureau (202) 418-
2177.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order in MM Docket No. 96-100, adopted December 31, 2003, 
and released January 16, 2004. The full text of this decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th 
Street SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex 
International, Portals ll, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-
2898, or via e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d0a1a5b1bcb5a8b9bea490b1bfbcfeb3bfbd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0b1b5a1aca5b8a9aeb480a1afaceea3afad">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.


0
Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

[[Page 6195]]

Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Virginia, is 
amended by adding Channel 229A at Lynchburg.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau..
[FR Doc. 04-2836 Filed 2-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §632a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 96–499, title IX, §966, Dec. 5, 1980, 94 Stat. 2652; Pub. L. 97–35, title XXI, §2156, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 802; Pub. L. 97–123, §5, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1664; Pub. L. 102–54, §13(q)(4), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 280, required Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into agreements with 7 to 12 States for the purpose of conducting demonstration projects of up to 4 years duration for the training and employment of eligible participants as homemakers or home health aides and required Secretary to submit to Congress annual reports and a final report 6 months after receiving final reports from all States.
### §3789f. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3789f was editorially reclassified as section 10230 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Doris K. Donnelly, Respondent, v William J. Donnelly, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from the alimony, child support, visitation and counsel fee provisions of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 18, 1977. Judgment modified, on the facts, by (1) reducing the award of child support from $120 a week per child to $75 a week per child and (2) deleting so much of decretal paragraph 5(b) as begins with the words: "Commencing with” and ends with the words: "Labor Day and Thanksgiving” and substituting therefor the following: "On Christmas school vacation including Christmas Day, Memorial Day and Labor Day in all even numbered years and on Easter school vacation, including Easter Sunday, and Thanksgiving in all odd numbered years”. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The judgment provided the father with visitation, *inter alia,*for all the above-mentioned holidays during even numbered years. He was, consequently, deprived of all holiday visitation during odd numbered years. We have deleted that provision and provided for a holiday visitation schedule which we feel would be in the best interests of the children. The award of child support was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Anthony Olszewski, Petitioner, v Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Respondent.

[717 NYS2d 196]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated December 22, 1998, affirming an order of the District Rent Administrator dated August 21, 1991, which determined that the petitioner’s property was subject to rent control.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, with costs, the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the respondent for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The current tenant (hereinafter the tenant) of the subject property moved into her mother’s rent-controlled apartment in January 1971, and continued to reside there after her mother’s death in August 1971. In September 1971 the then-landlord served the tenant with a report of vacancy decontrol, which designated her as the legal tenant and raised her rent. The petitioner landlord purchased the subject building in 1977. In 1986 the tenant brought an overcharge complaint against the petitioner. After a hearing, the respondent determined that the premises in question are subject to rent control. We grant the petition and annul the determination.

The tenant is precluded from seeking succession rights as a rent-controlled tenant, because she did not live in the apartment for two consecutive years before her mother’s death *(see, Shadick v 430 Realty Co.,*250 AD2d 417, 418; 9 NYCRR 2204.6 [d] [1]). Moreover, the tenant waited more than 14 years before asserting her claim for possession of the rent-controlled apartment. During that period, the tenant continued to pay a higher *387rent, and the building was sold to a new landlord. The tenant’s unreasonable delay precludes her from raising the claim that her apartment is subject to rent control *(see, Skrodelis v Norbergs,*272 AD2d 316).

The matter is remitted to the respondent for further proceedings with respect to alleged rent overcharges under rent stabilization within the applicable Statute of Limitations *(see,*Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 [L 1997, ch 116, §§ 33, 46; *Matter of Orin Mgt. Corp. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community*Renewal, 275 AD2d 126). Goldstein, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION








I, Chadwick S. Parson, certify that:





1.              I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of the Select Notes Trust LT 2004-1;





2.              Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;





3.              Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;





4.              I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.





5.              The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, that is included in these reports.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank TrustNational Association.








By:   /s/ Chadwick S. ParsonName:   Chadwick S. ParsonTitle:     Managing Director and PresidentStructured Obligations Corporation(senior officer in charge of securitization

function of the Depositor)Date:  March 12, 2014