alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1373 KA 11-01406 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES VANVALKINBURGH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

BENDER & BENDER, LLP, BUFFALO (PAUL A. BENDER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered June 23, 2010. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of rape in the third degree (three counts).
It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for resentencing.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a resentence upon his conviction of three counts of rape in the third degree (Penal Law § 130.25 [2]). Defendant’s contentions regarding the severity of his resentence are encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal from the resentence ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the waiver of the right to appeal at the time of the plea is not subject to our review inasmuch as he did not appeal from the judgment, and the resentence occurred more than 30 days after the original sentence ( see CPL 450.30 [3]). We nevertheless note, however, that defendant’s contention that Supreme Court imposed an aggregate period of 30 years of postrelease supervision is not supported by the record ( cf. People v Kennedy , 78 AD3d 1477, 1479, lv denied 16 NY3d 798). As defendant has failed to recognize, the periods of postrelease supervision imposed on the consecutive terms of imprisonment “shall merge with and be satisfied by discharge of the period of post[]release supervision having the longest unexpired time to run” (Penal Law § 70.45 [5] [c]).
Although defendant does not challenge the legality of the sentence, the court was required to impose determinate terms of imprisonment in “whole or half years” (Penal Law § 70.80 [3]), and we cannot allow the illegal sentences of 2 a years of imprisonment imposed on each count to stand ( see Kennedy , 78 AD3d at 1479; see-2- 1373 KA 11-01406
generally People v March , 89 AD3d 1496). We therefore reverse the resentence and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a further resentencing.

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the *

doctrines o f law of the c ase , res jud icata an d co llateral estop pel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an

orde r and judgmen t may be c ited under the terms an d co nditions of 1 0th Cir.

R. 36.3.

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 12, 2006

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN M. JONES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

E.J. GALLEGOS, Warden, USPLeavenworth,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-3069

(D.C. No. 05-CV-3182-RDR)

(D. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, KELLY and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

The petitioner appeals the dismissal by the United States District Court for
2

the District of Kansas of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm. 

In the petition filed in the district court, the petitioner challenged his drug

and firearms convictions and the resulting sentence entered by the United States

District Court for the District of Nebraska. He alleged that: 1) his guilty plea

was not knowing and voluntary; 2) false testimony was presented to the grand

jury which issued the indictment; 3) he was denied effective assistance of

counsel; 4) the prosecution engaged in misconduct; 5) he was denied due process,

and 6) he is actually innocent. The district court dismissed.

Normally, “‘[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a

sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the

prisoner is confined. A 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition attacks the legality of

detention, and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence.’” Haugh v.

Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir.2000) (quoting Bradshaw v. Story, 86

F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996)). Section 2241 “is not an additional, alternative, or

supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166. Only if

the petitioner shows that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to challenge the

validity of a judgment or sentence may a prisoner petition for such a remedy

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. “Failure to obtain relief under § 2255 does not

establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or ineffective.” Id.

(quotation omitted). 
3

The petitioner has not established the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of 28

U.S.C. § 2255. 

Accordingly the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam
§ 516.27 Change in sponsorship. ( a ) A sponsor may transfer sponsorship of a MUMS-designated drug to another person. A change of sponsorship will also transfer the designation status of the drug which will remain in effect for the new sponsor subject to the same conditions applicable to the former sponsor provided that at the time of a potential transfer, the new and former sponsors submit the following information in writing and obtain permission from FDA: ( 1 ) The former sponsor shall submit a letter to FDA that documents the transfer of sponsorship of the MUMS-designated drug. This letter shall specify the date of the transfer. The former sponsor shall also certify in writing to FDA that a complete copy of the request for MUMS-drug designation, including any amendments to the request, and correspondence relevant to the MUMS-drug designation, has been provided to the new sponsor.
( 2 ) The new sponsor shall submit a letter or other document containing the following information: ( i ) A statement accepting the MUMS-drug designated file or application;
( ii ) The date that the change in sponsorship is intended to be effective;
( iii ) A statement that the new sponsor has a complete copy of the request for MUMS-drug designation, including any amendments to the request and any correspondence relevant to the MUMS-drug designation;
( iv ) A statement that the new sponsor understands and accepts the responsibilities of a sponsor of a MUMS-designated drug established elsewhere in this subpart;
( v ) The name and address of a new primary contact person or permanent resident U.S. agent; and
( vi ) Evidence that the new sponsor is capable of actively pursuing approval with due diligence.
( b ) No sponsor may relieve itself of responsibilities under the act or under this subpart by assigning rights to another person without: ( 1 ) Assuring that the new sponsor will carry out such responsibilities; and
( 2 ) Obtaining prior permission from FDA.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 142

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### § 520.1660 Oxytetracycline.
Editorial Note on Part 312
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 312.140 Address for correspondence. ( a ) A sponsor must send an initial IND submission to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) or to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), depending on the Center responsible for regulating the product as follows: ( 1 ) *For drug products regulated by CDER.* Send the IND submission to the Central Document Room, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266.
( 2 ) *For biological products regulated by CDER.* Send the IND submission to the Central Document Room, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5901-B Ammendale Rd., Beltsville, MD 20705-1266.
( 3 ) *For biological products regulated by CBER.* Send the IND submission to the Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G112, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
( b ) On receiving the IND, the responsible Center will inform the sponsor which one of the divisions in CDER or CBER is responsible for the IND. Amendments, reports, and other correspondence relating to matters covered by the IND should be sent to the appropriate center at the address indicated in this section and marked to the attention of the responsible division. The outside wrapper of each submission shall state what is contained in the submission, for example, “IND Application”, “Protocol Amendment”, etc.
( c ) All correspondence relating to export of an investigational drug under § 312.110(b)(2) shall be submitted to the International Affairs Staff (HFY-50), Office of Health Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
[70 FR 14981, Mar. 24, 2005, as amended at 74 FR 13113, Mar. 26, 2009; 74 FR 55771, Oct. 29, 2009; 75 FR 37295, June 29, 2010; 80 FR 18091, Apr. 3, 2015; 81 FR 17066, Mar. 28, 2016; 84 FR 6673, Feb. 28, 2019]
### Geology and water resources of Tularosa basin, New Mexico

By: Oscar Edward MeinzerRaleigh Frederick Hare

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp343

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7507 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 203 East 6th Street in Lexington, Nebraska, 

as the ‘William E. and Elsie L. Barrett Post Office 

Building. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7507 EH

1 SECTION 1. WILLIAM E. AND ELSIE L. BARRETT POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 203 East 6th Street in Lex5 ington, Nebraska, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘William E. and Elsie L. Barrett Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘William E. and Elsie 

11 L. Barrett Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7507 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostL. Barrett Post Office Building. ington, Nebraska, as the ‘William E. and Elsie al Service located at 203 East 6th Street in Lex-
Exhibit








AMENDMENT NO. 6
TO AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER TRUST AGREEMENT  




This Amendment No. 6 to the Amended and Restated Master Trust Agreement (this “Amendment No. 6) is entered into as of December 12, 2016 (the “Amendment No. 6 Effective Date”), by and between Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Walmart”) located at 702 SW 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas 72716 on the one hand, and MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. (“MoneyGram”), a Delaware corporation with a place of business at 2828 N. Harwood, Dallas, TX 75201.
    
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Parties on or about February 1, 2016, entered into that certain Amended And Restated Master Trust Agreement (“Agreement”) pursuant to which, among other things, MoneyGram agreed to offer certain Services at certain Walmart locations, and Walmart agreed to act as MoneyGram’s agent in providing such Services at such locations;


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the following terms and conditions, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which each Party hereby acknowledges, the Parties hereby agree as follows:




		
	1.
	Except as otherwise indicated, capitalized terms used in this Amendment No. 6 have the same meanings as in the Agreement.




		
	2.
	Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof.




		
	3.
	If there is any inconsistency between the terms of this Amendment No. 6 and the Agreement, the terms of Amendment No. 6 will govern. 




		
	4.
	The following paragraph shall be added as a second paragraph to Section N(ii) of Attachment C:




Notwithstanding the above, for the 2016 Contract Year which ends on February 1, 2017, the Parties acknowledge that MoneyGram has only spent [*] of the IGD Allowance. The remaining balance of [*] (the “Rollover IGD Allowance”) shall be rolled over to and added to the IDG Allowance for Contract Year 2017 which shall commence on February 1, 2017 and end on January 31, 2018. MoneyGram shall expend the Rollover IGD Allowance for mutually agreeable endeavors during Contract Year 2017 and shall pay any unused portion of the Rollover IGD Allowance to Walmart within 30 days following the end of Contract Year 2017. 








________________________
1 The appearance of [*] denotes confidential information that has been omitted from this Exhibit 10.13 and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a confidential treatment request under Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


Page 1 of 2







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 6 is entered into by and among MoneyGram and Walmart as of the Amendment No. 6 Effective Date.




	
		
	WAL-MART STORES, INC.
	MONEYGRAM PAYMENT 
SYSTEMS, INC.

	By:  /s/ Daniel J. Eckert
	By: /s/ W. Alexander Holmes

	Name: Daniel J. Eckert
	Name:  W. Alexander Holmes

	Title: Senior Vice President, Walmart Services


Date: 2/20/2017
	Title:   Chief Executive Officer


Date: 2/6/2017








Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>



<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>          JUN-30-1999

<CASH>                       43,430,915
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                50,487,014
<ALLOWANCES>                    144,288
<INVENTORY>                 154,757,864
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                       59,580,351
<DEPRECIATION>               27,226,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>              291,218,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              0
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                  186,455,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>291,218,721
<SALES>                     189,553,552
<TOTAL-REVENUES>            189,553,552
<CGS>                       144,232,002
<TOTAL-COSTS>               144,232,002
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              6,768,377
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              38,553,173
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          38,553,173
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                 38,553,173
<EPS-BASIC>                     94.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                     94.47



</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1373 

KA 11-01406 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES VANVALKINBURGH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

BENDER & BENDER, LLP, BUFFALO (PAUL A. BENDER OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M.

William Boller, A.J.), rendered June 23, 2010. Defendant was

resentenced upon his conviction of rape in the third degree (three

counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the resentence so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law and the matter is remitted to Supreme

Court, Erie County, for resentencing. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a resentence upon his

conviction of three counts of rape in the third degree (Penal Law §

130.25 [2]). Defendant’s contentions regarding the severity of his

resentence are encompassed by the valid waiver of the right to appeal

from the resentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). Contrary

to defendant’s contention, the waiver of the right to appeal at the

time of the plea is not subject to our review inasmuch as he did not

appeal from the judgment, and the resentence occurred more than 30

days after the original sentence (see CPL 450.30 [3]). We

nevertheless note, however, that defendant’s contention that Supreme

Court imposed an aggregate period of 30 years of postrelease

supervision is not supported by the record (cf. People v Kennedy, 78

AD3d 1477, 1479, lv denied 16 NY3d 798). As defendant has failed to

recognize, the periods of postrelease supervision imposed on the

consecutive terms of imprisonment “shall merge with and be satisfied

by discharge of the period of post[]release supervision having the

longest unexpired time to run” (Penal Law § 70.45 [5] [c]). 

Although defendant does not challenge the legality of the

sentence, the court was required to impose determinate terms of

imprisonment in “whole or half years” (Penal Law § 70.80 [3]), and we

cannot allow the illegal sentences of 2a years of imprisonment

imposed on each count to stand (see Kennedy, 78 AD3d at 1479; see
-2- 1373 

KA 11-01406 

generally People v March, 89 AD3d 1496). We therefore reverse the

resentence and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a further

resentencing. 

Entered: December 23, 2011 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
1 

### Palma, Elizabeth

From: Nancy Kruger <nkruger@4cleanair.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 9:38 PM To: Palma, Elizabeth Cc: Jones, Rhea; Mathias, Scott Subject: Invitation: NACAA call on exceptional events



### Dear Beth,

NACAA invites you and your EPA co lleagues to join us on a conference call on Friday, December 11, 2015, to respond to our members' clarifyin g questions on EPA's proposed exceptional events rule and draft wildfire guidance. T he call will be g in at 1:30 PM Eastern and we ex pect this Q&A portion to run about 30 minutes after which we'll continue with a NACAA-only discussion. The call-in number and access code are

We will ask our members to provide questions in advance and will forw ard those to you on Wednesday, December 9. We'll start with those questions and then open it up for additional questions as time allows. I don't think we'll need an EPA overview of the proposal and draft guidance; hopefully folks have already begun digging into these documents.

We'll take roll at the begi nning of the call and I'll provide you with a list of participating NACAA state and local air agencies following the call.

Please confirm your particip ation and also let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, -Nancy

_________________________________ Nancy Kruger Deputy Director National Association of Clean Air Agencies 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 307 Washington, DC 200011 

### Palma, Elizabeth

From: Palma, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 10:31 AM To: Palma, Elizabeth Subject: FW: Invitation: NACAA call on exceptional events - List of Attendees (For Docket)

EPA Participants on the December 11, 2015 Call

Beth Palma, USEPA/OAQPS

Mark Evangelista, USEPA/OAQPS

Justin Spenillo, USEPA/Region 10 Michael Flagg, USEPA/Region 9

From: Nancy Kruger [mailto:nkruger@4cleanair.org]

Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 8:27 AM

To: Palma, Elizabeth <Palma.Elizabeth@epa.gov> Subject: Re: Invitation: NACAA call on exceptional events ‐ List of Attendees



### Hi Beth,

Here's the list from roll call:

Rhode Island Connecticut Massachusetts Maryland Pennsylvania West Virginia Alabama Tennessee Georgia South Carolina Mississippi Kentucky Wisconsin Minnesota Illinois Michigan Oklahoma Arkansas New Mexico Iowa Missouri Kansas Utah Wyoming Colorado Nevada California2 

### Washington Idaho Alaska

Knox Co., TN Vandenburg Co., IN Harris Co., TX Ventura, CA Sacramento, CA San Diego, CA Los Angeles, CA Washoe Co., NV Seattle, WA Yakima, WA Spokane, WA

NACAA SESARM CenSARA WESTAR

Thanks again, -Nancy

____________________________ Nancy Kruger Deputy Director National Association of Clean Air Agencies 444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 307 Washington, DC 20001