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

Judgment of the County Court of Broome County, entered upon a verdict, convicting defendant of the crime of robbery in the third degree, affirmed. Appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence, upon the *Huntley*hearing and upon the trial, respecting the voluntariness of his confession. In his brief, he asserts, first, that he was “psychologically distraught and mentally sick when the incommunicado interrogation began at police headquarters” and, second, that “an attorney had contacted the police a, day before and requested that he be notified when the defendant was picked up ”. There was a plenitude of medical and lay evidence as to defendant’s condition, whether solely induced by excessive drinking or not, at, before and after the time of his arrest; and the jury was warranted in resolving the issues as it did. We are satisfied, as were the Judge presiding at the *Huntley*hearing and subsequently the jury, of defendant’s informed and intelligent waiver and of the voluntary nature of his confession. The interrogating officers had no difficulty in communicating with defendant or defendant with them; he understood the *Miranda*warnings given him and, indeed, having been given them, declined to talk. Later, and after he had, at his own request, talked with his companion of -the night before, he volunteered a statement, which was taken after he had again been advised of his rights. The defendant did not request the aid of the attorney alluded to or of any attorney and it is clear that the attorney named had not been retained to represent defendant upon this charge or any other; but, on the day before the commission of the offenses charged, at the instance of defendant’s mother, the attorney had suggested -that defendant be arrested on a charge of public intoxication to permit medical evaluation of his condition. He was not picked up on such a charge but when he later committed the acts here involved he was arrested upon a charge of felony and later in the same day was hospitalized “ [b] ecause of his alcohol problem ** *** his appearance, his condition ”, and after two days was discharged. There is some indication that -the defendant was intoxicated or recovering from an intoxicated state at the time of his arrest, if not at the time of his interrogation, but the evidence is insufficient -to conclude that he “was so intoxicated as to lack mental capacity” or that “he was unable to appreciate the nature and consequences of his statements.” *(People*v. *Schompert,*19 N Y 2d 300, 305.) We find appellant’s additional assignments of error insubstantial. None are such as to require discussion. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.
#### § 27.16 Inspection; weighing; samples; supervision.

The inspection, weighing, and sampling of cotton for which classification is desired and the preparation and delivery of samples to the Marketing Services Office shall be (a) under the supervision of a supervisor of cotton inspection, or (b) by or under the direction of an exchange inspection agency and subject to the supervision of a supervisor of cotton inspection.

[48 FR 49210, Oct. 25, 1983]
#### § 3550.1 Applicability.

This part sets forth policies for the direct single family housing loan programs operated by the Rural Housing Service (RHS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It addresses the requirements of sections 502 and 504 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, and includes policies regarding both loan and grant origination and servicing. Procedures for implementing these regulations can be found in program handbooks, available in any Rural Development office. Any provision on the expenditure of funds under this part is contingent upon the availability of funds.
7.108 Additional requirements for telecommuting.       In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 3306(f), an agency shall generally not discourage a contractor from allowing its employees to telecommute in the performance of Government contracts. Therefore, agencies shall not-                                       (a)                    						            Include in a solicitation a requirement that prohibits an offeror from permitting its employees to telecommute unless the contracting officer first determines that the requirements of the agency, including security requirements, cannot be met if telecommuting is permitted. The contracting officer shall document the basis for the determination in writing and specify the prohibition in the solicitation; or                                          (b)                    						            When telecommuting is not prohibited, unfavorably evaluate an offer because it includes telecommuting, unless the contracting officer first determines that the requirements of the agency, including security requirements, would be adversely impacted if telecommuting is permitted. The contracting officer shall document the basis for the determination in writing and address the evaluation procedures in the solicitation.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 7.1 - Acquisition Plans
#### The State ex rel. Hughes, Appellee, *v.*Conrad, Admr.; Amcast Industrial Corporation, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Hughes v. Conrad*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 540.]

(No. 97-2561

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided November 10, 1998.)

*Koltak & Gibson, L.L.P., Ronald J. Koltak*and *Peter J. Gibson,*for appellee. *Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Charles D. Smith*and *Matthew J. Arnold,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I would issue a limited writ ordering the Industrial Commission to reconsider its 1991 order and the claimant’s eligibility for permanent total disability (“PTD”) benefits in light of evidence that the claimant was employed during his incarceration.

The 1991 order suspended the claimant’s PTD benefits, pursuant to a 1986 amendment to R.C. 4123.54, based on his incarceration. However, at the time of the hearing in 1991, the record contained an interoffice communication to the .warden in the institution where the claimant was incarcerated, dated June 25, 1991, stating that the claimant had been employed in the' institution since December 1987. The commission failed to acknowledge this evidence in its order.

Although this court subsequently found in *State ex rel. Brown v. Indus. Comm.*(1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 45, 623 N.E.2d 55, that the suspension of PTD benefits on the basis of incarceration alone was contrary to law where the injury predated the 1986 amendment to R.C. 4123.54, it does not follow, if there is evidence that the claimant is employed while incarcerated, that the PTD award cannot be suspended or terminated on that basis. There is justification for a change or modification of a prior PTD finding if there is evidence produced, subsequent to the original PTD finding, that the claimant is capable of sustained remunerative employment. Here, I believe that the fact of incarceration is irrelevant if the *541evidence supports a finding that the claimant is presently employed and, therefore, capable of sustained remunerative employment.

Therefore, I would order the commission to rehear the employer’s motion to suspend PTD benefits, and to investigate and seek additional evidence, if necessary, as to the permanent total disability of Hughes. The commission should determine whether Hughes’s activities as a clerk in the institution constitute a sufficient change of circumstances to modify the original finding of PTD. See *State ex rel. Grissom v. Indus. Comm.*(1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 311, 312-313, 681 N.E.2d 434, 435-436 (Lundberg Stratton, J., dissenting).

Cook, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2015 - 0242 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM100AD

A300 - 53 - 6173 --- 8/1/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
§ 3550.250 OMB control number. The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0172. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 5 minutes to 3 hours per response, with an average of 11 ⁄ 2 hours per response, including time for reviewing insurrections, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. You are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. [61 FR 59779, Nov. 22, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 78332, Dec. 24, 2002]
#### § 30.7 Group.

A group of grades, or a division of a type covering several closely related grades, based on the general quality of the tobacco, including the percentage of injury, and other factors. The factors that determine the group divisions also largely determine the usage or suitability of tobacco for certain purposes.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**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 AnnualReport of Adelphia Communications Corporation (“Adelphia”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vanessa A. Wittman, ChiefFinancial Officer of Adelphia, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Adelphia.

 
|   | /s/ Vanessa A. Wittman  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Vanessa A. Wittman      |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

 

March 29, 2006

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:94cr3012/LAC

RAY WILLIAMS,

a/k/a Ray Anthony Williams,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant’s response to the previous Order of the Court directing

him to apprise the Court of when he delivered his notice of appeal to prison authorities for

mailing, or alternatively if the notice of appeal was not timely filed, whether there exists

excusable neglect or good cause to justify an extension of time. 

Defendant responds that his motion to dismiss the indictment raised issues of subject

matter jurisdiction and therefore may be raised at any time. It is therefore apparent that

Defendant labors under the misconception that his appeal from the Court’s denial of his

motion could be raised at any time. 

A mistake regarding the time for appeal in a criminal action does not constitute

excusable neglect. See United States v. Torres, 372 F.3d 1159, 1163 (10th Cir. 2004); United

States v. Hooper, 43 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 1993); United States v. Prairie Pharmacy, Inc., 921

F.2d 211 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Case 3:94-cr-03012-LC-MD Document 860 Filed 11/24/08 Page 1 of 2
Defendant’s appeal, which was taken from the Court’s Order of August 15, 2008, did

not arrive until September 10, 2008, the day upon which it was docketed. Based on the

above, the Court finds that the Notice of Appeal was untimely filed and that no excusable

neglect has been shown to justify an extension of time.

As directed by the Eleventh Circuit, the Clerk is directed to return the file to the

Eleventh Circuit for further proceedings.

ORDERED on this 24th day of November, 2008.

 s/L.A. Collier 

Lacey A. Collier

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:94-cr-03012-LC-MD Document 860 Filed 11/24/08 Page 2 of 2
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNASA space and Earth science data on CD-ROMThe National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) is very interested in facilitating the widest possible use of the scientific data acquired through NASA spaceflight missions. Therefore, NSSDC has participated with projects and data management elements throughout the NASA science environment in the creation, archiving, and dissemination of data using Compact Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM). This CD-ROM technology has the potential to enable the dissemination of very large data volumes at very low prices to a great many researchers, students and their teachers, and others. This catalog identifies and describes the scientific CD-ROM's now available from NSSDC including the following data sets: Einstein Observatory CD-ROM, Galileo Cruise Imaging on CD-ROM, International Halley Watch, IRAS Sky Survey Atlas, Infrared Thermal Mapper (IRTM), Magellan (MIDR), Magellan (ARCDR's), Magellan (GxDR's), Mars Digital Image Map (MDIM), Outer Planets Fields & Particles Data, Pre-Magellan, Selected Astronomical Catalogs, TOMS Gridded Ozone Data, TOMS Ozone Image Data, TOMS Update, Viking Orbiter Images of Mars, and Voyager Image.Document ID19940023911Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsTowheed, Syed S.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1993Subject CategoryDocumentation And Information ScienceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:109790NSSDC-WDC-A-R/S-93-27NASA-TM-109709Accession Number94N28414Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19940023911.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Filing # 103951055 E-Filed 02/26/2020 02:40:03 PMCase 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ   Document 2   Filed 06/01/20   Page 1 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ   Document 2   Filed 06/01/20   Page 2 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ   Document 2   Filed 06/01/20   Page 3 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ   Document 2   Filed 06/01/20   Page 4 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ   Document 2   Filed 06/01/20   Page 5 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ   Document 2   Filed 06/01/20   Page 6 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ   Document 2   Filed 06/01/20   Page 7 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ   Document 2   Filed 06/01/20   Page 8 of 9

Case 1:20-cv-00127-AW-GRJ   Document 2   Filed 06/01/20   Page 9 of 9
# L_2021086EN.01000101.xml

| 12.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 86/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 86/1

---

DECISION (EU) 2021/429 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 20 January 2021

extending the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

| — | having regard to the proposal by the Conference of Presidents, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal by the Conference of Presidents,

| — | having regard to Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry (1),

| — | having regard to its Decision (EU) 2020/1089 of 19 June 2020 on setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its Decision (EU) 2020/1089 of 19 June 2020 on setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (2),

| — | having regard to Rule 208(11) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 208(11) of its Rules of Procedure,

| A. | whereas the Committee of Inquiry requested an extension of its term of office in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate fully and properly; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas the Committee of Inquiry requested an extension of its term of office in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate fully and properly;

1.

Decides to extend by three months the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry.

For the European Parliament

The President

D. M. SASSOLI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 113, 19.5.1995, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 239 I, 24.7.2020, p. 1.

2

---
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that, on April 29, 2615, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing Application for 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, by electronic mail upon those addressees listed 

below: 

Jaura.remo@dot.gov (DOT) 

vanessa.balgobin@dot.gov (DOT) 

douglas.bordeaux@faa.gov (FAA Principal Operations Inspector) 

steve.morrissey@united.com (United) 

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United) 

sascha.vanderbellen@del ta.com (Delta) 

jl1ill@cooley.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian) 

perkmann@cooley.com (Counsel for JetBlue and Hawaiian) 

Jeremy.ross@alaskair.com (Alaska) 

dhcffernan@cozen.com (Counsel for Alaska) 

jyoung@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit) 

dkirstein@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit) 

bob.kneisley@wnco.com (Southwest) 

leslie.abbott@wncom.com (Southwest) 

jobn.fredericksen@suncountry.com (Sun Country) 

thomas.ting@suncountry.com (Sun Country) 

matwood@cozen.com (Counsel for Frontier) 

slachter@cozen.com (Counsel for Frontier) 

howard.kass@aa.com (American) 

agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com (Counsel for Allegiant) 

jmaddux@ggh-airlaw.com (Counsel for Allegiant) 

kday@flydenver.com (Denver International Airport) 

cmcintyr@,Ranynj.gov (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) 

jbourk@Hybranson.com (Branson Airport) 

jpbourk@aol.com (Branson Airport) 

molly.waits@houstontx.gov (Houston Airport)
Page 1 of 3

Cases No. 4:98cr69-RH-CAS and 4:16cv436-RH-CAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASES NO. 4:98cr69-RH-CAS

4:16cv436-RH-CAS

CARLON BURNICE CRAWFORD,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE § 2255 MOTION AND

DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The defendant has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for relief from his 

judgment of conviction. The motion is before the court on the magistrate judge’s 

report and recommendation, ECF No. 63. No objections have been filed. This 

order accepts the report and recommendation, adopts it as the court’s opinion, and 

denies the § 2255 motion.

A defendant may appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion only if the district 

court or court of appeals issues a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 
Page 2 of 3

Cases No. 4:98cr69-RH-CAS and 4:16cv436-RH-CAS

(2000); Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n.4 (1983); see also Williams v. 

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 (2000) (setting out the standards applicable to a 

§ 2254 petition on the merits). As the Court said in Slack:

To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that 

reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree 

that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner 

or that the issues presented were “adequate to deserve 

encouragement to proceed further.”

529 U.S. at 483-84 (quoting Barefoot, 463 U.S. at 893 n.4). Further, in order to

obtain a certificate of appealability when dismissal is based on procedural grounds, 

a petitioner must show, “at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and 

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct 

in its procedural ruling.” Id. at 484.

The defendant has not made the required showing. This order thus denies a 

certificate of appealability.

IT IS ORDERED:
Page 3 of 3

Cases No. 4:98cr69-RH-CAS and 4:16cv436-RH-CAS

1. The defendant’s amended motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF 

No. 58, is denied.

2. The clerk must enter judgment.

3. A certificate of appealability is denied.

SO ORDERED on April 9, 2019.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:96-cr-00036-MP

EDDIE LEE GORDON,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 207, which is a motion by Mr. Gordon in which

he requests that the Court order the Bureau of Prisons to handle his body following certain

guidelines if he dies in prison. This is a matter that must be addressed to prison officials, not a

court. Accordingly, the motion is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 4:96-cr-00036-RH-CAS Document 208 Filed 09/06/11 Page 1 of 1