alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Candido Rivera and Emanuel Rivera Appellants.

Appeals by defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered October 20, 1976, convicting each of them of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences. By order dated November 13, 1979, this court remitted the case to Criminal Term for further proceedings with respect to the *Huntley*hearing and directed that the appeal be held in abeyance in the interim *(People v Rivera,*72 AD2d 780). Criminal Term has complied and rendered a report in accordance therewith. Judgments reversed, on the law, motion to suppress statements granted, and new trial ordered. The issue remitted for resolution was whether the police, in the course of interrogating and obtaining confessions from the defendants, "had proceeded in disregard of the family’s request to delay interrogation and had isolated defendants from those intent upon providing assistance” *(People v Rivera, supra).*After a hearing on this issue, the court concluded that the police had failed to comply with defendants’ mother’s request, made prior to her sons’ confessions, to see them—a request, which, in effect, sought a delay in their interrogation. Thus, the defendants had been isolated from those ready to provide them assistance. In reaching these conclusions the court found that at approximately 7:00 p.m. on July 25, 1975, defendants, Candido and Emanuel Rivera, had been taken by the police to the 60th Precinct for questioning concerning a shooting and robbery in a grocery store at 2616 Mermaid Avenue, Brooklyn, and that they had subsequently been held in custody for at least six hours before confessing to the crimes charged at about 1:00 a.m. the next morning. The court also found that during the evening of July 25, 1975, defendants’ mother had gone to the precinct twice and requested to see her sons. These requests had been denied. Finally, it was found that at the time these events *557occurred defendants had been 16 and 17 years old, respectively, and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that they had been living with their mother. Based on the foregoing, defendants’ confessions must be suppressed. As this court observed in *People v Evans*(70 AD2d 886, 888), when a suspect is a minor still residing in his parent’s home and presumably still reliant on him or her for guidance, the police have an obligation to establish and maintain procedures so that the suspect is not deliberately or inadvertently held beyond the reach of his parent. This is especially true when, as in the case at bar, the suspect’s parent has sought permission from the police to communicate with the suspect for the purpose of rendering him assistance. As the failure to suppress defendants’ statements cannot be deemed harmless on this record, the judgments of conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 24, 2021

No. 04-21-00045-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S. M.W., ET AL CHILDREN

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PA-00394

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was due February 22, 2021, but was not filed. On February 22, 2021, 

the district clerk filed a notification of late record, requesting an extension of eight days to file 

the record. We GRANT the district clerk’s request for an extension of time and ORDER the 

district clerk to file the clerk’s record in this court by March 2, 2021. The district clerk is 

reminded that strict deadlines exist with regard to disposal of appeals dealing with termination of 

parental rights. Further extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of February, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.

) 2:06cr203-MHT

JOSEPH LEE STRINGER )

ORDER

Based on the representations made today in open

court, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The parties’ joint oral motion to continue

sentencing is granted.

(2) Sentencing for defendant Joseph Lee Stringer is

reset for February 16, 2007, at 8:30 a.m., in Courtroom

2FMJ of the Frank M. Johnson, Jr. United States

Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery,

Alabama, 36104.

DONE, this the 1st day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00203-MHT-CSC Document 28 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/15 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.10 Implementation. ( a ) A Government agency or a Federally recognized Indian Tribe that possesses and uses accelerator-produced radioactive material or discrete sources of radium-226 for which a specific medical use license is required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, must comply with the requirements of this part, including provisions that are specific to licensees, on November 30, 2007. All other persons who possess and use accelerator-produced radioactive material or discrete sources of radium-226 for which a specific medical use license is required, must comply with the requirements of this part, including provisions that are specific to licensees, on August 8, 2009, or earlier as noticed by the NRC.
( b ) - ( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) If a license condition exempted a licensee from a provision of Part 35 on October 24, 2002, then the license condition continues to exempt the licensee from the requirements in the corresponding provision of §§ 35.1-35.4002.
( e ) When a requirement in this part differs from the requirement in an existing license condition, the requirement in this part shall govern.
( f ) A licensee shall continue to comply with any license condition that requires it to implement procedures required by §§ 35.610, 35.642, 35.643, and 35.645 until there is a license amendment or renewal that modifies the license condition.
[67 FR 20370, Apr. 24, 2002, as amended at 71 FR 15008, Mar. 27, 2006; 72 FR 55930, Oct. 1, 2007]
EPA Letter from Ormat

Hello,

I have attached a scan regarding Ormat’s comments on White Papers on Methane and VOC Emissions in the Oil 

and Natural Gas Sector: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Compressors. We will overnight the hard copy today.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Shelly Hardy

Administrative Assistant 1

Main: (775) 356­9029 Ext. 32322

6225 Neil Road

Reno, NV 89511

shardy@ORMAT.COM

 Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

*****************************************************************************************

Confidentiality Warning:

The information contained in this e­mail is confidential and subject to certain laws pertaining to the protection of proprietary information. It is intended 

only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the authorized agent thereof, the 

reader is hereby notified that retention or any dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by reply e­mail or by telephone, and delete all copies of the original message.

*****************************************************************************************

Shelly Hardy <shardy@ORMAT.COM>

Mon 6/16/2014 4:07 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

Cc:Bob Sullivan <bsullivan@ormat.com>; Colin Duncan <cduncan@ormat.com>; JWise@cassidy.com <JWise@cassidy.com>; 

 1 attachment

20140616124430975.pdf; 

EPA Letter from Ormat - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/27/2014
#### In re M. & J. CONST. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

In the matter of the application of the M. & J. Construction Company to have a certain mechanic’s lien discharged of record, in which Isidor Weisman, lienor, appeals.

No opinion. ■ Order affirmed, without costs.
PGI PART 53 – FORMS

PGI SUBPART 53.90 – FORMATS AND TEMPLATES

PGI 53.9000 Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Marking.

PGI SUBPART 53.90 – FORMATS AND TEMPLATES

(Added January 11, 2022 in accordance with through PROCLTR 2022-03)

PGI 53.9000 Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Marking.

(a) The originator of a communication or documentation is responsible for determining, at the time

of creation, whether information in a communication or documentation falls into a CUI category.

Controlled by: [Name of DoD Component determining that the information is CUI] (This should

normally be DLA and MSC name. Omit this if using memo with DLA or DLA procuring

organization letterhead.)

Controlled by: [Name of Office making the CUI determination] (This is typically the procuring

organization sublevel/branch name or code.)

CUI Category: [List category or categories of CUI] (The most common categories are General

Procurement, Source Selection, and Privacy; however, others may apply (e.g., General

Proprietary Business Information, Legal Privilege.). Documents marked for the CUI Category -

Source Selection still require markings IAW FAR 3.104-4(c). The top and bottom of each page

must also be marked “Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104”.)

Distribution/Dissemination Control: [Include Limited Dissemination Control of who can view the

document] (In most cases use “FED ONLY” for internal documents and emails. Use “FEDCON”

for emails and other correspondence with contractors. The CUI Limited Dissemination Controls

list in DLAI 5200.48 includes all available options.)

POC: [Email address or phone number of document originator]

(b) Contracting Officers may access the following resources and training material for additional

guidance:

(1) DoDI 5200.48 Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

(https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/Intelligence/PublishingImages/cui/DoDI%205200.48%20-%20Controlled

%20Unclassified%20Information%20%28CUI%29%20%28002%29.pdf).

(2) DLAI 5200.48, Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

(https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/Intelligence/Shared%20Documents/DLAI%205200.48%20CUI.pdf).

(3) DLA Intelligence CUI Resources (https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/Intelligence/cui).

(4) CUI Categories | National Archives

(https://www.bing.com/search?q=categories%3A+https%3A%2F%2Fwww.archives.gov%2Fcui%2Fr

egistry%2Fcategorylist&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IESR3N)
(5) DoD CUI Training (PowerPoint)

(https://www.dodcui.mil/Portals/109/Documents/Training%20Docs/21-S-0588%20cleared%20CUI%2

0Awareness%20Training%20Nov%202020.pdf?ver=eOMZuMPrdLXcnhS6egUe2w%3d%3d)(see

pages 21 through 24 for examples of markings).
1807.7201 Definitions.

Class of contracts means a grouping of acquisitions, either by dollar value or by the nature of

supplies and services to be acquired.

Contract opportunity means planned new contract awards exceeding the simplified acquisition

threshold (SAT).

Parent topic: Subpart 1807.72—Acquisition Forecasting
#### In re BARANOWSKI.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 7, 1914.)

In the matter of the application of Francis A. Baranowski for admission to the bar.

No opinion. Application granted.
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:06-cv-00700-WHA-WC Document 1 Filed 08/08/2006 Page 8 of 8
#### RIX v. ALDRICH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1914.)

Action by Frank S. Rix against Spencer Aldrich.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. filed.
§ 217.32 Elements of a rated order. Each rated order must include: ( a ) The appropriate priority rating (*e.g.* DO-F1 or DX-F1)
( b ) A required delivery date or dates. The words “immediately” or “as soon as possible” do not constitute a delivery date. A “requirements contract”, “basic ordering agreement”, “prime vendor contract”, or similar procurement document bearing a priority rating may contain no specific delivery date or dates and may provide for the furnishing of items or service from time to time or within a stated period against specific purchase orders, such as “calls”, “requisitions”, and “delivery orders”. These purchase orders must specify a required delivery date or dates and are to be considered as rated as of the date of their receipt by the supplier and not as of the date of the original procurement document;
( c ) The written signature on a manually placed order, or the digital signature or name on an electronically placed order, of an individual authorized to sign rated orders for the person placing the order. The signature or use of the name certifies that the rated order is authorized under this part and that the requirements of this part are being followed; and
( d ) ( 1 ) A statement that reads in substance: This is a rated order certified for national defense use, and you are required to follow all the provisions of the Energy Priorities and Allocations System regulation at 10 CFR part 217.
( 2 ) If the rated order is placed in support of emergency preparedness requirements and expedited action is necessary and appropriate to meet these requirements, the following sentences should be added following the statement set forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section: This rated order is placed for the purpose of emergency preparedness. It must be accepted or rejected within 2 days after receipt of the order if (1) The order is issued in response to a hazard that has occurred; or
( 2 ) If the order is issued to prepare for an imminent hazard, as specified in EPAS Section 217.33(e), 10 CFR 217.33(e).
IN THE UNITEG STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

1 

PLAINT1 FF, 1 

1 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: 06cv736-WKW 

) 

SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN ) 

HUNDRED ($74,700) DOLLARS IN 1 

UNITED STATES CURRENCY, I 

) 

DEFENDANT. ) 

TRIAL STIPULATIGNS 

It i.s hereby stipulated by and between the United States of 

America (United States), by and through Leura G. Canary, United 

States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and John T. 

Harmon, Assistant U~ited States At.torney, and Claimant George 

Edward Jones, I11 (Claimant), by and through his respective 

attorney, as follows: 

1. That the parties do hereby agree that this matter shall 

Se submitted to the Court for decision based upon the transcript of 

the suppression hearing in this matter held on September 6, 2007, 

and as otherwise specified herein. The parties specifically agree 

that no hearing will be required to resolve this matter. 

2. That Claimant stipulates that the drug analysis reports 

on all drugs seized in this case are admitted for the purposes of 

the Court's decision, and that said reports accurately report the 

analysis of rhe seized drugs. 

3. That the Claimant will not submit any evidenc~ to the 

Court. 

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 38 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
4. That the parties agree that the Claimant has preserved 

the right to contest whether the United States has established the 

forfeitability of the defendant currency. 

5. That the parties agree that the Claimant has preserved 

appellate review of the Court's decision on the suppression issue. 

6. That both parties have preserved appellate review of the 

Court's ultimate decision. 

FOR THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

LEURA G. CANARY 

Date: 

Date: IO-/1-07 

States of America 

Attorney for Claimant ~dor~c Edward 

Jones, 171 

Address of Counsel: 

For the United S~ates: 

Office of the United States Attorney 

Middle District of Alabama 

131 Clayton Street 

Post Office Box 197 

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197 

Telephone: (334) 223-7280 

Facsimile: (334) 223-7560 

For Claimant : 

L 

6728 Taylor Court 

Montgomery, Alabama 36117 

Telephone: (334) 244-7333 

Facsimile: I334) 260-9600 

Case 2:06-cv-00736-WKW-SRW Document 38 Filed 10/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.908 Contents of notice of intent to introduce restricted data or other national security information. ( a ) A party who intends to introduce Restricted Data or other National Security Information shall file a notice of intent with the Secretary. The notice shall be unclassified and, to the extent consistent with classification requirements, shall include the following: ( 1 ) The subject matter of the Restricted Data or other National Security Information which it is anticipated will be involved;
( 2 ) The highest level of classification of the information (confidential, secret, or other);
( 3 ) The stage of the proceeding at which the party anticipates a need to introduce the information; and
( 4 ) The relevance and materiality of the information to the issues on the proceeding.
( b ) In the discretion of the presiding officer, such notice, when required by § 2.907(c), may be given orally on the record.
[41 FR 53329, Dec. 6, 1976, as amended at 88 FR 57877, Aug. 24, 2023]
§ 1040.64 Effect of State or local law or other requirements and effect of employment opportunities. ( a ) The obligation to comply with this subpart is not obviated or alleviated by the existence of any State or local law or other requirement that, on the basis of handicap, imposes prohibitions or limits upon the eligibility of qualified handicapped persons to receive services or to practice any occupation or profession.
( b ) The obligation to comply with this part is not obviated or alleviated because employment opportunities in any occupation or profession are or may be more limited for handicapped persons than for non-handicapped persons.
( c ) *Effect of other regulations.* All regulations, orders, or similar directions issued by any officer of DOE which impose requirements designed to prohibit discrimination against individuals on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age or handicap under any program or activity to which this part applies, and which authorize the suspension, termination or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance for failure to comply with these requirements, are superseded to the extent that discrimination is prohibited by this part. Nothing in this part is to relieve any person of the obligation assumed or imposed under any superseded regulation, order, instruction, or similar direction prior to the effective date of this part. Nothing in this part is to supersede the effective date of this part. Nothing in this part is to supersede Executive Orders 10925, 11114, 11063, 11246, and regulations issued under these authorities, or supersede any other regulations or instructions which prohibit discrimination on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or handicap in any program or activity to which this part does not apply.
[45 FR 40515, June 13, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51347, Aug. 26, 2003]
Subpart 1806.2—Full and Open Competition

After Exclusion of Sources

Parent topic: PART 1806—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS

1806.202 Establishing or maintaining alternative sources.

(NASA supplements paragraphs (a) and (b)).

(a) The authority of FAR 6.202 is to be used to totally or partially exclude a particular source.
Case 2:06-cv-00769-MHT-DRB Document 3 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
PUBLIC LAW 107–324—DEC. 4, 2002 116 STAT. 2789

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1907:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–680 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–197 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.

Nov. 14, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 107–324

107th Congress

An Act

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to the city of Haines,

Oregon.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF HAINES, OREGON.

(a) CONVEYANCE.—As soon as practicable after the date of

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey,

without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United

States in and to the parcel of land described in subsection (b)

to the city of Haines, Oregon.

(b) DESCRIPTION OF LAND.—The parcel of land referred to in

subsection (a) is the parcel of Bureau of Land Management land

consisting of approximately 40 acres, as indicated on the map

entitled ‘‘S. 1907: Conveyance to the City of Haines, Oregon’’ and

dated May 9, 2002.

Approved December 4, 2002.

Dec. 4, 2002

[S. 1907]
#### BLOOM, Appellant, v. BANKERS' SURETY Co., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

Action by Isidor Bloom, as suriviving partner, etc., against the Bankers' Surety Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

BURR, J., taking no part.
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 45 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 45 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM

DATE: November 20, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Rob Lawrence

EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT: August 12, 2014 Call with ODEQ regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A conference call was made by EPA to the ODEQ and the attendee listed below on August 12, 

2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was 

proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES

Participant: Eddie Terrill

EPA Participants: Terry Johnson, Clovis Steib, and Rob Lawrence (Region 6) and Kevin 

Callaghan (OAR)