alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Charles Zahra, Respondent, v Town of Southold et al., Appellants.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to direct Victor Lessard, as principal building inspector of the Town of Southold, to conduct an insulation inspection of the petitioner’s building, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered December 22, 1989, which granted the relief requested.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the stay of enforcement of the judgment provided by CPLR 5519 (a) (1) and (e) is vacated forthwith; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Contrary to the contentions of the appellants, we find that the Supreme Court properly ordered the building inspector to conduct an insulation inspection of the petitioner’s building *(see,*Town Law § 138; *Klostermann v Cuomo,*61 NY2d 525, 539-540). Sullivan, J. P., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# C_2004094EN.01006605.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/66

---

Removal from the register of Case T-298/99 (1)

1

(2004/C 94/167)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

By order of 22 January 2004 the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-298/99: Firma Erkens Servicestation en Verhuurbedrijf V.O.F. v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.

1

---
Updated June 17, 2010 

Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: April 29, 2011

Subject: Sunset 2012: 205.601(b) (2) (ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other 

than PVC).

Chair: Tracy Miedema

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X

Guidance Statement 

Other 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

The Board recommends the relisting of Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than PVC) as 

a synthetic substance allowed for use in organic crop production in

205.601(b)(2)(ii). 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

The requested TR was not available for the guidance of the Crops committee in arriving at its 

recommendation. 

OFPA Section 6508(c) (2) prohibits the use of plastic mulches, unless such mulches are removed at the 

end of the each growing season or harvest season. 

Several commenters expressed interest in the use of biodegradable plastics and /or not removing plastic 

at the end of each season. One commenter questioned the need to list plastics at all suggesting they 

are “tools". These comments seem to be beyond the scope of this decision.

Because of its long use in organic production and minimal known adverse effects, continued listing is 

believed to be acceptable at this time.

NOSB Vote:

Moved: JFo Second: BF

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0
National Organic Standards Board 

Crops Committee 

Sunset 2012 Proposed Recommendations 

Plastic Mulch 

April 29, 2011 

List § 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production 

(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable 

(2) Mulches 

(ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum based other than PVC) 

Committee Summary 

OFPA Section 6508 prohibits the “use plastics mulches, unless such mulches are removed at 

the end of each growing or harvest season ..” The Crops Committee requested a technical 

report for this use and thus new information might result in the revision of this 

recommendation. Biodegradable plastic is apparently available and might be an alternative for 

some applications. Because of the long use as a substitute for herbicides and other benefits to 

growers and the belief that adverse effects are minimal, the CC believes continued use is 

acceptable. 

Committee Recommendation 

Relist plastic mulches and covers on § 205.601(b)(2)(ii). 

Committee Vote 

Motion by: Barry Flamm Second: John Foster 

Yes: 6 No: 0 Absent: 1 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1288 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1288

 To ensure due process protections of individuals in the United States 
 against unlawful detention based solely on a protected characteristic.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2019

 Mr. Takano (for himself, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Norton, Ms. Judy Chu of 
California, and Mr. McGovern) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure due process protections of individuals in the United States 
 against unlawful detention based solely on a protected characteristic.

    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 ``Korematsu-Takai Civil Liberties 
Protection Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNLAWFUL DETENTION.

    Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
    ``(b) Prohibition on Detention Based on Protected 
Characteristics.--
            ``(1) In general.--No individual may be imprisoned or 
        otherwise detained based solely on an actual or perceived 
        protected characteristic of the individual.
            ``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `protected 
        characteristic' includes each of the following:
                    ``(A) Race.
                    ``(B) Ethnicity.
                    ``(C) National origin.
                    ``(D) Religion.
                    ``(E) Sex.
                    ``(F) Gender identity.
                    ``(G) Sexual orientation.
                    ``(H) Disability.
                    ``(I) Any additional characteristic that the 
                Attorney General determines to be a protected 
                characteristic.
            ``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
        shall be construed to allow the Attorney General to remove a 
        characteristic described in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of 
        paragraph (2) from the definition of the term `protected 
        characteristic' under this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luke Moss III, Appellant.

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher Jr., J.), rendered January 22, 1990, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in refusing to give a missing witness charge to the jury regarding the People’s failure to call as a witness the informant in the case. The uncalled witness was available to defendant and the record supports the court’s conclusion that it was not shown that the witness’s testimony would have been noncumulative *(see, People v Torres,*146 AD2d 658, *lv denied*73 NY2d 1022; *People v Shippee,*87 AD2d 942). We also reject defendant’s claim that the prison sentence he received as a predicate felon of 8 to 16 years was harsh or excessive. The sentence was well within the statutory limits and, given his lengthy criminal record, was entirely appropriate *(see, People v Davis,*147 AD2d 817, *lv denied*74 NY2d 807; *People v Norwood,*142 AD2d 885, *lv denied*72 NY2d 960).

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### Albert C. Weisinger, Respondent, v Wendy M. Weisinger, Also Known as Wendy Warren, Appellant.

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated March 21, 1986, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Capilli, J.), dated December 20, 1989, which limited to $5,000 her award of attorneys’ fees for defending the plaintiff former husband’s applications for post-judgment relief.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the defendant’s award of counsel fees to $5,000 *(see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879, 881; *Maloney v Maloney,*137 AD2d 666, 669). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9572]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States 
Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are 
available for licensing by the Department of the Navy. Navy Case 
101713: Laser Treated Heat Transfer Surface (an approach to increase 
surface area while maintaining the integrity of the substrate)//Navy 
Case 101445: Surface Enhancement Via Applied Laser Energy (a process to 
increase material surface area via application of laser energy).

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 
47522-5001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 
47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.

    Authority:  35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
J.M. Beal,
Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-9572 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6975

DERRICK LAMAR CHEEKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ALFORD JOYNER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (0:17-cv-02876-DCC)

Submitted: March 9, 2022 Decided: March 22, 2022

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Lamar Cheeks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lamar Cheeks seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). See generally United States v. 

McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cheeks has not made 

the requisite showing.*

 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

* We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Cheeks’ recusal motion. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); United 

States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2017).
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Lyle E. Strom, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEVORG BEGLARYAN, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 06-73315 Agency No. A079-292-564
MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted October 5, 2010 ** Pasadena, California Before: FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit J udges, and STROM, District Judge. *** We deny Beglaryan’s petition for review. 1. The inconsistency between Beglaryan’s oral testimony and his written declaration with regard to his stated political affiliation undermines his credibility. 

# FILED
NOV 18 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 This discrepancy, which Beglaryan did not adequately explain, goes to the heart of Beglaryan’s claim that he suffered persecu tion as a result of his work to expose human trafficking with the help of his political party. This unexplained discrepancy supports the Immigration Judge's (IJ) adverse credibility finding. 2. At his hearing before the IJ, Begla ryan appeared slow to recall a crucial encounter with the Armenian military, undercutting the plausibility of his testimony. Only after his counsel’s repeated questioning did Beglaryan finally recount a dramatic incident involving a TV appearance cut short by military intervention. This hesitation also casts doubt on Beglaryan’s credibility and supports the adverse credibility finding. 3. The IJ’s finding that Beglaryan’s testimony conflicted with the State Department Country Report was not s upported by substantial evidence. The Country Report’s short description of a single attempt by the Armenian government to prosecute human trafficking offenders does not imply that Armenian prosecutorial authorities uniformly support efforts to end human trafficking. Thus the Country Report does not undermine Beglaryan’s testimony. Given the inconsistency between Beglaryan's oral and written statements of political party affiliation, as well as the manner in which he surfaced the television station incident, we conclude that th e decision of the Board of Immigration3 Appeals to affirm the IJ’s denial of relief was supported by substantial evidence. See Wang v. INS , 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. NOP 1001

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2648-South Building Effective Date: May 28, 2020

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2

National Organic Program

Organizational Chart
United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue SW. NOP 1001

Agricultural Marketing Service Room 2648-South Building Effective Date: May 28, 2020

National Organic Program Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2

National Organic Program

Stakeholder Map
# FY23 Vendor Table
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                       156
<INVENTORY>                                      8,899
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,845
<PP&E>                                          89,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,380
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,167
<BONDS>                                         65,148
<COMMON>                                         1,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              465
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,144)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,030
<SALES>                                        114,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,872
<CGS>                                           95,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    21
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,542
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     23
<INCOME-TAX>                                        40
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (17)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (17)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
June 11 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SILVESTRE CORTEZ ROM ERO , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00674

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcripts of the record of the court below, and having inspected the record, the Court holds there was no error in the judgment requiring reversal, but there was error in the judgment as enter ed, which is capeable of reformation by this Court. Therefore, the judgment is MODIFIED , to delete the specific amount of court costs

. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED as MODIFIED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document


 
 

Exhibit 10.60    
  



	[METROMEDIA LOGO]	 	Metromedia Company

One Meadowlands Plaza

East Rutherford, New Jersey 07073-2137	 	David A. Persing

Senior Vice President

Direct Dial (201) 531-8022

Fax (201) 531-2803














As
of December 31, 2001 













Metromedia
International Group, Inc.

505 Park Avenue, 21st Floor

New York, New York 10028

Attn: Carl Brazell, President 


        Re: Termination of Management Agreement


Dear
Carl: 


        Reference
is hereby made to the Management Agreement between Metromedia International Group, Inc. ("MMG") and Metromedia Company ("Metromedia") dated as of November 1,
1995, as
amended on January 1, 1997 (the "Management Agreement"). This letter agreement shall confirm our mutual agreement to terminate the Management Agreement as of December 31, 2001 (the
"Effective Date"). 


        As
set forth in Section 2.1 of the Management Agreement, MMG shall remain liable to Metromedia and Metromedia shall remain liable to MMG, for any amounts and obligations owing to
or accrued in favor of Metromedia or MMG, as the case may be, prior to the Effective Date. In addition, the termination of the Management Agreement shall not extinguish the liability and
indemnifications provisions set forth in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Article 3 of the Management Agreement or any covenant contained in the Management Agreement which by its terms survives the
termination of the Management Agreement or continues for a specific period of time thereafter. 



        Please
acknowledge your acceptance of the termination of the Management Agreement as set forth above, by signing the enclosed duplicate original of this letter and returning the same to
Metromedia Company, One Meadowlands Plaza, East Rutherford, New Jersey 07073, Attn: David A. Persing, Senior Vice President. 



	

 	
 	

Very truly yours,

Metromedia Company
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ David A. Persing

	 	 	 	 	Name:	David A. Persing
	 	 	 	 	Title:	Senior Vice President





	

Acknowledged & Accepted:

Metromedia International Group, Inc.	
 	

 
	

By:	
 	

/s/ Carl C. Brazell, Jr.
	
 	

 
	 	 	Name:	Carl C. Brazell, Jr.	 	 
	 	 	Title:	President and

Chief Executive Officer	 	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.60
#### Dallas F. MARTZ, Appellant (Defendant below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 4764.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 6, 1977.

*223Gerald M. Gallivan, Director, Wyoming Defender Aid Program, Laramie, and William J. Flynn, Student Intern, Laramie, for appellant.

V. Frank Mendicino, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., and Peter J. Mulvaney, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and McCLIN-TOCK, RAPER, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from judgment and sentence entered upon a plea of guilty to the crime of escape, § 6-167, W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp. Appellant argues here that the prosecution for escape was barred by a previous punitive sanction imposed by the Wyoming State Penitentiary. Specifically, appellant was moved to solitary confinement, or segregation, for a period not to exceed six months, prior to the criminal prosecution. Any subsequent criminal proceeding, appellant contends, was barred by the United States and Wyoming constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy, Amendment V, United States Constitution; Article I, § 11, Wyoming Constitution. We disagree.

We affirm because this appeal and its disposal are governed by *Hamby v. State,*Wyo., 559 P.2d 1388, and *Hurst v. State,*Wyo., 563 P.2d 232.

Judgment affirmed.