alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19304-19305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5601-N-13]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanita Perry, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings

[[Page 19305]]

and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to 
assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing 
that no additional properties have been determined suitable or 
unsuitable this week.

    Dated: March 22, 2012.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. 2012-7317 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 23

- 00811

- CR
IN RE JOHN GILBERT CENTENO JR. , RELATOR Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Delivered and Filed: September 20, 2023
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION On August 25, 2023, Relator John Gilbert Centeno Jr. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his arrest and pre

- trial commitment as unlawful. This c ourt has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters; our original jurisdiction to entertain applicati ons for writ of habeas corpus extends solely to the actions of judges in civil cases. See
T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE § 22.221(d). Our habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters is appellate only. In re Ayers , 515 S.W.3d 356, 356 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 20 16, orig . proceeding ) (per curiam) ; Dodson v. State , 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1999, no pet.). Original jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in the Court of

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021

- CR

- 11020 , styled State v. John Gilbert Centeno, Jr. , pending in the 186th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Andrew Carruthers presiding.04

- 23

- 00811

- CR

- 2

- Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the c ounty courts, or a judge of those courts. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. art. 11.05; see also In re Ayers , 515 S.W.3d at 356. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13378 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13379 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13380 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13381 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13382 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13383 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13384 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13385 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13386 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13387 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13388 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13389 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13390 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13391 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13392 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13393 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13394 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13395 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13396 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13397 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13398 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13399 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13400 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13401 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13402 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13403 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13404 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13405 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13406 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13407 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13408 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13409 1987HeinOnline -- 52 Fed. Reg. 13410 1987
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 26, 2015 518918

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of GEORGE BURNS, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD et al., Respondents.

________________________________ Calendar Date: February 11, 2015 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________ James Trauring & Associates, LLC, Schenectady (James Trauring of counsel), for appellant. William O'Brien, State Insurance Fund, New York City (Matthew R. Mead of Stockton, Barker & Mead, LLP, Troy, of counsel), for New York State Workers' Compensation Board and another, respondents.

__________ Devine, J. Appeal from a decision of an Arbitration Panel (pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 20 [2] [d]), filed July 19, 2013, which established claimant's average weekly wage. Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits as the result of injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. Inasmuch as he worked for the Workers' Compensation Board, the claim was addressed within the "neutral outside arbitration process" provided for by Workers' Compensation Law § 20 (2) (a). An arbitrator established the claim for various work-related-2- 518918

injuries, determined claimant's average weekly wage under Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (1), and awarded benefits. Claimant nevertheless sought administrative review, arguing that he had been promoted to a new position shortly before he was injured and that his average weekly wage should have been calculated under Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (2). An arbitration panel declined to address that argument because it had not been raised before the arbitrator, and claimant now appeals. We affirm. The powers of the arbitration panel are identical to those of the Board and, as such, it could decline to review "any issues . . . that were not raised before the" arbitrator (12 NYCRR 300.13 [e] [1] [iii]; see Workers' Compensation Law § 20 [2] [e]). Claimant did not attack the statement of earnings provided to the arbitrator by the Board, and that statement did not indicate that any issue existed with regard to the calculation of his average weekly wage. Thus, "claimant failed to provide notice [to the arbitrator] that this issue was in dispute," and the arbitration panel properly declined to address it (Matter of Joyce v United Food & Commercial Workers Local 342-50, 307 AD2d 552, 554 [2003]; see 12 NYCRR 300.13 [e] [1] [iii]; Matter of Brzezinski v Gambino, 100 AD3d 1192, 1193 [2012]). McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.-3- 518918

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00365-CR

Theodore Conner Hargett

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 9

of Tarrant County (1248604)

July 24, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel__________________

 Justice Lee Gabriel
#### STATE ex rel. Gary POCHE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-2349.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Poche, Gary; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “H”, No. 313-963.

Denied. Moot. The court of appeal has acted.
**Exhibit** **32.1**

 

**Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of MPC Corporation. (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “*Report*”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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.

 

 

|         | /s/ John P. Yeros                    |
|--------------|--------------------------------------|
| May 15, 2007 | John P. Yeros                        |
|         | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
#### Heib Unemployment Compensation Case.

Argued March 5, 1962.

Before Rhodes, P. J., .Ervin, Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Woodside, J., absent).

*388
      *Harry P. O’Neill, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Sydney Reuben,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *David Stahl,*Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

March 21, 1962:

Opinion by

Watkins, J.,

In this unemployment compensation case the claimant has appealed from the decision of the Unemployment Board of Review that held he was discharged from work for willful misconduct connected with his work and so was disqualified from benefits by virtue of the provisions of §402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802(e). The Bureau of Employment Security and the Referee had also so found.

The claimant, George J. Heib, was last employed by Foremost Dairies, Scranton, Pennsylvania, on December 24, 1960, when he was discharged after being observed standing at a bar in a cafe at 10:30 a.m., with a glass of beer in his hand. He had been warned previously about drinking while on duty, which ivas in violation of a posted company rule of which he had full knowledge. He admitted there was a glass of beer in front of him but denied that it was his and contended that his reason for being in the cafe was to sell eggnog for his company. However, there was competent testimony that he had been drinking because of the odor of his breath; and that he was standing at the bar with his hand on the glass of beer.

“The credibility of the witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn *389from it are for the board.” *Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case,*178 Pa. Superior Ct. 400, 403, 116 A. 2d 271 (1955). It is a fair inference, from tbe testimony in tbis case, that a man who was standing at a bar with his band on a glass of beer, was drinking tbe beer. Tbis was a deliberate violation of tbe company’s rule that prohibited drinking during working hours and constituted willful misconduct under the law. *Krasopsky Unemployment Compensation*Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 168, 166 A. 2d 341 (1960).

Decision affirmed.
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

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC (the Company) for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Keefe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 6, 2008



/s/ David J. KeefeDavid J. KeefeChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of this Report.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 203 SSM 19

The People &c.,

 Respondent,

 v.

Edwin Mendez, 

 Appellant.

Submitted by C. Austin Ginnings, for appellant.

Submitted by Jared Wolkowitz, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed

and the indictment dismissed, with leave to the People, if they

be so advised, to resubmit the charge of assault in the second

degree to a new grand jury.

Defendant was charged with assault for his conduct

- 1 -
III

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 297

To authorize testimony and legal representation in Martin A. Lopow v.

William J. Henderson.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 26, 2000

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony and legal representation in Martin

A. Lopow v. William J. Henderson.

Whereas, in the case of Martin A. Lopow v. William J. Henderson, Case No. 3:98CV1329–SRU, pending in the

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, a subpoena for the production of documents has

been issued to Laura Cahill, an employee in the office of

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their

official responsibilities;
2

SRES 297 ATS

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be

taken from such control or possession but by permission

of the Senate; and

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That Laura Cahill is authorized to testify

2 in the case of Martin A. Lopow v. William J. Henderson,

3 except concerning matters for which a privilege should be

4 asserted.

5 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to

6 represent Laura Cahill in connection with the testimony

7 authorized in section 1 of this resolution.

Æ
#### Stanley WASSER and Beatrice Wasser, his wife, Appellants, v. Kamran RAFIZADEH and Metropolitan Dade County Florida Building and Zoning Department and Kings Court Homeowners Association, Appellees.

No. 87-2670.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 4, 1988.

Richard J. Hays, Lauderhill, for appellants.

L.P. Evans, Jr., Robert A. Ginsburg and Eileen Ball Mehta, Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson and Robert L. Teitler, Miami, for appellees.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., HUBBART, J., and JOE A. COWART, Jr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final order of dismissal under review without prejudice to the appellant (a) to raise any defenses he wishes in the event Dade County brings a criminal or civil action against him for his failure to remove the screened porch at his residence, or (b) to file a new civil action against the appellees raising different legal theories for relief than those urged in the complaint filed in this action. As previously stated, we agree with the trial court that no cognizable cause of action against any of the appellees has been pled; moreover, the trial court was not, as urged, required to grant the appellant oral argument on the appellees’ motions to dismiss. *See, e.g., United States v. One 1974 Porsche 911-S Vehicle Identification No. 9114102550,*682 F.2d 283, 286-87 (1st Cir.1982); *Philbrick v. City, of Miami Beach,*147 Fla. 538, 3 So.2d 144 (1941); *Richter v. Palm Beach-Martin County Medical Center Hosp., Inc.,*434 So.2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); *Ankers v. District School Bd. of Pasco County,*406 So.2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); § 33-202.3(t)(2), Code of Metro.Dade County Fla.

AFFIRMED.
#### Willard E. MEEKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BI-414.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 1986.

Willard E. Meeks, pro se.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

*136ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted, and our opinion filed April 4, 1986, is withdrawn. We treat the appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking a belated appeal. The state is given thirty (30) days from the date of this order to respond to the arguments made by appellant, and appellant is given fifteen (15) days thereafter within which to file a reply.

THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BAR-FIELD, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Stephen R. Davis certify that: 

- I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Neurogen Corporation;   
- Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement    of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the    statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements    were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;   
- Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information    included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial    condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and    for, the periods presented in this report;    
- The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing    and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange    Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  - Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure      that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly      during the period in which this report is being prepared;     
- Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered      by this report based on such evaluation; and    
- Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control      over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to      materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;      and
    - The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based    on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,    to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  - All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably      likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,      summarize and report financial information; and   
- Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control      over financial reporting.
     Date: March 15, 2004    By: /s/ Stephen R. Davis   Stephen R. Davis   Executive Vice President and  Chief Business Officer
#### Patricia A. ARNETTE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Annette E. Collins, Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 85-919.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 17, 1986.

Rehearing Denied July 21, 1986.

Before the Circuit Court for Dade County; Leonard Rivkind, Judge.

Carl Di Bernardo, Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Edward Perse, Miami, for appellant.

*159Corlett, Killian, Hardeman, McIntosh & Levi and Leanne J. Frank, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We approve the trial court holding that uninsured motorist coverage in this state does not include liability for punitive damages upon the authority of *Suarez v. Aguiar,*351 So.2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Affirmed.