alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 45046.

#### Protests 926442-G, etc., of Bergdorf & Goodman Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the atomizers are of the same character as those passed upon in Abstract 44140. They were accordingly held dutiable as glass articles at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) as claimed.
# Appendix 3-3
No. 52672.

protests 56319-K and 65791-K (Philadelphia).

#### John Bromley & Sons, Inc., et al. *v.*United. States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved. The protests were sustained to this extent.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8342 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to include information on improper 

payments under Federal programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2024 

Mr. YAKYM (for himself, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. BERGMAN, and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Budget 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to include information on improper payments under Federal programs, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improper Payments 

5 Transparency Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUDING IMPROPER PAYMENT INFORMATION IN 

7 PRESIDENTS BUDGET SUBMISSION. 

8 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8342 IH

1 ‘‘(40) information with respect to improper pay2 ment (as such term is defined in section 3351) 

3 amounts and rates for programs and activities at 

4 each executive agency required to submit improper 

5 payment reports under subchapter IV of chapter 33, 

6 including— 

7 ‘‘(A) a narrative description, including a 

8 detailed explanation with respect to why any 

9 improper payment amounts and rates occurred 

10 and trends of— 

11 ‘‘(i) each program and activity whose 

12 improper payment amount and rates have 

13 increased or decreased on average over the 

14 previous three years; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) each program and activity whose 

16 improper payment amount and rates did 

17 not change over such years; and 

18 ‘‘(B) what corrective actions, including any 

19 such action in any corrective action plan under 

20 section 3352(d), with respect to such programs 

21 and activities are incomplete, and steps the ex22 ecutive agency will take to address improper 

23 payment amount and rate issues.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Matter of Jerry D. Hughes, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 850]

—Mercure, J. P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

While being escorted within Eastern Correctional Facility in Ulster County, the smell of alcohol was detected on petitioner’s breath by the escorting correction officer and thereafter confirmed by the facility’s nurse. The escorting officer then searched petitioner’s cell and discovered several containers with residue that looked and smelled like homemade wine. These findings were confirmed by a correction lieutenant, who testified at the resulting disciplinary hearing. Also introduced at the hearing was the misbehavior report signed by the escorting correction officer and a report by the nurse. Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the disciplinary determination finding that he had violated the prison regulation prohibiting the making, possession and use of alcoholic beverages.

Petitioner contends that the violation may not be established absent evidence of scientific tests confirming the presence of alcohol. We disagree. Not only is the nature of alcoholic beverages a matter of common knowledge *(see, People v Kenny,*30 NY2d 154, 157; *People v Leonard,*8 NY2d 60), but here the record established that the lieutenant was well versed in the nature of homemade alcoholic beverages *(see, People v Swamp,*84 NY2d 725, 733). Under the circumstances, a chemical test was not required to determine the presence of alcohol *(see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin,*209 AD2d 621). Evidence in the record fully supports the determination.

*736Nor are we persuaded that annulment is required because of the administrative reversal of another inmate’s alcohol-related disciplinary charge. The facts and circumstances of the other matter, its hearing and evidence, and its reversal have not been established to be sufficiently similar to the instant matter to suggest that different standards were applied. .

White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10432

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lucas Tapia-Zaragoza, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-315-1

______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Lucas Tapia-Zaragoza has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Tapia-Zaragoza has filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10432 Document: 00517009448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023
No. 23-10432

2

well as Tapia-Zaragoza’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment 

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. To the extent that TapiaZaragoza’s response can be construed as requesting the appointment of new 

counsel, the request is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 

158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 23-10432 Document: 00517009448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2023
SERVED JANUARY 31, 2011 

-^'iSPORWlON 

^-:: OPERATiONS 

^! Mh ^ j'Ji 31 P 2^ 38 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FLIGHTSTAR AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP10GL0012 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-1076 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On October 26, 2010, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to 

as "Complainant") filed a Complaint. On October 6, 2010, Flightstar Aircraft Services, 

Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") filed its Answer. On January 26, 2011, 

Respondent withdrew its request for a hearing, citing settlement. 

14 C.F.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency 

attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing 

without the consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney 

withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the 

answer, the administrative law judge shall dismiss the proceedings under this 

subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, Respondent's Withdrawal of Request for Hearing having been 

read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondent's Withdrawal of its Request for Hearing be and is hereby 

granted; and 
2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

f.fRlchard C. Goodwin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket Nos. CPlOGLOOl 1, 

CP10GL0012, CPlOGLOOl3 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Gregory S. Winton, Respondent's Counsel 

The Aviation Law Firm 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

TEL: 301-294-8550 

FAX: 301-294-2525 

Glenn L. Brown, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

DesPlaines,IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7063 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Before the Third Division,

May 17, 1960

No. 64205.

*protests*59/16773, 59/15265, and 59/11062 (New York).

#### Joseph Dixon Crucible Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of amorphous graphite the same in all material respects as that the subject *The Asbury Graphite Mills, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 141, C.D. 2077), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

June 10, 1948

No. 52371.

protest 81339-K (New York).

#### Florea & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
Before the Third Division,

June 3, 1953

No. 57377.

protests 164245-K, etc. (New York).

#### Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the articles in question consist of silent butlers, smoothing irons, and various other trays, the composition of which is the same in all material respects as the merchandise involved in *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710), *The Fan Co.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 42, C. D. 1261), and *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 280, C. D. 1423). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of the decisions cited, the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked with the letter “A” at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of brass, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (2) the items marked with the letter “B” at 35 percent under paragraph 339, as modified by the trade agreement with the United Kingdom (T. D. 49753), as household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of copper, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; (3) the items marked with the letter “C” at 35 percent under paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 49753, as household utensils, plated with silver on copper; (4) the items marked with the letter “D” at 25 percent under paragraph 339, as modified by T. D. 49753, as household utensils, composed wholly or in chief value of pewter, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver; and (5) the items marked with the letter “E” at 35 percent under paragraph 209 as manufactures of soapstone.
#### DORA A. DAUGHENBAUGH, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. HARRY J. KNOWLES, M. D., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

*Mrs. Dora A. Daughenbaugh, in propria persona.*

*Messrs. Xisselman, Devine, Deighan & Montano*for the respondent.

March 26, 1968.

Denied.
No. 12

- 15

- 00125

- CR

DAKOTA YATES § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Appellant § §

vs. § 12 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appelle e § § AT TYLER , TEXAS

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Now comes Austin Reeve Jackson, counsel for Appellant in the abo ve entitled and

numbered cause, and makes this Motion to Withdraw, and for good cause shows the following:

I.

Counsel was appointed to represent Appellant in the appeal of this matter. Having

un dertaken a diligent and thorough review of the record, counsel has concluded that, in his

professional judgment, there exist no arguable grounds for reversible error. A copy of

Appellant’s Brief filed pursuant to the requirements of Anders v. California

, along with a copy of

this Motion, has been served on Appellant who has also been informed of the ri ght to file a pro

se brief by 9 A ugust 2015

, the right object to this Motion , and the right to obtain a copy of

records from counsel . Said notification was s ent to Appellant by first class certified mail at:

Inmate Smith County Jail 206 E. Elm Tyler

, TX 75702

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , undersigned counsel respectfully prays

that, in accordance with the applicable law, the Court grant this Motion to W ithd raw and afford

Appellant an opportunity to file a pro se brief in this matter. ACCEPTED 12-15-00125-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 7/8/2015 2:46:50 PM CATHY LUSK CLERKRespectfully submitted,

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson 

### Texas Bar No. 24046139 112 East Line, Suite 310 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: ( 903) 595

- 6070 Facsimile: ( 866) 387

- 0152

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was

served on counsel for the State by efile . Further, a copy of this Motion was also s erved on

Appellant by certified first class mail.

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson
#### City of Buffalo, Plaintiff, v Derrick Derblick et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Erie County,

November 22, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Herman J. Ginsburg*for defendants. *Joseph P. McNamara, Corporation Counsel (Frank Barbee*of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Joseph P. Kuszynski, J.

Defendants Derrick Derblick and Lease and Save Corporation move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment as to the first cause of action.

On or about April 27, 1974 a motor vehicle owned by defendant Lease and Save Corporation and operated by defendant Derrick Derblick allegedly injured Edmond Ropera, a City of Buffalo police officer.

*1115Plaintiff, the City of Buffalo, brought this action in February, 1975 and in its first cause of action seeks reimbursement in accordance with subdivision 6 of section 207-c of the General Municipal Law for wages, medical treatment and hospital care paid by the city on behalf of Officer Kopera.

Subdivision 6 reads as follows: "Notwithstanding any provision of law contrary thereto contained herein or elsewhere, a cause of action shall accrue to the municipality for reimbursement in such sum or sums actually paid as salary or wages and or for medical treatment and hospital care as against any third party against whom the policeman shall have a cause of action for the injury sustained or sickness caused by such third party.”

Defendants maintain that Officer Kopera did not suffer a "serious injury” under subdivision 4 of section 671 of the Insurance Law (no-fault) as it was defined at the time the suit was commenced, and therefore did not have any standing to bring an action in his own right. Defendants argue that Officer Kopera cannot, therefore, have "a cause of action for the injury sustained” as defined by subdivision 6 of section 207-c, and consequently neither can the city be entitled to reimbursement for the amounts it had expended.

The issue posed here is whether the enactment of the "no-fault” legislation extinguished the rights of a municipality to reimbursement under subdivision 6 of section 207-c of the General Municipal Law.

This court accepts the reasoning of an earlier unreported decision, *City of Buffalo v Williams*(County Ct, Erie County, April 24, 1978, Colucci, J.) which concluded: "This Court does not believe that the Legislature, by enacting the no-fault provisions, intended to void a municipality’s reimbursement right.”

This court concludes the city is entitled to reimbursement from the defendants for the "sum or sums actually paid as salary or wages and or for medical treatment and hospital care” on Officer Kopera’s behalf. The rights provided the city under the earlier section 207 of the General Municipal Law are not limited by the subsequently enacted "no-fault” law.

Defendants’ motion denied in all respects.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*William H. Semlear, *v.*The Fire Commissioner.

Writ quashed, with costs. Opinion by Gilbert, J.; Barnard, P. J., dissenting.
(Reap. Dec. 8473)

#### Lionel Chauve v. United States

Entry No. 814988.

*398(Decided July 21, 1955)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Speelor*and *Daniel I. Auster,*trial attorneys), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of 235 cartons of mimosas (cut flowers), imported from France on or about December 29, 1953. The merchandise was invoiced and entered at 450 French francs per carton and appraised at $4 per box, net, packed.

When this case was called for trial, Suzanne Chauve, wife of the plaintiff, appeared on his behalf and counsel for the Government stated as follows:

> Mb. Attsteb: May it please your Honor, this lady, Suzanne Chauve, is the wife of the plaintiff in this case which is now before your Honor.

> As to Reappraisement 241479-A, the merchandise was entered at 450 French francs per carton, and appraised at $4 net, packed, per box, the box being the same as carton, at *3}i*kilos; in fact, we now understand from information that was given to us by this lady, that the boxes were in fact of a different size than the *3}i*kilos, and they were in fact 1.75 kilos.

> ' Under those circumstances, the examiner, who is in Court here, is willing to stipulate this case on the basis of $2 per box, net, packed, on the basis of an export value, that being the correct dutiable export value at the time of exportation, there being no higher foreign value at that time.

> Mrs. Chauve is willing to agree to that, is that correct?

> Mbs. Chauve: Yes.

On the agreed facts, I hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis . for determining the value of this merchandise and that such .value is $2 per box, net, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 40 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/27 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 27 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-3361

_____________________________

RONARD STEPHEN SOFTLEIGH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Tatiana Salvador, Judge.

September 29, 2020

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, MAKAR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Tallahassee; Terry P. Roberts of 

the Law Office of Terry P. Roberts, Tallahassee; Candice Kaye 

Brower, Regional Conflict Counsel, Office of Regional Conflict 

Counsel, Tallahassee; and Randall Harvey Richardson, Assistant 

Regional Conflict Counsel, Office of Regional Conflict Counsel, 

Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and David Welch, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
No. 54132.

#### Wine Shippers Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 92866-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 52342.

protests 841032-G, etc. (New York).

#### Saks *&*Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5527]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1683-DR]


Oregon; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oregon (FEMA-1683-DR), dated February 22, 2007, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Oregon is hereby amended to include the following area 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of February 22, 2007:

    Wasco County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA.
 [FR Doc. E7-5527 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### John Murphy, *Appellant, v.*The People of the State of New York, *Respondent.*

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
#### William Fletcher, *Appellant, v.*The Goshen Gas-Light Company, Respondent.

Judgment of County Court affirmed,'with costs. Opinion by Gilbert, J.