alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Basil Briguglio et al., Respondents, v RCP Associates, Doing Business as Rockefeller Group, Respondent, and Westinghouse Elevator Company, Inc., Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Westinghouse Elevator Company, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered November 15, 1989, as denied its motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 pertaining to various disclosure requests.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was for a protective order precluding the plaintiffs and *586the codefendant RCP Associates from obtaining certain personnel files, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the appellant payable by the defendant-respondent.

The appellant seeks to have this court overturn the Supreme Court’s denial of its motion for a protective order relating to the demands for production of various items made by the plaintiffs and the codefendant RCP Associates. We agree with the appellant that under the circumstances presented there was no adequate basis to justify the granting of the request for the personnel files of three of its employees *(see, Stevens v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth.,*117 AD2d 733). However, we find that the material requested in the remainder of the demands at issue was within the scope of CPLR 3101 (a) and, hence, properly discoverable *(see, Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403, 406-407; *AGH Distribs. v Silvertone Fasteners,*105 AD2d 648, 650). Accordingly, the denial of so much of the motion for a protective order as relates to those remaining demands was not an improvident exercise of discretion.

We have reviewed the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel K22 Emphasis.                    

*Date:*                         March 28, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         David M. Armstrong, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center/Room 6138/MSC 9608, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-3534,                         *armstrda@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 6, 2012

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-5929 Filed 3-9-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# L_2007118EN.01002401.xml

| 8.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 118/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 118/24

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2006 of 15 December 2006 publishing, for 2007, the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 361 of 19 December 2006
  )

On page 12, footnote 6:

for:

‘The export refund is payable for products having a dry matter content of less than 78 %. The export refund provided for products having a dry matter content of less than 78 % shall be adjusted by using the following formula: ...’,

read:

‘The export refund is payable for products having a dry matter content of at least 78 %. The export refund provided for products having a dry matter content of less than 78 % shall be adjusted by using the following formula: ...’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNION
PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AT THE
END OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             124
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      313
<ALLOWANCES>                                         9
<INVENTORY>                                         55
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   496
<PP&E>                                          11,007
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,536
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              542
<BONDS>                                          2,797
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         938
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,147
<SALES>                                          1,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,728
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (51)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (140)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 89
<DISCONTINUED>                                     133
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      4
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       226
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AirTran Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February xx, 2007 (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, each hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AirTran Holdings, Inc.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                           
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 28, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Joseph B. Leonard                                     
|                        |  |     |  | Joseph B. Leonard Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer    
|                        |  |    
|Date: February 28, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Stanley Gadek                                         
|                        |  |     |  | Stanley J. Gadek                                          
|                        |  |     |  | Senior Vice President Finance, and Chief Financial
Officer
OFPICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

David Moody, Ph.D., Manager 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad. NM 88221-3090 

Dear Dr. 1Vloody: 

On December 8, 2006, the Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) 

requested the Environmentai Proteetion Ageney's (EPA) approval of a Super High Efficiency 

Neutron Counter (SuperHENC), non-destructive assay (NDA) system, for contact-handled (CH) 

transuranic waste used by the Central Characteriz.ation Project (CCP) at the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL). 

In the baseline inspeetion report (Docket no. A-98-49;1I-A4-59), EPA identified the 

addition of a new NDA system as a Tier 1 ehange, which requires EPA approval prior 

iniplementation. Aecording to the requirements of 40 CFR 194.8 (b), DOE appropriately 

requested approval of the SuperHENC for CH waste as a Tier I change to the iNL-CCP CH 

baseline approval. 

EPA conducted an on-site evaluation of the INL-CCP SuperHENC system on January 23- 

24, 2007. EPA's inspection of the SuperHENC included an examination of the procedures, a 

review of the calibration records, a demonstration of the SuperHENC, replicate measurements 

run at EPA's request, and an examination of Batch Data Reports (BDR) for the SuperHENC. 

EPA's inspection did not identify any findings or concerns requiring a response related to the use 

of the SuperHENC for the characterization of CH transuranic waste components. EPA's 

inspection report for the SuperHENC is enclosed and wi11 be placed in the Agency's public 

docket. 

EPA has determined that the SuperHENC system used by INL•CCP is adequate for the 

characterization at IN -CCP. This approvai does not niake any changes to the tiering table 

provided with the baseline approval. Changes to the approved components of the SuperHENC 

system at INL-CCP, must follow the tiering requirements described in the baseline inspection 

report issued for the INL-CCP CH program (Doeket no. A-98-49; II-A4-59, Dated November 1, 

2005). 

Iniernet Address (UR!) e httpY/www.epa.gov 

ReoyciediReoyalabie 0 Printed wlth Vegetable Oit Based Inks on 100 % Posteonsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Ed Feltcorn at 

(202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462. 

Enclosures 

cc: Electronic Distribution 

Frank Marcinowski, DOE HQ 

Lloyd Piper, CBFO 

Vernon Daub, CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO 

Courtland Fesmire, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO 

Allison Pangle, CTAC 

Wayne Ledford, CTAC
**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**

 

The undersigned hereby certify that pursuant to the provisions of 18U.S.C. 1350(a), the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2005 (the “Form 10-K”) of Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and thatinformation contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company atand for the periods indicated.

 

Dated:  February 24, 2006

 
|   | By:    | /S/ DAVID J. BARRETT                                 |   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | David J. Barrett                                     |
|   | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|   |   |                                                 |
|   |   |                                                 |
|   | By:    | /S/ HARRY T. HAWKS                                   |   |
|   | Name:  | Harry T. Hawks                                       |
|   | Title: | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|        |        |                                                      |        |  |

 

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 12, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00287

- CV

Lawrence Allen, Appellant

v.

Claire L. Allen, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court o n April 12, 2018. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relatin g to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sammy Napolitano, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered November 13, 1986, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant was not deprived of effective *649assistance of counsel. A review of the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case as of the time of the representation, reveals that the defendant was provided meaningful representation *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). The defense counsel presented an effective case which included the defense of intoxication. He vigorously cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, raised numerous objections, and delivered a summation consistent with the defense’s theory.

We also reject the defendant’s argument that the trial court erred in limiting the defense counsel’s cross-examination of a prosecution witness on the question of whether he knew if the deceased had a reputation for carrying a gun. Since the defendant did not raise the issue of justification, the trial court’s ruling was correct *(see, People v Jones,*140 AD2d 627; *cf., People v Miller,*39 NY2d 543).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

IVAN MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50268

D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00315-BEN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2017**

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Ivan Martinez-Ramirez appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon his revocation of supervised 

release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Martinez-Ramirez contends that the district court procedurally erred and 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-50268 

violated his due process rights by failing to notify him at sentencing for the 

underlying offense that he could receive an above-Guidelines sentence for 

violating the terms of his supervised release. The record does not support this 

contention. At his sentencing on his underlying offense, Martinez-Ramirez 

received notice of all of the conditions of his supervised release and the district 

court informed him of the possible penalties for violating those conditions. 

Martinez-Ramirez next argues that the district court did not explain the 

upward variance adequately. This argument is also belied by the record, which 

reflects that the court sufficiently explained its reasons for the sentence by 

reference to appropriate considerations. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 

992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Martinez-Ramirez finally claims that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because the one-third upward variance from the Guidelines range

was not warranted. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence is 

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and 
3 16-50268 

the totality of the circumstances, including Martinez-Ramirez’s lengthy period of 

noncompliance. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
### Department 

## of Energy Washington, DC 20585 December 24,2008



### MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY

THROUGH: C. H. ALBRIGHT, 

### JR. UNDER SECRETARY 

### FROM: JOHN F. MIZROCH ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND 

### RENE LE ENERGY 

### SUBJECT: ACTION: Approval to Publish in the Federal Register a Final Rule for Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refiigeration Equipment 

### (RIN: 1 904-AB59) 

### ISSUE: The notice requests approvalto publish in the Federal Register the attached notice of final rule for ice-cream freezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote-condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers (commercial refigeration equipment). 

### BACKGROUND: Commercialrefigeration equipmentis used primarily to store and display perishable food products for sale in food-sales buildings (e.g., supermarketsand convenience stores), some multi-line retail stores, and 

### in some food service applications like restaurants, salad bars, and cafeterias. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to add new subsection 342(c)(4)(A), which directsthe Secretaryof Energy to issueby rule energyconservation standards for the above commercial refigeration equipment. 42 U. S.C. 631 3(c)(4)(A). Major interested parties include Hill Phoenix; Hussman; Tyler Refrigeration; Zero Zone; Delfield; StructuralConcepts; Master-Bilt; Kysor Warren; the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and RefiigerationInstitute; and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. In this final rule, the U.S. Department ofEnergy (DOE) is adopting trial standard level (TSL) 4 for ice cream fieezers; self-contained commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors; and remote-condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers.

### o TSL 4 will result in significantnational energy savings and is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified.



### o DOE'Sadoption of TSL 4 represents the maximum efficiency levels that the analysis showed to have positive net present value to the Nation for all equipment classes. The energyconservation standard would apply to all commercialrefrigeration equipment manufactured on or after January 1,201 2, and offered for sale in the United States. SENSITIVITIES:

### This rulemaking is one of the scheduled actions described in the Department's report to Congress, which was prepared in response to section 141 (a) of EPACT 2005. POLICY IMPACT:

### This rulemaking supports the implementation of EPACT 2005. URGENCY:

### To meet the deadlines in the report to Congress, this notice should be submitted to theFederal Register 

### no later than December 3 

### 1,2008. RECOMMENDATION:

### Recommend this noticebe approved for publication in theFederal Register. 

### Attachment

Disapprove: Date: 

## DEC 3 1 2008 CONCURRENCE: GC-I/ Eric J. Fygi, 12118/08 PIIRobert C. Marlay for PI-1, 12115/08 OMBNathan J. 

### Frey, 12118/08