alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sebastian’s Cove, Ltd., Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No, 72690.)

—In a condemnation proceeding, the claimant appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of a judgment of the Court of Claims (Silverman, J.), entered September 18, 1989, as awarded the claimant damages in the principal sum of only $48,250.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The evidence amply supports the determination that the *723highest and best use of the subject parcel, which was largely comprised of wetlands and lands that were underwater, would be its development as the site of a single-family home. The Court of Claims found, and we agree, that Southold Town Code § 100-136 excludes "lands which are subject to flooding” from the gross area calculation when determining the number of lots available for cluster development and that tidal wetlands as defined in Southold Town Code § 97-13 are "lands which are subject to flooding”. As the claimant’s expert conceded, once the tidal wetlands were excluded from the gross area calculation, the subject parcel would have only yielded 1.17 lots, and not the 3 lots the claimant still contends could have been obtained. Accordingly, since the claimant raises no other issue on appeal as to the values arrived at by the court, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

We note that while the claimant may have been entitled to present evidence relating to the incremental value of the recreational land had the wetland restrictions been removed *(see, Chase Manhattan Bank v State of New York,*103 AD2d 211; *see also, Berwick v State of New York,*107 AD2d 79), it never attempted to present such evidence and cannot now be heard to complain that such values were not utilized in calculating the damage award *(see, Spears v Berle,*48 NY2d 254, 263). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# EUR-Lex - 22004D0024 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22004D0024

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 24/2004 of 19 March 2004 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 127 , 29/04/2004 P. 0130 - 0130 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 24/2004

of 19 March 2004

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 11/2004 of 6 February 2004(1).

(2) Commission Decision 2003/213/EC of 25 March 2003 on the application of Article 3(3)(e) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to radio equipment intended to be used on non-SOLAS vessels and which is intended to participate in the automatic identification system (AIS)(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 4zzk (Commission Decision 2001/148/EC) of Chapter XVIII of Annex II to the Agreement:

"4zzl. 32003 D 0213: Commission Decision 2003/213/EC of 25 March 2003 on the application of Article 3(3)(e) of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to radio equipment intended to be used on non-SOLAS vessels and which is intended to participate in the automatic identification system (AIS) (OJ L 81, 28.3.2003, p. 46)."

Article 2

The texts of Decision 2003/213/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 20 March 2004, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. Westerlund

(1) OJ L 116, 22.4.2004, p. 60.

(2) OJ L 81, 28.3.2003, p. 46.

(3) No constitutional requirements indicated.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus II Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Harry O. Nicodemus IV, Chief Financial 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:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                              
|---------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ HARRY O. NICODEMUS IV                    
|                       |  | Harry O. Nicodemus IV Chief Financial Officer
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 6TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 28th 

day of January, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

In the Matter of D.B. No. 06-14-00053-CV

Trial Court No. 4-JV-12

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. 

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 16th day of April, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
*

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2501

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Daniel Villalobos-Delgado, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 18, 2006

Filed: April 19, 2006 

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Villalobos-Delgado appeals the 120-month prison sentence the district

court*

 imposed after Villalobos-Delgado pleaded guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge.

On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which counsel raises a challenge to the sentence

imposed. 
-2-

The sentencing challenge fails, because in his plea agreement VillalobosDelgado specifically agreed to receive a sentence of 120 months imprisonment. See

United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who explicitly

and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge that

punishment on appeal). 

We have carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v *752Marion Deas, Jr., Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered June 30, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The failure of the prosecution to turn over documents entitled "Complaint Follow Up Reports” to the defense was not a *Rosario*violation *(see, People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286, *cert denied*368 US 886). While the reports contained statements of witnesses to the robbery, none of those witnesses testified at trial, and the subject matter of the reports was unrelated to any testimony given by the officer who made the reports *(see,*CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; *People v Barrios,*163 AD2d 579; *People v Melendez,*149 AD2d 918, 919). Nor did the failure to turn over the reports constitute a *Brady*violation *(see, Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83), since the defendant already had knowledge of the information contained therein *(see, People v Banks,*130 AD2d 498, 499).

Further, the prosecution’s failure to turn over the sprint tape of the emergency telephone "911” call by the eyewitness was not a *Rosario*violation. There was no evidence of bad faith by the prosecution, and the sprint sheet, which was the "duplicative equivalent” of the tape, was furnished to the defense *(see, People v Consolazio,*40 NY2d 446, 454, *cert denied*433 US 914; *People v Ranghelle,*69 NY2d 56, 63; *People v Winthrop,*171 AD2d 829; *People v Velez,*161 AD2d 823; *People v Figueroa,*156 AD2d 322, 323).

We also find that a missing witness charge was unnecessary under the circumstances *(see, People v Dianda,*70 NY2d 894, 896; *People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424, 427; *People v Chisom,*170 AD2d 523), and that the trial court’s charge, as a whole, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Crawford,*158 AD2d 706; *People v Bowen,*134 AD2d 356; *see also, People v McGee,*76 NY2d 764, 766). Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                   ------------



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  following  registration
statements of Nexen Inc.:

     o    Registration    Statement   No.'s   033-26582,    033-34467,
          033-43426,   033-66538,   033-81334,  333-05494,  333-07344,
          333-09286, 333-13574, 333-118019 and 333-119276 on Form S-8;

     o    Registration   Statement  No.'s  333-09288,   333-10646  and
          333-84786 on Form F-3; and

     o    Registration  Statement  No.'s  333-125019 and 333-128510 on
          Form F-10.

of our reports dated February 7, 2006,  relating to the consolidated  financial
statements of Nexen Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified  opinion on the
financial  statements and includes a separate report on Canada-United States of
America reporting  differences) and management's report on the effectiveness of
internal control over financial  reporting,  appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Nexen Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.


(signed) "Deloitte & Touche LLP"

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Canada

February 23, 2006
II 

Calendar No. 297 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1526 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18, 2019 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 7, 2019 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, 

Washington, as the ‘‘Eva G. Hewitt Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EVA G. HEWITT POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 200 Israel Road Southeast in 

6 Tumwater, Washington, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Eva G. Hewitt Post Office’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1526 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Eva G. Hewitt Post 

5 Office’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 297 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1526 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postitt Post Office’’. in Tumwater, Washington, as the ‘‘Eva G. Hew- al Service located at 200 Israel Road Southeast 

NOVEMBER 7, 2019 

Reported without amendment 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00482

- CR

Kurley James Johnson

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 89th District Court

o f Wichita County (53,445

- C )

April 16, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

(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 s . It is ordered that the judgment s

of the trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
# Oregon_county_differentials_202
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 the Quarterly Report of American Medical Security
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Samuel V. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I,
John R. Lombardi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Samuel V. Miller                        /s/ John R. Lombardi
Samuel V. Miller                            John R. Lombardi
Chief Executive Officer                     Chief Financial Officer

May 4, 2004                                 May 6, 2004

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 128 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 128

 To clarify the primary functions and duties of the Office of Advocacy 
     of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2019

  Mr. Comer (for himself and Ms. Velazquez) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify the primary functions and duties of the Office of Advocacy 
     of the Small Business Administration, 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 ``Small Business Advocacy Improvements 
Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PRIMARY FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF 
              ADVOCACY OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) Primary Functions.--Section 202 of Public Law 94-305 (15 U.S.C. 
634b) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and the international 
        economy'' after ``economy'';
            (2) in paragraph (9), by striking ``complete'' and 
        inserting ``compete''; and
            (3) in paragraph (12), by striking ``serviced-disabled'' 
        and inserting ``service-disabled''.
    (b) Duties.--Section 203(a) of Public Law 94-305 (15 U.S.C. 634c) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) represent the views and interests of small businesses 
        before foreign governments and international entities for the 
        purpose of contributing to regulatory and trade initiatives 
        which may affect small businesses.''.
                                 <all>
```
## Mathias, Scott

From: Mathias, Scott 

### Sent: To: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:59 PM Mathias, Scott 

### Subject: FW: Attendee list from today

From: Cook-Shyovitz, Becky 

### Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:37AM To: Cortelyou

-Lee, Jan; Bowles, Jack 

### Subject: RE : Attendee list from today
Here you go!
Chris Scolari Clint Woods Anna Myers Kristin Hall Theresa Pella Paul Miller Scott Strauss Alex Whitaker

From: Cortelyou-Lee, Jan 

### Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:34AM To: Cook-Shyovitz, Becky; Bowles, Jack 

### Subject: RE: Attendee list from today Western Governors Association AAPCA ValleyAir Tehama County APCD CENSARA NESCAUM Broward County NGA

Hey Becky- just checking to see 

### ifyou have the list offolks who called in last week.

From: Cook-Shyovitz, Becky 

### Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 4:24PM To: Cortelyou-Lee, Jan; Bowles, Jack 

### Subject: RE: Attendee list from today
In pers on: Tom Tyler, ECOS Christian Baron, ECOS Carolyn Berndt, NLC Julie Ufner, NACo Alex Dunn, ECOS David Foerter, Ozone Transport Commission Jeanette Manning, NAAG

We'll get a list ofthose who called in, and I'll be sure to forward that to you as well. Thanksfor your help!

1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1211

In re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH,

Appellant.

No. 17-1381

In re: CATHERINE DENISE RANDOLPH,

Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:15-mc-00369)

Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: May 25, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Catherine Denise Randolph, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Catherine Denise Randolph appeals the district 

court’s orders returning her complaints because they were not in compliance with the 

prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals. 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 decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
# C_2016202EN.01014601.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/146 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/146

---

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.

---