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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1053 

CAF 15-00376 

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF TRINITY E. 

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

MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

ROBERT E., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL E. DAVIS, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (CAROL L. EISENMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

PAUL B. WATKINS, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FAIRPORT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Patricia

E. Gallaher, J.), entered February 4, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to

Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the parental rights

of respondent. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order of disposition so appealed

from is unanimously vacated on the law without costs, the motion for

recusal is granted, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Monroe

County, for a new dispositional hearing in accordance with the

following memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services

Law § 384-b, respondent father appeals from an order of disposition

terminating his parental rights with respect to the subject child. At

the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing, Family Court made a

finding of permanent neglect and thereafter issued an order finding

permanent neglect and scheduling a dispositional hearing. The day

after the finding of permanent neglect, the father made a death threat

directed toward the court, the Attorney for the Child, the caseworker,

and the police. The father was charged with making a terroristic

threat (Penal Law § 490.20), and an order of protection was issued

against the father in favor of the court. The father now contends

that the court abused its discretion in denying his subsequent recusal

motion following the finding of permanent neglect and in presiding

over the dispositional hearing. We agree. It is well settled that,

“[a]bsent a legal disqualification under Judiciary Law § 14, a

. . . Judge is the sole arbiter of recusal” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d

403, 405), and the decision whether to recuse is committed to his or

her discretion (see id. at 406; Matter of McLaughlin v McLaughlin, 104

AD3d 1315, 1316, rearg denied 112 AD3d 1385). Under these

circumstances, and particularly in view of the order of protection, we
-2- 1053 

CAF 15-00376 

conclude that the court abused its discretion in refusing to recuse

itself (see generally People v Warren, 100 AD3d 1399, 1400). We

therefore vacate the dispositional order, grant the recusal motion

(see generally Matter of James V., 302 AD2d 916, 918), and remit the

matter to Family Court for a new dispositional hearing before a

different judge (see Matter of Jasmine H., 270 AD2d 950, 951). 

Entered: November 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# EUR-Lex - 12008M050 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008M050

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE VI: FINAL PROVISIONS - Article 50 **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0043 - 0044 *

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

--------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 32-2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND VI, L.P., SERIES 7 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk, Vice President-Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 result of operations of the Partnership.








/s/MELANIE R. WENK


Melanie R. Wenk


Vice President-Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.





Date:  January 18, 2011
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ace Marketing & Promotions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dean L. Julia, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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 result of operations of the Company.



          /S/ DEAN L. JULIA
          ---------------------
          DEAN L. JULIA
          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          AUGUST 15, 2005
From: <james.tamm@dot.gov>

To: <Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, <rebecca.yoon@dot.gov>, <Steve.Wood@dot.gov>

Date: 09/29/2010 06:12 PM

Subject: RE: Light duty NOI Learning Curves

Chandana,

Attached is the proposed rewrite on learning curves, based on interagency comment.

Jim
“3.2.7. Costs Effects due to Learning

The agencies have also reconsidered learning effects. For this assessment, we continue to 

reflect the phenomenon of volume-based learning curve cost reductions in our modeling using 

two algorithms – “volume-based” for newer technologies and “time-based” for mature 

technologies. The observed phenomenon in the economic literature which supports 

manufacture learning cost reductions are based on reductions in costs as production volumes 

increase, and the economic literature suggests these cost reductions occur indefinitely, though 

the absolute magnitude of the cost reductions decrease as production volumes increase (with 

the highest absolute cost reduction occurring with the first doubling of production). 1 The 

agencies use the terminology “volume-based” and “time-based” to distinguish among newer 

technologies and more mature technologies, and how we apply learning costs reductions in our 

assessment. Our volume-based learning algorithm applies for the early steep portion of the 

learning curve and is estimated to result in 20 percent lower costs after two full years of 

implementation (i.e., a 2014 MY cost would be 20 percent lower than the 2012 and 2013 model 

year costs for a new technology being implemented in 2012). Our time-based learning 

algorithm applies for the flatter portion of the learning curve and is estimated to result in 3 

percent lower costs in each year following first introduction of a given technology. Once two 

volume-based learning steps have occurred (for technologies having volume-based learning 

applied), time based learning would begin. For technologies to which time based learning is 

applied, learning would begin in year 2 at 3 percent per year for 5 years. Beyond 5 years of 

time-based learning at 3 percent per year, 5 years of time-based learning at 2 percent per year, 

then 5 at 1 percent per year become effective. Going forward, the agencies intend to 

investigate industry learning curves in more detail and whether learning should continue to be 

applied indefinitely, or whether cost reductions due to learning should go to zero after some 

period of time. The learning curve used in this assessment may be modified for the rule 

making.

 

1

See “Learning Curves in Manufacturing”, L. Argote and D. Epple, Science, Volume 247; “Toward Cost Buy down 

Via Learning-by-Doing for Environmental Energy Technologies, R. Williams, Princeton University, Workshop on 

Learning-by-Doing in Energy Technologies, June 2003; “Industry Learning Environmental and the Heterogeneity of 

Firm Performance, N. Balasubramanian and M. Lieberman, UCLA Anderson School of Management, December 

2006, Discussion Papers, Center for Economic Studies, Washington DC.
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 1 of 10
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 2 of 10
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 3 of 10
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 4 of 10
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 5 of 10
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 6 of 10
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 7 of 10
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 8 of 10
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 9 of 10
Case 16-28621 Doc 1-1 Filed 09/07/16 Entered 09/07/16 12:53:31 Desc Attach

 Correct PDF Page 10 of 10
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
November 9, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with United Steel Workers on the Boiler MACT Rule

FROM: Marc Thomas Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

On October 26, 2010, EPA met with members of the United Steel Workers (USW) to discuss USW’s comments on the proposed boiler majo r source rule. The “Identification of NonHazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Wa ste” proposed rule was also discussed during this meeting. Presentation and background materials provided by USW are attached.

Meeting Attendees

For the purposes of the rulemaking dockets, the people in attendance from the U.S. EPA were Bob Perciasepe, Joe Goffman, and Janet McCabe; from USW were Michael J. Wright, Keith D. Romig, Holly R. Hart, and Roxanne D. Brown.
Document

Exhibit 10.18(b)




SECOND AMENDMENT


SEAGATE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


The Seagate Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated as of January 1, 2010 (the “Plan”), is hereby amended by this Second Amendment (the “Amendment”).


WHEREAS, for purposes of this Amendment, capitalized terms used herein that are not defined shall have the meanings given to them in the Plan;


WHEREAS, Seagate US LLC (the “Company”) maintains the Plan, which is a nonqualified deferred compensation plan, for the benefit of eligible employees of the Company and Participating Companies; 


WHEREAS, Section 10.4 of the Plan document provides that the Seagate Benefits Administrative Committee (the “Committee”) has the authority to adopt and execute any amendments to the Plan; and


WHEREAS, pursuant to authority granted to the Committee under Section 10.4, the Committee has determined that it is appropriate to amend the Plan to eliminate the requirement that the Company and each Participating Company must make quarterly contributions to the Trust Fund. 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Amendment, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved and adopted effective as specified in Exhibit A.  












Exhibit A


SECOND AMENDMENT


SEAGATE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


The Seagate Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated as of January 1, 2010 (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows:


1.Effective July 31, 2020, Section 6.2 of the Plan is hereby deleted and the remaining subsections of Article VI are renumbered accordingly.


2.In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Seagate Benefits Administrative Committee, by its duly authorized delegate, has executed this Amendment to the Plan on July 30, 2020.  






									
			/s/ Janet Farabaugh

	By:	 	Janet Farabaugh
	Title:	 	Senior Director, Global Benefits
**Exhibit 13(a)**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,the undersigned officer of Amcor Limited (the “Company”), herebycertifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-Ffor the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005**(the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.**

 

 
| Dated:  December 30, 2005 | /s/ Ken McKenzie               |   |
|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                           | Name: Ken McKenzie             |
|                           | Title: Chief Executive Officer |
|                           | Managing Director              |

 

----
§ 1254.22 Do I need to register when I visit a NARA facility for research? ( a ) Yes, you must register each day you enter a NARA research facility by furnishing the information on the registration sheet or scanning an encoded researcher identification card. We may ask you for additional personal identification.
( b ) NARA facilities in the Washington, DC, area contain several research rooms; you must register in each research room you visit on a daily basis.
( c ) In regional archives, you also sign out when leaving the research room for the day. In some Presidential libraries, where we instruct you to do so, you sign out when you leave the building.
[69 FR 39314, June 30, 2004, as amended at 75 FR 10415, Mar. 8, 2010]
# EUR-Lex - 12008E/AFI/DCL/20 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E/AFI/DCL/20

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - DECLARATIONS annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007 - A. DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES - 20. Declaration on Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0345 - 0345 *

20. Declaration on Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The Conference declares that, whenever rules on protection of personal data to be adopted on the basis of Article 16 could have direct implications for national security, due account will have to be taken of the specific characteristics of the matter. It recalls that the legislation presently applicable (see in particular Directive 95/46/EC) includes specific derogations in this regard.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 1275.44 Segregating and reviewing. ( a ) During the processing period described in § 1275.42, the Archivist will assign archivists to segregate private or personal materials, as defined in § 1275.16(b). The archivists have sole responsibility for the initial review and determination of private or personal materials. At all times when the archivists or other authorized officials have access to the materials in accordance with these regulations, they will take all reasonable steps to minimize the degree of intrusion into private or personal materials. Except as provided in these regulations, the archivists or other authorized officials will not disclose to any person private or personal or otherwise restricted information learned as a result of their activities under these regulations.
( b ) During the processing period described in § 1275.42, the Archivist will assign archivists to segregate materials neither relating to abuses of governmental power, as defined in § 1275.16(c), nor otherwise having general historical significance, as defined in § 1275.16(d). The archivists have sole responsibility for the initial review and determination of those materials which are not related to abuses of governmental power and do not otherwise have general historical significance.
( c ) During the processing period described in § 1275.42, the Archivist will assign archivists to segregate materials subject to restriction, as prescribed in §§ 1275.48 and 1275.50. The archivists have sole responsibility for the initial review and determination of materials that should be restricted. The archivists insert a notification of withdrawal at the front of the file folder or container affected by the removal of restricted material. The notification includes a brief description of the restricted material and the basis for the restriction as prescribed in §§ 1275.48 and 1275.50.
NO. 07-11-00089-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A SEPTEMBER 9, 2011

MARK ANTHONY LUCIO, APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NO. A17785-0809; HONORABLE ROBER T W. KINKAID JR., JUDGE

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Mark Anthony Lucio, pleaded guilt y to the felony offense of burglary of a habitation 1 and, pursuant to a plea bargain, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for eight years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate the offense. Appellant was adj udicated guilty of the burglary offense and sentenced to serve a term of confinement for 11 years in the Institutional Division of the

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 30.02(a)(1) (West 2011).2 Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant appealed the trial court’s judgment. We affirm.
Appellant = s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reve rsible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id . at 744-45. In compli ance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no e rror in the trial court = s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appe llant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant did not file a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the ap peal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to dete rmine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have f ound no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.3 Accordingly, counsel = s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court = s judgment is affirmed. 2

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Do not publish.

2 Counsel shall, within five days after th is opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with not ification of appellant = s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4.
# EUR-Lex - 12002E202 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E202

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title I: Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 2: The Council - Article 202 - Article 145 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 145 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0117 - 0117 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0264 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0057 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title I: Provisions governing the institutions

Chapter 1: The institutions

Section 2: The Council

Article 202

Article 145 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 145 - EEC Treaty

Article 202

To ensure that the objectives set out in this Treaty are attained the Council shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty:

- ensure coordination of the general economic policies of the Member States,

- have power to take decisions,

- confer on the Commission, in the acts which the Council adopts, powers for the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down. The Council may impose certain requirements in respect of the exercise of these powers. The Council may also reserve the right, in specific cases, to exercise directly implementing powers itself. The procedures referred to above must be consonant with principles and rules to be laid down in advance by the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the opinion of the European Parliament.