alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(June 21, 1962)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Howard Brown, Appellant, v. W. Cecil Johnston, as Director of Dannemora State Hospital, Respondent.

The defendant-appellant appeals from an order of the County Court, Clinton County, dismissing his writ of habeas corpus. It appears that the defendant’s attorney moved upon his trial for an examination of the defendant’s mental condition, hut that such motion was denied and the ease went to the jury, which convicted the defendant. Thereafter, when the defendant duly appeared for sentencing he was asked the question pursuant to section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure “ and his attorney answering in the affirmative, and the court having ruled that there is no legal cause ”, In essence it is argued by defendant that he was in effect not asked the question under section 480, because he was not then mentally competent to understand it. However, it appears that his attorney did answer the question for him, and if the attorney specifically objected upon the ground that defendant was mentally incompetent, then the matter was finally disposed of by the appeal in the original case. *(People*v. *Brown,*5 A D 2d 871.) Subsequently he applied for a writ of error *coram nobis,*which was denied. Upon appeal the court stated: *“*The ground now urged was previously considered by the court on a prior appeal from the judgment of conviction, which this court affirmed.” *(People*v. *Brown,*11 A D 2d 731.) The defendant was represented by counsel and since such counsel did actually answer, section 480 was substantially complied with and there is no showing that the court did not have jurisdiction to sentence this prisoner. The question of his sanity has been finally determined by the original appeal above referred to and cannot now be considered by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. From the record before us, we are unable to find any evidence of the alleged insanity of the defendant. After he was found guilty by the jury of the charges contained in the indictment, when arraigned upon information pursuant to section 1943 of the Penal Law, he remained mute and was thereafter tried on the issue of his identification. It further appears that he knew what questions to answer in his own best interest and which questions not to answer. It is interesting to note the answers or lack thereof as to his pedigree. Likewise, when asked if he waived two-day notice of sentence, he gave no answer, resulting in his being remanded for two additional days before sentence. We find no merit to the contentions sought to be raised! Order unanimously affirmed. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Taylor, JJ.
#### CARROLL v. KOONTZ

No. 410P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 208

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.
1/4/13 page of



### POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-13-0065 Reviewer: Tobias/SS

Results Table: Dose, Concentration, and Days Exceeded Results Summary

Exposure Scenario 1 Water Landfill Stack Air Fugitive Air Drinking Water Fish Ingestion
ADR LADD ADR LADD 7Q10 4
CC = 1 PDM Days Exceede d LADD ADR LADD ADR LADD

Release activity(ies) 2 ; exposure calculation(s) 3 mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day μg/l # Days mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day mg/kg/day

max acute eco --- --- --- --- 2.17E+00 --- --- --- --- --- ---

1 Exposure scenario titles consist of release activity followed by exposure calculation abbreviation. 2 Release activities are from engineering report's Manuf acturing (Mfg), Processing (Proc) and Use release activity labels.Multiple release activities are combined in one exposure scenario if their releases occur at same location. 3 Exposure calculations are Acute Dose Rate (A DR), Lifetime Average Daily Dose (LADD), and Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM). Th ere may be one, two, or all three exposure calculations per exposure scenario.CC is the aquatic concentration of concern. 4 This column displays concentration values for the 7Q 10 streamflow, which is defined as the average daily streamflow of the seven consecutive days of lowest flow within a ten year period.

Remarks: 

### Fate test recommendations?: (default is NA)1/4/13 page of

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-13-0065 Assessor: Tobias/SS

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES

Scenario#:1 Number of Release Sites: Release Activity: Max ADR
Release Description: WATER LANDFILL Non-sludge/Sludge STACK FUGITIVE

Total Releases: (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Non-sludge/Sludge Release Days/yr:

Per Site Release: (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day) (kg/site/day)

Remarks:1/4/13 page of

POST FOCUS EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P-13-0065

SIC-CODE BASED HUMAN AND AQUATIC EXPOSURES TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

SCENARIO #: 1 Number of Sites: RELEASE ACTIVITY: Max ADR

SIC-CODE DESCRIPTION: POTW's (All facilities) SIC-CODE (S): 4952 EX POSED POPULATION: Adult

WWT REMOVAL (%) RELEASE DAYS PRETREATMENT RELEASE (kg/site/day) POSTTREATMENT RELEASE (kg/site/day) DWT (%) BCF (L/kg)

0.00 0.00

AQUATIC EXPOSURE ESTIMATES - SURFACE WATER

PLANT TYPE % ILE FACILITY STREAM FLOW (MLD) STREAM CONC. ( μ g/l)

Harmonic

Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10 Harmonic Mean 30Q5 7Q10 1Q10

ALL 50 125.56 44.02 26.80 22.53 1.83E-02 5.22E-02 8.58E-02 0.10

ALL 10 11.11 1.94 1.06 0.96 0.21 1.19 2.17 2.40

DRINKING WATER AND FISH IN GESTION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES

Exposure Units Drinking Water Results Drinking Water Units Fish Ingestion Results Fish Ingestion

Units 50% 10% 50% 10%

Cancer

LADD pot 3.91E-10 4.42E-09 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day

LADC pot 2.01E-08 2.27E-07 mg/L 0.00 0.00 mg/kg

Acute

ADR pot 4.37E-06 9.91E-05 mg/kg/day 0.00 0.00 mg/kg/day

SIC Code Comments:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 265 )

WELFARE FUND, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION

)

vs. ) NO. 12 C 0636

)

ANTHONY DORMAN, individually and d/b/a ) JUDGE EDMOND E. CHANG

JDR, )

)

Defendant. )

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND JUDGMENT

NOWCOME Plaintiffs, bytheir attorneys, andmove for entryof judgment bydefault against

Defendant, ANTHONY DORMAN, individually and d/b/a JDR, in the total amount of $31,365.31,

plus Plaintiffs’ court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,812.75. 

On February 19, 2012, the Summons and Complaint was served on the Defendant,

personally, at his residence/place of business (a copy of the Summons and Affidavit of Service is

attached hereto). Therefore, Defendant’s answer was due on March 12, 2012. As Defendant has

failed to timely answer the Complaint, Plaintiffs respectfully request entry of default and judgment.

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 

Case: 1:12-cv-00636 Document #: 10 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, an attorney of record, hereby certifies that she electronically filed the

foregoing document (Motion for Entry of Default and Judgment) with the Clerk of Court using the

CM/ECF system, and further certifies that I have mailed the above-referenced document by United

States Mail to the following non-CM/ECF participant on or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. this 18th

day of April 2012:

Mr. Anthony Dorman

JDR

23 W. Willow Street

Lombard, IL 60148

/s/ Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer 

Jennifer L. Dunitz-Geiringer

Attorney for Plaintiffs

BAUM SIGMAN AUERBACH & NEUMAN, LTD.

200 West Adams Street, Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60606-5231

Bar No.: 6237001

Telephone: (312) 236-4316

Facsimile: (312) 236-0241

E-Mail: jdunitz.geiringer@baumsigman.com

I:\265J\JDR\motion.jdg.df.wpd

Case: 1:12-cv-00636 Document #: 10 Filed: 04/18/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:22
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APf>E

P.Ql,BPXJ.23i98, CAPITOL SXATJtONrAUSTiyr.;

OFFICIAL BUSINESS --

STATE @FTEH

PEMALTY FOR

12/15/2014 PRIVATE USE

LOPEZ, DAVID REY tryCt.ct^oJ'^9&^

On this day, the application forr11 07 Writ of Habeas Corpus has been received

and presented to the Court. *»>.

"c^":t Abel Acosta, Clerk

**?ECS8&

DAVID REY LOPEZ

riEBHSB 77002

02 1R

0002003152 DEC22 2014

MAILED FROM Zly^f^Qjr.1? g3*>|L04
#### 1332.1108 Payment by Governmentwide commercial purchase card.

Use of the Governmentwide commercial purchase card is subject to the requirements of the FAR, other internal Departmental policies, as well as operating unit policies and procedures related to the purchase card. All purchases made with the purchase card must comply with all procedures and documentation requirements that apply to the procurement action.
COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

 CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

IRENE RIOS

 JUSTICES

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

October 31, 2017

Andrew Warthen

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

101 W. Nueva St.

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Kevin Stryker

Attorney at Law

217 Arden Grove St.

San Antonio, TX 78215

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-17-00319-CR, 04-17-00320-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 2013CR10739W, 2013CR4990

Style: John K. Marlon 

v.

The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on December 12, 2017, to the following panel:

Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, and Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa. 

All parties will be notified of the Court’s decision in this appeal in accordance with TEX. R. APP.

P. 48.

Either party may file a motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 39.8. Such a motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this letter.

Very truly yours,

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

cc: Nicholas A. LaHood (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
#### § 855.16 Parking and storage.

The time that an aircraft spends on an installation is at the discretion of the installation commander or a designated representative but should be linked to the purpose of use authorized. Parking and storage may be permitted on a nonexclusive, temporary, or intermittent basis, when compatible with military requirements. At those locations where there are Air Force aero clubs, parking and storage privileges may be permitted in the area designated for aero club use without regard for the purpose of use authorized, if consistent with aero club policies. Any such permission may be revoked upon notice, based on military needs and the installation commander's discretion.
Hello,

My concern is high concentrations of road salt altering the chemical

composition of the streams. I have been measuring the conductivity of the

Scioto River and its tributaries in central Ohio since December of 2009.

Outside of wintertime , the streams normally read 400

- 600 microsimens per

square centimeter (the bedrock is limestone, which gives off calcium). I

obtained readings of 1430, 1560, and 1830 in January of 2010. In

correspondence with people studying mine waste pollution, I 've learned that

levels around 2000 and above approach toxicity for aquatic life. It is

unclear how much injury occurs at lower levers, short of death but

nevertheless an impairment.

I am not aware of any standards for freshwater stream conductivity l imits,

nor any standards or rules regarding how municpalities or property managers

may apply salts and other substances like fertilizer used as sidewalk salt.

If this parameter is not currently regulated, it should be, and at the

federal level instead of relying on local governments to adopt differing

standards, or no standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Alex Silbajoris

Chair, Friends of the Scioto River
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,317
<COMMON>                                     6,564,330
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,036,637)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<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>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form 10-Q
dated November 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  622,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    729,653
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,438,025
<PP&E>                                       1,526,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                 800,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,567,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,113,123
<BONDS>                                        618,976
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,262
<COMMON>                                       467,874
<OTHER-SE>                                     309,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,567,733
<SALES>                                      2,359,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,389,279
<CGS>                                        2,255,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,272,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,019
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,864
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,051
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,892
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,892
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1203.303 Reporting suspected antitrust violations. ( b ) The same procedures contained in 1203.203 shall be followed for suspected antitrust violations, except reports of suspected antitrust violations shall be coordinated with legal counsel for referral to the Department of Justice, if deemed appropriate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1998
<CASH>                                           5,619
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,822
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,822
<INVENTORY>                                     11,148
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,071
<PP&E>                                           4,550
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,526
<BONDS>                                         20,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,623
<COMMON>                                           513
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,964
<SALES>                                         58,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,126
<CGS>                                           51,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,009
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 569
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    763
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (1)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                764
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       764
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Morris, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. (See *People*v. *Kling,*19 A D 2d 750, affd. 14 N Y 2d 571.) (Appeal from order of Erie County Court denying, following a hearing, motion to vacate a judgment of conviction *740for robbery, second degree, rendered December 27, 1957.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Matthew F. Kennelly Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 616 DATE 3/12/2012

CASE

TITLE

Shannon Estese vs. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted [3]. The Marshal is appointed to serve the

defendant with summons and the complaint. Plaintiff is directed to cooperate with the Marshal as requested

in effectuating service of process. The case is set for a status hearing on 5/31/12 at 9:30 a.m. in Judge

Kennelly's courtroom (Room 2103). If plaintiff fails to appear at that time, the case may be dismissed for

want of prosecution.

Docketing to mail notices.

 Courtroom Deputy

Initials:

mk

12C616 Shannon Estese vs. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:10
Case: 1:12-cv-00616 Document #: 5 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:11
**EXHIBIT 23**
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (From 10-K) of Tellabs, Inc. ofour reports dated March 10, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Tellabs,Inc., Tellabs, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Tellabs, Inc.,included in the Tellabs 2004 Annual Report to shareholders.
Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Tellabs, Inc. listed in Item 15(a).This schedule is the responsibility of Tellabs, Inc.’s management. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referredto above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presentsfairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-45788,33-48972, 33-55487, 333-49557, 333-83509, 333-87637, 333-95135,333-56546, 333-81360, 333-107457 333-116794 and 333-122712, and Form S-4 No. 333-116794) of our reports dated March 10, 2005, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements and schedule of Tellabs, Inc., Tellabs Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting of Tellabs, Inc. included and incorporated byreference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

MEMORANDUM

TO: Julie Morgan

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

By the authority vested in me by sections 202 and 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. §3412 and §3472, I hereby delegate to you the authority to 

perform the functions and duties vested by law and other delegations in the position of 

Under Secretary.

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority 

delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS 

None.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon vacancies in the positions of Under Secretary and First 

Assistant to the position of Under Secretary, if one exists, and certification by the 

Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer. It remains in effect until a nominee 

is confirmed and sworn-in to the position of Under Secretary, an acting officer fills the 

position, or another individual is delegated the authority to perform the functions and 

duties of the position, whichever occurs first.

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of 

certification.

Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D.

______________/s_________

OGC Concurrence and Date: Tracey Sasser 04/16/21

Certified Date: 4/16/21

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Control Number: EA/EE/48