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

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 28, 1963 [misdescribed in the notice of appeal as “a final order of the Kings County Court * 6 * as of November 29, 1963”], which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered May 22, 1959 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, and imposing sentence upon him as a second felony offender. Order affirmed. The application was made on the ground that the sentence imposed upon defendant as a second felony offender on May 22, 1959 was illegal because, upon defendant’s first conviction on April 11, 1955, there had been no compliance with the requirements of section 480 *682of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That claim may not be raised by *coraw, nobis (People*v. *Sulivan,*3 N Y 2d 196). In any event, defendant failed to show that with respect to such 1955 conviction there had been a failure to comply with section 480 *{People ex rel. Romano*v. *Johnston,*10 A D 2d 758, mot. for lv. to app. den. 8 N Y 2d 707). Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Foreign Assets Control

# AGENCY:

Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.

# DATES:

                        See                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section for applicable date(s).                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*OFAC:*                         Andrea Gacki, Director, tel.: 202-622-2420; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-622-2490, or; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Electronic Availability

                    The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website (                    *www.treas.gov/​ofac*).                

## Notice of OFAC Actions

On January 5, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
      ( print page 1582)          ( print page 1583)          ( print page 1584)          ( print page 1585)    

Dated: January 5, 2021.

Andrea M. Gacki,

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[FR Doc. 2021-00173 Filed 1-7-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
§ 634.12 Army administrative actions against intoxicated drivers. Army commanders will take appropriate action against intoxicated drivers. These actions may include the following: ( a ) A written reprimand, administrative in nature, will be issued to active duty Soldiers in the cases described in this paragraph (a). Any general officer, and any officer frocked to the grade of brigadier general, may issue this reprimand. Filing of the reprimand will be in accordance with the provisions of AR 600-37. ( 1 ) Conviction by courts-martial or civilian court or imposition of nonjudicial punishment for an offense of drunk or impaired driving either on or off the installation.
( 2 ) Refusal to take or failure to complete a lawfully requested test to measure alcohol or drug content of the blood, breath, or urine, either on or off the installation, when there is reasonable belief of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
( 3 ) Driving or being in physical control of a motor vehicle on post when the blood alcohol content is 0.08 percent or higher, irrespective of other charges, or off post when the blood alcohol content is in violation of the law of the State involved.
( 4 ) Driving, or being in physical control of a motor vehicle, either on or off the installation, when lawfully conducted chemical tests reflect the presence of illegal drugs.
( b ) Review by the commander of the service records of active duty soldiers apprehended for offenses described in paragraph (a) of this section to determine if the following action(s) should be taken— ( 1 ) Administrative reduction per AR 600-8-19, or
( 2 ) Bar to reenlistment per AR 601-280, or
( 3 ) Administrative separation per AR 635-200.
Order entered July 9, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00626-CV

ABEL TINOCO, Appellant

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, 

AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., 

ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-R5, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-06315-A

ORDER

This Court has dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution. Accordingly, we DENY as 

moot appellant’s May 13, 2013 expedited motion for leave to file a notice of appeal.

/s/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL 

JUSTICE
#### Helene Adler et al., Copartners v. A. & M. Diamond Corp.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before February 28, 1961, with notice of argument for the April 1961 Term of this court, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
From: Stoneman, Chris

Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 1:39 PM To: Lawrie, Peter ENV:EX Cc: Holtrop, Bryan; BECKHAM, LISA Subject: RE: General Permit for New or Modified Minor Sources of Modified Minor Sources of Air Pollution In Indian Country

- Sawmi lls

Hi Mr. Lawrie:

The 25 Mbf/year number in the draft sawmill’s permit is a 12

- month rolling total as follows:

“Production of finished lumber shall not exceed 25 million board feet (Mbf) per year based on a 12

- month rolling total. The 12

- month rolling total is determined by the sum of the current month’s production and the previous 11 month’s production.”

We have yet to finalize the permit but as envisioned the source would need to track bf on a monthly basis and plan accordingly over the appropriate period.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Chris Stoneman USEPA 919

- 541

- 0823 Stoneman.chris@epa.gov

From: Lawrie, Peter ENV:EX [mailto:Peter.Lawrie@gov.bc.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:32 PM To: Stoneman, Chris Cc: Lachance, Nikki ENV:EX Subject: General Permit for New or Modified Minor Sources of Modified Minor Sources of Air Pollution In Indian Country

- Sawmills

Dear Colleague,

Can someone direct me to how it is determined if a sa wmill meets the 25 million board feet/12 months threshold of the General permit? Is it based on actual production or on system design? Does the client self

- declare? Other?

Peter D. Lawrie P.Ag Senior Environmental Protection Officer Northe rn Region, BC Environment 325

- 1011

- 4th Ave., Prince George, V2L 3H9 Ph (250) 565

- 6528 Fax (250) 565

- 6629Please be aware that while your inquiries are important to us, due to a

high workload volume within the Northern Region a response can be
exp ected in the next five business days. If you do not receive a response in the next five business days, please feel free to resend your message. Inquiries/applications are reviewed on a first in, first out basis.

If this is an ongoing environmental emergency, please call the 24

- hour Spill/Environmental Emergency Reporting line at 1

- 800

- 663

- 3456. Report All Poachers and Polluters (RAPP) tip

- line: 1

- 877

- 952

- 7277 (Conservation Officer Service)
EXHIBIT 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | Registration
 Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87153, 333-89308, 333-123712 and 333-172127)
 pertaining to the1999 Stock Option Plan, the 2005 Equity Compensation
 Incentive Plan and the 2011 Incentive Plan;
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | (2) | Registration
 Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-168311)                                                                                                                                                         

of our report dated October 14, 2011, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Enzo Biochem, Inc., and our report dated
October 14, 2011, with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Enzo Biochem, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Enzo Biochem, Inc.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Jericho, New York 
October 14, 2011

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5


<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      699,679
<SECURITIES>                                34,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               585,696
<ALLOWANCES>                                (97,720)
<INVENTORY>                                 194,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,491,060
<PP&E>                                      145,955
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,817,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       7,110,159
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    12,611
<OTHER-SE>                                  791,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,817,570
<SALES>                                     5,192,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            5,192,905
<CGS>                                       6,407,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               6,407,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,738,253
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            647,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          375,917
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,818,116)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,818,116)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,818,116)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.46)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald Lee Garvey, Appellant.

The judgment of conviction must be reversed. The question of fact as to the sufficiency of the corroboration evidence should have been submitted to the jury. The testimony of the witnesses Brannen as *684to complainant’s statements was hearsay and it was error to admit it. If it were not for the errors of law we would affirm. Judgment of conviction reversed, on the law, and a new trial ordered. Berga.n, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, J.J., concur.
#### HALL v. IRWIN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

In the matter of Charles W. Hall against George C. Irwin.

No opinion. Motion denied.
#### COMMISSIONER OF LABOR OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC.

No. 504PA96

(Filed 7 November 1997)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 124 N.C. App. 349, 477 S.E.2d 230 (1996), reversing the order entered 12 September 1995 by Johnson (E. Lynn), J., in Superior Court, Hoke County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 October 1997.

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Hilda Bumett-Baker, Special Deputy Attorney General, and Daniel D. Addison, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Jordan, Price, Wall, Gray & Jones, L.L.P., by Henry W. Jones, Jr., and A. Hope Derby, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
#### Ernest R. Wunner et al., Appellants, v Raymond M. Maguire et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*for fraud and breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered July 26, 1978, as, upon their motion for a priority to first take the depositions of the defendants and to have the taking of such depositions supervised by a Justice, directed that the depositions were to proceed in accordance with the priority of the notices and failed to direct that there be supervision by a Justice. Order modified by deleting therefrom the provision that the depositions are to proceed in accordance with the priority of the notices and substituting therefor a provision granting a priority to the plaintiffs to first take the depositions of the defendants. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to the plaintiffs. The examinations shall proceed at the place designated in the order under review, at a time to be fixed by the plaintiffs in a written notice of not less than 10 days, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree. In this action one of the individual defendants is an attorney who allegedly represented the plaintiffs and entered into a business relationship with them. The pertinent facts as to the issues are within the sole knowledge of the defendants. The circumstances merit that the plaintiffs have priority of examination (see *McKenzie Mgt. & Research Co. v Lee Nat. Corp.,*36 AD2d 602; cf. *Solow v Solow,*5 AD2d 848). Latham, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MPOWER SOFTWARE SERVICES, LLC, 

AND MPOWER MANAGED SERVICES, 

LLC.

v.

AMERICAN WATER WORKS SERVICE 

COMPANY, INC. AND VIRTUAL 

DYNAMIX, LLC

PETITION OF: AMERICAN WATER 

WORKS SERVICE COMPANY, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 354 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
### §2284. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–362, title I, §101(c), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3281

Section, Pub. L. 95–113, title XVIII, §1804, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 1041; Pub. L. 97–98, title XI, §1116(a), Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1270, required annual reports to Congress.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.519-1 Main power circuits; disconnecting switches; locations.

Section 75.519 requires (a) that a disconnecting switch be installed on the surface at a point within 500 feet of the place where the main power circuit enters the underground area of a mine, and (b) that, in an instance on which a main power circuit enters the underground area through a shaft or borehole, a disconnecting switch be installed underground within 500 feet of the bottom of the shaft or borehole.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (SEC File # 333-83504), filed on February 27, 2002, of our independent
accountant's review report dated August 13, 2003 relating to the unaudited
consolidated balance sheets of Composite Technology Corporation (SEC File
#0-10999, CIK # 317477) as of June 30, 2003 and 2002 and the related statements
of operations and comprehensive loss for the nine and three months ended June
30, 2003 and 2002 and the related statements of cash flows for each of the nine
months ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, respectively, which report appears in the
Annual Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Composite Technology Corporation.

                                                  /s/ S. W. Hatfield, CPA
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  S. W. HATFIELD, CPA
Dallas, Texas
December 13, 2003
CEHR-E

Engineer Pamphlet

690-1-11(13)

Department of the Army

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC 20314-1000

EP 690-1-11(13)

1 January 1996

Command-wide Recruitment and 

Outreach Materials

CAREER PROFILE SUPPLEMENT -

PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is 

unlimited.
#### Ruth Lockwood, as Guardian ad Litem of Carol Jagiello, an Infant, Respondent, v. Edwin T. Jagiello, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to either party and a new trial granted. Memorandum: In this separation action brought by the respondent wife on the ground of cruelty, the appellant husband interposed a general denial and a counterclaim for a judgment of divorce by reason of allegations of adultery by the wife. At the opening of the trial, the husband withdrew his counterclaim for divorce upon the following stipulation agreed upon by the attorneys for the parties: “ Without prejudice, and instituting in the amended answer in place and stead of the counterclaim for a divorce, a defense to the separation action brought by the plaintiff as an affirmative defense of adultery with respect to the separation.” At various times during the trial the husband offered proof of acts of adultery by the wife but each time was prevented from presenting this evidence and was even reprimanded by the court who said: “We are not trying a divorce case here. It has been withdrawn.” Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the counterclaim, the stipulation specifically provided that the husband could present proof of the adulterous acts as a defense to the separation action and the refusal of the trial court to permit presentation of this evidence was reversible error and makes a new trial necessary. The separation judgment granted the wife gave her custody of the two children, both under three years of age, with visitation rights to the husband. Companion appeals decided herewith involve two habeas corpus proceedings resulting from the violation by the husband of the custody provisions of the separation judgment. In these habeas corpus proceedings the husband attempted to justify his conduct by serious allegations of unfitness of the wife, and the children are at the present time, by reason of a stay granted in this court, living with the husband or *with members of his*family. The stay is vacated. The children should be immediately returned to the wife. This court is greatly concerned about the welfare of the children and directs that this matter be resolved at the earliest possible date. The new trial ordered herein should be had at the next term of Supreme Court for the County of Oneida. So that there may be a fresh approach to this matter, the new trial should be presided over by a Justice who has not participated in the prior trial or in any of the other proceedings. The question of custody of the children should be fully explored at the new trial so that the determination which results therefrom will, so far as possible protect the health and welfare of these very young children. (Appeal from judgment of Oneida Special Term in favor of plaintiff and granting custody of children to plaintiff and support and counsel fees.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Ilalpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE
PERIOD DECEMBER 31, 1995.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         749,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               809,261
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 809,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     809,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   809,261
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               357,872
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   329,129
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>