alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Jehan Abdur-Raheem, Petitioner, v John W. Burge, as Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[835 NYS2d 457]—

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which directed that petitioner be placed in administrative segregation.

In December 2005, petitioner, a Muslim, was served with an administrative segregation recommendation based on his being suspected of, among other things, influencing other Muslim inmates to stay in their cells during Ramadan and being the catalyst behind an inmate strike earlier in the year. Following a hearing, it was determined that petitioner’s continued presence in the general population would pose a threat to the safety and security of the prison facility. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal. As a result, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Initially, we are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that his due process rights were violated. Petitioner claims that the segregation recommendation was made in retaliation for grievances he had filed, that the Hearing Officer was biased and that he could not prepare a defense because the recommendation was deficient in its details. The right to raise these issues, however, was forfeited by petitioner when he refused to attend the hearing *(see Matter of Al Jihad v Mann,*159 AD2d 914, 915 [1990], *lv denied*76 NY2d 706 [1990]; *see also Matter of Hamilton v Goord,*32 AD3d 642, 643 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d *928715 [2006]). He was given the opportunity to present his views and respond to the segregation recommendation, yet chose to forgo that opportunity *(see Matter of Burr v Goord,*17 AD3d 751, 752 [2005]).

Furthermore, the segregation recommendation, together with the testimony and evidence at the hearing, provide substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner negatively influenced other Muslim inmates such that his removal from the general population was in the best interest of the facility’s safety and security *(see Matter of Obregon v Goord,*36 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2007]; *Matter of Rosales v Goord,*265 AD2d 713 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 758 [2000]).

Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cr−00116

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, November 30, 2016:

 MINUTE entry as to Peter Borgia Jr., before the Honorable Thomas M.

Durkin:Defendant's motion for early termination of supervised release [17] is granted

without objection. Defendant's term of supervised release is hereby terminated as

satisfactory. Mailed notice (srn, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cr-00116 Document #: 21 Filed: 11/30/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:59
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03531

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
June 8, 2015

The Honorable Anthony Foxx

Secretary

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Docket No. OST-2013-0204

Dear Secretary Foxx:

The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) again writes in support of 

Norwegian Air International's (NAI) application to provide greater competitive 

service in the transatlantic air travel market. NAI's application was 

completed in February 2014. While we appreciate a careful review by the 

Department on important matters such as this, this process is of unprecedented 

duration denying consumers for 16 months the benefit of greater competitive 

choice in the increasingly concentrated air service market between the US and 

Europe. Fairness, and the new facts below, dictate an expeditious decision 

approving NAI's application for a foreign air carrier permit.

In its Motion for Leave to File and Expedited Treatment, NAI voluntarily 

committed to address the two principal concerns that have been raised by 

opponents of its labor model. Specifically, we understand it has agreed to 

only use US and European crews for transatlantic flights, as well as direct 

employees of the company. Given these important voluntarily concessions, these 

concerns have now been cured clearing the way for Department approval.

Mr. Secretary, GOAA regards opposition to NAI's foreign air carrier permit 

application to be part of a very troubling, anti-competitive pattern. It is a 

pattern that makes it imperative for you to stand on the side of consumers and 

communities that benefit significantly from new air service, and to firmly 

oppose self-interested demands by a select few to stifle competition. The same 

industry stakeholders opposing NAI's application are coalescing to separately 

urge you to retroactively freeze new competition from Gulf Carriers, including 

Emirates Airline's new Orlando-Dubai non-stop flight that will launch on 

September 1. That new flight will vastly increase competitive choice for 

Orlando-area consumers, increase travel options for global visitors to Central 

Florida, and deliver more than a $100 million annual economic boost to the 

Orlando area economy. GOAA is counting on your leadership to protect and 

promote the interest of consumers, and for you to continue to make greater 

competitive choice the North Star of the Department's aviation policy.

Thank you for considering GOAA's views in this important matter. Given the 

voluntary commitments NAI has made, we urge you to expeditiously approve its 

foreign air carrier permit application. 

Respectfully,

Phillip N. Brown

Executive Director
#### Marilyn Domroe, Respondent, v. Louis Kessler et al., Defendants, and Solomon B. Terkeltoub, Appellant.

In an action by a widow against an insurance company and the named beneficiary of a $6,000 insurance policy issued upon the life of plaintiff’s deceased husband, to declare plaintiff entitled to its proceeds for the use and benefit of the three infant issue of the marriage, plaintiff’s attorney appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 15, 1961, as directed the payment to him of the sum of $1,000 for his services in obtaining virtually full *792relief for the plaintiff after trial, the entry of judgment in her favor and an appeal therefrom, and after effectuating a settlement during the pendency of such appeal. On this appeal plaintiff’s attorney contends that the allowance to him of $1,000 is inadequate. Plaintiff herself has appeared in person and has consented in writing to an award to her attorney (appellant) of a sum equal to one third of the proceeds now on deposit with the Treasurer of the City of New York. Order, insofar as appealed from, modified on the facts and in the exercise of discretion so as to allow to appellant for his services the sum of $2,000, inclusive of disbursements, payable out of the fund now on deposit with the Treasurer of the City of New York. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the award of $1,000 was inadequate. Under all the circumstances here, we believe that appellant’s fee, in accordance with the statutory mandate of “ suitable ” compensation (Judiciary Law, § 474), should have been fixed more nearly at the usual and customary level approximating one third of the gross recovery (cf. *Liss*v. *McCrory Stores*Corp., 7 A D 2d 738). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
> OCR conducted a compliance review of the University of Montana – Helena regarding its compliance with the regulatory requirements of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 at 34 CFR 104.21 and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) at 28 CFR 35.149 with respect to the physical accessibility of the university’s facilities, programs, and services.  OCR conducted a site visit in June 2009 when it reviewed the accessibility of the university’s facilities and interviewed university staff and students regarding accessibility issues.  OCR also reviewed the university’s accessibility policies.  Based on identified compliance concerns, OCR obtained an agreement in August 2010 to resolve the concerns.  In the agreement, the university agreed to 1)  develop grievance procedures that provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of Section 504-related complaints; and 2) remedy identified accessibility concerns related to its parking areas, restrooms, classrooms, and accessible interior and exterior routes.  OCR continues to monitor the university’s corrective actions via the settlement agreement. ***Read the Resolution Letter***  | ***Read the Compliance Agreement***

Top
#### Mark L. SLINGWINE, Administrator of the Estate of Gary Slingwine, Plaintiff, v. Edward GUMIENIK, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 15-70 Erie.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

May 8, 1970.

*749Byron A. Baur, Erie, Pa., for defendant.

Leonard E. Price, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

WEBER, District Judge.

On March 26, 1970 Defendant filed “Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment on the Pleadings.” Counsel attached a certficate of service of a copy of the motion on plaintiff’s counsel by mail the same date.

On April 20, 1970 the Court issued a Memorandum Order calling for Plaintiff to file his Response to said Motion and any supporting evidentiary materials and brief on or before May 1, 1970. Nothing has beey received to this date.

On May 7, 1970, Defendant, the moving party, filed a brief.

We have before us the following facts established from the pleadings of defendant’s evidentiary matters:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed Feb. 17, 1970. Par. 4 of the Complaint avers that Plaintiff’s decedent died Feb. 17, 1968. Therefore the Wrongful Death cause of action is barred by the Pennsylvania statute, 12 P.S. § 1603 which requires that such actions be brought within one year of death and not thereafter.

2- Plaintiff’s Complaint shows that this is an action brought by a Pennsylvania administrator against an individual residing in New York state, arising out of an accident in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Jurisdiction is based on diversity and Pennsylvania law controls.

3. Plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavit and the attached report of the Coroner of Erie County, Pennsylvania, establish that the accident causing the injuries from which decedent died occurred on February 9, 1968. The law of Pennsylvania applies the statute of limitations to Survival Actions under the Act of 1937 as two years from the time of the accident causing the injuries. Stegner v. Fenton, 351 Pa. 292, 40 A.2d 473 (1945); Stafford v. Roadway Transit Co., 165 F.2d 920 (3rd Cir. 1948).

Therefore, the pleadings and evidentiary matters on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under F.R. Civ.P. 56(c).

It is therefore ordered this 8th day of May, 1970 that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby dismissed. Judgment is entered for Defendant.
#### Vesey Associates, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Regime Realty Corp. et al., Respondents.

Judgment, dismissing the complaint on motion for *921summary judgment, affirmed on the opinion of Mr. Justice Lureto at Special Terra [35 Misc 3d 353], Concur— Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Eager and Bergan, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in part, in the following memorandum: I dissent, in part, and vote lo modify the judgment by denying summary judgment in favor of defendant Belinsky. This defendant is not a party to the contract which contains the disclaimer as to representations regarding the physical condition of the premises. A question of fact is present as to the extent of the representations allegedly made by Belinsky. The disclaimer establishes the representations, if made, were beyond the scope of Belinsky’s authority as an officer of defendant Regime Realty Corp. *(Wittenberg*v. *Robinov,*9 N Y 2d 261, 264.)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Evelyn E. Manley, Respondent, v. Nicholson Transit Co. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*717Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the employer and its carrier from a decision and award of death benefits on the ground that there is no substantial evidence of causal relation between decedent’s death and a prior work-connected myocardial infarction. On December 12, 1956 decedent, a tugboat captain and part-time stevedore, suffered a myocardial infarction precipitated by carbon monoxide poisoning. This incident was concededly work-connected and decedent received compensation benefits until he returned to work on April 18, 1957. Decedent had no prior history of cardiac difficulty; there was, however, a diagnosis at that time of an unrelated diabetes mellitus condition. In February, 1960 the board made a finding of permanent partial disability, which was not appealed, but no benefits were awarded because decedent was then earning full wages as a tugboat captain. On April 14, 1960 decedent was admitted to the hospital with a pathological fracture of the right femur diagnosed as due to cancer of the right kidney. He also was found to be suffering from coronary arteriosclerotic heart disease with angina and diabetes mellitus. Treatment for these conditions required periodic hospitalization during the remainder of 1960 and until his death on November 11, 1961. The death certificate listed the cause of death as “ carcinoma right femur ” and “ general metastasis of the pelvis long bones — kidneys ” as contributing factors. The record, however, contains testimony that the coronary disease and diabetic condition should also have been mentioned in the death certificate. The board, after hearing conflicting medical opinions as to whether the prior myocardial infarction was a contributing factor in decedent’s demise, determined that it was. Of course, if this decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot disturb it (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 23; *Matter of Palermo*v. *Gallucci & Sons,*5 N Y 2d 529). Appellant’s assert that the testimony by the sole expert opining causal relationship is speculative and of no probative value, thus removing from the record any evidence to uphold the board’s decision. This is a very weak, close case on causal relationship, but while we might hope for more clarity in an expert’s explanation of his opinion, we cannot say that his testimony as a whole does not meet the test of *Matter of Ernest*v. *Boggs Lake Estates*(12 N T 2d 414). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
S. Con. Res. 26 Agreed to October 25, 2017

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR UNVEILING OF AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR/MISSING IN ACTION (POW/MIA) 

CHAIR OF HONOR. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor 

Center is authorized to be used for an event on November 8, 

2017, to unveil the American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action 

(POW/MIA) Chair of Honor. 

(b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the conduct of 

the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in 

accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the 

Architect of the Capitol. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2600

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

July 2, 2020

SENT VIA EMAIL – CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Honorable Dr. Michael Johnson 

Commissioner of Education 

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 

801 West 10th Street, #200, P.O. Box 110500 

Juneau, Alaska 99811 

michael.johnson2@alaska.gov 

Dear Commissioner Johnson: 

This letter grants final approval under Section 421(b) of the General Education Provisions Act 

for grant award H027A180016 and H173A180019. 

The Department received your June 12, 2020 request on behalf of the Alaska Department of

Education and Early Development for a waiver extending the period of availability for Federal 

fiscal year (FFY) 2018 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B grant award 

funds. 

With this approval, the FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant award funds will be available for 

obligation through September 30, 2021 and may be liquidated through December 30, 2021. 

Please contact your Office of Special Education Programs State Lead, Mohamed Soliman, at 

Mohamed.Soliman@ed.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/

Mark Schultz 

Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration 

Delegated the authority to perform the functions and 

duties of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services 

cc: State Director
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

y1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143496 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143496 

 COA: 300498 

Genesee CC: 07-021903-FC 

KYLE ROBERT PALMATEER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2011 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0232

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SEAN MCKELVEY CALAHAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ED

MAY 1 8 2021

Bovven Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

';tata elf Montana

ORDER

Counsel for Appellant Sean McKelvey Calahan moves this Court to withdraw

representation as attorney of record because the scope of representation did not include an

appeal. Counsel points out that Calahan has been incarcerated for more than a year, lacks

the resources for such an endeavor. and indigent. Counsel requests appointment of counsel

from the Appellate Defender Division.

Upon review of the motion and good cause, therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED, and that appointment

of appellate counsel is GRANTED. The Appellate Defender Division shall have thirty

days from the date of this Order within which to file either a Notice of Appearance or a

Motion to Rescind this Order appointing counsel. In the event the Appellant qualifies for

appointed counsel, the Appellate Defender Division shall immediately order transcripts.

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to the

Appellate Defender Division, to counsel of record, and to Sean McKelvey - Calahan

personally. L11,

DATED this 1 e —day of May, 2021.

For the Court,

By

Chief Justice

05/18/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0232
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alphonso Peele, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur—Valente, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
#### 212.211 Technical data.

The DoD policy for acquiring technical data for commercial products or commercial services is at 227.7102.

[73 FR 4114, Jan. 24, 2008, as amended at 88 FR 6582, Jan. 31, 2023]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01774]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14430-0093]


Apple Inc., Monroe Hydro, LLC; Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. On January 8, 2021, Apple Inc., exemptee for the Monroe Drop 
Hydroelectric Project No. 14430, filed a letter notifying the 
Commission that the project was transferred from Apple Inc. to Monroe 
Hydro, LLC. The exemption from licensing was originally issued on 
August 1, 2014.\1\ The project is located on the U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation's North Unit Irrigation District's Main Canal near the town 
of Culver, Jefferson County, Oregon. The transfer of an exemption does 
not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Monroe Hydro, LLC, 148 FERC ] 62,098 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Monroe Hydro, LLC is now the exemptee of the Monroe Drop 
Hydroelectric Project No. 14430. All correspondence must be forwarded 
to: Mrs. Gia Schneider, Monroe Hydro, LLC, 2401 Monarch Street, 
Alameda, CA 94501, Phone: (510) 606-9073.

    Dated: January 21, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01774 Filed 1-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 05, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 05, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0241. FRANK R. PASCARELLI et al. v. JAMES P. KOEHLER d/b/a TKO d/b/a COURTYARD CASPER.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 14A682
#### 22.604 Exemptions.
#### 1801.106 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The following OMB control numbers apply:

| NFS segment | OMB
control No. |
| --- | --- |
| 1819 | 2700-0078 |
| 1823 | 2700-0089 |
| 1827 | 2711-0052 |
| 1843 | 2700-0054 |
| 1852.223-70 | 2700-0160 |
| NF533 | 2700-0003 |
| NF1018 | 2700-0017 |

[88 FR 69884, Oct. 10, 2023]