alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Jerry Dean, Petitioner, v Vincent Del Castillo, as Chief of the New York City Transit Police Department, et al., Respondents.

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York City Transit Police Department dated February 17, 1989, which, after a hearing, in effect, found, *inter alia,*that the petitioner had behaved in a manner that would tend to create adverse criticism of the Department, and imposed a penalty of a 40-day suspension without pay.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The testimony at the hearing by the complainant that he was assaulted by a group of police officers subsequent to being unjustifiably struck by the petitioner, and the admission into *567evidence of photographs which reflected the complainant’s cumulative injuries from these two incidents, do not require that we annul the determination. Exclusive of this evidence, the determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Sowa v Looney,*23 NY2d 329, 335; *see also, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-181). Furthermore, the petitioner’s contention that he was prejudiced by the Hearing Officer’s refusal to compel the respondents to produce a certain witness is without merit. The petitioner’s attorney had the right to issue subpoenas to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses *(see,*CPLR 2302 [a]; State Administrative Procedure Act § 304 [2]).

Finally, according due deference to the determinations of the respondent Commissioner of the New York City Transit Police Department, we find that the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 445; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 237). Bracken, J. P., Hooper, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 20, 2016.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-00352-CR

EFREN ADAME TORRES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-85957-2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Stoddart, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Schenck

A jury convicted Efren Adame Torres of theft of property valued at $50 or more but less 

than $500 dollars. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2015). The 

trial court assessed punishment at confinement in the county jail for 120 days, probated for 

fifteen months, and a $500 fine. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she 

concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the 

record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief 

to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro 

se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying 

duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).
–2–

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree 

the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

160352F.U05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

EFREN ADAME TORRES, Appellant

No. 05-16-00352-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 6, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-85957-2014.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Francis and Stoddart participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 20th day of October, 2016.
EXHIBIT 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, David W. Kalish, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 of BRT Apartments Corp.;



2. 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;



|Date: May 15, 2020 |  | /s/ David W. Kalish                                  
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                   |  | David W. Kalish
        Senior Vice President-Finance
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERVACIA ANDRES VARGAS ; AGUSTIN DANILLO AGUSTIN ANDRES; F.E.A.A., a minor

,

Petitioner s ,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND , Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 71478

Agency No s

. A 208

- 123

- 942

A208

- 123

- 943 A208

- 123

- 944

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 8 , 202 2 * *
San Francisco

, California

Before: NGUYEN and SANCHEZ , Circuit Judges, and BOUGH, ** * District Judge.

Gervacia Andres Vargas (“ Andres Vargas ”)

, a native and citizen of

* 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).

*** The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 71478

Guatemala , petition s for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order denying her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Andres Vargas’s two children are

also petitioners

. The children’s claims are based on the same facts and

circumstances as Andres Vargas’s, and w e refer to Vargas in resolving all

petitioners’ claims. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the

BIA’s determinations for substantial evidence. Diaz

- Jimenez v. Sessions , 902 F.3d

955, 958 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review.

1. The immigration court did not lack jurisdiction over removal

proceedings. Andres Vargas’s argument that the immigration court lacked

jurisdiction under Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), because the Notices

to Appear in this case lacked hear ing times, dates, and locations is foreclosed by

our precedent. United States v. Bastide

- Hernandez , 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022)

(en banc).

2 . Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Andres

Vargas failed to establish a nexus to a prot ected ground because the record shows

that any harm Andres Vargas experienced arose over a personal land dispute

and/or a criminal motive. Andres Vargas admits that she left Guatemala and fears

returning due to a dispute over land ownership with her husba nd’s uncle. “An

alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft . . . bears3 20

- 71478

no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.

2010).

3 . Substantial evidence supports the determination that Andre s Vargas

failed to show internal relocation would be unreasonable. See 8 C.F.R §

1208.13(b)(2)(ii), (b)(3). Evidence shows that Andres Vargas’s father

- in

- law, who

was also threatened, successfully relocated within Guatemala without harm. The

record does not compel a conclusion that internal relocation would be

unreasonable.

PETITION DENIED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7805

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MARK J. JONES, SR., a/k/a Mark Jacob Jones, Sr. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. ( 2:14

- cr - 00132

- RGD

- LRL

- 2 )

Submitted : May 25, 2021 Decided: May 27, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Mark Jacob Jones, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mark Jacob Jones, Sr. , appeals the d istrict court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

. Having reviewed the record and finding no reversible error, we affirm the decision of the district court. United States
v. Jones , No. 2:14

- cr - 00132

- RGD

- LRL

- 2 (E.D. Va. Nov. 24, 2020) . We deny Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel and 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 deci sional process.
AFFIRMED
<ppj;>. 

BOAR D OF 

COUNT Y 

SUPERVISOR S 

OF VENTUR A 

'^^EmRTMENT 0F 

raANSPORTATION 

•;OCKET OPERATIONS 

ZOIO OCT - U A S: 2 2 

GOVERNMENT CENTER, HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 

800 SOUTH VICTORIA AVENUE, VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93009 

MI:MBI;RS()I'riii;iK)ARi) 

KATHY LONG 

Chair 

sTi-vi'; m-NNi;rr 

I.INDA PARKS 

PI-'II;R C. I'OY 

JOHN C. /ARAGO/.A 

KATHY I. LONG 

SU1'1;RVIS0R, THIRD DISTRICT 

(805) 654-2276 

1-AX: (805) 051-2226 

(800) 660-5474 1-XT. 6542276 

TNinaii: kathy.long@vcnlura.org 

August 17,2010 

Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington D.C. 

Dear Secretary LaHood; 

As Chair of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, I am v\/riting to request your 

support of the application of Ventura County/Oxnard Airport for a grant in the 2010 

Small Community Air Service Development Program. The grant requested is $520,000 

with a local contribution and ticket purchase program of $480,000 as an incentive for 

new air service at Oxnard Airport. 

The Oxnard Airport has had continuous passenger air service since 1946. 

Unfortunately, United Express terminated its scheduled air service on June 8"^ of this 

year, leaving Oxnard Airport with no air service. Ventura County has a population in 

excess of 820,000 people and will now be the largest air passenger market in the 

country without service. Ventura County airports management has been actively 

seeking new air service and has met and discussed the market potential with eight 

airlines; all of them have requested some form of revenue guarantee to offset the initial 

start up cost. 

Horizon Air has expressed the most interest at this time and could provide nonstop 

service to San Jose with flights continuing on to its markets in the Pacific Northwest. 

Horizon Air has requested an incentive package that includes a revenue guarantee, 

airport fee waivers, local advertising and marketing, and a pre-purchase ticket program 

by local Ventura County businesses. The initial service would include two daily round 

trip flights, with 76-seat Q-400 aircraft at fares that are competitive with fares at Burbank 

Airport and Los Angeles International Airport. This would be a major upgrade from 

previous air service. 

vK* «•£):• c 
United States Department of Transportation 

Small Community Air Service Development Program Grant 

Honorable Ray LaHood 

August 17, 2010 

Page 2 

This route will be well received by our business and military community. The high-tech 

and bio-tech industries in Ventura County will greatly benefit with nonstop service to the 

Silicon Valley. The Navy operations at Pt. Mugu and Port Hueneme need a link to the 

Bay Area Navy bases and to Monterey. This service by Horizon Air will also keep 

Oxnard Airport connected to the National Transportation System. 

Thank you for considering this important request. I sincerely endorse the application 

and hope that you will give thoughtful consideration to the Ventura County/Oxnard 

Airport application. 

Sincerely 

Kafhy Lorig,/Chair 

Ventura (County Board'tif Supervisors
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT October 11, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1495 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00290 CV -BE -S ROB ER T D . G RE ER , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us BIRM INGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e N o rt h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 11, 200 6) Before AN DE RSO N and DU BIN A, Circuit Judges, and VINS ON ,* D istrict Judg e. PE R CU RIA M:

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ *Honora ble C. Roge r Vinson, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of F lorida, sitti ngby desig nation.2

A ft er or al a rg um en t and c ar ef

ul c onsi de ratio n, w e co nc lud e that the j udgm ent of the district court shou ld be affir m ed for the r easons fully discussed at
or al a rg um en t. AFFIR MED.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART FIVE

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

TITLE V

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Article 219

(ex Article 111(1) to (3) and (5) TEC)

(ex Article 111(1) to (3) and (5) TEC)

1.   By way of derogation from Article 218, the Council, either on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or on a recommendation from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank, in an endeavour to reach a consensus consistent with the objective of price stability, may conclude formal agreements on an exchange-rate system for the euro in relation to the currencies of third States. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament and in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph 3.

The Council may, either on a recommendation from the European Central Bank or on a recommendation from the Commission, and after consulting the European Central Bank, in an endeavour to reach a consensus consistent with the objective of price stability, adopt, adjust or abandon the central rates of the euro within the exchange-rate system. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the adoption, adjustment or abandonment of the euro central rates.

2.   In the absence of an exchange-rate system in relation to one or more currencies of third States as referred to in paragraph 1, the Council, either on a recommendation from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank or on a recommendation from the European Central Bank, may formulate general orientations for exchange-rate policy in relation to these currencies. These general orientations shall be without prejudice to the primary objective of the ESCB to maintain price stability.

3.   By way of derogation from Article 218, where agreements concerning monetary or foreign exchange regime matters need to be negotiated by the Union with one or more third States or international organisations, the Council, on a recommendation from the Commission and after consulting the European Central Bank, shall decide the arrangements for the negotiation and for the conclusion of such agreements. These arrangements shall ensure that the Union expresses a single position. The Commission shall be fully associated with the negotiations.

4.   Without prejudice to Union competence and Union agreements as regards economic and monetary union, Member States may negotiate in international bodies and conclude international agreements.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN FERNANDEZ UNZUETA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70288

Agency No. A036-721-032

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 10, 2015** 

Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Martin Fernandez Unzueta petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") decision denying relief from removal. For the

reasons that follow, we deny the petition.

FILED

APR 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without

oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 
The parties have framed the main issue as whether Petitioner was convicted

of a particularly serious crime, and there have been extensive proceedings and

briefing on that topic. Nevertheless, we resolve the case without reaching that

question.

1. The immigration judge, whose decision the BIA adopted, did not abuse

his discretion in denying asylum on the ground that Petitioner did not warrant relief

as a matter of discretion. See generally Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1139

(9th Cir. 2004) (discussing the scope of our review of the BIA’s discretionary

denial of asylum). Indeed, Petitioner did not challenge, in this court, this

alternative ground of decision.

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner

does not have an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution warranting

withholding of removal. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1229 (9th Cir. 2002)

(stating the standard of review). The BIA held that Petitioner established past

persecution and therefore was entitled to a presumption of future persecution. The

BIA next held that the government had met its burden of rebutting that

presumption. Although we might not have reached the same result, the record does

not "compel a conclusion" that the BIA erred. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791

(9th Cir. 2014). The BIA permissibly relied on general changes in

2
Mexico—substantive changes in Mexico regarding the rights of homosexuals and

increased protection against homophobic harassment—as well as facts specific to

Petitioner—his "repeated voluntary trips to Mexico subsequent to the persecutory

incidents." Accordingly, the BIA conducted the necessary "individualized analysis

of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioner’s situation."

Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

3. For similar reasons, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of

relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Petition DENIED.

3
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.37

                     THE BNS CO. SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT PLAN

                                 Amendment No. 1

         WHEREAS the BNS Co. Savings and Retirement Plan (the "Plan") was
amended to include "good faith EGTRRA plan amendments" within the meaning of
Notice 2001-57, but did not incorporate the recent changes described in Revenue
Ruling 2002-27;

         NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Plan, the Board of
Directors of BNS Co. hereby amend the Plan as follows, effective January 1,
1998:

         Section 2.41 is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the
end thereof:

     "For purposes of this Section, amounts under Code Section 125 include any
     amounts not available to a Participant in cash in lieu of group health
     coverage because the Participant is unable to certify that he or she has
     other health coverage. To the extent required by applicable law or IRS
     guidance, an amount will be treated as an amount under Code Section 125
     pursuant to this Section only if the Employer does not request or collect
     information regarding the Participant's other health coverage as part of
     the enrollment process for the health plan."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BNS Co. has caused this amendment to be executed by
its duly authorized officer this 20th day of December, 2002.

                                              BNS Co.

                                              By: /s/ Andrew C. Genor
                                                 --------------------------
                                                  Andrew C. Genor
                                                  President and CEO
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-20-00041-CV

SUENAN GOBER, Appellant

V.

BULKLEY PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 62nd District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV43552

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Suenan Gober, appellant, filed a notice of appeal in this matter on July 20, 2020. 

Although Gober has filed a docketing statement, she has not tendered the mandatory $205.00 

filing fee associated with the appeal, see TEX. R. APP. P. 5, and has not filed proof of indigency 

in lieu of a filing fee, see TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. 

“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay—at the 

time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court 

order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.” TEX. R. APP. P. 5. 

By letter dated August 25, 2020, Gober was provided with notice of and an opportunity 

to cure this defect. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). The clerk’s letter further warned Gober that, 

if she did not submit an adequate response to the notice by September 4, 2020, this appeal would 

be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with the above-cited 

rules. Gober did not pay the mandatory filing fee and did not file proof of indigency in lieu of a 

filing fee. Although counsel for Gober indicated on October 7, 2020, that he intended to file a 

motion to avoid dismissal of this appeal, no such motion was filed. Accordingly, this appeal is 

ripe for dismissal. 
3

Pursuant to Rules 42.3(b) and (c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss 

this appeal for want of prosecution.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: October 19, 2020

Date Decided: October 20, 2020