alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: June 30, 2016 107098 

________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK, 

Respondent, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAM MANN, 

Appellant.

________________________________

Calendar Date: May 24, 2016

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Erin C. Morigerato, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Michael C.

Wetmore of counsel), for respondent.

__________

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County

(Herrick, J.), rendered August 14, 2014, convicting defendant

upon his plea of guilty of the crime of strangulation in the

second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to strangulation in the second

degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced

defendant as a predicate felon, in accordance with the plea

agreement, to a prison term of seven years followed by five years

of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention

that the combined oral and written waiver of the right to appeal

was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Lopez, 6
-2- 107098 

NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Belile, 137 AD3d 1460, 1461

[2016]). The record reflects that County Court explained, and

defendant acknowledged that he understood, that the waiver of the

right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights

automatically forfeited by the guilty plea. In addition,

defendant confirmed that he had read, understood and signed the

written waiver of appeal, which he had executed in open court. 

Given defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, his

challenge to the agreed-upon sentence as harsh and excessive is

precluded (see People v Bethea, 133 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2015]). 

Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his

guilty plea survives the appeal waiver, it is unpreserved for our

review as the record does not indicate that defendant made any

postallocution motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see CPL 220.60

[3]; People v Buck, 136 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2016]; People v Blair,

136 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2016], lvs denied ___ NY3d ___ [May 10,

2016]). Furthermore, the narrow exception to the preservation

rule is inapplicable as defendant made no statements during the

plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt or

otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see

People v Sawyer, 135 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d

1006 [2016]; People v Bethea, 133 AD3d at 1034).

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
§ 402.31 Determination of allocations. ( a ) *Allocation formula.* Allocations will be computed according to a formula using the following factors and weights: ( 1 ) 50 percent based on the State's eligible legalized alien population, with 49 percent based upon the number of eligible legalized aliens in a State relative to the number of such aliens in all States, and 1 percent to States which have higher-than-average ratios of eligible legalized aliens to total population relative to the average for all States, based on the proportional number of such aliens; and
( 2 ) 50 percent based on the ratio of SLIAG-related costs in a State to the total of all such costs in all States.
( b ) *Calculation of allocations.* ( 1 ) Each time the Department calculates State allocations, it will use the best data then available to the Secretary on the distribution of eligible legalized aliens by State.
( 2 ) For all years except fiscal years 1993 and 1994, the Department will determine each State's SLIAG-related costs to be included in the computation of its allocation for a fiscal year by adding to the sum of SLIAG-related costs reported for all previous fiscal years by that State, pursuant to § 402.51(e) (1) and (2), the total amount of estimated SLIAG-related costs included in the State's approved application for that fiscal year, pursuant to § 402.41(c) (1) and (2). For fiscal years 1993 and 1994, the Department will add to the amount of estimated SLIAG-related costs included in the State's approved applications for fiscal years 1993 and 1994, respectively, the sum of SLIAG-related costs for all previous years ending with FY 1991 (for FY 1993 applications) or FY 1992 (for FY 1994 applications), and the first and second quarters of FY 1992 (for FY 1993 applications) or FY 1993 (for FY 1994 applications), pursuant to § 402.52(e)(4). In the event that a State has not submitted an approved report for a fiscal year, the Department will include no costs for that fiscal year in its calculation.
[53 FR 7858, Mar. 10, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 21248, May 7, 1991; 57 FR 19386, May 6, 1992; 58 FR 31913, June 7, 1993; 59 FR 65727, Dec. 21, 1994]
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1713 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To name the South Central Agricultural Research Laboratory of the Department of Agriculture in Lane, Oklahoma, and the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 310 North Perry Street in Bennington, 

Oklahoma, in honor of former Congressman Wesley 

‘‘Wes’’ Watkins. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1713 RFS 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION OF SOUTH CENTRAL AGRI4 CULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, LANE, 

5 OKLAHOMA. 

6 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The South Central Agricul7 tural Research Laboratory of the Department of Agri8 culture in Lane, Oklahoma, shall be known and redesig9 nated as the ‘‘Wes Watkins Agricultural Research Labora10 tory’’. 

11 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg12 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

13 States to the South Central Agricultural Research Lab14 oratory shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Wes 

15 Watkins Agricultural Research Laboratory’’. 

16 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF WES WATKINS POST OFFICE, 

17 BENNINGTON, OKLAHOMA. 

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

19 Postal Service located at 310 North Perry Street in 

20 Bennington, Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as 

21 the ‘‘Wes Watkins Post Office’’. 

22 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg23 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1713 RFS 

1 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Wes Watkins Post 

2 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
§ 2502.90 How may an AmeriCorps employee request indemnification? To request indemnification for a verdict, judgment, award, or settlement proposal of a covered claim, the AmeriCorps employee must: ( a ) Have complied with the requirements of § 2502.70.
( b ) Submit a written request, via their supervisor, to the head of the employee's office, or (in the case a former employee) directly to the Office of General Counsel. The written request must include appropriate documentation, including copies of the verdict, judgment, award, or settlement proposal.
DERARTMENT OF 

IRANSPORWION 

iiOCKET OPERATIONS 

2010 OCT - I A iO: 2 2 

NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY 

SENATOR LARRY SHAW 

DISTRICT 21 

311 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING 

RALEIGH. N C 27603-5925 

larrys@ncleg.net 9 (919) 733-9349 

August 17,2010 

The Honorable Secretary Ray LaHood 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

Greetings on behalf of the 21^' Senatorial District of North Carolina! I am writing to 

express my support for the grant application submitted by North Carolina's Fayetteville 

Regional Airport (FAY) under the Small Community Air Service Development Program. 

New non-stop air service between Fayetteville and the Washington, DC metropolitan area 

has been identified by our local community as a high-priority transportation requirement. 

A financial grant would help secure the commitment of a commercial airline to provide 

this essential service. 

Demand for Washington, DC air service is being driven by tremendous growth at Fort 

Bragg related to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Under BRAC, Fort 

Bragg will add thousands of military personnel in the next few years. Of particular note, 

the US Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) and Army Reserve Command (USARC) 

will transfer fi-om Fort McPherson in Atlanta to Fort Bragg by September 2011. The 

addition of these units will substantially increase the number of trips between Fort Bragg 

and Washington, DC both by the military and companies doing business with the 

Department of Defense. 

Fort Bragg is located within North Carolina's 2P' Senatorial District, which I represent. I 

have first-hand knowledge of the benefits of this service, as I personally travel to 

Washington, DC several times a month. Located just 13.6 miles from Fort Bragg's main 

gate and within easy access of surrounding communities, Fayetteville Regional Airport isideally positioned to accommodate the region's Washington, DC travelers. Currently 

travelers in this market are forced to either drive six (6) hours each way or fly via 
alternative airports. These options are neither efficient nor economical and present 

substantial obstacles to maximizing the economic potential of the BRAC process in the 

Fayetteville region. 

I respectfully ask that the highest consideration is given to the Fayetteville Regional 

Airport's grant application in order to improve access to Washington, DC for the benefit 

of military, business and leisure travelers alike. 

Sincerely, 

Larry Shaw
#### § 2101.11 Secretary to the Commission.

Subject to the direction of the Chairman, the Secretary to the Commission is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the agency and for supervising the staff in its support of the functions of the Commission; for preparing the agenda of Commission meetings; for organizing presentations before the Commission of plans, designs, or questions upon which it is to advise, comment, or respond; for interpreting the Commission's conclusions, advice, or recommendations on each matter submitted to it; for maintaining a liaison with other governmental entities, professionals, and the public; and for maintaining the Commission's records. The Assistant Secretary of the Commission shall carry out duties delegated to him/her by the Secretary and shall act in place of the Secretary during his/her absence or disability.
#### Charles Olsen, Respondent, *v.*Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant.

*Olsen y. Metropolitan Street Ry. Go.,*124 App. Div. 924, affirmed.

(Argued June 10,’1909;

decided October 5, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 5, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through a collision between a wagon and one of defendant’s cars.

*Franklin*Kennedy, *James L. -Quackenbush*and *Henry A. Robinson*for appellant.

*Frank F. Hippie*and *Clinton T. Roe*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Not sitting: Gray, J.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Diagnostic Imaging International Corp. (the Company) on 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard Jagodnik, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|             |                                                 
|------------ | ------------------------------------------------
|             |                                                 
|May 13, 2009 | /s/ Richard Jagodnik                            
|             | Richard Jagodnik                                
|             | Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 64 FR 6247, Feb. 9, 1999.

#### § 302.34 Cooperative arrangements.

The State plan shall provide that the State will enter into agreements, which are reflected in a record, for cooperative arrangements under § 303.107 of this chapter with appropriate courts; law enforcement officials, such as district attorneys, attorneys general, and similar public attorneys and prosecutors; corrections officials; and Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations. Such arrangements may be entered into with a single official covering more than one court, official, or agency, if the single official has the legal authority to enter into arrangements on behalf of the courts, officials, or agencies. Such arrangements shall contain provisions for providing courts and law enforcement officials with pertinent information needed in locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity and securing support, to the extent that such information is relevant to the duties to be performed pursuant to the arrangement. They shall also provide for assistance to the IV-D agency in carrying out the program, and may relate to any other matters of common concern. Under matters of common concern, such arrangements may include provisions for the investigation and prosecution of fraud directly related to paternity and child and spousal support, and provisions to reimburse courts and law enforcement officials for their assistance.

[54 FR 30222, July 19, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 67240, Dec. 20, 1996; 64 FR 6248, Feb. 9, 1999; 81 FR 93562, Dec. 20, 2016]
Request for Information Eagle Vision Drones LLC (FAA-2015-3841) 

9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

Dear Mr. Hartpence: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. 

FAA−2015−3841). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your

petition.

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date 

listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your

information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary 

information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by January 4, 2016.

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

FAA Office of Rulemaking

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 9:28 AM 

To: admin@eaglevisiondrones.com
Vincent 

Cogliano/DC/USEPA/US

04/07/2011 06:09 PM

To "Mason, Ann" <Ann_Mason@americanchemistry.com>

cc Docket ORD@EPA

bcc

Subject Re: Cr 6 letter requesting adjustment of peer review

Dear Ann,

Attached you will find NCEA's response to your letter requesting adjustment of the peer review for 

hexavalent chromium. A paper copy will follow, but I want to be sure that you receive it sooner.

Yours sincerely,

Vince

Acting Director, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

National Center for Environmental Assessment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (8601P)

Washington DC 20460

courier delivery: 2733 S Crystal Dr (N-7663); Arlington VA 22202

tel 703-347-0220; fax 703-347-8689

"Mason, Ann" Vince Cogliano, Ph.D. Acting Director, Integrate... 03/18/2011 03:31:56 PM

From: "Mason, Ann" <Ann_Mason@americanchemistry.com>

To: Vincent Cogliano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Docket ORD@EPA

Date: 03/18/2011 03:31 PM

Subject: Cr 6 letter requesting adjustment of peer review

Vince Cogliano, Ph.D.

Acting Director, Integrated Risk Information System

National Center for Environmental Assessment

USEPA Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Mail Code: 8601P 

Washington, DC 20460

RE: Draft IRIS Assessment of Hexavalent Chromium

Dear Dr. Cogliano,

Thank you for your remarks on March 14 to the American Chemistry Council staff about ways 

that the Agency and industry can improve the IRIS risk assessment process. 

You spoke about the Agency’s goal to complete risk assessments in an average of about 23 
months with flexibility to modify this goal in certain circumstances, including the imminent 

availability of new scientific data. The attached letter requests an adjustment in the timeline for 

the ongoing risk assessment of oral exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr6) and provides the 

rationale to support this request.

Sincerely,

Ann M. Mason

Senior Director

Chemical Products and Technology Division

700 2

nd

St NE

Washington, DC  20002

202.249.6704

Ann_mason@americanchemistry.com

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This message may contain confidential information and 

is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee do not disseminate, 

distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received 

this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be 

guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 

destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept 

liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of 

email transmission. American Chemistry Council, 700 – 2nd Street NE, Washington, DC 20002, 

www.americanchemistry.com [attachment "2011-mch_ACCletter VGogliano.pdf" deleted by 

Vincent Cogliano/DC/USEPA/US]
§ 155.1332 Waiver extension. ( a ) *Extension.* A State may request continuation of an approved section 1332 waiver, and such request shall be deemed granted unless the Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury, within 90 days after the date of submission of a complete waiver extension request to the Secretary and the Secretary of the Treasury, either denies such request in writing or informs the State in writing with respect to any additional information that is needed in order to make a final determination with respect to the request.
( b ) [Reserved]
[86 FR 53505, Sept. 27, 2021]
§ 2553.105 How are performance measures approved and documented? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70545 , Aug. 30, 2024.
( a ) CNCS reviews and approves performance measures for all applicants that apply for funding.
( b ) An applicant must follow CNCS provided guidance and formats when submitting performance measures.
( c ) Final performance measures, as negotiated between the applicant and CNCS, will be documented in the approved grant application.
[83 FR 64658, Dec. 17, 2018]
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 64 FR 6247, Feb. 9, 1999.

#### § 302.37 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10.15


 


Supplemental Factory Lease Agreement


[Unofficial English Translation]


  


Contract No.: JTDLD2019083101


 


Lessor (Party A): Guizhou Jietongda Technology
Co., Ltd.


Legal Representative: Yu Jifang


Unified Social Credit Code: 91520390MA6DN50RX4


  


Lessee (Party B): Guizhou United Time Technology
Co., Ltd.


Legal Representative: Bao Minfei


Unified Social Credit Code: 91520390MA6DN53F01


 


Whereas, Party A and
Party B signed the Factory Lease Agreement with Contract No. of JTDLD2017090102 on September 1, 2017, due to the adjustment and
reduction of the rent by the Asset Management Department of Xinpu Economic Development Zone, Party A and Party B have made the
following supplemental agreement to this Agreement through friendly negotiation:


 


I. Adjustment
of rent: adjust the rent in Item 1 of Article III in the Factory Lease Agreement from 20 yuan/m2/month (including tax)
to 8 yuan/m2/month (excluding tax).


 


II. Effective
date of the adjusted rent: the effective date of the adjusted rent applies retrospectively to September 1, 2017, the starting date
of the lease of factory building, and the effective period is from September 1, 2017 to February 28, 2022.


 


III. Arrangements
on the discrepancies among the issued invoices:


 


1. The
lease term of issued invoice is 23 months from September 1, 2017 to July 31, 2019.


 


2. Party A
has issued an invoice for the rental fee of the factory building, excluding tax: RMB7,297,440.34 yuan, tax: RMB742,139.66 yuan,
and total amount: 8,039,880.00 yuan.


 


3. According to the
adjusted rent, Party A shall issue an invoice for the rental fee of the factory building, excluding tax: RMB3,215,952.00 yuan,
tax: RMB327,188.16 yuan, and total amount: RMB3,543,140.16 yuan.


 


To sum up, after the
above price adjustment, Party A issued an extra invoice of RMB4,496,739.84 yuan, which can be allocated to the subsequent lease
term. The allocation period is from August 1, 2019 to March 31, 2021 for a total of 20 months. The total amount of invoices to
be issued per month is RMB152,408.16 yuan (8*17478m2*1.13), the total amount of allocation is RMB3,048,163.20 yuan (20*152,408.16),
and the remaining extra invoice is RMB1,448,576.64 yuan, which will be offset by issuing red-ink invoices from September 2019 to
March 2020; invoices will be issued normally for the remaining unpaid period (April 1, 2021-February 28, 2022).


 


IV. This Agreement shall
be in quadruplicate, and either party shall keep two copies. It comes into force after signing and sealing, and four copies of
the agreement have the equal effect.


 


The following
is left blank intentionally!


 


Lessor (Party A): Guizhou Jietongda Technology
Co., Ltd.


Legal Representative: Seal of Yu Jifang
(Seal Affixed)


August 31, 2019


Guizhou Jietongda Technology Co., Ltd.
(Seal Affixed)


 


Lessee (Party B): Guizhou United Time Technology
Co., Ltd.


Legal Representative: Seal of Bao Minfei
(Seal Affixed)


August 31, 2019


Guizhou United Time Technology Co., Ltd.
(Seal Affixed)
§ 2522.420 What basic criteria does the Corporation use in making funding decisions? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 46034 , May 28, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 66615 , Aug. 16, 2024.
In evaluating your application for funding, the Corporation will assess: ( a ) Your program design;
( b ) Your organizational capability; and
( c ) Your program's cost-effectiveness and budget adequacy.
[70 FR 39600, July 8, 2005]