alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Charles B. Newcombe, Petitioner, v Edward V. Regan, as Comptroller of New York State, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

The injury to petitioner’s arm was the result of physical exertion in the performance of his regular duties and, as such, did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 *(see, Matter of Lichtenstein v Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund,*57 NY2d 1010, 1012; *Matter of Edwards v New York State & Local Employees’ Retirement Sys.,*165 AD2d 972, 973, *lv denied*77 NY2d 802; *Matter of Chambers v Regan,*125 AD2d 920, 921). Here, the injury occurred when petitioner closed a window in the courtroom, a task which he admitted doing on several occasions in the past *(see, Matter of Malenda v Regan,*134 AD2d 808, 808-809). Consequently, respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld. Finally, the fact that petitioner may have suffered an accident under the Workers’ Compensation Law is not binding on respondent *(see, Matter of Leone v Regan,*146 AD2d 869, 870).

*979Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5944-024]


Moretown Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice of Availability of Final 
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed the application for a new license to continue to operate and 
maintain the Moretown No. 8 Hydroelectric Project. The project is 
located on the Mad River in Washington County, Vermont. Commission 
staff has prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 
project.
    The FEA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental 
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with 
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a 
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the 
human environment.
    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity 
to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's 
Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov/), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter 
the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number 
field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online 
Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d3959681909cbdbfbabdb680a6a3a3bca1a793b5b6a1b0fdb4bca5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="64222136272b0a080d0a01371114140b161024020116074a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>, or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, 
or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support.
    For further information, contact Maryam Zavareh at (202) 502-8474 
or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c614d5e554d4102764d5a4d5e49446c4a495e4f024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6825091a1109054632091e091a0d00280e0d1a0b460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 19, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28436 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 30655 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
LLOYD E. BARMORE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 166

- 1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Ll o yd E. Barmore pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. He reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. In the co ntext of the denial of a suppression motion, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 20, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-30655 Document: 00513881526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2017No. 16

- 30655

2 error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Lopez

- Moreno , 420 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2005 ). Barmore argues that the facts and circumstan ces surrounding his arrest did not justify a warrantless search of his truck because they did not give rise to probable cause to believe that the truck contained contraband. “It is well settled that probable cause to search an automobile exists when trust worthy facts and circumstances within the officer’s personal knowledge would cause a reasonably prudent man to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” United States v. Edwards , 577 F.2d 883, 895 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). Barmore’s attempt to conc eal the drug pipe would have allowed a reasonably prudent man to believe that there were other items of contraband related to illegal drug activity in the truck. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and considering the totali ty of the circumstances,
we conclude that there was probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of
the vehicle. See United States v. Zavala , 541 F.3d 562, 574 (5th Cir. 2008). Because probable cause existed to search Barmore’s vehicle, we need not
addr ess the validity of the inventory search of the vehicle. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-30655 Document: 00513881526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alberto Aparicio, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered January 5, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of three years to life imprisonment and the payment of $6,050 in restitution.

*808Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating so much of the sentence as directed the defendant to make restitution; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

On November 2, 1989, the defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree in satisfaction of Indictment No. 61489, in exchange for a promised sentence of an indeterminate term of three years to life imprisonment. On January 5,1990, the promised sentence was imposed, but the defendant was further ordered to make restitution of unrecovered so-called "buy money” in the amount of $6,050. It was improper for the court to order the defendant to pay restitution of the buy money *(see, People v Rowe,*152 AD2d 907, *affd*75 NY2d 948; *People v Vigoya,*173 AD2d 582). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Reed’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher Reed, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 21, 2009




/s/ Christopher Reed


Christopher Reed


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)




A signed original of this certification 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.
CERTIFICATION 

RE: Public review process on the proposal t o amend regulation s 

310 CMR 7.02, 7.03, 7.05, and 7.26, and 310 70.00. 

I hereby certif y that : 

Notic e of the publi c hearin g were publishe d on the followin g 

dates i n the followin g newspaper: 

The Boston Globe May 11, 2004 

That the notic e specifie d the date, time and place of the publi c 

hearings t o be hel d on the proposed amendments t o 310 CMR 7.02, 

7.03, 7.05, and 7.26, and 310 CMR 70.00. 

That the notic e specifie d the location s a t which the proposed 

regulator y revision s and supportin g informatio n were availabl e 

f o r publi c inspection . 

That the proposed regulator y revision s and supportin g informatio n 

were availabl e a t the location s state d i n the notic e when the 

notice s were publishe d as wel l as a t the location s of the publi c 

hearings on the date of sai d hearings. 

That simila r notice s were mailed on or before May 10, 2004 t o the 

Environmental Protectio n Agency, t o any affecte d loca l or 

pollutio n contro l agencies, and t o al l known potentiall y 

intereste d parties . 

I furthe r certif y tha t on the followin g dates and locations , a 

publi c hearing was conducted by the Department of Environmental 

Protection , pursuant t o the above notice s and i n conformance wit h 

MGL Chapter 30A and the provision s of 30 CFR 51.4(b): 

June 22, 2004 - Boston, Massachusetts - 9:30 AM 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protectio n 

One Winter Street , 2r d Floor Conference Room 

June 23, 2004 - Springfield , Massachusetts - 9:30 AM 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protectio n 

436 Dwight Street , Room 303 

The hearing recor d remained open fo r writte n comments unti l 

5 : 00PM on June^<?fJ7)2AD4 . 

ATTEST 

Robert T. Donaldson 

Hearing Office r 

Jul y 17, 2006
**EXHIBIT 10.10**

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO**

**STOCK OPTION AWARD AGREEMENT**

**BETWEEN JOHN J. LIMBERT**

**AND**

**NB&T FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.**

WHEREAS, John J. Limbert (“Optionee”) and NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (“Company”) entered into a Stock Option Award Agreement (Non-Qualified Stock Option) effective March 20, 2006 (the “Agreement”),pursuant to which Company granted Optionee an option to purchase common shares of Company; and 

WHEREAS, Section 409A was added to theInternal Revenue Code (“Section 409A”) effective January 1, 2005, and final regulations were issued under Section 409A effective January 1, 2009; and 

WHEREAS, Section 409A may apply to the option granted under the Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11 of the Agreement, Company may amend the Agreement for the purposes of avoiding penalties under Section 409A;and 

WHEREAS, Company desires to amend the Agreement for the purpose of avoiding penalties under Section 409A. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is herebyacknowledged, Company agrees as follows: 

1. Section 4(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end:“Notwithstanding the foregoing, any adjustment made pursuant to this Section 4(b) shall be made in accordance with the requirements of Section 409A of the Code, to the extent applicable.” 

2. Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end: 

“In the event of any delay in the issuance of COMMON SHARES pursuant to this Section 5, the COMPANY shall issue such COMMON SHARES on the firstday that it reasonably anticipates that such issuance will not violate such applicable federal and state securities laws.” 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theCompany hereby adopts this First Amendment effective as of the date set forth above. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: 

 

78
# C_2011186EN.01001802.xml

| 25.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Atlas Air (ATLAS)

(Case T-145/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark ATLAS - Earlier Benelux trade mark atlasair - Formal requirements - Lodging of a statement setting out the grounds for the action - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Rule 20(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

2011/C 186/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Atlas Air, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States); Atlas Air, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: R. Dissmann, then R. Dissmann and J. Guhn, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1) relating to nullity proceedings between Atlas Air, Inc. and Atlas Transport GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Atlas Transport GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Atlas Air, Inc. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Atlas Transport GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Atlas Air, Inc.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.

1

---
#### Howard ALLEN, Petitioner, v. Robert R. RAINES, Warden Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-13124.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 24, 1962.

*668Howard Allen, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BUSSEY, Judge.

This is an application for writ of habeas corpus brought by Howard Allen, an inmate of the State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, to secure his release.

The petitioner urges several assignments of error which we deem unnecessary to recite since the matters raised herein are almost identical with the issues raised by the petitioner in a previous application for a writ of habeas corpus; this court, speaking through the person of the Honorable John A. Brett, ruled adversely to the contentions of the petitioner in the case of Allen v. Raines, Okl.Cr., 360 P.2d 949.

This court has repeatedly held that:

> “Where the Court of Criminal Appeals has denied application for writ of habeas corpus, it will not ordinarily entertain subsequent application for such writ on the same grounds and facts, or any other grounds or facts existing when the first application was made.” See Application of Jack C. Russell, for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Okl.Cr., 363 P.2d 299.

For the reason above set forth the writ is denied.

NIX, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: August 13, 2015 520166 

________________________________

In the Matter of ELQUIADES 

MORALES,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK

STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 8, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Elquiades Morales, Pine City, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent. 

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Determination confirmed. No opinion.

Peters, P.J., Egan Jr., Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.
-2- 520166 

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 302

### CFR Correction

This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 399, revised as of July 1, 2023, Appendix B to § 302.4 as published in the July 1, 2021, revision of title 40, parts 300 to 399, is reinstated.

[FR Doc. 2023-27993 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Craig P. Keller, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(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.

Craig P. Keller
------------------------
Craig P. Keller
Chief Financial Officer
March 14, 2005
# C_2013123EN.01001501.xml

| 27.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2013 — Fresh Del Monte Produce v Commission

(Case T-587/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in bananas - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Information exchange system - Concept of a concerted practice having an anti-competitive object - Causal link between the collusion and the conduct of the undertakings on the market - Single infringement - Imputation of the infringement - Rights of the defence - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Cooperation - Mitigating circumstances)

2013/C 123/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. (George Town, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: initially B. Meyring, lawyer, and E. Verghese, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Meyring)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially M. Kellerbauer, A. Biolan and X. Lewis, and subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, A. Biolan and P. Van Nuffel, Agents,)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Rinne, lawyer, C. Humpe and S. Kon, Solicitors, and C. Vajda QC)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed under Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) at EUR 8.82 million; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed under Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2008) 5955 of 15 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) at EUR 8.82 million;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs;

| 4. | Orders Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---