alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Antoine M. and Others, Children Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Antoine Latief M., Appellant; Commissioner of the Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[777 NYS2d 96]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda J. Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 8, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, upon findings of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject children and transferred custody and guardianship of the children to petitioner for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was clear and convincing evidence to support the finding that respondent father permanently neglected the subject children by failing to plan for their future *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]). Although respondent was clearly advised that the return of the children to his care and custody was contingent upon his completion of a drug rehabilitation program, respondent did not, within the statutorily relevant period, successfully complete the program in which he had enrolled and, indeed, continued to test positive for cocaine *(see Matter of Rutherford Roderick T.,*4 AD3d 213 [2004]; *Matter of Brandon OO.,*304 AD2d 873 [2003]). Although, subsequent to the filing of the permanent neglect petition, respondent made commendable progress in addressing several parenting-related issues, a suspended judgment would not have been warranted. His progress notwithstanding, respondent still had no realistic, feasible plan for the children’s future *(see Matter of Lorenda M.,*2 AD3d 370 [2003]). Apart from one negative drug test, there was no indication that respondent’s drug problem had been successfully treated and he had no plan for the children’s care, other than that they should be returned to live with him and the children’s mother, who, the record discloses, has not been successfully treated for her drug addiction. The children, the oldest of whom was born in 1992, have been in foster care for nearly *400their entire lives and have done well in their preadoptive placements where their needs, some of them special, have been met. Under the circumstances, it is preponderantly clear *(see Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 147-148 [1984]) that they will not be well served by the further prolongation of their foster status, and that their best interests lie in permitting the adoptive process to move forward. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32(ii) CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Far East Energy
Corporation (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Mark Schaftlein, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. Dated: April 14, 2004 /s/ MARK SCHAFTLEIN
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Models      

# A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Models

This Bulletin focuses on four restorative conferencing models: victim-offender mediation, community reparative boards, family group conferencing, and circle sentencing. It first describes each of the four restorative conferencing models, then compares and contrasts.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184738.pdf
#### 952.223-71 Integration of environment, safety, and health into work planning and execution.

As prescribed in 923.7003 the clause set forth at 970.5223-1 shall be included in all contracts and subcontracts for, and be made applicable to, work to be performed at a government-owned or leased facility where DOE has elected to assert its statutory authority to establish and enforce occupational safety and health standards applicable to the work conditions of contractor and subcontractor employees, and to the protection of the public health and safety.

[49 FR 12042, Mar. 28, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9109, Feb. 25, 1994; 65 FR 81008, Dec. 22, 2000; 74 FR 36369, July 22, 2009]
§ 1221.22 Production. *Production,* as used in § 1221.100, means: ( a ) for the purpose of establishing the initial Board in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of § 1221.100, the volume of grain sorghum produced during the last 5 crop years, excluding the high and low years, and
( b ) For the purpose of reapportionment in paragraphs (e) and (f) of § 1221.100, the total assessments collected by the Board during the last 5 crop years, excluding the high and low years.
970.5070-2 General. DOE contractors with whom statutory nuclear hazards indemnity agreements under the authority of section 170d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, are executed will not normally be required or permitted to furnish financial protection by purchase of insurance to cover public liability for nuclear incidents. However, if authorized by the DOE Headquarters office having responsibility for contractor casualty insurance programs, DOE contractors may be— ( a ) Permitted to furnish financial protection to themselves; or
( b ) Permitted to continue to carry such insurance at cost to the Government if they currently maintain insurance for such liability.
[65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 36374, July 22, 2009]
#### Glader, Incorporated, appellant, v. C. J. Kennedy, appellee.

Gen. No. 33,289.

Opinion filed May 31, 1929.

Clarence A. Samuel, for appellant. Royal W. Irwin, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Henry Dibble, Appellant.

Same decision and like cause of action as in *People*v. *Ryan*(27 A D 2d 698). (Appeal from judgment of Herkimer County Court convicting defendant of being a youthful offender.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Henry, Del Veeehio and Marsh, JJ.
#### § 110.4 Demonstration of compliance.

The Secretary is authorized to inspect and copy any record required to be maintained by this part in order to determine whether a certified applicator is complying with this part.
#### § 1250.329 Selection.

From the nominations made pursuant to § 1250.328, the Secretary shall appoint the members of the Board, and an alternate for each such member, on the basis of representations provided for in § 1250.326, § 1250.327, and § 1250.328.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50129

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BILL LEE SCOTT Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-97-CR-415-1-H

October 26, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Court-appointed counsel for Bill Lee Scott has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California
, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and

we have independently reviewed counsel’s brief and the record and

have found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 32.1
                                    BAB, Inc

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the BAB, Inc. (the "Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB
for the period ended November 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Evans,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition, results of operations, and
          cash flows of the Company.


Date:  February 28, 2006      By:          /s/  MICHAEL W. EVANS
                                     ---------------------------------
                                     Michael W. Evans, Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 1421
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart E of part 1421 appear at 74 FR 15656, Apr. 7, 2009.

§ 1421.408 Prohibited activity. ( a ) DMAs approved to handle MALs and LDPs under this subpart may not: ( 1 ) Discriminate against or deny any producer from receiving MALs or LDPs because of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status for which they would otherwise be eligible under the statutes regulating the MAL and LDP program.
( 2 ) Pool peanuts for the purpose of obtaining peanut MALs or LDPs from CCC.
( 3 ) Pool the proceeds obtained from peanut MALs or LDPs made by CCC.
( 4 ) Process farm-stored certified or measured MALs or LDPs unless authorized by CCC.
( 5 ) Take title to any peanuts.
( 6 ) Operate the DMA under the same entity and tax identification number of a CCC-approved CMA.
( 7 ) Refuse services to producers because the DMA was not granted a power of attorney for purposes of executing MAL documents to obtain MALs for the producer, repaying the MAL for the producer, obtaining LDPs for the producer, or marketing the producer's peanuts.
( 8 ) Adopt any scheme or device to circumvent the purpose of the peanut MAL and LDP program regulations, the regulation governing DMAs, or the DMAs agreement with CCC.
( 9 ) Process MALs or LDPs for producers involved in a bankruptcy proceeding unless authorized by CCC.
( 10 ) Process MALs or LDPs on ineligible peanuts.
( b ) If the prohibitions of this section are violated FSA or CCC may take one or more of the actions authorized in this part or otherwise authorized.
[70 FR 33799, June 10, 2005. Redesignated at 74 FR 15656, Apr. 7, 2009; 80 FR 128, Jan. 2, 2015]
#### § 1222.22 Pulp.

*Pulp* means the material that is produced by chemically or mechanically separating cellulose fibers from wood or recycling recovered fiber.
| **Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows Parenthetical**                                   | Sep. 30, 2018 | Mar. 14, 2018 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| Tamar and Dalit Fields | Disposal Group, Disposed of by Sale, Not Discontinued Operations |          |          |
| Percentage ownership sold                                                                 | 7.50%         | 7.50%         |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Disposal Group, Not Discontinued Operation, Percentage Sold
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**nbl_DisposalGroupNotDiscontinuedOperationPercentageSold**Namespace Prefix:**nbl_**Data Type:**num:percentItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_IncomeStatementBalanceSheetAndAdditionalDisclosuresByDisposalGroupsIncludingDiscontinuedOperationsAxis=nbl_TamarandDalitFieldsMember**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_DisposalGroupClassificationAxis=us-gaap_DisposalGroupDisposedOfBySaleNotDiscontinuedOperationsMember**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
#### Eva E. Wood, appellee, v. Mike Dragash, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,220.

Opinion filed May 31, 1929.

Cohen & Berke, for appellant. Estelle M.. Wells, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
Fourth Department,

April, 1980

(April 8, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Clarence Coleman, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In 1965 petitioner was convicted of manslaughter, first degree, and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 10 to 20 years imprisonment. He was subsequently released on parole in 1971, violated and returned to prison and rereleased on parole on August 8, 1977. In 1978, as the result of an incident during which petitioner’s neighbor was cut with a meat cleaver, the Board of Parole found that petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of his parole in that he failed to lead a law-abiding life and had consumed alcoholic beverages to excess. In this habeas corpus proceeding petitioner first challenges the hearing officer’s findings of fact but we view the evidence as sufficient to sustain the charges (see *People ex rel. Wallace*v *State of New York,*70 AD2d 781). The hearing officer recommended that petitioner be returned to prison and not considered for reparole until the expiration of two years. That recommendation was modified by the Parole Board and petitioner was placed upon a 30-month hold "due to [his] *707continuous assaultive behaviour.” Petitioner contends that the board had no power to modify the hearing officer’s recommendation or to extend the hold beyond 24 months and that even if it did, the board’s action was improper because it considered an additional criminal assault charge recited in the history supplied by petitioner’s parole officer but which had been withdrawn subsequently by the complainant. The trial court found that although the criminal charges had been withdrawn, the underlying facts of the assault were supported in the record. The hearing officer’s recommendation was advisory and not binding on the board (see *Matter of Simpson v Wolansky,*38 NY2d 391, 394). The ultimate power to order reincarceration and fix a date for rerelease rested with the Parole Board or a member acting on its behalf (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 3, par [f], cl [x]). In doing so the board had the power to establish a minimum period of incarceration for the parole violator before he was entitled to be considered for reparóle (cf. Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 1, par [a]; *Matter of Grossman v Parole Bd. of State of N. Y.,*74 AD2d 727). The 24-month limitation on incarceration without reconsideration urged by petitioner is contained in the section mandating reconsideration of parole after the prisoner’s minimum period of imprisonment has been determined and served and parole has been denied (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 2, par [a]). It does not apply to the facts of this case. Furthermore, we find no error in the board considering petitioner’s past history when fixing the period for which he is to be held before he is entitled to consideration for reparole. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court—habeas corpus.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1159 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-028-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### § 1221.137 Rules and regulations.

The Secretary may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to effectively carry out the provisions of this subpart.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Ottawa Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/     GARY L. OCEPEKGary L. Ocepek President and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2005


/s/     JON L. KRANOVJon L. Kranov Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2005




20
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-85,417-03

EX P ARTE P RENTICE LE STE R DAIG LE, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1390244-B IN THE 263 DISTRICT COURT R D F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s co n v i cted of murder and senten ce d t o l ife im prisonment. The Fourtee nth Court of Appeals dismiss ed his direc t appea l for lack of jurisdiction. Daigle v. State , No. 14-13-01091- CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist] Dec
. 19, t h 2013)(not designated f

or publication). Applicant contends that his co u n s el rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use he failed to timely file a notice of appea l. We rema nded this application to the trial court for finding s of fac t and conclusions of law

.2

The trial court has deter

mined that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appea l or otherwise
secur e Applica

nt’s appellate rig hts. Ex parte Ax el , 757 S.W .2d 369, 374 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). We fi n d t h at Applicant is entitled to the opportuni ty to file an out-of-time appeal of the j udg ment of conviction in Cause No. 1390244-B from the 263 District Court of Harris C ounty
. Applicant rd is order ed returne d to that time at which he may g ive a written notice of appea l so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaning ful appea l. Wit hin ten day s of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall deter

mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant on direc t appea l. All time limit s shall be calc ulated as if the sentenc e had been imposed
o n t he date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant d es i re t o prosec ute an appea l, he must take aff irmative steps to file a written notice of appea l in the trial court within 30 day s afte r the mandate of this Court issues. Applicant’s rema ining claims are dismiss ed. Ex Parte Torres , 943 S.W .2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Copies of this opinion s h a ll be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: November 20, 2019 Do not publish