alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Nicholas Ondrizek, Petitioner, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 481]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Sullivan County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

In 1985, petitioner was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree and *1115conspiracy in the second degree in connection with the beating death of the father of an acquaintance. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 years to life in prison. In July 2005, he made his fourth appearance before the Board of Parole for parole release. At the conclusion of the hearing, his request for parole release was denied and he was ordered held for an additional 24 months. After the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Initially, we note that inasmuch as the petition does not raise a question of substantial evidence, the proceeding was improperly transferred to this Court *(see Matter of Rivera v State of N.Y. Exec. Dept. Bd. of Parole,*268 AD2d 928, 928 [2000]). Nevertheless, considering the merits in the interest of judicial economy, we find that the Board properly considered the statutory factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i, including not only the serious nature of the crimes, but also petitioner’s positive program accomplishments, his relatively clean disciplinary record and his postrelease plans *(see Matter of Duffy v Dennison,*34 AD3d 1083, 1083-1084 [2006]; *Matter of Wellman v Dennison,*23 AD3d 974, 975 [2005]). While the Board placed particular emphasis on the heinous nature of the crimes, it was not required to give equal weight to all of the statutory factors *(see Matter of Salahuddin v Dennison,*34 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining claims, including his assertion that the Board considered erroneous information relating to his criminal record, are without merit. Inasmuch as the Board’s decision does not exhibit “ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we find no reason to disturb it.

Mercure, J.P, Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Collection Activity Number of RespondentsNumber of

Responses per Party Total

Number of ResponsesTime per

ResponseCost per

Response (Dollars)Total HoursTotal Cost (Dollars) 80.1431 - Recordkeeping to reflect invalid RINs 45 1 45 0.5 35.5 22.5 1597.5 80.1432 - Recordkeeping to reflect "spilled" RINs 45 1 45 0.25 17.75 11.25 798.75 80.1441 - small refinery exemption (b)(2) verification letter 25 1 25 4 284 100 7100 (e)(2) extension petition (economic hardship) 25 1 25 4 284 100 7100 80.1442(b) - small refiner status letter 25 1 25 4 284 100 7100 80.1442(d) - written notice to waive exemption 2 1 2 4 284 8 568 80.1450 - Registration

(a) at $71/hour 450 1 450 8 568 3600 255600 80.1454 - Recordkeeping 450 365 164250 0.25 17.7541062.52915437.5 80 1451(a) and 80.1452 - Reporting

Annual compliance reporting 450 1 450 4 284 1800 127800 Real time batch reporting (EMTS) 450 365 164250 0.25 17.7541062.52915437.5 RIN transaction reports (quarterly) 450 4 1800 1 71 1800 127800 RIN activity reports (quarterly) 450 4 1800 1 71 1800 127800

80.1453 - PTD 450 365 164250 0.25 17.7541062.52915437.5 80.1464 - Attest engagement (at $142/hour) 450 1 450 24 3408 10800 1533600 CDX Registration 450 1 450 2 142 900 63900
TOTALS 4217 498317 144229.2511007076.75 Information Collection Burden by Type of Party Table III - "Obligated Parties" (Including Refiners and Exporters or Renewable Fuels) [Assumes 150 refiners and 100 exporters.]
No. 7978.

#### Cullom *v.*The City of Cincinnati.

(Decided November 10, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*549
      *Mr. Edward M. Ballard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Charles J. Hunt; Mr. John V. Campbell*and *Mr. Albert H. Morrill,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      See accompanying notes
      $ in thousands, except per share amounts.
</LEGEND>                               
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
                                <S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                         47318
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12710
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    11122
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               80080
<PP&E>                                         62724
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                146471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          28668
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        1
<COMMON>                                         243
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146471
<SALES>                                        174206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                          114284
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   64
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1922
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6284
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2388
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3896
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .53
        


</TABLE>
#### Howard Langer et al., Respondents, v BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 286]—

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J), entered June 22, 2006, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*715Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

As the plaintiff Howard Danger was attempting to remove the uppermost plastic bucket from a stack on top of a wooden pallet at the defendant’s store, the three remaining buckets in the stack allegedly fell over and knocked him to the floor. The plaintiffs alleged that the buckets fell because the buckets “were improperly stacked on a broken and/or improperly constructed pallet.” The Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse.

The defendant satisfied its initial burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the deposition testimony and affidavit of its employee who stated that the buckets were delivered by the manufacturer to the defendant already stacked on a pallet and that she had not received any complaints, nor was she aware, of any dangerous condition concerning the pallet or the improper stacking of buckets thereon *(see Fields v King Kullen Grocery Co., 28*AD3d 513, 514 [2006]; *Rosa v Food Dynasty,*307 AD2d 1031 [2003]; *Stumacher v Waldbaum, Inc.,*274 AD2d 572 [2000]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to their contention that the wooden pallet presented a dangerous condition *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The affidavit from the plaintiffs’ expert was speculative and conclusory *(see Romano v Stanley,*90 NY2d 444, 452 [1997]; *Mestric v Martinez Cleaning Co.,*306 AD2d 449 [2003]; *Martinez v Roberts Consol. Indus.,*299 AD2d 399 [2002]). Moreover, the photographs submitted by the parties were insufficient to demonstrate that the pallet constituted a dangerous condition *(see Delia v 1586 N. Blvd. Co., LLC,*27 AD3d 269 [2006]; *cf. Batton v Elghanayan,*43 NY2d 898, 899 [1978]). Even assuming that the wooden pallet presented a dangerous condition, the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the defendant created or had actual or constructive notice of this condition *(see Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837-838 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
### §488f. Protection from civil liability

#### (a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an owner of an ammonium nitrate facility that in good faith refuses to sell or transfer ammonium nitrate to any person, or that in good faith discloses to the Department or to appropriate law enforcement authorities an actual or attempted purchase or transfer of ammonium nitrate, based upon a reasonable belief that the person seeking purchase or transfer of ammonium nitrate may use the ammonium nitrate to create an explosive device to be employed in an act of terrorism (as defined in section 3077 of title 18), or to use ammonium nitrate for any other unlawful purpose, shall not be liable in any civil action relating to that refusal to sell ammonium nitrate or that disclosure.

#### (b) Reasonable belief

A reasonable belief that a person may use ammonium nitrate to create an explosive device to be employed in an act of terrorism under subsection (a) may not solely be based on the race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, status as a veteran, or status as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States of that person.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §899G, as added Pub. L. 110–161, div. E, title V, §563(a), Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2089.)
August 20, 2015 Strat Aero International Ph: 1.832.912.4273 Fax; 1.832.553.7975 www.strat-aero.com

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Modification to Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations submitted September 19, 2014 Dear Sir or Madam: Thank you for your approval ofthe City of Roswell Coalition's 333 Exemption No. 11265 and the subsequent amendment that allows the Coalition to fly the DJI SI000 (11265A granted August 19, 2015). At this time, on behalfofboth the City of Roswell Coalition as the petitioner and for StratAero International Inc. as the sUAS operatorfor said petitioner, Irequest an amendmentto ourexemption to add the DJI Inspire 1 sUAS to ourapproved aircraft. This specific sUAS has been approved inover 100 granted 333 exemptions to date, and we willsubmit operating documents to 333exemptions@faa.qovto further clarify safety and operational features ofthis aircraft. This addition to Exemption No. 11265 and the amendment numbered 11265Awillnot change missions, 

### training, and/or maintenance performed by City ofRoswell Coalition representatives. Thanks again for your help with approving our request. Ifyou have questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Jonathan Adams at 518-224-5759. Bestf 

### j/egards.
Tanya Renae Compton Project Management-Administration StratAero International, Inc. On behalfof Jonathan E. Adams Executive Vice President Strat Aero Intemational, Inc. ~

LONDON NEW YORK HOUSTON
SO2BART limit calculations for U BART limit calculations for U BART limit calculations for U .S.Steel facilities Steel facilities

Jiang,Hongming Hongming Hongming(MPCA) to: Kathleen Dagostino 11/15/2012 11:59 AM

Cc: "Neuschler, Catherine (MPCA)"

History: This message has been forwarded.

3 attachments

Assistance to FIP on USS SO2 data analysis.xlsx Assistance to FIP on USS SO2 data analysis.xlsx Minntac BART Supporting Data.xlsx tac BART Supporting Data.xlsx

Keetac BART Supporting Data.xlsx

Kathleen:

As promised, attached are the three files, the last two of which may 

have been received at your end. Give me a call, if you need me to walk 

over these calculations. Thanks!

- Hongming Jiang, Ph.D., P.E.

 Industrial Division

 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

 520 Lafayette Road North

 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

 (651)757-2467 (voice)

 (651)296-8717 (fax)

 hongming.jiang@state.mn.us

 For MPCA info, click at www.pca.state.mn.us
§ 191.9 Information requirements. ( a ) The ASD(FM&P) shall: ( 1 ) Submit an annual report to the Secretary of Defense on the status of the DoD EEO program. This report shall be developed from existing documents, such as affirmative action plan accomplishment reports, civil rights budget reports, semiannual discrimination complaint reports, and Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program reports, plus statistical data obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and reports of visits to DoD installations.
( 2 ) Submit consolidated DoD annual reports on discrimination complaints to the EEOC in accordance with EEOC guidance. This reporting requirement is assigned Interagency Report Control Number 0288-EEO-NA.
( b ) Heads of DoD Components shall: ( 1 ) Submit annual reports on discrimination complaints to the ASD(FM&P), or designee, in accordance with guidance from the EEOC. This reporting requirement is assigned Interagency Report Control Number 0288-EEO-NA.
( 2 ) Submit copies of affirmative action program plan, affirmative action program plan updates, and affirmative action plan accomplishment reports for minorities, women, and people with disabilities to the ASD(FM&P), or designee, in addition to copies of annual reports for the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program.
( 3 ) Ensure that designated officials submit information for an annual report on computer support of employees with disabilities and for reports on individual computer accommodations for employees with disabilities. These reporting requirements are assigned RCS DD-FM&P (A) 1731 and RCS DD-FM&P (AR) 1732.
[53 FR 30990, Aug. 17, 1988, as amended at 54 FR 15752, Apr. 19, 1989; 57 FR 35756, Aug. 11, 1992]
First Amendment to First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.10 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, made as of the 1st day of January 2005, by and between
COMMONWEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Virginia corporation (the “Employer”), and ROBERT B. HARRIS, PH.D. (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive previously entered into a First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2005 (the “Initial Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Initial Agreement contained an equation to determine certain performance-based cash, restricted stock and incentive option bonuses;
and 
 WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive wish to amend the Initial Agreement to correct a mathematical error contained therein.

 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the parties hereto,
the Employer and the Executive hereby amend the Initial Agreement as follows: 
 1. The equation contained in Section 4(b) is hereby
removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “A + (A * (1-B)) = C” 
 2. The equation contained in Section 4(e)(i) is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “2,500 + (2,500 * (1 – A)) = B” 
 3. The equation contained in Section 4(e)(ii) is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 
 “2,500
+ (2,500 * (1 – A)) = B” 
 4. All other portions of the Initial Agreement remain in effect. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed as a sealed instrument by the Employer, by
its duly authorized officer, and by the Executive, as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	 COMMONWEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	/s/ Richard J. Freer, Ph.D.
	 Name:
	 	Richard J. Freer, Ph.D.
	 Title:
	 	Chairman and Chief Operating Officer
		
	 Date:
	 	2/1/06
		
		 	/s/ Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.
		 	Robert B. Harris, Ph.D.
		
	 Address:
	 	601 Biotech Drive             
		 	Richmond, Virginia 23235
		
	 Date:
	 	2/1/06
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10-F-2

Schedule identifying agreements, entered into between Conexant Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") and each of the following persons, substantially identical to
the Employment Agreement constituting Exhibit 10.5 to the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended December 31, 1998


                                    Name
                              -----------------
                               J. Scott Blouin
                              Lewis C. Brewster
                                Raouf Y. Halim
                              Dennis E. O'Reilly
                                Ashwin Rangan
                              F. Matthew Rhodes
                               Thomas A. Stites
                              Michael H. Vishny
#### (A) W. S. Hayes, Inc., Appellant, v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent. (B) Frank E. Hollins, Appellant, v. City of Lackawanna et al., Respondents.

[In each action] Motion to add case to November 1960 Term Calendar denied
#### § 247.7 Information requirements.

The biennial reporting requirement contained in this part has been assigned Report Control Symbol DD-PA(BI) 1638.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Morrow Harding, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 29,100.

Prosecution for assault with deadly weapon. Defendant convicted. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Rooney, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 11, 1925.

Rehearing denied February 24, 1925.

Clanton & Jones, for plaintiff in error.

Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson and Clyde G. Fisher, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00830

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.O.G. , a Child From the 57th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- PA

- 01327 Honorable Victor Hugo Negron Jr. , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 7, 2012
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION A complete appellate record for this appeal was filed in this court on December 20, 2011. Since this appeal is accelerated, the deadline for filing the appellant’s brief was January 9, 2012.
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.6(a). On December 22, 2011, the appellant f iled a copy of an agreed order of referral to mediation signed by the trial court based on its consideration of a motion for new trial. The order stated that the mediation was set for January 12, 2011. Based on the agreed order, this court issued an or der on January 17, 2012, granting appellant an extension of time to file her brief to February 1, 2012. The order stated that if the underlying cause was settled through mediation, appellant was required to file a motion requesting an appropriate disposit ion of the appeal no later than February 1, 2012.04

- 11

- 00830

- CV

- 2

- The clerk’s office of this court contacted appellant’s attorney and was informed that a

non - suit had been obtained and a motion to dismiss this appeal would be filed. Despite representations that the moti on would be filed in a short time period, no motion was filed. On February 17, 2012, appellant was ordered to file the appellant’s brief in this appeal no later than February 27, 2012. Appellant was cautioned that if the brief was not filed by the deadli ne, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3. Appellant’s brief has not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
PER CURIAM
#### § 942.702 Exemption for coal extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals.

Part 702 of this chapter, *Exemption for Coal Extraction Incidental to the Extraction of Other Minerals,* shall apply to any person who conducts coal extraction incidental to the extraction of other minerals for purposes of commercial use or sale.

[54 FR 52123, Dec. 20, 1989]
file:///J|/SNURS/SNUR%20Batch%20FY10-3/sanitized%20report/sanitized%20engineering%20reports/p090130.sanitized.en2.txt[5/11/2010 1:13:24 PM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 09-0130

Post-Focus Draft Revision 2 4/2/2009

ENGINEER: Prothero \ AH

PV (kg/yr): YX

Revision Notes / Assessment Overview: Rev 2: Updated both Use

releases based on info from phone log 4/2/09 (pending amendment

letter). No other changes vs IRER Rev 1.

SUBMITTER: Huntsman Corporation

USE: 

OTHER USES: None found.

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: safety eyewear, personal protective equipment for the

body and chemical-resistant, impervious gloves

Respirator: properly fitted, air-purifying or air-fed respirator

complying with an approved standard

Health Effects: causes respiratory tract, eye and skin irritation

TLV/PEL:

none established

CRSS :

Chemical Name: Soybean oil, epoxidized, reaction products with

diethanolamine

S-H20: Dispersible g/L @

VP: 1.0E-6 torr @

MW: 491.00 %<500 %<1000

Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:

Neat: Liquid Mfg: Liquid Proc/Form: NA End Use: Destroyed. The

typical low MW of 490.73 g/mol is for the top structure shown on

page 1 of chem report. Composition of fatty acids in soybean oil:

 linoleic (50-6%), oleic (22-34%), palmitic (7-11), linolenic

(2-10%), stearic (2-5%), >C18 saturated (1-3%), C16 unsaturated

(0-1%) and myristic (0.3%). Submitted Data: vp <1 mm Hg (est);

ws <800 g/L at 30°C; Density = 9.14 lbs/gal; Viscosity = 46750

cps at 25°C. Estimated Data (EPI, for the low weight top

structure, with mp entered as 20°C): bp = 670°C, vp = 3.3E-17

torr, ws = 2652 mg/L, log P = 1.48. Based on its structure, the

PMN substance is expected to be dispersible in water.

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (01/06/2009):

Migration to groundwater: Slow

PBT rating: P1B1T1
file:///J|/SNURS/SNUR%20Batch%20FY10-3/sanitized%20report/sanitized%20engineering%20reports/p090130.sanitized.en2.txt[5/11/2010 1:13:24 PM]

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation, ingestion

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 6ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

1) # of workers exposed: 0 >1000? 

2) >100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: 

3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100 days/yr: 

 (b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr: 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 09-0130