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

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**843 KA 10-01787**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, GREEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC STEPHENS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), entered August 2, 2010. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq .), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to determine that he was entitled to a downward departure to a level two risk. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as there is no indication in the record that he requested such a departure ( see People v Ratcliff , 53 AD3d 1110, lv denied 11 NY3d 708). In any event, we conclude that “defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of special circumstances justifying a downward departure” ( People v McDaniel , 27 AD3d 1158, 1159, lv denied 7 NY3d 703; see People v Fredendall , 83 AD3d 1545).

Entered: July 1, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### § 161.50 Vessel Traffic Service San Francisco.

The VTS area consists of all the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay Region south of the Mare Island Causeway Bridge and the Petaluma River Entrance Channel Daybeacon 19 and Petaluma River Entrace Channel Light 20 and north of the Dumbarton Bridge; its seaward approaches within a 38 nautical mile radius of Mount Tamalpais (37°55.8′ N., 122°34.6′ W.); and its navigable tributaries as far east as the port of Stockton on the San Joaquin River, as far north as the port of Sacramento on the Sacramento River.

[CGD 90-020, 59 FR 36324, July 15, 1994, as amended by CGD 95-033, 60 FR 28332, May 31, 1995; USCG-2016-0498, 82 FR 35088, July 28, 2017]
#### § 102-75.360 What wording must be in the non-discrimination clause that is required in the offer to purchase and in the conveyance document?

The wording of the non-discrimination clause must be as follows:

The Grantee covenants for itself, its heirs, successors, and assigns and every successor in interest to the property hereby conveyed, or any part thereof, that the said Grantee and such heirs, successors, and assigns shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, creed, color, religion, sex, disability, age, or national origin in the use, occupancy, sale, or lease of the property, or in their employment practices conducted thereon. This covenant shall not apply, however, to the lease or rental of a room or rooms within a family dwelling unit; nor shall it apply with respect to religion to premises used primarily for religious purposes. The United States of America shall be deemed a beneficiary of this covenant without regard to whether it remains the owner of any land or interest therein in the locality of the property hereby conveyed and shall have the sole right to enforce this covenant in any court of competent jurisdiction.
§ 102-37.75 What should be included in a shortage report? The shortage report should include: ( a ) The name and address of the holding agency;
( b ) All pertinent GSA and holding agency control numbers, in addition to the original transfer order number; and
( c ) A description of each line item of property, the condition code, the quantity and unit of issue, and the unit and total acquisition cost.
#### § 102-74.515 Will the affected person or organization and the Federal agency buildings manager have an opportunity to state their positions on the issues?

Yes, during the appeal process, the affected person or organization and the Federal agency buildings manager will have an opportunity to state their positions on the issues, both verbally and in writing.
#### § 102-37.55 Who pays for transportation and other costs associated with a donation?

The receiving organization (the transferee) is responsible for any packing, shipping, or transportation charges associated with the transfer of surplus property for donation. Those costs, in the case of SASPs, may be passed on to donees that receive the property.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 589

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the special deduction

for the living expenses of Members of Congress to $1.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1999

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce

the special deduction for the living expenses of Members

of Congress to $1.

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

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION OF SPECIAL DEDUCTION FOR LIV4 ING EXPENSES OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The second sentence of subsection

6 (a) of section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

7 (relating to trade or business expenses) is amended by

8 striking ‘‘$3,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1’’.
2

•HR 589 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

3 December 31, 1998.

Æ
§ 102-117.295 Who makes the decisions on temporary nonuse, suspension and debarment? ( a ) The transportation officer may place a TSP in temporary nonuse for a period not to exceed 90 days.
( b ) The serious nature of suspension and debarment requires that these sanctions be imposed only in the public interest for the Government's protection and not for purposes of punishment. Only the agency head or his/her designee may suspend or debar a TSP.
Hillsborough

No. 78-221

#### Lloyd W. Linzell v. John G. Nelson, Jr., Trustee

January 31, 1979

*Joseph L. Clough,*of Nashua, by brief and orally, for the plaintiff.

*Winer, Lynch, Pillsbury & Howorth,*of Nashua *(S. Robert Winer*orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

On petition of plaintiff, the owner of certain commercial property in Nashua, defendant was temporarily restrained by *Dunfey,*J., from foreclosing on a mortgage held by him. The injunction was conditional on the filing of an injunction bond in the amount of $5,000.00, which was filed on August 18, 1977.

On May 15,1978, after various proceedings, *Souter,*J., ordered that the injunction be dissolved on June 30, 1978, and that on that date defendant could proceed under the power-of-sale provisions of the mortgage. He further ordered that if the property was sold before June 30, the parties agreed that not less than $150,000 in cash should be paid to defendant and that not more than $15,000 should be placed in escrow. The rights of the parties under the injunction bond and with respect to costs chargeable regarding foreclosure proceedings and credits were left for a later hearing if the parties could not agree.

Thereafter, plaintiff moved that the requirement of placing $15,000 in escrow be continued in foree notwithstanding the dissolution of the injunction. Defendant then moved for reconsideration, claiming that certain items were overlooked when the court ordered the amount of not less than $150,000 be paid to him in case of sale and that the correct amount should have been $184,908. Plaintiff then moved to stay the court’s order until the correct amount could be determined, claiming that the uncertainty thus created impaired his ability to effect a sale. All motions were denied by *Souter,*J., who transferred plaintiffs exceptions. We find no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the *41trial court, considering that the mortgage payments were in arrears since 1974 and that the foreclosure was delayed from August 18,1977, to June 30, 1978.

*Exceptions overruled.*
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15558]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1952


State Plans: Coverage of the United States Postal Service and 
Other Coverage Issues--Changes to Level of Federal Enforcement for 
Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto 
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, the Virgin 
Islands, Washington and Wyoming; Correction

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. 
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration published in 
the Federal Register on June 9, 2000 (65 FR 36617), a document amending 
its regulations on State Plans to reflect Federal coverage of the 
United States Postal Service and other coverage issues. In subpart Q, 
Kentucky, Sec. 1952.236, where the plan may be inspected, was 
inadvertently designated as Sec. 1952.96. This document corrects that 
designation.

EFFECTIVE DATE :  June 9, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Friedman, Director, Office of 
Information and Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U. S. Department of Labor, Room N3637, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, (202) 693-1999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction of Publication

    In the final rule (FR Doc. 00-14150) published in the Federal 
Register on June 9, 2000 (65 FR 36617), make the following correction:

PART 1952--[CORRECTED]


Sec. 1952.236  [Corrected]

    On page 36625, in the first column, following amendatory 
instruction 31, correctly designate Sec. 1952.96 as Sec. 1952.236.

    Authority: This document was prepared under the direction of 
Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. the 14th day of June, 2000.
Charles N. Jeffress,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15558 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
#### § 102-75.530 What happens if the Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services does not approve any applications for conveyance of the property for educational or public health purposes?

In the absence of an approved application from ED or HHS to convey the property for educational or public health purposes, which must be received within the 30 calendar day time limit, the disposal agency will proceed with other disposal actions.
05/16/2022

**Service Opportunity Listing Template**

Use this optional template to develop and draft your service opportunity listing prior to inputting the information into eGrants. Service opportunity listings cannot be partially saved throughout the input process. Thus this template provides the option to work on a new service opportunity listing at your own pace. 

**Public Health AmeriCorps (PHA) Grantees:** Please select “Public Health AmeriCorps” in the field of service areas in which your members are serving (designated under PAGE 3 below) so that your program is filtered under this designation during an applicant program search.

* = Required field by eGrants 		

** = Required field by AmeriCorps
#### § 102-38.30 How does an executive agency request a deviation from the provisions of this part?

Refer to §§ 102-2.60 through 102-2.110 of this chapter for information on how to obtain a deviation from this part. However, waivers which are distinct from the standard deviation process and specific to the requirements of the Federal Asset Sales (eFAS) initiative milestones (see subpart H of this part) are addressed in § 102-38.360.

[73 FR 20802, Apr. 17, 2008]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 686 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 43
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 686

                          [Report No. 106-109]

 To designate a United States courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, as the 
                ``Garza-Vela United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1999

  Mr. Ortiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             April 27, 1999

  Additional sponsors: Mr. Reyes, Mr. Hinojosa, and Mr. Green of Texas

                             April 27, 1999

       Committed to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate a United States courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, as the 
                ``Garza-Vela United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at the corner of Seventh 
Street and East Jackson Street in Brownsville, Texas, shall be 
designated and known as the ``Garza-Vela United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Garza-Vela 
United States Courthouse''.
                                     

                                                  House Calendar No. 43

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 686

                          [Report No. 106-109]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate a United States courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, as the 
                ``Garza-Vela United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 27, 1999

       Committed to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
#### THERESA J. CABIBO, PLAINTIFF, v. LAWRENCE J. CABIBO, DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division

*374
      *Miss Florence F.*Forgotson, attorney for plaintiff.

*Mr. Alfred M. Gozzi,*attorney for defendant.

McLean, J. S. C.

This is a motion for change of venue. The action was brought in Monmouth County. The motion is for removal to Hudson. The action is for absolute divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. The parties were married January 27, 1946, and resided in West New York, Hudson Countjq until their separation in January or February of 1950, when plaintiff went to live in Monmouth County. Defendant has continued to reside in West New York. It ■would appear that if the plaintiff has a cause of action based on extreme cruelty it must have arisen prior to the separation and while she resided with her husband in Hudson County. The pleadings fail to show anything to the contrary.

*Rule*3:83 provides: “In matrimonial actions, unless the court otherwise orders, the venue shall be laid in the county where plaintiff was domiciled when the cause of action arose.” The rules have been carefully designed. Their purpose is to render the civil practice just and simple and to prevent unjustifiable expense and delay. Comment to remind the experienced practitioner how these purposes may be defeated by evils attendant upon a system which would permit a litigant to choose his own forum is unnecessary, and it must be conceded that the purpose of the rules will be best served by adhering to expressed provisions and not departing therefrom except for considerations of the utmost importance.

In the instant case, plaintiff justifies bringing the action in Monmouth and resists removal to Hudson on the ground that witnesses residing in Monmouth would be inconvenienced if required to go to Hudson and that she is without funds for additional expense and would have to ask the court to direct the defendant to pay such costs if she is obliged to *375go to Hudson County. These matters are not of sufficient importance to justify the prosecution of this cause elsewhere than in the county where the cause of action arose, which, as indicated above, appears to be Hudson County. The inconvenience of witnesses is not considered under *Rule*3:83; such matters may be overcome by the rules providing for depositions. And the practice of providing an injured wife with sufficient means to prosecute her cause is available *pendente lite.*

The motion will be granted and an order entered changing the venue to Hudson County.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41090

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MOISES ELISEO GARDUNO-HERMOSA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-280-1

--------------------

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Moises Eliseo Garduno-Hermosa (Garduno) appeals the sentence

imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine. 

Garduno argues for the first time on appeal that the district

court erred by sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing

guidelines scheme, that this issue is subject to de novo review,

and that prejudice should be presumed. See United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).
No. 04-41090

-2-

Garduno concedes that pursuant to United States v. Mares,

402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31,

2005) (No. 04-9517), plain error review applies and that he

cannot establish that the district court’s error affected his

substantial rights. He raises the issue solely to preserve

Supreme Court review.

Because Garduno has not established that the district court

plainly erred in sentencing him, his sentence is AFFIRMED. 

See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-34

(5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005)

(No. 05-5556).
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2001 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2001 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2001 P
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 22-CV-23120-KMM

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

EL CAMINO DELRAY, LLC.

Defendant.

________________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, WINDY LUCIUS, by and through the undersigned counsel, 

hereby notifies the Court that the Parties have reached an agreement in principle that resolves all 

claims that were or could have been brought in this action and are in the process of working on the 

Settlement Agreement. The Parties request that the Court stay all matters and pending deadlines 

in this action and grant the Parties sixty (60) days to finalize their written Settlement Agreement 

and to submit the appropriate notices and/or stipulations to the Court regarding dismissal of the 

Action.

Respectfully submitted on this October 6, 2022. 

By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

FBN: 628166

Case 1:22-cv-23120-KMM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2022 Page 1 of 2
Lucius v. El Camino Delray

Case No. 22-cv-23120-KMM

Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 6, 2022, an electronic copy of the foregoing 

document was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of 

electronic filing to all parties and Counsel of record. 

By: /s/ J. Courtney Cunningham 

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

FBN: 628166

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com 

legal@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-23120-KMM Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/06/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 102-75.915 Do disposal agencies need to retain a copy of the explanatory statement?

Yes, disposal agencies must retain a copy of the explanatory statement in their files.
EXHIBIT 99



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of China Ventures Limited ("the
ompany") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report), I. James N.
L. Chow Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all Material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operation of the Company.



/s/ James N. L. Chow
--------------------
James N. L. Chow
Secretary and
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
January 31, 2003
Page 1

Anthony J. Pucciarella

ALARIS

PO Box 1835

Lusby, MD 20657

240.538.8444

Tony@TeamAlaris.com

25 November 2015

United States Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

West Building Ground Floor Room W12

- 140

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Response to your letter dated 17 November 2015 requesting additional information for Docket No.

FAA

- 2015

- 3796

Dear Ms. Robeson :

Th e requested petition is intended to allow UAV Solutions to conduct the following commercial UAS

operations:

- Aerial photography/video for public/private use including land surveys, architecture, real estate,

engineering, and other related professional activities.

- Aerial video/photography for public/private use including television, public events,

cinematography and news gathering.

- Aerial inspection/photogr aphy of residential/commercial structures under contract with the

owners or local government authority.

- Aerial inspection/photography of residential/commercial utility infrastructure including but not

limited to electrical power lines, wind turbines and ce ll towers.

- Aerial video/photography to assist with search and rescue operations in cases of an emergency

or natural disaster when requested by local authorities or government organizations.

- Training public/private individuals that have interests in the use and application of UAS to

support safe operations that enhance the safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) as well

as for the protection of persons and property.

Pleas e let me know if additional information is required.

Sincerely,

Anthony J. Pucciarella

ALARIS

Agent for UAV Solutions, Inc.

Cc: William Davidson