alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

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
#### George Ignatios PROTO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-430.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61304-61305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30045]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board Task Force on year 2000

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on year 2000 will meet in 
closed session on December 1-2, 1997 and January 12-13, 1998 at Science 
Applications International Corporation, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, Virginia
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the 
perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings the 
Task Force will determine if the priorities assigned, resources 
allocated and funding strategy used to

[[Page 61305]]

implement and Department's Y2K five phase process are sufficient to 
ensure all mission critical systems will function properly on, before 
and after January 1, 2000.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Commission 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has 
been determined that these DSB Task Force meetings concern matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)(1994), and that accordingly these 
meetings will be closed to the public.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-30045 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28426]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Enrichment Corporation, Board of Directors.

TIME AND DATE: 8:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 29, 1997.

PLACES: USEC Corporate Headquarters, 6903 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20817.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    <bullet> Review of commercial, operational and financial issues of 
the Corporation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Barbara Arnold 301-564-3354.

    Dated: October 22, 1997.
William H. Timbers, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-28426 Filed 10-22-97; 2:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 8720-01-M
J
- BIT TECH

REQUEST AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a )(1) & (a)(2), AND 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI Phantom 3 Professional UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112
- 95) for the purposes of Aerial photography/vi deography, and closed set filming.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1742 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1742

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat Puerto Rico as part 
of the United States for purposes of determining whether real property 
            qualifies for treatment as a like-kind exchange.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 10, 2021

 Miss Gonzalez-Colon introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat Puerto Rico as part 
of the United States for purposes of determining whether real property 
            qualifies for treatment as a like-kind exchange.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Real Estate Exchange Fairness Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. PUERTO RICO TREATED AS PART OF UNITED STATES FOR PURPOSES OF 
              LIKE-KIND EXCHANGES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1031(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of 
the preceding sentence, the term `United States' shall be treated as 
including Puerto Rico.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to exchanges completed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ ooOoo

‐‐‐‐

James H. Larsen,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Randall Wright,

Defendant and Appellee. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) PER CURIAM DECISION

Case No. 20110770

‐ CA

F I L E D

(January 6, 2012)

2012 UT App 9

‐‐‐‐‐

Third District, West Jordan Department, 110401936

The Honorable Andrew H. Stone

Attorneys: James H. Larsen, Provo, Appellant Pro Se

Peter C. Schofield, Orem, for Appellee

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges McHugh, Thorne, and Christiansen.

¶1 James H. Larsen appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint. This is

before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a

substantial question for review. Larsen failed to respond to the motion. As a result of

his failure to respond and the lack of a viable legal issue identified in his docketing

statement, he has failed to identify a substantial question for review warranting further

consideration by this court. See Utah R. App. P. 10. Absent a substantial issue for

review, this court may summarily affirm a district court’s order.20110770

‐ CA 2 ¶2 Affirmed.

____________________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh,

Presiding Judge

____________________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

____________________________________ Michele M. Christiansen, Judge
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL



## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D 2 2

- 2559

LT Case No. 2021

- CF

- 001635

- A

- X



### _____________________________

D WRON K ENYON R OBINSON

,

Appellant



### ,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

,

Appellee



### .

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.

Lisa Herndon, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and

Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender,

Daytona Beach

, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and

Stephen R. Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,

Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

A ugust 29, 2023

P ER C URIAM

A FFIRMED

.

M AKAR

, J AY

, and K ILBANE

, JJ., concur.2 _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion

under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
i^mm^ij OF 

® IVIemorandum 

U.S.Departmentof • ' ^ I-' L= 22 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Subject: Payout proccdurcs as a result of the temporary closure of Date: November 14, 2011 

Canyonlands Field (Moab, Utah) 

(Docket DOT-OST-1997-2827) 

yl A )/0 J/ OAAMemoNo. 

A^/^vt:^i/./U^^<^i^T__ _ 2011-65 

From: Dcnnls J. DcVany, Chief <i7 Reply to Brian Swanson, X-53 

EAS & Domestic Analysis, X-53 A"" °f^ Ext. 65392 

To: Gregory Frazier, Resource Directorate, S-3.6 

Canyonlands Field (CNY) 

Canyonlands Field (Moab, Utah) provided notice to Great Lakes that it would close for 

pavement resurfacing and painting from October 3, 2011, through October 7, 2011, returning to 

normal operation on October 8, 2011. Great Lakes currently provides subsidized EAS at Moab 

for a rate of $1,470.46 per arrival/departure. 

It has been our policy, on a case-by-case basis, to pay EAS carriers their usual subsidy rate 

when airports have been closed on the grounds that the circumstances are beyond the carriers' 

control and there are only minimal cost savings to the carriers while they lose all of the 

revenue. The carriers would only save on fuel and a portion of maintenance because they 

would not be able to turn back aircraft or lay-off personnel. Consistent with this precedent, we 

ask you to compensate Great Lakes for flights it did not operate during the closure periods 

noted above. 

Attachment 

cc: Mr. Chuck Howell, Great Lakes 

Mr. Kelly Braun, Canyonlands Field 
Swanson, Brian (OST) 

From: Chuck Howell [chowell@flygreatlakes.com] 

Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 3:50 PM 

To: Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Cc: 'Justin Irish'; 'Naomi Craig' 

Subject: FW: Airport Closure-CNY 

Brian, 

These dates concur with our billings to DOT. 

Let me know if you need anything else. 

Regards, 

Chuck 

From: Kelly L Braun [mailto:kbraun@arand.utah.qov1 

Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:17 PM 

To: 'Chuck Howell' 

Cc: brian.swanson@)dot.qov 

Subject: Airport Closure 

Chuck, 

Just wanted to follow up on our phone conversation earlier today. The airport was officially 

closed October 3'" @ 0:00 hrs MST to October ?"' @ 23:59 hrs MST for pavement resurfacing 

and painting. Due to the closure Great Lakes was not able to operate scheduled flights. Normal 

operations resumed on Saturday, October 8*^, 2011. I know that airport closures put a big 

wrinkle in your operations and I will continue to provide you with as much notice as possible to 

mitigate future closures. If you have any other questions please contact me. 

Respectfully, 

KELLY BRAUN 

Grand County Airport Manager 

125 E. Center St. 

Moab UT 84532 

(435) 259-4849 office 

(435) 259-4860 fax 

(720) 297-0896 ceU
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29436]



[[Page 60217]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Foreign Agricultural Service


Meeting of Advisory Committee on Emerging Markets

AGENCY: Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that 
the first meeting of the Advisory Committee on Emerging Markets will be 
held November 18, 1997. The purpose of the committee is to provide 
information and advice, based upon knowledge and expertise of the 
members, useful to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 
implementing the program on sharing agricultural expertise with 
emerging markets. The committee will also advise USDA on ways to 
increase the involvement of the U.S. private sector in cooperative work 
with emerging markets in food and rural business systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 18, 1997 from 9:00 
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The minutes of the meeting announced in this 
Notice shall be available for review. The meeting is open to the public 
and members of the public may provide comments in writing to Douglas 
Freeman, Foreign Agricultural Service, room 6506 South Building, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, 14th and Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 
DC 20250, but should not make any oral comments at the meeting unless 
invited to do so by the Co-chairpersons.

    Signed at Washington, DC, October 31, 1997.
Lon Hatamiya,
Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
[FR Doc. 97-29436 Filed 11-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-10-M
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 08

- 0 207 V

Filed: December 20 , 2013

Not to be Published

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

XIANGDONG HE and BEE TAN, *

as parents and legal representatives of *

ENOCH HE, a m inor

, *

* Autism; Attorney s ’ Fees and Costs

Petitioner s

, *

*

v. *

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND *

HUMAN SERVI CES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEY S’ FEES AND COSTS 1

On D ecember 20 , 2 013

, the parties filed a Stipulation of Facts Concerning

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. After informal discussions, the parties have agreed on

$ 11,837.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs. In lieu of filing a Vaccine General Order #9

statement, petitioners ’ counsel represents that peti tioner s personally incurred no costs

that are compensable under § 15 (e)(1).

The request for attorneys’ fees and costs is granted. Petitio ner s are

awarded reasonable costs pursuant to §§ 15(b) and (e)(1), as I find that the filing of the

petition was i n good faith and upon a r easonable basis, and the amount requested is

reasonable and appropriate.

1 Because th is unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case,

I intend to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899,

2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule

18(b), a party has 14 days to identify and move to delete medical or other information, that satisfies the

criteria in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12( d)(4)(B). Further, consistent with the rule requirement, a motion for

redaction must include a proposed redacted decision. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material

fits within the requirements of that provision, I will delete such material f rom public access.2

Pursuant to §15( e), I award a lump sum of $ 11,837.00 2 to be paid in the form

of a check payable jointly to the petitioner s and petitioners ’ counsel, Sean

Greenwood

.

In the absence of a timely

- filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of

the Rules of the U.S . Court of Federal Claims, t he C lerk of the court shall enter

judgment in accordance herewith. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Denise K. Vowell

Denise K. Vowell

Chief S pecial Master

2 This amount is intended to cover all legal exp enses incurred in this matter. This award

encompasses all charges by the attorney against a client, “advanced costs” as well as fees for

legal services rendered. Furthermore, § 15(e)(3) prevents an attorney from charging or

collecting fees (including cos ts) that would be in addition to the amount awarded herein. See

generally Beck v. Sec’y of Dep't Health and Human Services , 924 F.2d 1029 (Fed. Cir.1991).

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to

seek review. See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41583 Conference Calendar

BENNY HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHARLES ADAMS, M.D.; ADJETEY K. LOMO, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. G-97-CV-403

-------------------- October 20, 1999 Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Benny Hayes, Texas inmate #825298, challenges the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint. Hayes argues that his complaint has an arguable basis in law, and he asserts that his allegations demonstrate deliberate indifference by the defendants. We have carefully reviewed the arguments and the appellate record. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing theNo. 98-41583 -2- complaint as frivolous. See McCormick v. Stalder , 105 F.3d 1059,

1061 (5th Cir. 1997). The medical care alleged by Hayes does not amount to deliberate indifference by the defendants. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) ; Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, Hayes failed to allege more than a mental injury. See Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Hayes argues that the application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) to his complaint violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The argument is not properly before the court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Hayes’ argument concerning the lack of opportunity to amend his complaint is without merit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not provide such a procedural safeguard. See Graves v. Hampton , 1 F.3d 315, 318 n.12 (5th Cir. 1993). Hayes asserts that he should have appointed counsel. To the extent that he challenges the denial of appointed counsel in the district court, no abuse of discretion is detected. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep’t , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). To the extent that Hayes is requesting appointed appellate counsel, the appeal fails to present exceptional circumstances warranting such appointment. See id. This appeal lacks arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2

. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as Hayes’ secondNo. 98-41583 -3- strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Hayes that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1500

CHRISTOPHER CHIN-YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY L. ROWELL, Department of the Army; LORETTA E. LYNCH, 

Attorney General; U.S. ATTORNEY, of the United States;

WILLIAM D. SPENCER; KATHLEEN D. COLE; DENISE S. PRICE; 

NICOLE DECRESCENZO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:13-cv-03772-RWT)

Submitted: October 30, 2015 Decided: November 30, 2015

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Chin-Young, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra DeShields 

Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Chin-Young appeals the district court’s orders 

dismissing his civil action and denying his motions for 

reconsideration.* We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Chin-Young v. Powell, No. 

8:13-cv-03772-RWT (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2015; May 7, 2015; May 19, 

2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

 * We construe Chin-Young’s informal brief as a timely notice 

of appeal from the orders denying his motions for 

reconsideration. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 

(1992); Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 834-35 

(4th Cir. 1987).