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

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**698 CA 15-01977**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

GASPER A. TIRONE AND ELAINE E. TIRONE, CO-TRUSTEES OF GASPER A. TIRONE AND ELAINE E. TIRONE TRUST, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DEBORAH A. BUCZEK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

DEBORAH ANN BUCZEK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (KEVIN M. KEARNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered February 10, 2015. The judgment, inter alia, granted plaintiffs a judgment of foreclosure and sale.

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

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this foreclosure action after Deborah A. Buczek (defendant) defaulted on a note and mortgage. According to plaintiffs, defendant borrowed $385,000 from them in May 2009 to purchase commercial property in Derby, and signed a note in that amount in favor of plaintiffs. The note was secured by a mortgage. In March 2011, plaintiffs executed an allonge to the note, making the note payable to “the Gasper A. Tirone and Elaine E. Tirone Trust” (Trust). The mortgage also was assigned to the Trust. Defendant later defaulted on the note.

In June 2014, plaintiffs issued a demand letter and informed defendant that the original note had been lost. With that letter, plaintiffs provided a copy of the note together with a lost note affidavit, which contained an averment that the Trust held the note. The Trust also re-recorded the mortgage to append the property’s legal description, which had been omitted, apparently inadvertently, from the original. Plaintiffs thereafter commenced this foreclosure action.

Plaintiffs attached to the complaint, among other things, a copy of the note and allonge, the mortgage and re-recorded mortgage, and the assignment of the note and mortgage to the Trust. Defendant, in documents which can be construed as her pro se answer, appeared to**-2- 698 CA 15-01977** 
contend that the Trust lacked standing to sue her because plaintiffs had lost the note and because plaintiffs did not validly assign the note and mortgage to the Trust. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the answer, a Referee was appointed, a judgment of foreclosure and sale was entered upon the Referee’s report, and the property was sold in April 2015 for an amount sufficient to pay both the note and the fees attendant upon the foreclosure and sale.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that plaintiffs met their burden of establishing their standing to foreclose on the mortgage ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Baptiste , 128 AD3d 773, 774; see also Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Monica , 131 AD3d 737, 738), and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition ( see Comptroller of State of N.Y. v Level Acres LLC , 134 AD3d 1528, 1529; see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562).

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 21, 2020

No. 04-20-00249-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Chase Wesley VERNER,

Appellee

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10182-CR

Honorable Tully Shahan, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 27, 2020, the State filed a motion for extension of time to file the State’s brief 

until August 31, 2020 on the basis that the State was awaiting a supplemental clerk’s record. On 

August 17, 2020, this court ordered the trial court clerk to file the supplemental clerk’s record by 

August 31, 2020. In light of this court’s prior order, the State’s motion for extension is 

GRANTED as follows: the State’s brief is due no later than September 30, 2020. Further 

requests for extension of time to file the State’s brief will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 21st day of August, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM: Amy Kopin

TO: The Docket

DATE: July 21, 2011

On June 29th, 2011 we held a conference call with the Engine Manufacturers Association

(EMA)to discuss concerns raised by members of EMA regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic 

(OBD) requirements and timing. EMA members raised concerns during the comment period for 

the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid 

applications may not be able to meet the 2013 heavy-duty OBD regulations that were published 

in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking. 1,2

 Attendees from the EPA included Cleophas Jackson and

Anthony Neam. The attendees are presented in the table on the following page; the agenda is 

also attached to this memo.

 

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: 

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule 

Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway 

Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
Attendee Affiliation

Ben Zwissler Cummins Inc.

Bill Ellison Cummins Inc.

Dave Smith Volvo Powertrain Corporation

Eric Swenson Navistar, Inc.

George Lin Caterpillar Inc.

Greg Pataky Cummins Inc.

Hwei Jen Kachler Cummins Inc.

Jackie Yeager Cummins Inc.

John Trajnowski Ford Motor Company

Ken McAlinden Ford Motor Company

Mark Siddall Daimler Trucks North America LLC

Mark Stepper Cummins Inc.

Matt Smith Navistar, Inc.

Michiel J. Van Nieuwstadt Ford Motor Company

Monika Minarcin Navistar, Inc.

Rebecca Shelby Ford Motor Company

Steve Yarosz Isuzu

Susumu Ariga Hino

Suzy Stuber Navistar, Inc.

Tim Gundrum PACCAR Inc.

Tom Sloane PACCAR Inc.
333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 810 | Chicago, Illinois 60606

Telephone: (312) 929-1970 | Facsimile: (312) 929-1975

TO: Heavy-Duty On-Board Diagnostics Committee

Hybrid Certification Committee

FROM: Lisa A. Stegink

DATE: June 21, 2011

RE: June 29, 2011, Joint EMA/EPA Conference Call

CONFERENCE CALL NOTICE

DATE: Wednesday, June 29, 2011

TIME: 1:00 p.m. (Chicago time)

DIAL IN #: (334) 323-9858

PASS CODE: 40732955#

CHAIR: Lisa A. Stegink

Dial-in to the number above and when prompted enter the participant pass code.

This is a joint EPA-EMA conference call meeting to discuss implementation of OBD for 

heavy-duty hybrids. The agenda is as follows:

I. Report from EPA on Status

II. Next Steps

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

51399_1
Exhibit
23











CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in this 2008 Annual Report on Form
10-K of ENB Financial Corp, in the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form
S-8, related to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, filed with the Security and
Exchange Commission on July 9, 2008, and in the Registrant’s Registration
Statement on Form S-3, related to the Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase
Plan, filed with the SEC (Registration No. 333-152211) on our report dated March
9, 2009, which is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ending December 31, 2008.






/s/ S.R.
SNODGRASS, A.C.








Wexford,
Pennsylvania


March 12,
2009




102
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Thepleistocene geology of the Leadville quadrangle, Colorado**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:386
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000958507
 
July 31, 2018
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: TheCosna-Nowitna region, Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: OneTwo
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:667
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000956208
 
July 18, 2018
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

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

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 21 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

GAYLEN MERIWETHER, co-trustee

for the Faris William Gore Living

Irrevocable Trust,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-3361

(D.C. No. 98-CV-2172-KHV)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

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

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. 
-2-

Appellant Gaylen Meriwether’s father, Faris Gore, disappeared on July 2,

1987. The Social Security Administration continued to send benefit checks to

Mr. Gore’s address for several years after his disappearance. Ms. Meriwether, as

the co-trustee of her father’s property, received the checks and arranged for them

to be deposited in a bank account. Upon learning of Mr. Gore’s disappearance,

the Commissioner instituted proceedings to recover over $55,000 in retirement

benefits. The ALJ determined that the date of Mr. Gore’s disappearance was also

most likely the date of his death. The district court affirmed that conclusion. 

Ms. Meriwether appeals, and we affirm.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court was correct in

agreeing with the Commissioner’s conclusion that Mr. Gore’s date of death was

July 2, 1987. Our review on appeal is limited to determining whether substantial

evidence supports the decision of the Commissioner and whether the proper legal

standards were applied. Clifton v. Chater , 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996). 

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the record in

this case and affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.
-3-

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe 

Circuit Judge
GAO R t 10 epor

t 10

-23

ENERGY

-WATER NEX

WATER NEX

Im

p o e e ts to ede a ate Use at

r

o

v

e

m

e

nts to Fede

r

al Water Use Dat

Increase Understanding of Trends in Pow

Water Use

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey U.S. Departm
GAO 10-23 focuses on advanced cooling technologies and 

alternative water sources and their role in the use of freshwatalternative water sources and their role in the use of freshwat

electric power generation.This report lays out seven Energy Information Administration a

recommendations for the US Geological Survey to consider in future efforts in this area to improve the collection, analysis andistribution of information about this important water use.
Water withdrawals by cate

Li t k ves oc

k Self-Supplied Domestic Supplied Domestic P bli S l P

ublic 

Supply Th 

Thermo

Less than 1 percent 11 percent 49 per

1 percent

1 percent 4 percent 2 percent 31 per

Minin

g Aquaculture Self-Supplied Industrial Irri
GAO 10-23

In the process of conducting their revieIn the process of conducting their revie

the GAO interviewed the two agencies 

with:Case Studies in: Regulatory Ag

Arizona NevadaCalifornia TexasGeorgia Alabama

Illinois
Recommendations - EIA

Administrator of EIA consider four actions: • Add cooling technology reporting codes for alternative cooling te

such as dry and hybrid cooling, or take equivalent steps to ensucooling technologies can be identified in EIA’sdatabase;

• Expand reporting of water use and cooling technology data to in

significant types of thermoelectric power plants, particularly by red t ll ti f l l t d i iti ti ll ti f d t d

ata collection for nuclear plants an

d initi

ating collection of d

ata 

combined cycle natural gas plants;

• Collect and report data on the use of alternative water sources 

Collect and report data on the use of alternative water sources, 

treated effluent and groundwater that is not suitable for drinking by individual power plants; and

• Include USGS and other key users of power plant water use and 

system data as part of EIA’s triennial review process.
Recommendations - USGS

Secretary of Interior consider two actions: • Expanding efforts to disseminate available data on the use of alt

water sources, such as treated effluent and groundwater that is for drinking or irrigation, by thermoelectric power plants, to the ethis information becomes available from EIA; and

• Reinstating collection and distribution of water consumption data 

th l t i l t thermoelectric power plants.
Recommendations – USGS & 

To improve the overall quality of data collected on use from power plants we recommend that EIA ause from power plants, we recommend that EIA a

establish a process for regularly coordinating with other, water and electricity industry experts, enviro

groups, academics, and other federal agencies, to and implement steps to improve data collection andissemination.
Exhibit 32.1 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 on Form 10-K of Inland Diversified Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barry L. Lazarus, president of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: March 26, 2010By:/s/ Barry L. LazarusName:Barry L. LazarusTitle:President (principal executive officer)  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Opinion issued October 27 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 16

- 00698

- CV

——————————— IN RE S.W. , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, S .W., has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, challenging the

trial court’s o rders (1) denying his “Motion to Reform the Judgment”; (2) denying
his “Motion to Strike the Order Retaining Suit and Docket Control Order”; and (3)
setting the case for trial. 1
We deny the p etition.

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of D.W.
, A Child , cause number 14CP0057, pending in the 306th District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the Honorable Anne B. Darring, presiding.2 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Pereira, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 63]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Curci, J.), rendered April 11, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the requirements of CPL 270.15 (2) were violated when, over his objection, the trial court permitted the prosecutor to withdraw a peremptory challenge immediately following defense counsel’s exercise of his peremptory challenges. In contrast to situations in which the prosecutor has been improperly permitted to exercise a peremptory challenge after the defense has begun or completed the exercise of its peremptory challenges *(cf., People v Williams,*26 NY2d 62; *People v De Conto,*172 AD2d 684, *affd*80 NY2d 943; *see also, People v McDermott,*199 AD2d 341), no such violation of the order of exercising peremptory challenges prescribed by CPL 270.15 (2) took place in this case. After the prosecutor withdrew the challenge in question, the trial court offered defense counsel the opportunity to exercise his peremptory challenges anew, and defense counsel declined the trial court’s offer *(see, People v Levy,*194 AD2d 319). Moreover, at the close of jury selection, defense counsel had exercised only 12 of his 15 peremptory challenges.

*697Viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant *(see, People v Steele,*26 NY2d 526, 529), there is no reasonable view of the evidence upon which the jury could have found that the defendant’s possession of a loaded pistol was temporary and lawful. The uncontradicted testimony demonstrates that, after coming into possession of a loaded pistol by disarming an assailant, the intoxicated defendant wandered through the streets waiving it in a threatening manner at passersby until he was apprehended by the police. Such evidence is utterly at odds with a claim of innocent possession *(see, People v Banks,*76 NY2d 799, 801; *People v Williams,*50 NY2d 1043; *People v Kouvaras,*197 AD2d 638). Since the trial court was not obligated to charge the jury on the defense of temporary and lawful possession of a weapon, the defendant’s contention that the charge as given was incorrect is without merit *(see, People v Snyder,*138 AD2d 115, *affd*73 NY2d 900). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
From: pastor@peacelutherangarland.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:59:52 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Patrick Erickson

, 75043-5310
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed December 9, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00770-CR

No. 05-14-00771-CR

STEVEN DWAYNE FERRELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-72590-L, F14-54495-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. Appellant’s counsel has approved 

the motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeals be DISMISSED

and this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

140770F.U05
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

STEVEN DWAYNE FERRELL, Appellant

No. 05-14-00770-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-72590-L.

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 9th day of December, 2014.
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

STEVEN DWAYNE FERRELL, Appellant

No. 05-14-00771-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-54495-L.

Opinion delivered per curiam before Justices 

Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 9th day of December, 2014.
Before the Second Division,

January 13, 1955

No. 58692.

protests 161630-K, etc. (Cleveland).

#### Southern Distributing Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of internal-combustion gasoline engines, carburetor type, or parts thereof, in chief value of metal, imported separately or in a knocked-down condition, with saws or together with an assortment of saw parts, and that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the engines, imported with saws, the subject of *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(41 C. C. P. A. 33, C. A. D. 525). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the cited authority, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.