alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1227 CAF 11-00116** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CRYSTAL LYNN MOORE, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. KAZACOS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PIOTR BANASIAK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

JAMES E. CORL, JR., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, CICERO, FOR KAIDEN M.M.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Gina M. Glover, R.), entered December 13, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted petitioner sole custody of the parties’ child.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this child custody proceeding, respondent father appeals from an order granting the petition of the mother seeking sole custody of the parties’ infant son. We reject the father’s contention that the Referee erred in failing to consider the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727, 740-741) before awarding custody to the mother, who moved from Syracuse to North Carolina shortly after she commenced this proceeding. Inasmuch “[a]s this is an initial custody determination, it is not necessary to adhere to a strict application of the relevant factors to be considered in a potential relocation as enunciated in Matter of Tropea v Tropea ” ( Matter of Lynch v Gillogly , 82 AD3d 1529, 1530; see Matter of Baker v Spurgeon , 85 AD3d 1494, 1496, lv dismissed ___ NY3d ___ [Oct. 25, 2011]; Matter of Schneider v Lascher , 72 AD3d 1417, lv denied 15 NY3d 708).

In addition, although the Referee should have made an explicit finding that awarding custody to the mother was in the child’s best interests, the record is “sufficiently complete” for this Court to make its own findings ( Matter of Ammann v Ammann , 209 AD2d 1032, 1032- 1033), and we conclude that the Referee’s custody award is in the child’s best interests. We note that there is no dispute that, as of the hearing date, the father had never seen the child, and the father did not avail himself of opportunities to visit the child during the pendency of the proceeding. Indeed, the father failed to appear at**-2- 1227 CAF 11-00116** 

his own house for a scheduled home visit with the Attorney for the Child, who sought to arrange visits for him with the child. Finally, we reject the father’s contention that the case should be remitted for the Referee to fashion a more specific visitation schedule. If the father is unable to obtain “open and reasonable parenting time . . . as the parties may agree” pursuant to the order, he may file a petition seeking to enforce or modify the order.

Entered: November 18, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the filing of the Annual Report of Rand Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2010 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: June 15, 2010/s/ Laurence S. LevyLaurence S. Levy

Chairman of the Board and

Chief Executive Officer
#### Sistrunk *v.*Mangum, sheriff.

April 30, 1912.

Reinstatement denied May 18, 1912.

Petition for mandamus; from Fulton superior court.

*J. E. Sistrunk,'*for plaintiff.

Fish, C. J.

Where a judgment of the court refusing to grant a mandamus absolute was rendered in term, on December 14, 1911, and the bill of exceptions assigning error thereon was certified on January 5, 1912, and there is nothing in the bill of exceptions, or the entries thereon, or the record, showing that the bill of exceptions was presented to the judge within twenty days from the date of the decision complained of, the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the writ of error, and it must be dismissed. *Thompson*v. *McGhee,*93 *Ga.*254 (19 S. E. 32); *Holder*v. *Jelks,*116 *Ga.*134 (42 S. E. 100); *Crawford*v. *Goodwin,*128 *Ga.*134 (57 S. E. 240), and cases cited; *Curtis*v. *Town of Mansfield,*132 *Ga.*444 (64 S. E. 327), and cases cited.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Order entered July 11, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00617
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF P.H., A CHILD On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court

Hunt Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 89,795

O RDER Before the Court is court reporter Judith F. Snyder’s July 8, 2022 second request for a ten

- day extension of time to file the reporter’s record

. We GRANT the request and ORDER the record be filed no later tha n July 21, 2022.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
§ 206.9 Eligible mortgagees. ( a ) *Statutory requirements.* See sections (b)(2), (c), and 255(d)(1) of the NHA.
( b ) *HUD approved mortgagees.* Any mortgagee authorized under paragraph (a) of this section and approved under part 202 of this chapter, except an investing mortgagee approved under § 202.9 of this chapter, is eligible to apply for insurance. A mortgagee approved under §§ 202.6, 202.7, 202.9 or 202.10 of this chapter may purchase, hold and sell mortgages insured under this part without additional approval.
§ 206.44 Monetary investment for HECM for Purchase program. ( a ) *Monetary investment.* At closing, HECM for Purchase borrowers shall provide a monetary investment that will be applied to satisfy the difference between the principal limit and the sale price for the property, plus any HECM loan-related fees that are not financed into the loan, minus the amount of the earnest deposit.
( b ) *Funding sources.* To satisfy the required monetary investment, borrowers may use: ( 1 ) Cash on hand;
( 2 ) Cash from the sale or liquidation of the borrower's assets;
( 3 ) HECM mortgage proceeds; or
( 4 ) Other approved funding sources as determined by the Commissioner through notice.
( c ) *Interested party contributions.* ( 1 ) The following interested party contributions are permissible: ( i ) Fees required to be paid by a seller under state or local law;
( ii ) Fees customarily paid by a seller in the subject property locality; and
( iii ) The purchase of the Home Warranty policy by the seller.
( 2 ) The Commissioner may define additional permissible interested party contributions and impose requirements for permissible interested party contributions through a notice in the Federal Register.
SERVED: May 19, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

APPLICATION OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

For fees and expenses under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act 

DOCKET NO. F AA-20 14-1117 

ORDER ON AGENCY MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR ANSWER 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed a Motion dated 

March 10, 2015, setting forth extraordinary circumstances which prevented the FAA 

from responding to the within filed Application for Award of Attorney Fees and Other 

Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter "Trans North EA.JA 

Petition"). Trans North Aviation, L TO (hereinafter "Trans North'') filed an objection to 

the FAA's Request. 

WHEREFORE, the within tiled FAA Motion to Extend time and Trans North 

Response thereto having been read and considered, it be and is hereby ORDERED as 

follows: 

1. On or before June 5, 2015, the FAA shall tile any response to Trans North 

EAJA Petition; and 

2. On or before June 19, 2015, Trans North may file a response to the FAA's 

pleading. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law.Tudge 

Attachment- Service List 
I I . 

SERVICE LIST 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1117 

(Equal Access to Justice Act) 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 1 

ONE COPY 

Paul R. Borth, Applicant ',v Counsel 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

TEL: 847-724-5520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Jeanette B. Daubaras, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7G 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon 

Des Plaines, IL 600 18 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2W 1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
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.                  

###### National Capital Planning Commission

# AGENCY:

National Capital Planning Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of final adoption of and effective date.

# SUMMARY:

The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) adopted the Federal Environment Element, Section G of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements on November 5, 2020. The Element establishes policies in Section G to preserve and replace trees that are impacted by development on federal land so they contribute to the sustainability of the National Capital Region's environment. The National Capital Region includes the District of Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland; Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties in Virginia; and all cities within the boundaries of these counties. Section G of the Element provides the policy framework for Commission actions on plans and projects subject to Commission review.

      ( print page 77261)    

# DATES:

The revised Element will become effective February 1, 2021.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The revised Element is available online for review at:                         *https://www.ncpc.gov/​initiatives/​treereplacement/​.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Stephanie Free at (202) 482-7209 or                         *info@ncpc.gov*.                    

(Authority: 40 U.S.C. 8721(e)(2))

Dated: November 25, 2020.

Anne R. Schuyler,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2020-26466 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.1


                         FAMOUS DAVE'S OF AMERICA, INC.

                                  AMENDMENT TO
                              1995 STOCK OPTION AND
                                COMPENSATION PLAN



         1. Increase in Number of Shares Subject to the Plan. Section e(i) of
the 1995 Stock Option and Compensation Plan is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

            i. Number of Shares. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 
      11.6, the number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued under the 
      Plan shall not exceed 950,000 shares of Common Stock.

         2. Effective Date. This Amendment will become effective upon approval
thereof by the shareholders of the Company.
#### MULHOLLAND v. BAILEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1905.)

Action by Chester H. Mulholland against William F. Bailey. No opinion. Motion granted, without costs, unless case is settled and printed papers served on or before April 10th, in which case motion denied.
### SUBCHAPTER XX—KLAMATH PROJECT, OREGON-CALIFORNIA
### Water-quality, streamflow, and ancillary data for nutrients in streams and rivers across the nation, 1992-2001

By: David K. MuellerNorman E. Spahr

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds152

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract
Case 3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document 32 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document31 Filed01/25/10 Page1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document 32 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document31 Filed01/25/10 Page2 of 3
Case3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document31 Filed01/25/10 Page3 of 3

23 Dated: January 25, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-00920-JSW Document 32 Filed 01/25/10 Page 3 of 3
§ 100.135 Unlawful practices in the selling, brokering, or appraising of residential real property. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in the selling, brokering or appraising of residential real property to discriminate against any person in making available such services, or in the performance of such services, because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, the term appraisal means an estimate or opinion of the value of a specified residential real property made in a business context in connection with the sale, rental, financing or refinancing of a dwelling or in connection with any activity that otherwise affects the availability of a residential real estate-related transaction, whether the appraisal is oral or written, or transmitted formally or informally. The appraisal includes all written comments and other documents submitted as support for the estimate or opinion of value.
( c ) Nothing in this section prohibits a person engaged in the business of making or furnishing appraisals of residential real property from taking into consideration factors other than race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( d ) Practices which are unlawful under this section include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Using an appraisal of residential real property in connection with the sale, rental, or financing of any dwelling where the person knows or reasonably should know that the appraisal improperly takes into consideration race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
( 2 ) Conditioning the terms of an appraisal of residential real property in connection with the sale, rental, or financing of a dwelling on a person's response to harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
[54 FR 3283, Jan. 23, 1989, as amended at 81 FR 63074, Sept. 14, 2016]
### §300mm–64. Pentagon/Shanksville Fund

#### (a) In general

There is established a fund to be known as the World Trade Center Health Program Fund for Certain WTC Responders at the Pentagon and Shanksville, Pennsylvania (referred to in this section as the "Pentagon/Shanksville Fund"), consisting of amounts deposited into the Pentagon/Shanksville Fund under subsection (b).

#### (b) Amount

Out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated for fiscal year 2024 $232,000,000 for deposit into the Pentagon/Shanksville Fund, which amounts shall remain available in such Fund through fiscal year 2033.

#### (c) Uses of funds

#### (1) In general

Amounts deposited into the Pentagon/Shanksville Fund under subsection (b) shall be available, without further appropriation and without regard to any spending limitation under section 300mm–61(c) of this title, to the WTC Program Administrator for the purpose of carrying out section 300mm–22 of this title with regard to WTC responders enrolled in the WTC Program based on eligibility criteria described in subclause (III) or (IV) of section 300mm–21(a)(2)(C)(i) of this title.

#### (2) Limitation on other funding

Notwithstanding sections 300mm–41(a), 300mm–61(b)(1), 300mm–62(c), and 300mm–63(c) of this title, and any other provision in this subchapter, for the period of fiscal years 2024 through 2033, no amounts made available under this subchapter other than those amounts appropriated under subsection (b) may be available for the purpose described in paragraph (1).

#### (d) Remaining amounts

Any amounts that remain in the Pentagon/Shanksville Fund on September 30, 2033, shall be deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXXIII, §3354, as added Pub. L. 118–31, div. A, title XVIII, §1851(b), Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 708.)
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

RONALD J. MCINTOSH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER JR.,

Defendant. /

No. 09-cv-00750 CRB

ORDER TO RESPOND TO MCINTOSH’S

MOTION REQUESTING ENTRY OF

ORDER FOLLOWING SEPTEMBER 11,

2015 HEARING

Defendant Ronald McIntosh has moved for an order directing the government to

produce discovery in compliance with prior orders of this Court. See Motion Requesting

Entry of Order Following September 11, 2015 Hearing (dkt. 178). McIntosh requests (1)

declarations regarding three government agencies’ search for responsive documents; (2)

unredacted sets of documents; (3) 174 pages of documents that this Court already ordered the

government to produce; (4) certain notes from law enforcement agents; (5) reports on certain

undercover government operations; and (6) information on certain meetings between federal

and state law enforcement agencies. 

Good cause appearing therefor, the Government is hereby ORDERED to file a

response to Defendant’s motion by Monday, November 9, 2015, discussing the reasons, if

any, why the government should not be required to comply with McIntosh’s request, making

reference to which specific requests fall outside which specific prior discovery orders

//

Case 3:09-cv-00750-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 issued by this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00750-CRB Document 182 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 2
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

TARA SELVER, Cal. Bar #153373

3110 Judson St., PMB 60

Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Ph/fax: 253 265-6866

e-mail: mstaraselver@comcast.net

Attorney for Petitioner

Benjamin Dawson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

BENJAMIN DAWSON ) C 09-783 SI

)

)

Petitioner, ) ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE

) AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

) TRAVERSE TO ANSWER TO PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

)

v. )

)

Kelly Harrington., )

Warden, Kern Valley State Prison )

)

Respondent. )

________________________________)

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that petitioner is granted leave to file an

amended Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Traverse to Answer to Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus.

Dated:___________

___________________

Susan Illston

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00783-SI Document 18 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Case 3:09-cv-00783-SI Document 18 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 248.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to— ( a ) Preserve and retain to the maximum extent practicable as housing affordable to low income families or persons those privately owned dwelling units that were produced for such purpose with Federal assistance, without unduly restricting the owners' prepayment rights;
( b ) Minimize the involuntary displacement of tenants currently residing in such housing;
( c ) Work in partnership with State and local government and the private sector in the provision and operation of housing that is affordable to very low, low and moderate income families; and
( d ) Facilitate the sale of housing to residents under a resident homeownership program.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10709

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TYLER DEON KNIGHT,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:16-CR-70-1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Tyler Deon Knight has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Knight has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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

April 17, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10709 Document: 00514432398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2018
No. 17-10709

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-10709 Document: 00514432398 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2018
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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ANITA HUNTER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITIBANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 09-2079 JW (PVT)

ORDER VACATING HEARING AND

DEEMING MOTION SUBMITTED ON THE

PAPERS

Currently scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2010, is a motion for protective order filed by

Defendants Foley & Lardner, LLP and Stephen L. Burr. Based on the file herein and the court’s

scheduling needs, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on the motion for protective order is VACATED

and the motion is deemed submitted on the papers.

Dated: April 2, 2010

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02079-JCS Document 299 Filed 04/02/10 Page 1 of 1