alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Geno Wynn, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of three counts each of third degree criminal possession and sale of a controlled substance. It was not necessary for the People to call the evidence clerks who received the contraband at the laboratory *(see, People v Newman,*129 AD2d 742, *lv denied*70 NY2d 652). The People established a proper chain of custody of the contraband involved in each incident based upon the testimony of the only officers who handled the drugs and the forensic chemists who tested the evidence. This proof provided reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence *(see, People v Julian,*41 NY2d 340, 343; *People v Steiner,*148 AD2d 980, 981; *People v Gamble,*94 AD2d 960).

The court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s challenge for cause of two prospective jurors. Although each juror initially expressed strong feelings against drugs, each juror assured the court that she could be fair and impartial *(see,*CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; *People v Colon,*71 NY2d 410, 418-419, *cert denied*487 US 1239; *People v Williams,*63 NY2d 882, 884-885; *People v Corbett,*68 AD2d 772, 778-779, *affd*52 NY2d 714). We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find that none requires reversal. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Parenti, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Finance and Accounting Service Providing payment services for the U.S. Department of Defense

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Military Member		 
-  Retired Military & Annuitant		 
-  Civilian Employee		 
-  Contractor & Vendor		 

Hometaxesaca

## Your taxes and the Affordable Care Act

 

**IMPORTANT HEALTH COVERAGE TAX DOCUMENTS**

**Form 1095-B:**  Responsible individuals may retrieve a copy of Form 1095-B, Health Coverage on their myPay account, or may request a copy of Form 1095-B by submitting a request to askDFAS or mailing to the address below. Please **allow up to 30 days** for processing.
**Use the secure online form at askDFAS.***** Mail request to:****The request must include:****If your form has incorrect information, please call customer service at 1-888-332-7411, option 6, then option 1.  For all other general questions, please call 1-888-332-7411, option 6, then option 2. **myPay**ATTENTION: Current IRS guidelines state that IRS Forms 1095-B or 1095-C are not required to file an income tax return.**
**Page updated February 2, 2024**

### Stay Connected

Department of Defense     Department of Veterans Affairs     Military Employment Verification     Warrior Care Website     Defense Contract Mgmt Agency  DoD Forms     Department of State     Civilian Personnel Mgmt Service     DTS Travel Center     System for Award Mgmt (SAM)    Congressional/LegislationPersonnel Force Innovation     Freedom of Information Act     DFAS Hotline   Contact Us     Accessibility / Section 508    EEO / No Fear Act  

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Order entered October 5, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01449-CV

DOUGLAS HUNDERMAN AND DOROTHY HUNDERMAN, Appellants

V.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-09043

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Evans

Before the Court is appellants’ September 17, 2020 motion for rehearing and 

to reinstate the appeal. Our records show this case was dismissed for want of 

prosecution, in particular because appellants failed to file a brief. In his motion,

appellants’ counsel contends he filed the brief via the Texas electronic filing 

system, but was unable to verify it had been filed on the Court’s case management

system due to the ransomware attack. Appellants’ motion is not verified or 
otherwise supported with evidence showing the brief was filed with the electronic 

filing system.

Appellants are requested to provide evidence in support of the motion, via 

affidavit or otherwise, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. Failure to do

so will result in the denial of the motion without further notice.

Appellees may file a response no later than TEN DAYS from the later of the 

date appellants files evidence or, if not filed, from the deadline for appellants to 

file evidence.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
#### Greg GLIDDEN and Gloria Glidden, Appellees, v. Charles T. HIGGS and Mrs. Charles Higgs, as Natural Guardians of Charles T. Higgs, II, a minor, Charles T. Higgs and Mrs. Charles Higgs, individually, Appellants.

No. 76944.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division 3.

April 28, 1992.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1992.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 28, 1992.

*681Mark S. Thetford, Tulsa, for appellants.

Grant E. Cheadle, Tulsa, for appellees.

OPINION

HUNTER, Judge:

Appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Higgs, are the parents of Charles Higgs, II, who as a minor living at home was involved in an automobile accident. He received a traffic citation for failure to yield while turning left, a violation of a Tulsa traffic ordinance. At the time of the accident, he was driving a vehicle owned by the Appel-lees, Greg and Gloria Glidden. Appellees sued the Appellants alleging that they were liable for the actions of their minor son according to 23 O.S.1991, § 10. This statute provides:

> The state or any county, city, town, municipal corporation or school district, or any person, corporation or organization, shall be entitled to recover damages in a court of competent jurisdiction from the parents of any minor under the age of eighteen (18) years, living with the parents at the time of the act, who shall commit any criminal or delinquent act resulting in bodily injury to any person or damage to or larceny of any property, real, personal or mixed, belonging to the state or a county, city, town, municipal corporation, school district, person, corporation or organization. The amount of damages awarded shall not exceed Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00).

The broad rule is that neither parent nor child is answerable, as such, for the act of the other. 10 O.S.1991, § 20. The provisions of 23 O.S.1991, § 10 are exceptions to the general rule and are limited to the criminal or delinquent acts of the child.

Failure to yield on a left turn is a violation of a city ordinance. However, it is not a criminal or delinquent act, nor is it such negligence, in the absence of exacerbating circumstances, which rises to the level of criminal negligence. Before one may be convicted of a crime, a higher degree of negligence must be established than for civil liability. *Frey v. State,*97 Okl.Cr. 410, 265 P.2d 502 (1954); *Howard v. State,*88 Okl.Cr. 4, 199 P.2d 240 (1948).

The trial court erred in finding the Higgs liable for their son’s negligence. Judgment is REVERSED.

HANSEN, V.C.J., and JONES, J., concur.
|   | (i)    | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the period  ended October 31, 2014, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|   | (ii)   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                 |

| December 15, 2014   |
|-------------------------------|
|                          |   |
|                          | /s/Adam Radly |
| By:                           | Adam Radly |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 541 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 541

  To prevent human health threats posed by the consumption of equines 
                      raised in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2013

  Ms. Landrieu (for herself and Mr. Graham) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prevent human health threats posed by the consumption of equines 
                      raised in the United States.

    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 ``Safeguard American Food Exports Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) unlike cows, pigs, and other domesticated species, 
        horses and other members of the equidae family are not raised 
        for the purpose of human consumption;
            (2) equines raised in the United States are frequently 
        treated with substances that are not approved for use in horses 
        intended for human consumption and equine parts are therefore 
        unsafe within the meaning of section 409 of the Federal Food, 
        Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
            (3) equines raised in the United States are frequently 
        treated with drugs, including phenylbutazone, acepromazine, 
        boldenone undecylenate, omeprazole, ketoprofen, xylazine, 
        hyaluronic acid, nitrofurazone, polysulfated glycosaminoglycan, 
        clenbuterol, tolazoline, and ponazuril, which are not approved 
        for use in horses intended for human consumption and equine 
        parts are therefore unsafe within the meaning of section 512 of 
        the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and
            (4) consuming parts of an equine raised in the United 
        States likely poses a serious threat to human health and the 
        public should be protected from these unsafe products.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITIONS.

    Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
331) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(ccc) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section--
            ``(1) equine parts shall be deemed unsafe under section 409 
        of this Act;
            ``(2) equine parts shall be deemed unsafe under section 512 
        of this Act; and
            ``(3) the knowing sale or transport of equines or equine 
        parts in interstate or foreign commerce for purposes of human 
        consumption is hereby prohibited.''.
                                 <all>
```
----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Role of eGovernment for Europe's future’

(2004/C 318/07)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on The Role of eGovernment for Europe's Future (COM(2003) 567 final),

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 26 September 2003 to consult it on this subject, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the decision of its President of 6 November 2003 to instruct its Commission for Culture and Education to draw up an opinion on this subject,

Having regard to the Ministerial Declaration from the Conference on eGovernment of 8 July 2003 in Como, Italy,

Having regard to its Opinion on eEurope 2005: An information society for all (CdR 136/2002 fin) (1),

Having regard to its Opinion on Interoperable Delivery of pan-European eGovernment Services to Public Administrations, Business and Citizens (IDABC) (CdR 247/2003 fin) (2),

Having regard to its Opinion on eEurope 2002: creating a EU framework for the exploitation of public sector information (CdR 134/2002 fin) (3),

Having regard to its draft Opinion (CdR 392/2003 rev. 2) adopted on 5 April 2004 by its Commission for Culture and Education (Rapporteur: Mr Keith Brown, Member of Clackmannanshire Council, Scotland, UK/EA),

Whereas:

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 55th Plenary Session, held on 16-17 June 2004 (meeting of 16 June).

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

The Committee of the Regions

Brussels, 16 June 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 128, 29.5.2003, p. 14.

(2)OJ C 73, 23.3.2004, p. 72.

(3)OJ C 73, 26.3.2003, p. 38.

----
Exhibit
10.63   SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE  This Second Amendment to
Lease (Second Amendment), dated as of December 3, 2002, is entered into by
and between TBI-Mission West, LLC, a California limited liability company
(Landlord) and Media Arts Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Tenant). RECITALS A.            Landlord and Tenant entered into a Lease dated December
20, 1999, and amended by a First Amendment to Lease dated July 6, 2000
(collectively, the Lease) for those certain premises at 925 Lightpost Way, Morgan
Hill, California. B.            Landlord and Tenant now desire to amend the Lease to
remove certain rights of first offer to purchase and to payment on sale of the
Premises, and an option to expand, all of which were originally granted to
Tenant under the Lease. AGREEMENT In consideration of the
mutual covenants set forth herein, and other valuable consideration, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, Landlord and Tenant agree to amend the Lease as
follows: 1.             Option to Expand. Paragraph 41 of the Lease is
hereby deleted in its entirety. 2.             Right of First Offer to Purchase. Paragraph 42 of
the Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety. 3.             Payment to Tenant Upon Sale of Property.
Paragraph 43 of the Lease is hereby deleted in its entirety. Except as set forth in this
Second Amendment, the Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect. LANDLORD
  
  TENANTTBI-Mission West, LLC, a California
  
  Media Arts Group, Inc., a Delawarelimited liability company
  
  corporationBy
  TBI-MWP I, a California limited
  By
  /s/ Herbert D. Montgomerypartnership, Managing MemberIts
  CFOBy
  Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc.Development, a California corporation,General PartnerBy
  /s/ Brad W. KrouskupIts
  President  -1-
#### Ann Simeti et al., Respondents, v Smithtown Fairfield Condominium, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Smithtown Fairfield Condominium, Inc., Longco-Fairfield Joint Venture, and M.D. Carlisle Realty Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, *514J.), dated June 7, 1989, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) to change the venue of the action from Queens County to Suffolk County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon a motion pursuant to CPLR 510 (3) for a change of venue based upon the convenience of witnesses, the movant must establish the identity of the witnesses who allegedly will be inconvenienced, their willingness to testify, and the nature of their anticipated testimony *(see, Alexandre v Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.,*150 AD2d 742, 743; *Jansen v Bernhang,*149 AD2d 468, 469; *Greene v Hillcrest Gen. Hosp.,*130 AD2d 621). We note that aside from the appellants, only one other defendant, L&M Specialty, Inc., joined in the application, leaving two remaining defendants who did not. There was no explanation by the movants for the failure of those defendants to do so *(see, Ferrigno v General Motors Corp.,*134 AD2d 479, 481). The movants failed to satisfy the foregoing requirements, and their motion was properly denied. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
No. 00-7376.

#### Horsley *v.*Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### Kenneth D. Laub & Company, Inc., Respondent, v Martin Domansky, Individually and as a General Partner of 17-19 West 34th Street Realty Company, et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about March 5, 1991, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its complaint and dismissed defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and judgment of the same court, entered March 30, 1990, which awarded plaintiff $279,801.54 on its claim of an unpaid brokerage fee commission, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant Realty Company, agreed to pay plaintiff a commission if plaintiff could successfully negotiate a lease of office space in defendant’s building with a specific tenant. Plaintiff, who was already this tenant’s exclusive broker, met the terms of its agreement with defendant by procuring the lease. When defendant failed to pay commissions owing plaintiff, plaintiff sued and moved for summary judgment on the basis of the written commission agreement.

Defendant’s contention that there is a question as to the enforceability of the contract due to economic duress is unpersuasive. Plaintiff was entitled to seek a lease elsewhere for its client-tenant if defendant would not agree to pay a brokerage commission *(see, Weinraub v International Banknote Co.,*422 F Supp 856). Defendant has not shown that it was forced to agree to the commission by means of a wrongful threat which precluded exercise of free will *(see, Austin Instrument v Loral Corp.,*29 NY2d 124). That plaintiff knew defendant was in financial straits when demanding commission amounts to no more than mere hard bargaining tactics *(see, Weinraub v International Banknote Co., supra,*at 859). Moreover, we note that defendant has nowhere demonstrated that it had absolutely no other alternative and could not seek adequate relief elsewhere *(see, Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., supra,*at 132).

Nor did plaintiff wrongfully interfere with pre-existing nego*290tiations between defendant and the tenant in issue, as the tenant had only, at best, indicated that it would consider defendant’s building as a possible location. Finally, we discern no violation of Real Property Law § 441-c. Plaintiff was acting lawfully in seeking brokerage commission, as well as within the terms of its exclusive brokerage agreement with the tenant, which expressly permitted plaintiff to seek a commission from the lessor in lieu of the tenant’s payment to plaintiff of a consultancy fee. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 366 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 366

  To amend title XIX of the Public Health Service Act to clarify the 
provisions of the allotment formula relating to urban and rural areas, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

Mr. Smith of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Public Health Service Act to clarify the 
provisions of the allotment formula relating to urban and rural areas, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Fair Treatment Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH BLOCK GRANT ALLOTMENT 
              FORMULA.

    (a) In General.--Section 1912A(a)(4)(B) of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-1a(a)(4)) is amended--
            (1) by striking out clause (i);
            (2) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (iv) as clauses 
        (i) through (iii), respectively;
            (3) in clause (i) (as so redesignated), by striking out 
        ``0.2'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``\1/3\'';
            (4) in clause (ii) (as so redesignated), by striking out 
        ``0.2'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``\1/3\''; and
            (5) in clause (iii) (as so redesignated), by striking out 
        ``0.2'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``\1/3\''.
    (b) Minimum Allotment.--Section 1912A(b) of such Act is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``$7,000,000'' and 
        inserting in lieu thereof ``$8,000,000''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2);
                    ``(A) by striking out ``and'' after the semicolon 
                in subparagraph (A);
                    ``(B) by striking out the period at the end of 
                subparagraph (B), and inserting in lieu thereof ``; 
                and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
                subparagraph:
                    ``(C) 25 percent of the cumulative percentage 
                change in the amount by which the appropriations under 
                section 1911 for the fiscal year for which the 
                allotment is being made exceeds the amount appropriated 
                under such section for fiscal year 1992.''.

                                 <all>
```