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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered January 9, 1990, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (two counts) and sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*638Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620). The defendant’s contention that the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, including that of the eight-year-old victim, was so incredible that the jury should not have believed their testimony is without merit. It is settled that the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86). In the instant case, the complainant described her attack in detail and was subjected to extensive cross-examination. Any discrepancies in the testimony cited by the defendant are too insignificant to detract from the jury’s implicit resolution of the issue of credibility in favor of the People’s witnesses *(see, People v Danza,*127 AD2d 781, 782; *cf., People v Vargas,*126 AD2d 764, 765). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Further, the prosecutor’s opening statement and summation did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Most of the claimed improprieties have not been preserved for review as a matter of law *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Balls,*69 NY2d 641, 642; *People v Black,*171 AD2d 799), or the court issued adequate curative instructions with respect thereto which were not objected to *(see, People v Walker,*168 AD2d 525), or were responsive to the defense counsel’s summation and did not exceed the bounds of fair comment on the evidence *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 398-399; *People v Walker, supra).*

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS OF BENTHOS, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARY CONTAINED ELSEWHERE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,509
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                       175
<INVENTORY>                                      2,793
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,192
<PP&E>                                           6,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,189
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           109
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,632
<SALES>                                         14,038
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,038
<CGS>                                            7,529
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    13
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  41
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                       305
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                715
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       715
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THE EARNINGS PER SHARE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS
NO. 128 AND BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN PLACE OF
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Maryland&Virginia 

Milk Producers Cooperative Association 

October 26, 2023 

Via electronic mail to: Dana.coale@μsda.gov 

Ms. Dana Coale, Deputy Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

United States Department of Agriculture 

USDA-AMS-1400 Independence A venue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-0225 

Re: Request for a hearing to amend Federal Milk Marketing Orders 5, 6, and 7 

Dear Ms. Coale, 

This letter confirms the support of Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc. for 

a hearing to amend the southeastern US federal milk orders as requested by DCMA in the request letter 

from Attorney Marvin Beshore. This further confirms our support for the five proposals submitted with the 

hearing request. We respectfully request that a hearing be held on an emergency basis to expedite the relief 

requested to our orders. 

Thank you. 

MARYLAND & VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS 

Jay Bryant, CEO 

1985 Isaac Newton Square West 

Reston, Virginia 20190-5094 

703-742-6800 / Fax 757-952-2370 www.mdvamilk.com
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP



The Board of Directors of Bradley Real Estate, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-63707, 333-42357, 333-28167, 33-87084, 33-62200, 33-64811 and 333-69131) on
Form S-3 of Bradley Real Estate, Inc., the registration statements (Nos.
333-30587, 33-34884 and 33-65180) on Form S-8 of Bradley Real Estate, Inc., and
the registration statements (Nos. 333-36577 and 333-51675) on Form S-3 of
Bradley Operating Limited Partnership of our report dated January 22, 1999,
except as to Note 14, which is as of February 23, 1999, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Bradley Real Estate, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in share owners' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1998 and related schedule, which report
appears in the December 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bradley Real
Estate, Inc.

                                                                        KPMG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 26, 1999
No. 03-13-00790-CV

T. Mark Anderson, § IN THE THIRD 

as co-executor of the estate of § 

Ted Anderson, and § 

Christine Anderson, § 

as co-executor of the estate of § 

Ted Anderson, Appellants § 

 § 

v. § COURT OF APPEALS 

 § 

Richard T. Archer, David § 

B. Archer, Carol Archer § 

Bugg, John V. Archer, § 

Karen Archer Ball, and § 

Sherri Archer, Appellees § AUSTIN, TEXAS 

CROSS-APPELLEES' THIRD UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

TO FILE BRIEF

 Cross-Appellees ask the Court to extend the time to file their brief. 

A. Introduction

1. Cross-Appellees are T. Mark Anderson, as co-executor of the estate of Ted 

Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as co-executor of the estate of Ted 

Anderson. Cross Appellants are Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol 

Archer Bugg, John V. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer . 

2. There is no specific deadline to file this motion to extend time. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.6(d). 

B. Argument & Authorities

3. The Court has the authority under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

ACCEPTED

03-13-00790-CV

4818150

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/9/2015 8:06:57 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/9/2015 8:06:57 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
38.6(d) to extend the time to file a brief.

4. Cross-Appellees brief is due on April 10, 2015. 

5. Cross-Appellees request an extension to file their brief, extending the time 

until April 17, 2015.

7. Cross-Appellees need additional time to file their brief for the following 

reasons: 

Family medical problems have interfered with counsel's ability to complete 

the brief.

C. Certificate of Conference

8. Prior to filing this motion, counsel for Cross-Appellees contacted counsel 

for Cross-Appellants to discuss this matter, and Appellees do not oppose this 

extension.

D. Conclusion

9. For these reasons, Appellants ask the Court to grant an extension of time to 

file their brief until April 10, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

THE LAW OFFICE OF 

GERALD D. MCFARLEN, PC

28 Fabra Oaks Road

Boerne, TX 78006

Phone: (830) 331-8554

Fax: (210) 568-4305

Email: gmcfarlen@mcfarlenlaw.com
BY: /s/ Gerald D. McFarlen

GERALD D. McFARLEN

State Bar No. 13604500

ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS 

APPELLEES

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on the 9th day of April, 2015, a true and correct copy 

of the foregoing motion was furnished to all counsel of record in accordance with 

the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

.

Laurie Ratliff

Ikard, Golden, Jones, P.C.

400 West 15th Street, Suite 975

Austin, Texas 78701

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS

/s/ Gerald D. McFarlen

GERALD D. McFARLEN
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1073 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1073

 To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems and for 
   prevailing rate employees by 3.6 percent, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2019

 Mr. Connolly (for himself, Ms. Moore, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Norton, 
    Mr. Trone, Mr. Beyer, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. 
   Schakowsky, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. 
Sablan, Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Brown of Maryland, Mr. Vela, and Ms. 
   Waters) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems and for 
   prevailing rate employees by 3.6 percent, 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 ``Federal Adjustment of Income Rates 
Act'' or the ``FAIR Act''.

SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT TO RATES OF PAY.

    (a) Statutory Pay Systems.--For calendar year 2020, the percentage 
adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in the 
rates of basic pay under the statutory pay systems (as defined in 
section 5302 of title 5, United States Code) shall be 3.6 percent.
    (b) Prevailing Rate Employees.--Notwithstanding the wage survey 
requirements under section 5343(b) of title 5, United States Code, for 
fiscal year 2020, the rates of basic pay (as in effect on the last day 
of fiscal year 2019 under section 5343(a) of such title) for prevailing 
rate employees in each wage area and the rates of basic pay under 
sections 5348 and 5349 of such title shall be increased by 3.6 percent.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0492

PARK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL

and GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION,

Plaintiffs and Appellees,

v.

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY and LUCKY MINERALS, INC.,

Defendants and Appellants,

and

STATE OF MONTANA, by and through the

Office of the Attomey General,

Intervenor and Appellant.

FILED

MAY 1 9 2020

Bowen Greenwooa

Clerk of Suprerne Cou rt

State of Montana

ORDER

Having considered the parties' briefs and reviewed the record in this matter, the

Court requests supplemental briefing on the following questions:

Does the Congressional withdrawal of federal lands in the Emigrant

Crevice Area require the District Court to reconsider its order in 2018

granting summary judgment?

Does the withdrawal require DEQ to conduct a new MEPA analysis taking

into consideration the actions of the United States Congress?

How does the withdrawal impact Lucky's ability to conduct road

improvements to allow access of its mining equipment, given that such

improvements would take place on Forest Service roads within the

withdrawal area?

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are directed to file simultaneous

supplemental briefs within thirty days of the date of this Order addressing the issues set

forth above. Each party's brief shall be limited to 5,000 words.

05/19/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0492
The Clerk is qizted to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

Dated this I S day of May, 2020.

For the Court,

Chief Justice

2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TRINITY MOON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1912 

[March 9, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Peter Holden, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13-6911CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. 

No appearance for appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-68 Specification

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 17, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 1 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Agri Star Angus and Iowa Best Beef Black Angus Certified Program

G-68 Specification

1 REQUIREMENTS

Beef carcasses certified under this specification shall meet the following requirements: 

a. Phenotypic requirements of the American Angus Association’s (AAA) Live Animal

Specification;

b. Classed as Steer or Heifer carcasses only1

;

c. U.S. Prime, Choice, or Select and have a minimum marbling score of Slight 01

; 

d. Less than 30 months of age with lean color, texture, and firmness, meeting the requirements for

A maturity in the U.S. grade it qualifies for1

;

e. Medium or fine marbling texture1, 2; 

f. Moderately thick or thicker muscling and tend to be at least moderately wide and thick in

relation to their length3;

g. No hump exceeding 2 inches in height 4; 

h. Practically free (not detracting from visual quality) of capillary rupture in the ribeye muscle;

and

i. Free of “dark cutting” characteristics.

2 CERTIFICATION

Carcasses to be examined for compliance with this specification shall be clearly identified and 

presented to an AMS grader for certification. Certification procedures for identification, the removal 

of preliminary identification marks (or other methods of control) from non-qualifying carcasses, and 

control of certified carcasses shall be in accordance with established Quality Assessment Division 

(QAD) procedures. 

3 LABELING

Labeling of products derived from certified carcasses must follow Food Safety and Inspection Service 

regulations and policy guidelines and QAD procedures. 

1 Determined in accordance with the “Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef.” 2 Evaluated using the USDA-AMS-LS-SB-02 Marbling Texture card (included in the Official USDA Marbling Photographs.) 3 Muscle thickness is evaluated by averaging the thickness of the various parts, considering not only the proportion of each part of the 

carcass but also the general value of each part. Superior muscle thickness implies a high proportion of meat to bone and a high 

proportion of the weight of the carcass in the more valuable parts.

4 Measured from a line formed by the extension of the top line (including the fat) and measuring the lean muscle (excluding the fat) 

perpendicular to that line in the center of the hump.
Agricultural Quality Assessment Division G-68 Specification 

Marketing 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0258 July 17, 2019

Service Washington, DC 20250 Page 2 of 2 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

4 FEES

The costs of all grading and certification services performed by an AMS grader involving 

examinations, supervision, official documentation, and related services shall be borne by the person, 

group, or plant requesting the service. 

___________________________________ 

Chad Nelson, National Meat Supervisor

Quality Assessment Division

Livestock & Poultry Program
#### Gunda Zymantiene, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leonard Cohen, J.), entered July 2, 1990, which *inter alia*denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, unanimously reversed, with costs, on the law, to the extent appealed from, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment granted on the issue of liability, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

As defendant City rightly concedes, the IAS court improperly exercised its discretion finding a triable issue of fact as to whether the City exercised due diligence in attempting personal service upon plaintiff before resorting to nail and mail service. Neither the City’s opposing papers nor the process server’s affidavit submitted provide proof sufficient to support a claim of due diligence under the circumstances.

The process server, relying upon a deed executed in 1973, used the titleholder’s resident address found therein (234 East 81st Street, New York City) to attempt to notify the titleholder/plaintiff of an Unsafe Building proceeding to be held by the City to determine whether her building would be subject to demolition due to its claimed unsafe condition. It is undisputed that plaintiff never received personal service of the notice; that she failed to appear at the administrative proceeding; and that her building was torn down pursuant to a determination made at the proceeding. The process server averred that she twice attempted personal service at the resident address appearing in the deed and that the plaintiff/ titleholder could not be found at such address, nor her whereabouts determined, despite inquiry made by the process server of the local residents. No further efforts were expended to effect personal service prior to the process server’s resort to substitute service.

*373Plaintiff, in support of her motion for summary judgment, submitted unrefuted documentary proof of her change of address, in 1979, from 234 East 81st Street, Manhattan, to 900 Park Avenue, Manhattan, and of her having alerted the City’s Department of Finance, as well as other City agencies, of such change of address. Indeed, plaintiff submitted, *inter alia,*several tax bills from the Department of Finance, beginning with the year 1980, indicating that such bills were received at the 900 Park Avenue address. We find that under the circumstance presented herein, the process server’s failure to further investigate plaintiffs current address and her sole reliance upon a fifteen-year-old document did not constitute a diligent effort to effect personal service. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 8, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00561

- CV

Enrique LOPEZ, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Tristan L opez, Deceased,

Appellant

v.

GUIDING LIGHT, LLC,

Appellee

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI21729

Honorable Norma Gonzales , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief is granted. The reply brief

is due July 29, 2021.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of July, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9930]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Meeting of the Secretary of the Navy Advisory Panel

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of Closed Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The SECNAV Advisory Panel will meet from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
on May 23, 2012, for a series of classified discussions on the Asia-
Pacific region to include the international strategic environment, U.S. 
operational capabilities and shortfalls, foreign capabilities and 
intentions and the maritime strategic outlook in contested areas. These 
sessions will include discussions of classified operations and human 
intelligence activities. These sessions will also include a proprietary 
industry briefing on new or evolving energy technologies. For these 
reasons, these meetings will be closed to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 23, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Pentagon N89 Conference Room 
at the Pentagon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CAPT Henry J. Hendrix, SECNAV Advisory 
Panel, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy (Plans, Policy, 
Oversight & Integration), 1000 Navy Pentagon, Washington, DC 20350-
1000, 703-695-3032.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), these matters constitute 
classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive 
Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in 
fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. The 
discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from 
other topics, which precludes opening these meetings to the public. 
Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that 
the public interest requires that all sessions of this meeting be 
closed to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed 
in section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

    Dated: April 18, 2012.
J.M. Beal,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-9930 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P