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

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

54 KA 10-02010 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID QUINONES, 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 Supreme Court, Monroe County (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., A.J.), entered August 10, 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: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq .). Defendant failed to request a downward departure to a level two risk, and thus he failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to afford him that downward departure from his presumptive level three risk ( 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 Cummings , 81 AD3d 1261, lv denied 16 NY3d 711).
Insofar as defendant contends that the court erred in treating his prior youthful offender adjudication as a conviction pursuant to risk factor nine in the criminal history section of the risk assessment instrument (RAI), that contention is without merit. “As used [in the criminal history section of the RAI], the term ‘crime’ includes criminal convictions, youthful offender adjudications and juvenile delinquency findings. The Board [of Examiners of Sex Offenders] concluded that these determinations are reliable indicators of wrongdoing and, therefore, should be considered in assessing an offender’s likelihood of reoffense and danger to public safety” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary,-2- 54 KA 10-02010

at 6 [2006]; see People v Wilkins , 77 AD3d 588, lv denied 16 NY3d 703; People v Irving , 45 AD3d 1389, 1389-1390, lv denied 10 NY3d 703).

Entered: January 31, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### The Salvation Army in the United States, Respondent, *v.*The American Salvation Army, Appellant.

*Salvation Army in the United States*v. *American Salvation Army,*135 App. Div. 268, appeal withdrawn.

(Submitted December 12, 1910;

decided December 16, 1910.)

Motion for leave to withdraw appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 3, 1910, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint-by the court at Special Term and granting a new trial; also motion for cancellation of undertaking.

The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was prematurely taken.

*Wilson Lee Cannon*for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted, without costs.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection  with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Reports of FirstEnergy  Corp.,
Ohio Edison Company,  The Cleveland Electric  Illuminating  Company,  The Toledo
Edison Company,  Pennsylvania Power Company,  Metropolitan  Edison Company,  and
Pennsylvania  Electric Company  ("Companies") on Form 10-K/A for the year ending
December 31, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Reports"),  each undersigned  officer of each of the Companies
does hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

     (1)  Each of the Reports 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 each of the Reports fairly presents,  in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
          operations of the Company to which it relates.


                                                 /s/Anthony J. Alexander
                                           ------------------------------------
                                                    Anthony J. Alexander
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                        June 25, 2004


                                                  /s/Richard H. Marsh
                                           ------------------------------------
                                                     Richard H. Marsh
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                        June 25, 2004
EXHIBIT 99.2
 
 Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)
  
 The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of PAB Bankshares, Inc., certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PAB Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose.
 Dated this 15th day of May, 2003.*/s/ Donald J. Torbert, Jr.*Donald J. Torbert, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
         
 24
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0345.txt

From: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 9:47 PM

To: parise.tanya@ecrweb.com

-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:47PM -----

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rick Counihan <RCounihan@enernoc.com>, Don 

DiCristofaro <DDiCristofaro@enernoc.com> 

From: Ken Schisler <kschisler@enernoc.com> 

Date: 01/08/2010 11:11AM 

Subject: Regions governed by NERC standards

Melanie,

See the NERC map below depicting the regional reliability entities that NERC designates to 

administer the NERC standards on a regional level. Texas is included under the NERC 

jurisdiction, as is most of Canada and a portion of Mexico. The answer to the open question 

from my last email is that NERC reliability standards apply to almost all of North American 

Continent, with the exception of Alaska, Northern Canada, and most of Mexico. I don’t know 

who administers reliability standards in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico or other U.S. Territories or 

Possessions.

Not to complicate things, but these regional reliability entities are not the same as the RTO/ISOs 

or Balancing Authorities or Transmission Operators. They are intentionally independent of the 

RTO/ISOs, Balancing Authorities and Transmission Operators. These regional reliability entities 

are part of the NERC organization. The EPACT 2005 created a national requirement for an 

Electric Reliability Organization, to be regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

FERC has designated NERC as the Electric Reliability Organization recognized in federal law, 

and NERC has established this regional reliability organizations to administer NERC standards 

on a regional basis. Both NERC and the regional reliability organizations predated EPACT 

2005. EPACT 2005 codified the responsibilities of NERC in federal law and made compliance 

with NERC standards mandatory pursuant to federal law.

Kenneth D. Schisler - Senior Director, Regulatory Affairs

EnerNOC, Inc. | 101 Federal Street, Suite 1100 | Boston, MA 02110 

o: 410.745.8104 | m: 410.725.1462 

kschisler@enernoc.com | www.enernoc.com 

EnerNOC - get more from energy 

This email and any information disclosed in connection herewith, whether written or oral, is the property of 

EnerNOC, Inc. and is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. This email may contain 

information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distributing or copying any 

information contained in this email to anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0345.txt2/19/2010 12:50:38 PM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 17, 2020

No. 04-20-00023-CV

Robert THOMPSON,

Appellant

v.

Robert NIETO,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CV08856

Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Pending before the court is a motion for writ of possession filed by appellant. The 

motion is DENIED. Any issues raised on appeal regarding possession will be resolved after the 

complete appellate record is filed and the issues are fully briefed.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 17th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
-----Original Message----- 

From: qhyrrae@gmail.com [mailto:qhyrrae@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:34 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Qhyrrae Michaelieu 

7425 E Route Y 

Ashland, MO 65010
§ 172.400a Exceptions from labeling. ( a ) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 172.400, a label is not required on— ( 1 ) A Dewar flask meeting the requirements in § 173.320 of this subchapter or a cylinder containing a Division 2.1, 2.2, or 2.3 material that is durably and legibly marked in accordance with CGA C-7, Appendix A (IBR; see § 171.7 of this subchapter). Notwithstanding this exception, overpacks must be labeled (see § 173.25 of this subchapter).
( 2 ) A package or unit of military explosives (including ammunition) shipped by or on behalf of the DOD when in— ( i ) Freight containerload, carload or truckload shipments, if loaded and unloaded by the shipper or DOD; or
( ii ) Unitized or palletized break-bulk shipments by cargo vessel under charter to DOD if at least one required label is displayed on each unitized or palletized load.
( 3 ) A package containing a hazardous material other than ammunition that is— ( i ) Loaded and unloaded under the supervision of DOD personnel, and
( ii ) Escorted by DOD personnel in a separate vehicle.
( 4 ) A compressed gas cylinder permanently mounted in or on a transport vehicle.
( 5 ) A freight container, aircraft unit load device or portable tank, which— ( i ) Is placarded in accordance with subpart F of this part, or
( ii ) Conforms to paragraph (a)(3) or (b)(3) of § 172.512.
( 6 ) An overpack or unit load device in or on which labels representative of each hazardous material in the overpack or unit load device are visible.
( 7 ) A package of low specific activity radioactive material and surface contaminated objects, when transported under § 173.427(a)(6)(vi) of this subchapter.
( 8 ) Packages containing toy plastic or paper caps for toy pistols described as “UN0349, Articles, explosive, n.o.s. (Toy caps), 1.4S” or “NA0337, Toy caps, 1.4S” when offered in conformance with the conditions of § 172.102(c)(1), Special provision 382.
( b ) Certain exceptions to labeling requirements are provided for small quantities and limited quantities in applicable sections in part 173 of this subchapter.
( c ) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 172.402(a), a Division 6.1 subsidiary hazard label is not required on a package containing a Class 8 (corrosive) material which has a subsidiary hazard of Division 6.1 (poisonous) if the toxicity of the material is based solely on the corrosive destruction of tissue rather than systemic poisoning. In addition, a Division 4.1 subsidiary hazard label is not required on a package bearing a Division 4.2 label.
( d ) A package containing a material poisonous by inhalation (see § 171.8 of this subchapter) in a closed transport vehicle or freight container may be excepted from the POISON INHALATION HAZARD or POISON GAS label or placard, under the conditions set forth in § 171.23(b)(10) of this subchapter.
[Amdt. 172-123, 55 FR 52594, Dec. 21, 1990] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting § 172.400a, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Thomas Casey, *Appellant,*v. James Jourdan, *as Police Commissioner, etc., Respondent*

— Order dismissing relator affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
§ 218.27 Workers on track other than main track. When workers are on, under, or between rolling equipment on track other than main track— ( a ) A blue signal must be displayed at or near each manually operated switch providing access to that track;
( b ) Each manually operated switch providing access to the track on which the equipment is located must be lined against movement to that track and locked with an effective locking device; and
( c ) The person in charge of the workers must have notified the operator of any remotely controlled switch that work is to be performed and have been informed by the operator that each remotely controlled switch providing access to the track on which the equipment is located has been lined against movement to that track and locked as prescribed in § 218.30.
( d ) If rolling equipment requiring blue signal protection as provided for in this section is on a track equipped with one or more crossovers, both switches of each crossover must be lined against movement through the crossover toward that rolling equipment, and the switch of each crossover that provides access to the rolling equipment must be protected in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b), or (c) of this section.
( e ) If the rolling equipment to be protected includes one or more locomotives, a blue signal must be attached to the controlling locomotive at a location where it is readily visible to the engineman or operator at the controls of that locomotive.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41038 Conference Calendar

ERBEY FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TRACII SHAVERS; SAMUEL SEALS; DOYLE B. MCELVANEY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CV-453

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Erbey Flores, Texas state prisoner # 574931, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He argues that the court improperly dismissed his retaliation claim. We have carefully reviewed the record and Flores’s brief. Essentially for reasons set forth by the district court, Flores v. Shavers , No. G-95-453 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1996)(unpublished),No. 96-41038 -2- we hold that Flores has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint as frivolous. Flores’s appeal is without merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Flores is cautioned that future frivolous civil suits and appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Flores is cautioned further to review any pending suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Exhibit 34.2


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company:





We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Report on assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Asset-Backed Securities”, that The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving phase-in recovery property (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended , excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i-v), 1122(d)(2)(i-vii), 1122(d)(3)(ii-iv), and 1122(d)(4)(i-v, viii-xiii, xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform or the servicing activities are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management's assertion and are not reported on herein.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.











/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





March 29, 2016
H. R. 2366

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To repeal an unnecessary medical device reporting requirement.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

Section 1862 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y) is

amended by striking subsection (h).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
§ 234.403 Submission of data to the Crossing Inventory, generally. ( a ) Highway-rail and pathway crossing data shall be submitted to the Crossing Inventory on the Inventory Form. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the Inventory Form may be submitted in hard copy or electronically.
( b ) The Inventory Form, or its electronic equivalent, shall be completed in accordance with the Inventory Guide. A copy of this guide may be obtained from the Office of Railroad Safety, RRS-23, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. A copy of this guide can also be viewed or downloaded from FRA's Safety Data Web site under the Forms/Publications tab.
( c ) Each Class I railroad shall submit the data required by paragraph (a) of this section to the Crossing Inventory electronically.
( d ) *Reporting by State agencies on behalf of operating railroads.* A State agency may submit crossing data to the Crossing Inventory on behalf of an operating railroad. The State agency and the operating railroad shall provide written notice to the FRA Associate Administrator that the State agency has agreed to submit and update crossing data for all of the operating railroad's highway-rail and pathway crossings within the state.
( e ) *Reporting by the parent corporation on behalf of subsidiary railroads.* ( 1 ) To satisfy the reporting requirements of this section, a parent corporation may submit crossing data to the Crossing Inventory on behalf of one or more of its subsidiary railroads. The parent corporation shall provide written notice to the FRA Associate Administrator that it has assumed reporting and updating responsibility for all of the subsidiary railroad's highway-rail and pathway crossings. The written notification shall include the following: ( i ) A list of all subsidiary railroads for which the parent corporation will submit and update highway-rail and pathway crossing data;
( ii ) A statement signed by an official of the parent corporation affirming that the parent corporation agrees to submit and update all of the highway-rail and pathway crossing data for the named subsidiary railroad(s); and
( iii ) A statement that the parent corporation agrees to be subject to enforcement action for noncompliance with the reporting or updating requirements of this subpart.
( 2 ) The parent corporation shall provide immediate written notification to the FRA Associate Administrator of any change in the list of subsidiary operating railroads for which it has assumed reporting and updating responsibility.
( 3 ) The parent corporation shall submit the data required by paragraph (a) of this section to the Crossing Inventory electronically.
[80 FR 786, Jan. 6, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 37532, June 10, 2015]
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2010

1018 

# Order

October 26, 2010

141561

SAVEWAY FOOD CENTER , INC. and KAJY PROPERTY ENTERPRISE, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 141561 COA: 290614 Macomb CC: 2 008-003413-CK McNICHOLS REAL ESTATE, L.L.C., and JERRY PATTAH, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 29, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.