alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: April 23, 2015 518435

________________________________ In the Matter of CORY EPPS, Petitioner, v ALBERT PRACK, as Director of MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: February 24, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Lynch, JJ.

__________ Cory Epps, Attica, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jeffrey W. Lang of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. After a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with drug use. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. We confirm. Substantial evidence, in the form of the misbehavior report, hearing testimony and positive urinalysis-2- 518435

test results, supports the determination of guilt (see Matter of Bussey v Commissioner of Corr. & Community Supervision, 120 AD3d 1471, 1472 [2014]; Matter of Hyzer v Fischer, 104 AD3d 983, 983 [2013]). The request for urinalysis form and testimony of the correction officers involved further established that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the sample (see Matter of Bussey v Commissioner of Corr. & Community Supervision, 120 AD3d at 1472). Petitioner's remaining contentions, to the extent they are properly before us, have been considered and found to be without merit. Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
#### Edward Delano PIERCE, Petitioner, v. PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION et al., Respondents.

No. 44450.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 279 So.2d 281.
# L_2005210EN.01003901.xml

| 12.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 210/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 210/39

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1330/2005

of 11 August 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 5 to 11 August 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 August 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 August 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 09-301 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SOCIAL SECURITY 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and POLAND 

Signed at Warsaw April 2, 2008 

 

 

 with 

Administrative Arrangement 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
POLAND 

Social Security 

 Agreement signed at Warsaw April 2, 2008; 

 Entered into force March 1, 2009. 

 With administrative arrangement.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSRS

 

| Investment Company Act file number | 811-04760 |
|------------------------------------|-----------|

 

DWS Advisor Funds

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 12/31 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 06/30/09 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

 

----
#### Judith Ann KANEFF, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee, (two cases).

Nos. 76-2097 and 77-1406.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 25, 1978.

Weiner, Robbins & Tunkey and Alan S. Ross, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Robert Burlington, Legal Intern, Joel Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY and HUBBART, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *State v. Statewright,*300 So.2d 674 (Fla.1974); *State v. Matera,*266 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972); *Fuller v. Wainwright,*238 So.2d 65 (Fla.1970); *Williams v. State,*110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959).
#### Coy A. KOONTZ and Koontz Construction Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Joseph M. MURASKO, Appellee.

No. 70-51.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 14, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
SAFETY
ANALYSIS
DATA
DESIGN
PEDESTRIAN
BICYCLE
FATALITIES
ROADDIET
HIGHWAY
PROJECT
STATE
SYSTEM
TOOL

Omtrtuw
xxO>>4wW
LEHACZ>N
wt Suszvuz
FuWWrEDOLOSSE
ga§guM9tTYVUWO>AYU
>~O>LEHNOWT
O>ftr>rurmmdcwn
SourTCaunnatzu
ek xWHuwtr>
=Saw xHraAt>x
=> ZNHn=xnzZz
nO qI>4INarr
o>n¥vsonyHttoOarv-t-
ZIDENOYST+-ORUw
OanxrFOFZIVOSHY
SEHnHrXYUNKLOLTOAS
AnFz>wsrFHHDOACaM
aAAZAnWIONICOE
HNWDdOUYWOrR
ar>wer>ie
=otmae
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              The Schedule contains        
                              summary financial           
                              information extracted from  
                              the financial statements    
                              for Independence Tax Credit 
                              Plus L.P. II and is         
                              qualified in its entirety   
                              by reference to such        
                              financial statements        
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000907045                          
<NAME>                        Independence Tax Credit Plus L.P. II
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1997 
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1996  
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997 
<CASH>                                         7,490,012    
<SECURITIES>                                   0            
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0            
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0            
<INVENTORY>                                    0            
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               427,412      
<PP&E>                                         110,244,087  
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,929,690    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,831,500  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,576,895    
<BONDS>                                        59,862,081   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0            
<PREFERRED>                                    0            
<COMMON>                                       0            
<OTHER-SE>                                     44,075,335   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,831,500  
<SALES>                                        0            
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,663,351    
<CGS>                                          0            
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0            
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8,342,831    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0            
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,345,048    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,024,528)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0            
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0            
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0            
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0            
<CHANGES>                                      0            
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,024,528)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (67.46)      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-166315) pertaining to the VimpelCom 2010 Stock Option Plan and VimpelCom Ltd.s Amended and Restated VimpelCom 2000 Stock
Option Plan, and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-180368) pertaining to the VimpelCom Ltd. Executive Investment Plan;
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated April 30, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of VimpelCom Ltd. as of December 31, 2011 and the two years
then ended and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of VimpelCom Ltd. as of December 31, 2011 included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) of VimpelCom Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2011.

/s/ERNST & YOUNG ACCOUNTANTS LLP

Amsterdam, the Netherlands

April 30,
2012
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

March 22, 2010

BlackRock Public-Private Investment Fund (GenPar), LLC

40 East 52nd Street

New York, NY 10022

UST Reallocation

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to (i) the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of

BlackRock PPIF, L.P., (the “Partnership”) dated as of October 2, 2009 (as the same may be amended,

modified or supplemented from time to time, the “Partnership Agreement”) and (ii) the Loan Agreement,

dated as of the date set forth on Schedule A thereto, by and among the Partnership, as Borrower, The

Bank of New York Mellon, as Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent, and The United States

Department of the Treasury, as Lender (as the same may be amended, modified or supplemented from

time to time, the “Loan Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings

set forth in the Partnership Agreement or the Loan Agreement, as applicable.

The aggregate capital commitments of UST to the UST/TCW Senior Mortgage Securities Fund,

L.P. (the “TCW Fund”) was $1,111,111,111.00, of which $44,500,000.00 has been re-invested in other

PPIFs. Accordingly, $1,066,611,111.00 remains available for reallocation, which equates to

$133,326,388.87 per each of the other eight PPIFs.

Pursuant to Section 3.1(g) of the Partnership Agreement, UST hereby consents and the General

Partner agrees to a UST Reallocation in the amount of $133,326,388.87 to the Partnership. The revised

maximum Capital Commitment of UST (the “Maximum UST Capital Commitment”) and Maximum UST

Debt Amount (upon application of the definition of the “Maximum UST Debt Amount” in the Loan

Agreement) are set forth on Exhibit I hereto. Such allocation shall be deemed effective upon the date

hereof.
For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth herein or in the

Partnership Agreement, the Capital Commitment of UST shall at all times equal the aggregate Capital

Commitments of the Limited Partners other than UST.

* * * *


EXHIBIT I

UST REALLOCATION

Prior Capital

Commitment of UST UST Reallocation

Maximum UST

Capital Commitment

Maximum UST Debt

Amount

$1,111,111,111.00 133,326,388.87 $1,244,437,499.87 $2,488,874,999.74
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50572

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

CIRO CRUZ-LOPEZ, also known as Juan Pablo, also known as 

Mario Garica-Gonzales, also known as Mario Gonzales, also known as Juan 

Pablo Mendoza, also known as Juan Mendoza, also known as Ciro 

Lopez-Cruz, also known as Rufino Garcia, also known as Mario 

Gonzales-Garcia, also known as Alberto Garcia-Garcia, also known as Cruz 

Cruz, also known as Victor Peiro-Pablo, also known as Mario Gonzalez, also 

known as Juna Mendoza-Pablo, also known as Mario Garcia,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 5:18-CR-784-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 5, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50572 Document: 00515298762 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
No. 19-50572

2

Ciro Cruz-Lopez appeals his conviction of illegal reentry into the United 

States following removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to 

dismiss the indictment. He contends that the indictment was invalid because 

the removal order was void for defective notice to appear that failed to specify 

the date and time for his removal hearing. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019), petition 

for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 6, 2019) (No. 19-6588), and Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 

F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2019) (No. 19-779), 

but he wishes to preserve it for further review. The government moves for 

summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed under PedrozaRocha and Pierre-Paul.

In Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 496−98, this court applied Pierre-Paul to 

conclude that the notice to appear was not rendered deficient because it did 

not specify a date or time for the hearing, that any such alleged deficiency had 

not deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction, and that Pedroza-Rocha

could not collaterally attack his underlying removal order without first exhausting his administrative remedies. As Cruz-Lopez concedes, his arguments 

are foreclosed. See id. Because the government’s position “is clearly right as 

a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome 

of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 

1969), the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the government’s 

alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 19-50572 Document: 00515298762 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                         3,543
<SECURITIES>                                   25,626
<RECEIVABLES>                                  30,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,422
<INVENTORY>                                    26,848
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,605
<PP&E>                                         33,837
<DEPRECIATION>                                 17,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          49,208
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       63,151
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    18,147
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,712
<SALES>                                        148,779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,779
<CGS>                                          64,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                23,085
<INCOME-TAX>                                   8,147
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            14,938
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   14,938
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .70


</TABLE>
Exhibit 18.1



|     |  |                                                                                                    |  | 
|---- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|LOGO |  | 233 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2500 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: 312-856-9100 Fax: 312-856-1379

March 26, 2010

Francis J. Leonard

Chief Financial Officer

Addus HomeCare Corporation

2401 S
Plum Grove Rd.

Palatine, Illinois 60067

Dear Mr. Leonard:

As stated in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements of Addus HomeCare Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 2010, the Company changed its method of accounting for its Stock-based Compensation from the graded method to the straight-line method and has stated that his method is preferable as it more accurately reflects the pattern of service
provided by the employee. In connection with our audit of the above mentioned financial statements, we have evaluated the circumstances and the business judgment and planning which formulated your basis to make the change in accounting principle.

It should be understood that criteria have not been established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board for selecting from among the
alternative accounting principles that exist in this area. Further, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants has not established the standards by which an auditor can evaluate the preferability of one accounting principle among a
series of alternatives. However, for purposes of the Companys compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our audit, we concur with managements judgment that the newly adopted accounting principle described in Note 1 is preferable in the circumstances. In formulating this position, we are
relying on managements business planning and judgment, which we do not find to be unreasonable.

Very truly yours,

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP