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

[813 NYS2d 311]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered March 24, 2004, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant that his purported waiver of his right to appeal was not effective *{see People v Billingslea,*6 NY3d 248 [2006]; *People v McCain,*7 AD3d 815 [2004]; *People v*
      *603
      *Boustani,*300 AD2d 313 [2002]). However, the defendant’s present claims regarding the alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel are unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636 [1983]; *People v Catts,*26 AD3d 341 [2006]; *People v Aguirre,*304 AD2d 771 [2003]; *People v Leo,*255 AD2d 458 [1998]). Furthermore, most of these claims relate to matters which did not directly involve the plea-bargaining process *(see People v Petgen,*55 NY2d 529 [1982]; *People v Scalercio,*10 AD3d 697 [2004]) or are dehors the record *(see People v Campbell,*6 AD3d 623 [2004]; *People v Stevenson,*5 AD3d 405 [2004]; *People v Aguirre, supra).*

Moreover, since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter imposed, and which was the minimum sentence authorized by law, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive *(see People v Gillyard,*237 AD2d 302 [1997]; *People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816 [1984]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### In re MONTEREY AVE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

In the matter of Monterey avenue.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

GARY PAVLIC,

Petitioner

v.

JOHN F. BELL, ET AL.,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 321 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
# L_2013247EN.01002001.xml

| 18.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/20

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 888/2013

of 16 September 2013

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Oignon de Roscoff (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2).

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Oignon de Roscoff’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Oignon de Roscoff’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).

| (3) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Oignon de Roscoff’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Oignon de Roscoff’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 September 2013.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ C 334, 31.10.2012, p. 11.

3

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

FRANCE

Oignon de Roscoff (PDO)

---
U.S. Fuel Ethanol Plant Production Capacity

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/dkorotne/My%20Documents/Capacity.htm [1/10/2013 1:00:34 PM] U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis



# PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS

OVERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS & PROJECTIONS GLOSSARY › FAQS ›

‹ SEE ALL PETROLEM REPORTS 

# U.S. Fuel Ethanol Plant Production Capacity

Release Date: May 30, 2012 | Next Release Date: May 2013 

### Previous Issues
Year: 2012



### About EIA Press Room Careers Feedback Contact Us

Topics Analysis & Projections Environment Markets & Finance Today in Energy Geography States Countries Maps Tools A-Z Index All Reports & Publications EIA Survey Forms Policies Privacy/Security Copyright & Reuse Accessibility Related Sites U.S. Department of Energy USA.gov FedStats Sources & Uses Petroleum Coal Natural Gas Renewable Nuclear Electricity Consumption Total Energy Stay Connected Facebook Twitter YouTube Email Updates RSS Feeds Nameplate and Maximum Sustainable Ethanol Production Capacity January 2012

PAD District Number of Plants Nameplate Capacity Maximum Sustainable Capacity Nameplate Capacity Maximum Sustainable Capacity million gallons per year thousand barrels per day PADD 1 4 316 323 21 21 PADD 2 172 12,488 13,050 815 851 PADD 3 6 449 453 29 30 PADD 4 5 190 216 12 14 PADD 5 7 285 279 19 18 U.S. Total 194 13,728 14,321 895 934 Nameplate Capacity: volume of denatured fuel ethanol that can be produced during a period of 12 months under normal operating conditions Maximum Sustainable Capacity: annualized maximum denatured fuel ethanol production that can be achieved over a period of any 6 consecutive months Source: Form EIA-819M Monthly Oxygenate Report Notice: Changes to Petroleum Supply Survey Forms for 2013 This is the second release of U.S. Energy Information Administration data on fuel ethanol production capacity. EIA first reported fuel ethanol production capacities for January 2011 on November 29, 2011. This new report contains production capacity data for all operating U.S. fuel ethanol production plants as of January 1, 2012.U.S. Fuel Ethanol Plant Production Capacity

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/dkorotne/My%20Documents/Capacity.htm [1/10/2013 1:00:34 PM]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           11405157
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                 0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                   0
<EQUITIES>                                         1193
<MORTGAGE>                                            0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                         0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 11406350
<CASH>                                          1142966
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                40051
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           328677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14601144
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 3459126
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              236454
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  3332540
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            202894
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         466239
<OTHER-SE>                                      5164157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14601144
<PREMIUMS>                                     17471595
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              404741
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 2020
<OTHER-INCOME>                                        0
<BENEFITS>                                     11288188
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                       23509
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            2166406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1165361
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1165361
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1165361
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  2729175
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                   0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                     0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              9462464
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                2163539
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 2303175
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                          565636



</TABLE>
Not for publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

Nos. 02-2237

02-2586

RANDOLPH L. CHAMBERS,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JANE COPLAN, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison, in her

individual and official capacities, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellants.

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Torruella and Howard, Circuit Judges.

Randolph L. Chambers on brief pro se.

December 24, 2003
-2-

Per Curiam. After carefully considering the record and the

appellant's briefs in these consolidated appeals, we affirm the

judgments below. 

The appellant appeals from the denial of a preliminary

injunction and from the dismissal of his suit for failure to

exhaust administrative remedies. The preliminary injunction was

properly denied because the appellant failed to show likely success

on the merits. Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1993).

The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice

because the appellant failed to exhaust administrative remedies

before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a). The appellant argues

that the complaint should not have been dismissed because he

exhausted administrative remedies while the suit was pending. We

have held, however, that belated exhaustion will not save a

complaint from dismissal. Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292

F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2002). Finally, the appellant's assertion that

the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable to his claims is

untenable. Exhaustion is mandatory for all actions concerning

prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or any other federal law.

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002).

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27(c).
#### In the Matter of Frank Lott, Petitioner, v. Charles Marks, a Justice of the New York State Supreme Court, Respondent.

This application for a writ of mandamus to compel Honorable iCharles Marks, a Justice of the New York Supreme Court, to render a decision on petitioner’s *coram nobis*application is denied as moot. It appears that Justice Marks rendered the decision sought on March 20, 1969. Concur — Tilzer, J. P., MeGivern, Marlcewich, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
32.706 Contract clauses.

32.706-1 Clauses for contracting in advance of funds.

32.706-2 Clauses for limitation of cost or funds.

32.706-3 Clause for unenforceability of unauthorized obligations.

Parent topic: Subpart 32.7 - Contract Funding
#### § 29.6013 Elasticity.

The flexible, springy nature of the tobacco leaf to recover approximately its original size and shape after it has been stretched. (See chart.)
98-1493.

#### State ex rel. Bandlow v. Nahra.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
§ 51.2763 Damage. *Damage* means that the peanut kernel is affected by one or more of the following: ( a ) Rancidity or decay;
( b ) Mold;
( c ) Insects, worm cuts, web or frass;
( d ) Freezing injury causing hard, translucent or discolored flesh; and,
( e ) Dirt when the surface of the kernel is heavily smeared, thickly flecked or coated with dirt, seriously affecting its appearance.
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 Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:





(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.





/s/ David LaDukeName:
                  David
      LaDukeTitle:
                  President,
      Chief Executive Officer, andTreasurer





November
11, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Sputnik Enterprises, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**Rule 1063. Commencement of A**  **ction.**

The action shall be commenced by filing **a complaint** with the prothonotary **. [(1)**  **a complaint, or (2)**  **an agreement for an amicable action.]**

**Rule 1093. Commencement of A**  **ction.** An action may be commenced by filing **a complaint** with the prothonotary **. [**  **(1) a complaint, or**  **(2) an agreement for an amicable action.]**
4.2003 Notification.

When a contractor provides notification pursuant to 52.204-23, follow agency procedures.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.20 Prohibition on Contracting for Hardware, Software, and Services

Developed or Provided by Kaspersky Lab
p. 1


# OAR Box 1837 Prepped byKeeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 177 ) IV-E-1 1 Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/14/2008 3:48:11 PM Sheet 177 of 238P. 2 

# USE y A

## •i< H

- e - 2 , • p 7 11 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

WASHINGTON , D.C . 2046 0 

### MA Y

### 2 2 1987 OFFIC E O F GENERA L COUNSE L MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : FROM : TO : Meetin g wit hDepartmen t o f Interior , Ma

y 11 , 198 7 Gregor y B . Foote$^*~ ~ Centra l Docke t Sectio n (LE-131 ) Docke t No . A-84-3 3 On May11 , 1987 , representative s o f EP A(Crai g Potter , Jo e Lees , Barbar a Brown , Pete r Wyckoff , an d Gre g Foote ) me t wit hrepresentative s o f the Departmen t o f Interio r (DOI ) (Stephe n Griles , Bil l Horn , Michae l Poling , Alan Fitzsimmons , Howard Shafferman ) t o discus s the above-reference d rulemaking proposa l t o "list " surfac e coa l mine s (SCMs) . Th e DO I representative s reiterate d the positio n stated b yDO I i n prio r comment s tha t listing o f SCM s fo r purpose s o f PS D regulatio n wa s unwarranted . In DOI' s view , broad regulatio n (represente d i n EPA' s regulatoryAlternative s I I an d III ) i s no t justifie d becaus e cost s woul d greatl yexcee d benefits . Mor e narro wregulatio n represente d b yAlternativ e IV

o r modification s thereo f i s als o no t warrante d i n DOI' s view , becaus e DO I possesse s adequat e authorit yt o regulat e the SCM s addresse d unde r Alternativ e IV . I n tha t regard , DO I represen tative s discusse d thre e document s explaining i n par t the natur e an

d exten t o f DOI' s authorit yi n thi s area : (1 ) Memorandu

m o f Understanding betwee n the Burea u o f Lan d Managemen t an

d Nationa l Par k Servic e fo r Plan

ning an d Progra

mCoordination ; January29 , 1987 . (2 ) Burea u o f Lan

d Managemen t Federa l Registe r notic e o f proposa l rulemaking o n coa l managemen t progra m regulation s regarding unsuitabilit ycriteria . (3 ) Secretaria l Issu e Documen t - men t Program ; January , 1986 . Federa l Coa l Manage The Secretaria l Issu e Documen t ha s alread ybee n place d i n the docket . Th e othe r two document s ar e attache d t o DOI' s submissio n o f May18 , 1987 .
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of Closed Meeting of Art Advisory Panel for Decorative Art.

# SUMMARY:

A closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in Washington, DC.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held December 8, 2010.

# ADDRESSES:

The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel for Decorative Art will be held on December 8, 2010, in the Appeals Media Center beginning at 9:30 a.m., Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph E. Bothwell, C:AP:PV:ART, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Telephone (202) 435-5611 (not a toll free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel for Decorative Art will be held on December 8, 2010, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 4112, Appeals Large Conference Room, Franklin Court Building, 1099 14th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.

The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.

A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), and that the meeting will not be open to the public.

Diane S. Ryan,

Chief, Appeals.

[FR Doc. 2010-30049 Filed 11-24-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### § 46.7 Issuance of license.

Upon receipt of a valid application accompanied by the proper fee for a license, and bond, if required, the Director shall, if the applicant is found to be eligible, issue a license certifying that the licensee is authorized to engage in the business of a commission merchant, dealer, or broker. All fees, and any additional sums assessed by the Director in accordance with the Act, shall be deposited in a special fund designated as the “Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act fund.”
Exhibit 32.2

Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
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.


                                         /s/ R. ALAN MILLER
                                         -------------------------
                                         R. Alan Miller
                                         Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 11, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT IN RE: ADOPTION OF N.R.J., A MINOR PETITION OF: L.W., NATURAL FATHER : : : : : No. 327 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 14th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED

.
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 1 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 2 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 3 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 4 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 5 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 6 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 7 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 8 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 9 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 10 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 11 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 12 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 13 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 14 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 15 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 16 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 17 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 18 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 19 of 20
Case 5:00-cv-00191-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/15/00 Page 20 of 20