alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Male W., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. St. Vincent’s Services, Inc., et al., Respondents; Carla W., Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 139]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Jeffrey Gallet, J.) entered on or about August 4, 1993, terminating respondent’s parental rights upon a finding of permanent neglect, and committing custody of the child to petitioners Commissioner of Social Services and child care agency, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The proof established by clear and convincing evidence that the agency’s efforts to develop and encourage a meaningful parental relationship, which included referral to drug rehabilitation and parenting programs and other services, were diligent, but unsuccessful. Despite respondent’s intermittent efforts to visit the child, she consistently failed to plan for the child, which required, at a minimum, that she successfully achieve rehabilitation from her drug dependency *(see, Matter of Wesley F.,*190 AD2d 576; *Matter of June Y.,*128 AD2d 538). As is oft-stated, " 'the agency is not charged with a guarantee that the parent succeed in overcoming his or her predicaments’ ” *(Matter of O. Children,*128 AD2d 460, 464, quoting *Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368, 385). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4359]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-272-063]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate

March 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to be 
effective on March 1, 2007:

47 Revised Sheet No. 66
39 Revised Sheet No. 66A
Original Sheet No. 66B.01

    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed 
to each of its customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#50161502131f3e3c393e35032520203f222410363522337e373f26"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99dfdccbdad6f7f5f0f7fccaece9e9f6ebedd9fffcebfab7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-4359 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
J-S48021-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellee : : v. : : PAUL RONALD SABO, : : Appellant : No. 2003 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 3, 201 4, Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County, Criminal Division at No. CP-65-CR-0003828-2012 BEFORE: PANELLA, DONOHUE and WECHT, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 11, 2015 Paul Ronald Sabo (“Sabo”) appeals from the judgmen t of sentence entered following his convictions of aggravated ass ault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, and endanger ing the welfare of

children. 1 Sabo was charged with these crimes based upon al legations that he abused his girlfriend’s two-year-old daughter. On October 3, 2014, Sabo entered a negotiated plea, which provided that he w ould plead guilty to these offenses in exchange for a sentence of thirty to sixty-six months of incarceration. Sabo subsequently filed a motion se eking to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that it was not entered into knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. 2

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702, 2701, 2705, 4304.

2 It became clear at the hearing that Sabo was clai ming that his counsel induced his plea. As noted by counsel and the trial court, this claim is properly raised through a PCRA petition. N.T., 11/ 13/14, at 2-4, 8.J-S48021-15

- 2 -

This timely appeal follows, in which Sabo presents only the following issue for our review: “Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in failing to offer [Sabo] the opportunity to offer testimony in support of his re quest to withdraw his guilty plea?” Sabo’s Brief at 3. Sabo did not incl ude this issue in his courtordered statement of matters complained of on appea l. It is well settled

that issues not included in a court-ordered Rule 19 25(b) statement of matters complained of are waived for purposes of ap peal. Commonwealth

v. Jackson , 10 A.3d 341, 347 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2010); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Our Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that this is a bright-line rule and that “in order to preserve the ir claims for appellate review, appellants must comply whenever the trial c ourt orders them to file a [s]tatement of [m]atters [c]omplained of on [a]pp eal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P . 1925(b) statement will

be deemed waived.” Commonwealth v. Castillo , 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Hill , 16 A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011). Here, as the trial court ordered Sabo to file a sta tement of matters complained of on appeal and he failed to include th is issue therein, we must find that it has been waived. As the issue present ed in this appeal has not been preserved properly, we quash. Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.J-S48021-15

- 3 -

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/11/2015
No. 44078.

#### Protests 944263-G, etc., of Chase & Co. (Jacksonville).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The testimony failed to establish *prima facie*that the merchandise in question is classifiable under paragraph 1685. The action •of the collector was therefore affirmed.
```

[Federal Register: June 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 105)]
[Notices]               
[Page 30903]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jn10-153]                         

[[Page 30903]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

 
Tenth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 209: In Joint Session With 
EUROCAE WG 49: ATCRBS/Mode S Transponder MOPS Maintenance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 209: In Joint Session with 
EUROCAE WG-49 ATCRBS/Mode S Transponder MOPS Maintenance.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 209: In Joint Session with EUROCAE 
WG-49 ATCRBS/Mode S Transponder MOPS Maintenance.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 28-30, 2010 from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. 
CET.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the EUROCAE Headquarters, 
Malakoff, France near Paris Host Contact: Roland Mallwitz, +33-01-
40927930, roland.mallwitz@eurocae.net Secretary Contact: Gary Furr 1-
609-485-4254, gary.ctr.furr@faa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036-5133; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax 
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a RTCA Special Committee 209: In Joint Session with 
EUROCAE WG-49 ATCRBS/Mode S Transponder MOPS Maintenance meeting. The 
agenda will include:
     Opening Session (Host and Co-Chairs Welcome, Introductions 
and Remarks).
     Review and Approval of the Agenda (SC209-WP10-01).
     Discussion of Issues Related to Proposed Changes to DO-
181D/ED-73C.
      WP10-02--Comments Related to Proposed Changes to DO-181D.
      WP10-03--Low Power Transponder and Glider Surveillance 
Avionics.
      WP10-04--Issues Related to the Timeouts of Registers 
0816 and 2016.
     Development of the Actual Change Documents for DO-181D and 
ED-73C.
     Date, Place and Time of any Future Meetings.
     Other Business.
     Adjournment.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 25, 2010.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-13140 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roque Morillo, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 89]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered December 18, 1992, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his allocution was insufficient because the court failed to inquire about a possible justification defense *275is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, defendant having neither moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing on that ground nor moved to vacate the judgment of conviction *(People v Claudio,*64 NY2d 858). Defendant also failed to preserve his claim that the court should have inquired about such a defense in deciding the motion to withdraw the plea (CPL 470.05 [2]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule described in *People v Lopez*(71 NY2d 662, 666) does not apply, since in neither his allocution nor his motion to withdraw the plea did defendant indicate that he strangled the victim in self-defense or otherwise cast " 'significant doubt’ ” on the validity of the plea *(People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725, 726). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.
#### National Silver Co. *v.*United States

No. 7303.

Invoice dated London, England, December 7, 1945.

Certified December 11, 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 11, 1946.

Entry No. 732385.

(Decided June 19, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

*195On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 21-1031V

UNPUBLISHED

CHARLES HESS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: January 10, 2022

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Timothy James Lessman, Knutson & Casey Law Firm, Mankato, MN, for Petitioner.

Joseph Adam Lewis, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On March 5, 2021, Charles Hess filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered Guillain Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as a 

result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine received on September 21, 2018. Petition at 1. 

Petitioner further alleges that he received the vaccine in the United States, suffered the 

residual effects or complications of his illness for more than six months, and has never 

received compensation or filed a civil action for his vaccine-related injuries. Petition at 1, 

¶¶ 18-19. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special 

Masters.

1 Because this unpublished Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
2

On January 6, 2022, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 

1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the 

Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”) for 

GBS following a flu vaccine.” Id. at 8. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
No. 49215.

#### Protest 103488-K of H. S. Dorf & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The memorandum of the collector which was received in evidence disclosed that three bundles of baskets were manifested but not found and that shortage affidavit 'was properly filed. In accordance with agreement of counsel entered into at the trial and in view of the record the court directed the collector to refund duties accordingly.
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-KSB of INTERNATIONAL MONETARY
SYSTEMS, LTS. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 (the
"Report"), I, Donald F Mardak, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 result of operations of the
      Company.








/s/ Donald M.
Mardak





Donald M.
Mardak


Chief
Executive Officer





March 31,
2008
446 A.2d 673

#### Corbett v. Corbett, Appellant.

Argued November 9,1981.

Howard Gilfillan, for appellant; Peter Molinaro, Jr:, for appellee.

Before BECK, JOHNSON and POPOVICH, JJ.

The order is affirmed.

BECK, J., filed a memorandum dissenting opinion.
John Doe and Jane Doe, 

Individually and as Next 

Friends of XXX, a 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 18, 2015

No. 04-15-00673-CV

USAA TEXAS LLOYD’S COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

John DOE and Jane Doe, Individually and as Next Friends of XXX, a Minor,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 392757

Honorable Walden Shelton, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This court routinely examines the clerk’s record to determine our jurisdiction over newlyfiled appeals. After examining the clerk’s record in this case, we issued a show cause order 

questioning our jurisdiction over this appeal because it appeared, based on the stamp placed on 

appellant’s notice of appeal by the trial court clerk, that appellant’s notice of appeal was 

untimely filed. Although the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, it also appeared that it 

was filed within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. We, therefore, gave appellant an opportunity to 

file a response and offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the 

predecessor to Rule 26).

On December 15, 2015, appellant filed a response to our show cause order. In its 

response, appellant states that its notice of appeal was timely filed because it was delivered to its 

counsel’s electronic service provider in a timely manner. Furthermore, attached to appellant’s

response is documentation establishing that appellant’s notice of appeal was in fact filed in a 

timely manner. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2 (providing that, as a general rule, an electronically filed 

document is deemed filed when transmitted to the filing party’s electronic service provider). In 

light of the documentation provided, we conclude that appellant’s notice of appeal was timely 

filed.
Our previous order suspending all appellate deadlines in this appeal is LIFTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due thirty days from the date of this order. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Marlin Business Services Corp.
 Date: May 9, 2008
 /s/ Daniel P. DyerDaniel P. DyerChief Executive Officer/s/ Lynne C. WilsonLynne C. WilsonChief Financial Officer & Senior Vice President
(Principal Financial Officer)
Before the First Division,

July 28, 1941

No. 46208.

#### Protest 759327-G of Sun Sing Lee Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Rapken*v. *United States*(25 C. C. P. A. 268, T. D. 49393) the merchandise assessed at 25 percent ad valorem and 80 cents per pound under paragraph 24 was held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem and 40 cents per pound under the same paragraph as claimed. It was also held that none of the merchandise covered by the protest was subject to the internal revenue tax. The protest was sustained accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, 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; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Balanced Series.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                         
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                           
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                            
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              
|                                                                                                                                           
|Date: November 7, 2008
From: Szabo, Aaron

To: Fisher, Brian; Risley, David

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone

 NAAQS (RIN 2060-AS05): Non-EGU NOx Emission Control Technical Support Document

Date: Monday, November 09, 2015 5:36:03 PM

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO12866_13563 EPA CSAPR NPRM_NonEG....docx

Attached please find the summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 on the

 Non-EGU NOx Emission Control Technical Support Document for the draft proposed rule entitled,

Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.

Thank you and please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Aaron L. Szabo

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

202-395-3621

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov