alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017018EN.01002102.xml

| 19.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/21

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8302 — Koch Industries/Guardian Industries)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 18/04)

On 5 January 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8302. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8302. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Programs
|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

Performance Period:  five years.

An applicant that receives a grant award will be required to submit annual progress reports and a final report as a condition of the award.  The reports will document the extent to which project goals and objectives are met.

Not later than five years after the date of the establishment of the coordinating center, the coordinating center shall report to the Secretary, the authorizing committees, and the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity on the recommendations of the workgroup.

Institutional Service Home

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable view |
|        |

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | No Related Topics Found |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
#### 30.201 Contract requirements.

Title 48 CFR 9903.201-1 describes the rules for determining whether a proposed contract or subcontract is exempt from CAS. Negotiated contracts not exempt in accordance with 48 CFR 9903.201-1(b) shall be subject to CAS. A CAS-covered contract may be subject to either full or modified coverage. The rules for determining whether full or modified coverage applies are in 48 CFR 9903.201-2.

[57 FR 39587, Aug. 31, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 18916, Apr. 29, 1996; 62 FR 40237, July 25, 1997; 85 FR 67614, Oct. 23, 2020]
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 176 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating 

to ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 2, 2024 

Mr. PALMER submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Energy relating to ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Energy relating to ‘‘Energy Conservation 

5 Program: Energy Conservation Standards for MiscellaVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:31 Jul 02, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HJ176.IH HJ176

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 176 IH 

1 neous Refrigeration Products’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 38762 (May 

2 7, 2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### 252.225-7016 Restriction on Acquisition of Ball and Roller Bearings.

As prescribed in 225.7009-5, use the following clause:

# Restriction on Acquisition of Ball and Roller Bearings (JAN 2023)

(a) *Definitions.* As used in this clause—

(1) *Bearing component* means the bearing element, retainer, inner race, or outer race.

(2) *Component,* other than a bearing component, means any item supplied to the Government as part of an end product or of another component.

(3) *End product* means supplies delivered under a line item of this contract.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this clause—

(1) Each ball and roller bearing delivered under this contract shall be manufactured in the United States, its outlying areas, or Canada; and

(2) For each ball or roller bearing, the cost of the bearing components manufactured in the United States, its outlying areas, or Canada shall exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the bearing components of that ball or roller bearing.

(c) The restriction in paragraph (b) of this clause does not apply to ball or roller bearings that are acquired as—

(1) Commercial components of an other than commercial end product; or

(2) Commercial or other than commercial components of a commercial component of an other than commercial end product.

(d) The restriction in paragraph (b) of this clause may be waived upon request from the Contractor in accordance with subsection 225.7009-4 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.

(e) If this contract includes DFARS clause 252.225-7009, Restriction on Acquisition of Certain Articles Containing Specialty Metals, all bearings that contain specialty metals, as defined in that clause, must meet the requirements of that clause.

(f) *Subcontracts.* The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (f), in all subcontracts, except those for—

(1) Commercial products; or

(2) Items that do not contain ball or roller bearings.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 76300, Dec. 8, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 32843, June 6, 2011; 88 FR 6591, Jan. 31, 2023]
Exhibit 23.

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Wegener Corporation
Duluth, Georgia

     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statements (File No. 33-45390, No. 33-42007,  No. 33-62849,  No. 333-08017,  No.
333-27527,  No. 333-29887, No. 333-51205 and No. 333-29889) of our reports dated
October 22, 1998 relating to the consolidated  financial statements and schedule
of Wegener Corporation and Subsidiaries appearing in the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended August 28, 1998.


                                        /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Atlanta, Georgia                        BDO Seidman, LLP
November 10, 1998
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

20) ll-K- (B) -8 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:48 AM Sheet 20 of 325 
P.2 

A=© 

II-K-(B)-8 

MODELING ISSUES RELATED TO THE INDUSTRIAL BOILERS NSPS. 

Letter to R.L. Short, EPA:EAB to the Files. 

September 20, 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-8
#### 2841.201 Policy.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 41.201(d)(2)(i) and (d)(3).
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Trekeymian Jamal Allison, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00081

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 188th District Court of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 46,569

- A ). Memorandum Opinion deliver ed by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Trekeymian Jamal Allison, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 2 8 , 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### JONES v. WEST.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by Cornelia W. Jones against Augusta West.

No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 23-16 Filed: 12/03/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:834 Case 2:12-cv-01057-GMN -RJJ Document 83-50 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 2
Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 23-16 Filed: 12/03/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:835
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent 

Litigation 

 Case No. 1:11-cv-09308 

Judge James F. Holderman 

Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier This Document Relates To: 

1:12-cv-03865 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

On this day, Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Innovatio Management, LLC and Noel 

B. Whitley (collectively, “Innovatio”) and Jewel Food Stores, Inc. announced to the 

Court that they have settled their respective claims for relief asserted in the abovecaptioned actions. The Court, having considered this request, is of the opinion that their 

request for dismissal should be GRANTED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all claims and counterclaims by Innovatio 

against Defendant and by Defendant against Innovatio in the above-captioned actions, 

including Case Nos. 1:11-cv-09308 (consolidated) and 1:12-cv-03865, are dismissed, 

with prejudice to the re-filing of same. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses 

shall be borne by the party incurring the same. 

This is a final judgment. 

5/27/14 

_________________________________ 

James F. Holderman 

United States District Judge
#### 2849.106 Fraud or other criminal conduct.

If the contracting officer has reason to suspect fraud or other criminal conduct related to the settlement negotiations of a terminated contract, the contracting officer shall discontinue the negotiations and report the facts supporting the suspicion through the HCA or designee to the OIG.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

December 10, 2014 

Dear Colleague: 

We are delighted to announce the awards for the 2014 Preschool Development Grants competition. The 

goal of Preschool Development Grants is to support states in building, developing, and expanding 

voluntary, high-quality preschool programs in high-need communities for children from low- and 

moderate-income families. 

We received many strong proposals from states and are pleased to announce 18 awards. Alabama, 

Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, and Nevada will be awarded Development Grants. Arkansas, Connecticut, 

Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, 

Vermont, and Virginia will be awarded Expansion Grants. 

President Obama is committed to closing opportunity and achievement gaps and working with States and 

local communities to ensure high-quality early learning for every child, so that all children enter 

kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life. Collectively, these 18 distinguished states will work 

with their local communities to provide high-quality preschool programs for over 18,000 additional 

children in Year 1 ofthe program. 

We congratulate the winners and salute the other applicants for their hard work and encourage them to 

continue to expand and improve the quality oftheir early learning programs in their states. All 

applications, comments, and scores for all proposals will be posted on the Preschool Development Grants 

website. 

Our Departments look forward to supporting these and other State and community efforts to put highquality preschool programs in place for more children across the country. Thank you for your continued 

focus on enhancing education for all children. Our country will truly benefit from your work and focus. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ /s/ 

Ame Duncan, Secretary 

U.S. Department ofEducation 

Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Secretary 

U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Archived Information
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

EDWARD TIGER , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1000

[ October 14, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit , Broward County ; Martin S. Fein , Judge; L.T. Case No. 06

- 010555

- CF

- 10A

.
Ana M. Davide of Ana M. Davide, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessica L. Underwood, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER , C.J., M AY and A RTAU , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2019350EN.01000101.xml

| 16.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

15 October 2019

(2019/C 350/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1007 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 119,23 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4699 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87058 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,8225 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0977 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0653 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,820 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 332,38 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2956 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7538 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,4678 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6293 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4562 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6351 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7551 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5088 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 305,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3590 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7943 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4353 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 591,42 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6125 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,829 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,9456 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,434 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5467 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1647 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,6960 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1007

JPY

Japanese yen

119,23

DKK

Danish krone

7,4699

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87058

SEK

Swedish krona

10,8225

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0977

ISK

Iceland króna

138,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0653

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,820

HUF

Hungarian forint

332,38

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2956

RON

Romanian leu

4,7538

TRY

Turkish lira

6,4678

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6293

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4562

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6351

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7551

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5088

KRW

South Korean won

1 305,51

ZAR

South African rand

16,3590

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7943

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4353

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 591,42

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6125

PHP

Philippine peso

56,829

RUB

Russian rouble

70,9456

THB

Thai baht

33,434

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5467

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1647

INR

Indian rupee

78,6960

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
# C_2020004EN.01000401.xml

| 8.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

7 January 2020

(2020/C 4/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1172 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,15 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4731 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85183 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5423 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0850 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8548 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,276 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 331,28 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2457 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7778 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,6760 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6251 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4520 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6836 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6833 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5081 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 302,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,9724 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7562 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4478 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 501,15 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5727 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,832 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,2576 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,823 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5625 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,0852 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,2650 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1172

JPY

Japanese yen

121,15

DKK

Danish krone

7,4731

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85183

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5423

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0850

ISK

Iceland króna

137,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8548

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,276

HUF

Hungarian forint

331,28

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2457

RON

Romanian leu

4,7778

TRY

Turkish lira

6,6760

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6251

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4520

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6836

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6833

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5081

KRW

South Korean won

1 302,48

ZAR

South African rand

15,9724

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7562

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4478

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 501,15

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5727

PHP

Philippine peso

56,832

RUB

Russian rouble

69,2576

THB

Thai baht

33,823

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5625

MXN

Mexican peso

21,0852

INR

Indian rupee

80,2650

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
#### Harry Darling et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 34041.)

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Williams, P. J., who dissents and votes to reverse and to dismiss the claim. (Appeal from judgment, of Court of Claims for claimants.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Yecehio, JJ.
22.1605 Contract clause. ( a ) Insert the clause at 52.222-40, Notification of Employee Rights under the National Labor Relations Act, in all solicitations and contracts, including acquisitions for commercial products, commercial services, and commercially available off-the-shelf items, except acquisitions— ( 1 ) *Under the simplified acquisition threshold.* For indefinite-quantity contracts, include the clause only if the value of orders in any calendar year of the contract is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold;
( 2 ) For work performed exclusively outside the United States; or
( 3 ) Covered (in their entirety) by an exemption granted by the Secretary.
( b ) A contracting agency may modify the clause at 52.222-40, if necessary, to reflect an exemption granted by the Secretary (*see* 22.1603(b)).
[66 FR 5347, Jan. 18, 2001, as amended at 86 FR 61028, Nov. 4, 2021]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5864 BRADLEY SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CR-95-304) Submitted: March 19, 1996 Decided: April 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELLisa B. Kemler, MOFFITT, ZWERLING & KEMLER, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Leslie B. McClendon, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Bradley Sullivan appeals his 120-month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ten grams or more of LSD.* The court sentenced Bradley under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A)(v) (West Supp. 1995), which mandates a ten-year minimum sentence for a conviction of trafficking in more than ten grams of a substance containing a detectable amount of LSD. Because we find that the sentencing court properly determined the weight of the LSD in determining that the ten-gram threshold was met, we affirm Bradley's sentence.Bradley alleges that a recent amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that assigns a presumptive weight of 0.4 milligrams per dose of LSD for purposes of determining a guidelines sentence alters the method of weight calculation for purposes of § 841 as well. Before the guidelines amendment, the weight of the carrier medium with the absorbed LSD was included in determining the weight of the drug. See Chapman v. United States , 500 U.S. 453, 455 (1991); United States v. Daly , 883 F.2d 313, 318 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 496 U.S. 927 (1990). The Supreme Court recently rejected Bradley's argument in Neal v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4077 (U.S. Jan. 22, 1996) (No. 94-9088). In Neal , the Court held that Chapman still applies to cases involving statutory minimum sentences despite the amendment to the Guidelines. Thus, the court properly calculated the weight of LSD in sentencing Bradley, and since that weight exceeded ten grams, Bradley was properly sentenced to the statutorily mandated minimum. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

_________________________________________________________________ *Bradley also was sentenced to five years of supervised release and assessed a $50 special assessment. 2legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
#### GUY v. MAYOR, etc., OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by John Guy against the Mayor, etc., of the city of New York.

No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.