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

[717 NYS2d 57]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered July 29, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 12 years and 4 to 8 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the attempted burglary conviction to 3V2 to 7 years, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence as fruit of an unlawful vehicle stop was properly denied. The police had information that three burglaries had been committed in the same neighborhood within approximately one month, and the descriptions of the perpetrators was sufficiently similar to warrant a reasonable suspicion that the same person committed all three. Immediately after, and in close proximity to, the third incident, the police spotted defendant, whose physical appearance, including an article of clothing worn in the first and third incidents, was substantially similar to the composite de*159scription of the perpetrator. Moreover, defendant was driving a car that was substantially similar to the car used in the first incident. The totality of these circumstances provided the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the officers’ stop of defendant’s car *(see, People v Hicks,*68 NY2d 234, 238), whereupon ensuing events led to his valid arrest for driving with a suspended license.

Since, at the suppression hearing, defendant attacked the alleged suggestiveness of his lineup identifications on different grounds from those raised on appeal, his present contentions are unpreserved *(People v Tutt,*38 NY2d 1011), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find, from a review of the lineup photograph, that defendant was not singled out for identification based on purported differences in the weight of the participants. We would also find no evidence to support defendant’s speculative assertion that the complainants may have violated the officer’s instructions not to discuss the case while waiting to view the lineups.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

As the People concede, the sentence imposed on the attempted burglary count must be modified since the maximum term permitted by statute at the time the offense was committed in 1994 for a second felony offender was 3V2 to 7 years. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 30905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13197]

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Massachusetts State 
Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the 
Massachusetts State Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene 
at 12 p.m. (E.D.T.) on Tuesday, June 14, 2011, at the Suffolk Law 
School, 120 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108. The purpose of the 
meeting is for project planning.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days of the 
meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 9th Street, NW., Suite 740, 
Washington, DC 20425. They may be faxed to (202) 376-7548, or e-mailed 
to ero@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact 
the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.
    Records generated from this this meeting may be inspected and 
reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, 
both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of 
this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's website, 
http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the 
above e-mail or street address.
    Deaf or hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting(s) and 
require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the 
Eastern Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the 
scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2011.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2011-13197 Filed 5-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”) of Kearny Financial Corp. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Craig L. Montanaro, President and Chief Executive Officer and Eric B. Heyer, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, 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) of the Securities 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/ Craig L. MontanaroCraig L. Montanaro

President and Chief Executive Officer








/s/ Eric B. HeyerEric B. Heyer

Senior Vice President and Chief

Financial Officer








September 13, 2012
§ 578.9 Preparing an application for funds. ( a ) The Continuum must: ( 1 ) Design, operate, and follow a collaborative process for the development of applications and approve the submission of applications in response to a NOFA published by HUD under § 578.19 of this subpart;
( 2 ) Establish priorities for funding projects in the geographic area;
( 3 ) Determine if one application for funding will be submitted for all projects within the geographic area or if more than one application will be submitted for the projects within the geographic area; ( i ) If more than one application will be submitted, designate an eligible applicant to be the collaborative applicant that will collect and combine the required application information from all applicants and for all projects within the geographic area that the Continuum has selected funding. The collaborative applicant will also apply for Continuum of Care planning activities. If the Continuum is an eligible applicant, it may designate itself;
( ii ) If only one application will be submitted, that applicant will be the collaborative applicant and will collect and combine the required application information from all projects within the geographic area that the Continuum has selected for funding and apply for Continuum of Care planning activities;
( b ) The Continuum retains all of its responsibilities, even if it designates one or more eligible applicants other than itself to apply for funds on behalf of the Continuum. This includes approving the Continuum of Care application.
THE BERWYN FUNDS

Code of Ethics for Principal Executive and
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2019

No. 04-19-00659-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Margarita LOPEZ,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV05720

Honorable John Longoria, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due to be filed with this court on October 25, 2019. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 35.1. After the due date, court reporter Kimberly Rice Lobello filed a first notification 

of late reporter’s record. She requested an extension of time to file the record until December 

18, 2019.

The request is GRANTED IN PART. The reporter’s record is due on November 25, 

2019. See id. R. 35.3(c) (limiting an extension in an ordinary appeal to thirty days). 

If the reporter’s record is not filed with this court by November 25, 2019, any requests for 

additional time to file the record must be accompanied by a signed, written status report. 

The report must describe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts, and 

remarks for each day. The page counts must include the total number of pages, the number of 

pages edited, proofread, and formatted into the required electronic form (including bookmarks). 

The report may describe any unusual aspects of the record. The report must describe any 

problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of the record beyond 

the requested date. 

A preferred form for the status report, with an accompanying example, is attached to this 

order.
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of November, 2019.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28377]

[[Page 77756]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of 
Authority

    Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the 
Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of 
the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated 
October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as 
amended most recently at 69 FR 63154-63156, dated October 29, 2004, is 
amended to reflect the Order of Succession for the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
    Section C-C, Order of Succession:
    Delete in its entirety Section C-C, Order of Succession, and insert 
the following:
    During the absence or disability of the Director, Center for 
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or in the event of a vacancy in 
that office, the first official listed below who is available shall act 
as Director, except that during a planned period of absence, the 
Director may specify a different order of succession:
    1. Chief Operating Officer, CDC.
    2. Chief of Science, CDC.
    3. Chief of Public Health Improvement.
    4. Director, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases.\*\
* official organizational structure pending approval.

    Dated: December 13, 2004.
William H. Gimson,
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC).
[FR Doc. 04-28377 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-18-M
```
### §568. Use of reclamation fund for expenses of and disposal of proceeds of sale of town sites

Reclamation funds shall be available for the payment of all expenses incurred in executing the provisions of sections 561 to 563 and 566 of this title relating to town sites, and the proceeds of all sales of town sites shall be covered into the reclamation fund.

(June 27, 1906, ch. 3559, §4, 34 Stat. 520.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on part of the proviso of section 4 of act June 27, 1906. The remainder of section 4 is classified to section 561 and former section 594 of this title.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 305]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ305.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1072]]

Public Law 106-305
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the United States customhouse located at 101 East Main 
  Street in Norfolk, Virginia, as the ``Owen B. Pickett United States 
         Customhouse''. <<NOTE: Oct. 13, 2000 -  [H.R. 5284]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States customhouse located at 101 East Main Street in 
Norfolk, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ``Owen B. 
Pickett United States Customhouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States customhouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Owen B. Pickett 
United States Customhouse''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act shall take effect on January 3, 2001.

    Approved October 13, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5284:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-922 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastucture).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Oct. 2, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 4, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Central Eight Realty LLC, Appellant, v Gary Rein et al., Respondents.

[834 NYS2d 172]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered March 20, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion *428for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that no written renovation agreement obligating defendant sellers to renovate the townhouse sold by them to plaintiff was ever executed. This circumstance together with the transactional documents relied upon by defendant sellers on their summary judgment motion, which documents specifically contemplated that the parties might never finalize a renovation agreement, and included numerous waivers by plaintiff of its rights against the sellers with respect to the condition of the transferred townhouse and personal property, demonstrated, prima facie, that there had been no agreement by defendant sellers to renovate the townhouse. Inasmuch as plaintiff did not in response to this showing meet its burden to come forward with evidence raising a triable issue as to the existence of the alleged renovation agreement (see *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), the grant of summary judgment was proper.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Buckley, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.
#### § 884.225 PHA reporting requirements. [Reserved]
### SI0-l()03()4-04( )

GERAL D R . FOR D INTERNATIONA LAIRPOR T 

# Ken t Count yDepartmen t o fAeronautic s AERONAUTIC S BOAR D JOH N VA N L^AR , Chairma n THEODOR E J . VONK . Vic e Chairma n DEA N A . ASE E JOSEP H TOIVIASELU RICHAR D A . VANDE R MOLE N FLOY D WILSON , JR . AERONAUTIC S STAF F JAME S A . KOSLOSKV. A,A,E . PHILU P E , JOHNSON . A.A.E . ROBER TW . BENSTEIN , A.A.E . BRIA N PICARDAT , A.A.E . THOMAS R. ECKLUND , P.E . Executiv e Directo r Deput yExecutiv e Directo r Publi cSafet y& Op s Directo r Flrwnc e & Admin . Directo r Facilitie s Directo r



### Februar y 25,201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon d H . LaHoo d Secretar y U.S . Departmen to fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAve , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docke tDOT-OST-2010-003 4 Dea rMr . Secretary : Than k yo u fo rth e opportunJt yt o expres s m ysuppor t fo rth e applicatio n fo rantitrus t Immunit yan d propose d join tbusines s agreemen t fife d b yAmerica n Airline s an d Japa n Airlines . Th e propose d allianc e betwee n thes e tw o airline s i s vita l fo rth e oneworl d allianc e t o compet e effectivel ywit h th e Sta ran d SkyTea m alliances . Thi s Increase d allianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o fth e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y- firstb ysolidifyin g U.S . - Japa n Ope n Skies , the n b yservin g a s a foundation fo rfurthe rliberalizatio n acros s Asia . Afte ra thoroug h review , I encourag e th e Departmen t o fTransportatio n t o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t woul d enabl e thes e oneworl d allianc e airline s t o wor k closel ytogethe rt o delive rhighl ycompetitiv e ai r transportatio n services . Approva l fo rAA/JA Lallianc e wil l hav e a positiv e Impac t o n ai rtrave l b yofferin g customer s mor e service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an d wil l hel p t o ensur e tha t customer s continu e t o benefi t fro m th e competitio n afforde d b ythre e competitiv e ai ralliances . I urg e yo u t o quickl yapprov e thi s application . Sincerely , 

# piA'X j Jame s A . Koslosky , A.A.E . Executiv e Directo r

.< •'.; ' / r...•,•-.• , c-; - woco . --LSMOI,}: - J , \K-f^ " .. . . •• ' ..•; | A' , jjb p . -^i.v^i l y'v'^V- . .I'J'---^ 1 •:l . i «' - '- •; ! ! •!=:)?

• '.tS',!•..(!.•': . TO'V\0l|<;'0i^,A;;.§i:fjje i " : I9L" ' \j £i:>.-.»b'=iifj,'eu { on!.sij2 b ^luo u i . fj'- . U s ) Uj. -

• * ' Lf.. ' • I' t tibfjiicgtioi j ' M .t.od ' loi^ ? Q l ^j<!o 2 .,iC|! C \ -yiJ Tp A^^'iqnAii S 0 2 ' - pbs u obc o ^f^ii z ^m - p A.?<=. . AI'J ? ?J? A 3t ; via.I ? t - »u|uCv69?i5q9i|!.u ' • < ujDe,';f!OU.'»\!i i Lirr.i. o ?..,'U3uc e fpt-pso^ ^

i ; .^ r 

## 5$&'MhiSj^iT"li, ; GRAKjb RA^ip^i^ i 4?^5T2^d5^ ^ 'P^.''6l6-233-^666'-^

fA X61(^^3^502 5
### §1196. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1196 was editorially reclassified as section 425 of Title 25, Indians.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Isidore Frankel, Appellant, against Robert Hall Manufacturing Company, Inc. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, by default, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Rejmolds, JJ.
PUBLIC LAW 110–117—NOV. 15, 2007 121 STAT. 1345 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2546: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

June 25, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 1, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–117 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Asheville, 

North Carolina, as the ‘‘Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 

Center’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF CHARLES GEORGE DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 

Center located at 1100 Tunnel Road, Asheville, North Carolina, 

shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 

document, record, or other paper of the United States to the medical 

center referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a 

reference to the Charles George Department of Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center. 

Approved November 15, 2007. 

Nov. 15, 2007 

[H.R. 2546]
OF EXAS 

Hon. Sam D. Johnson opinion Ho. s-51 

County Attomey 

Hill county Re: The feea wNch should be 

Rillsboro, !Eexas paid a court appointed 

defenae attorney under 

Article 45&a, V.C.C.P.. 

when four separate felony 

causes against tha same 

defendant uere tried on 

Dear Sir: the same day. 

You have requeakd' an opinion on the amount 

of fees to be paid an attorney appointed to represent 

a defendant ln four separate felony cases when all 

four cases. were tried on the same day. Section 1 of 

Article *#a, Vernon's Code of Criminal Procedure, provides: 

"Whenever the Court shall appoint one 

or more counsel to defend any person or peraons pursuant to law in any felony case in 

thi8 State. each counsel may. at the 'discretion of thl! trial jMge be- paid a fee in the 

sum of Ten Dollars ($lOj per day for each day 

such appointed attorney is actually in trial 

court representing the person or persons he 

has been appointed to represent. Provided, 

further, that in all cases Wherein a bona 

fide appeal ir, actually prosecuted to a 

final concli&Ion, each appointed counsel may 

be paid Twenty-five Dollars ($25’) for Said 

appeal. The fee allowed counsel shall be 

paid by the county wherein such ttiial is 

held and such sum to be paid from county 

funds." (Emphasis added) 

It waa clearly the intention of the Legislature In enacting Article %&a that each counsel stay, at 

the disbretion of the trial judge, be paid the fee of 

$10 per day for each felony case. In other words compennation provided in Article &%a is compensation for 

each felony case tried 'by an attorney appointed by the 
Hon. Sam D. Johnson, page 2 (S-51) 

trial court. Since the trial judge directed that a fee 

of $10 be paid in each cause under the facts submitted 

we agree with your conclusion that the attorney involved 

in your request is entitled to receive $10 per case per 

day in each individual appointment made by the court. 

SUMcwiY 

Under the provisions of Section 1 of 

Article 49&a, Vernon's Code of Criminal 

Procedure, an attorney appointed by the 

trial judge to represent a defendant in, 

four separate felony cases is entitled, in 

the discretion of the trial judge, to be 

paid the sum of $10 perday for each felony 

case tried by him, i.e., four felony caBes 

lasting for a period of one day Forty ($40) 

Dollars. 

Yours very truly, 

APPROVED: 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 

Attorney General 

Willis E. Gresham 

Reviewer 

Robert S. T'rotti 

First Assistant 

BeeF 

Assistant 

John Ben Shepperd 

Attorney General 

JR:am