alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**272 CAF 14-02008** 
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, DEJOSEPH, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF LUCILLE A. SOLDATO, COMMISSIONER, ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF APRIL M. DAVIS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JASON J. CARINGI, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

MARY R. HUMPHREY, NEW HARTFORD, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

TRACY L. PUGLIESE, ROME, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Joan E. Shkane, J.), entered October 31, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order, among other things, confirmed the Support Magistrate’s determination that respondent had willfully failed to obey a court order.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Oneida County, for a new hearing.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, respondent father appeals from an order finding him in willful violation of a child support order and imposing a suspended sentence of six months of incarceration. We agree with the father that he was denied his right to counsel at the hearing before the Support Magistrate to determine whether he was in willful violation of the support order, and we reject petitioner’s contention that the issue requires preservation ( see Matter of Girard v Neville , ___ AD3d ___ [Mar. 18, 2016]).

At the parties’ initial appearance, the Support Magistrate informed the father only that he had “the right to hire a lawyer [or] talk for [himself],” asked the father to choose between those options, and conducted no further inquiry when the father chose to proceed pro se. The Support Magistrate thus failed to inform the father of his right to have counsel assigned if he could not afford to retain an attorney ( see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [vi]; Matter of Wilder v Bufe
, 25 AD3d 827, 828), and also failed to engage the father in the requisite searching inquiry concerning his decision to proceed pro se and thereby ensure that the father was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel ( see Girard , ___ AD3d at ___;**-2- 272 CAF 14-02008** 

Matter of Storelli v Storelli , 101 AD3d 1787, 1788; see generally Matter of Seifert v Pastwick , 118 AD3d 1503, 1504). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court for a new hearing ( see Storelli , 101 AD3d at 1788). In light of our determination, we do not reach the father’s remaining contention.

Entered: March 25, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# C_2010328EN.01002802.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2010 — Asenbaum v OHIM (WIENER WERKSTÄTTE)

(Joined Cases T-230/08 and T-231/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Applications for Community word mark WIENER WERKSTÄTTE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 328/47

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Asenbaum (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: P. Vögel and E. Ploil, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2008 (Cases R 1573/2006-4 and R 1571/2006-4) concerning two applications for registration of the word sign WIENER WERKSTÄTTE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that Cases T-230/08 and T-231/08 shall be joined for the purposes of the judgment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that Cases T-230/08 and T-231/08 shall be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions.

| 3. | Orders Mr Asenbaum to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Asenbaum to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Frank Altamore, Appellant, v Newsday, Inc., Respondent.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in finding that petitioner lacked standing to challenge the arbitrator’s award *(see, Matter of Diaz v Pilgrim State Psychiatric Center,*62 NY2d 693, 695). Nonetheless, we conclude that the arbitrator’s determination that petitioner was lawfully discharged was not irrational, in excess of his authority or violative of any public policy. Accordingly, it should not be disturbed *(see, Matter of Albany County Sheriff’s Local 775 [County of Albany],*63 NY2d 654, 656; *Matter of Local Div. 1179 [Green Bus Lines],*50 NY2d 1007, 1009; *Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn.,*41 NY2d 578, 582-583; *Matter of Board of Educ. v Dover-Wingdale Teachers’ Assn.,*95 AD2d 497, 501-502, *affd*61 NY2d 913).

We have reviewed the other issues raised by petitioner and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Roneallo, J. — Arbitration.) Present — Denman, J. P., Green, Balio, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
#### Harry Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Director, Texas Department of Corrections and C. V. Kern, Sheriff, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 73-3854.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 27, 1976.

Ben L. Aderholt, Houston, Tex. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

Joe S. Moss, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Tex., for Kern.

E. Bruce Curry, Dunklin A. Sullivan, Sarah Shirley, Gilbert J. Pena, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for Estelle.

Before TUTTLE, COLEMAN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States dated May 3, 1976, -U.S.-, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126, reversing and remanding this cause to this Court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of the Supreme Court;

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of this Court entered on September 6, 1974, 500 F.2d 206, is set aside, and the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas is affirmed.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| Date:                March 28, 2007 |   | By:                /s/                Joseph C. Levesque                                                                                                                          |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Name:                 Joseph                C. LevesqueTitle:                 Chairman                of the Board, President andChief                Executive Officer |

| Date:                March 28, 2007 |   | By:                /s/                Douglas L. Hemer                                  |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Name:                Douglas L. HemerTitle:                Chief Administrative Officer |

| Date:                March 28, 2007 |   | By:                /s/                Paul H. Askegaard                                                                                 |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Name:                Paul H. AskegaardTitle:                 Treasurer                (principal financial and accounting officer) |
First Amendment to Amended and Restated Sales Representative Agreement


 Exhibit 10.52 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 SALES REPRESENTATIVE AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED SALES REPRESENTATIVE AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made as of March 6, 2005 (the
“Effective Date”), by and between Micro Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“MTI”) and ev3 International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“ev3”) and amends that certain Amended and Restated
Sales Representative Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2003, by and between MTI and ev3 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
  
 RECITALS 
  
 WHEREAS, MTI and ev3 entered into the Agreement to set forth the terms and
conditions upon which ev3 would provide sales services to MTI for sales of the Products; 
  
 WHEREAS, MTI and ev3 desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 19 of the Agreement provides that no amendment to the Agreement may be enforced unless in writing and signed by each of MTI and ev3.

  
 AGREEMENT 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

  
 1. Section 13(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 “Term. This Agreement will become effective on the Effective Date and continue in effect until November 16, 2006, unless earlier terminated pursuant to Section 13(b). This Agreement will automatically renew for subsequent 1 year
periods unless either party provides the other party written notice 180 days prior to the expiration of the initial term or any renewal term of its intention not to renew.” 
  
 2. Section 13(b)(iii) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 
  
 “the direct or indirect ownership or control of the other party changes
as follows: MTI may only exercise its right of termination under this Section in the event that Warburg Pincus (together with its affiliates) ceases to own or control at least 40% of ev3, or its ultimate parent entity. ev3 may only exercise
it’s right of termination under this Section if a third party gains control of MTI from, or subsequent to, Warburg Pincus (together with its affiliates). Control of MTI will be deemed to have changed to a third party if that party acquires
control over more shares of MTI than Warburg Pincus (together with its affiliates) controls at that point in time. For purposes of this Section, an initial public offering of a party will not be considered to create a right of termination under this
Agreement.” 
  
 3. Except as amended hereby, the terms and
conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 






 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the date
first written above. 
  

							
	Micro Therapeutics, Inc.	  	ev3 International, Inc.
				
	By:	  	 /s/ Thomas C. Wilder, III

	  	By:	  	 /s/ James Corbett


	 	  	 Thomas C. Wilder, III, President and
 Chief Executive
Officer
	  	 	  	James Corbett, President and Chief Executive Officer

  

 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2498

July 15, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Reference 53 and 55 for Aviation NOx Emission Standards Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Preamble

FROM: Richard S. Wilcox /s/ 

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Air and Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TO: The Air and Radiation Docket

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0687

Please refer to EPA Docket Number OAR-2002-0030 for copies of the following 

references that appear as footnote 53 and 55 in the proposed rule referenced above.

53 ICAO/CAEP, “Report of Third Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, December 5-15, 1995,” Document 9675, CAEP/3. 

55 ICAO, “Combined Report of the Certification and Technology Subgroups,” section 2.3.6.1, CAEP Working 

Group 3 (Emissions). Presented by the Chairman of the Technology Subgroup, Third Meeting, Bonn, Germany, 

June 1995.
Transmittal of MATS TSDs for Appropriate and Necessary section
Bill Maxwell to: Cortney_Higgins
11/09/2011 04:14 PM Cc: Bryan Hubbell, Amy Lamson, Lydia Wegman, RobertJ Wayland

Cortney --

Attached, as requested, are the new and revised TSDs cited in the Appropriate and Necessary section of the MATS preamble. As you are aware, the TSD's documenting the national scale mercury risk assessment and the non-mercury HAP inhalation risk case studies have been revised in response to the peer reviews, and in the case of the non-mercury case studies, in response to information provided through public comments. For the Mercury TSD, the revisions are closely matched to the SAB peer review recommendations, and as such, we do not anticipate making additional changes beyond the responses to the peer review recommendations.

Thanks.

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division
U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01
109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-5430

FAX: 919-541-5450

Ni and Cr Methods Final Report October 2011.doc

Mercury Risk TSD 11_9_11.docx

Air Quality Modeling for Hg TSD final report Sept 2011.docx

Inhalation case study final report 11_08_11.docx

Excess Local Deposition TSD final 11_08_11.docx
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

  (Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from across the aisle like to 
talk a lot about personal responsibility, but their decision to adjourn 
Congress for nearly 2 months shows how little they actually understand 
the concept.
  Congress is facing serious deadlines right now, and we should be 
dealing with the problems the American people sent us here to solve. 
Instead, Republican leadership has decided that we should go home 
without doing any of it and taking with us one of the worst report 
cards in American history.
  For more than a year now, Republicans have ignored a plan to create 
2.6 million new jobs and protect another 1.6 million existing jobs. 
They won't even bring it to the floor for a vote. Right now we could 
bring to the floor and send to the President's desk a bill that would 
protect tax cuts for 98 percent of the American people and 97 percent 
of small businesses, but instead we're going home.
  Republicans seem content to take our country off the fiscal cliff, 
which will hobble our economy, raise taxes on millions of working 
families, and once again shift the responsibility of our deficit to 
those who can least afford it.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans can't preach personal responsibility if 
they're not willing to accept it themselves.

                          ____________________
```
# Ross - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission Executive Director John Hemmings Email jh&#101;&#109;&#109;&#x69;&#x6e;&#x67;&#x73;&#64;o&#118;&#114;&#100;&#x63;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#x72;gThe post Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
EXHIBIT
32.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the Quarterly Report of  SHELBY GROUP, INC., (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q  for the quarter ended March 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Ericksteen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




SHELBY GROUP,
      INC.Date:
      September 18, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Kevin EricksteenName: Kevin
      EricksteenTitle: Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of Al SHERRILL.

No. A-12183.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 8, 1955.

*470A1 Sherrill, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus by A1 Sherrill to secure his release from confinement in the penitentiary.

The petition was evidently prepared by some inmate of the penitentiary who had probably read an account of some of the numerous habeas ■ corpus actions which have been determined by this-court as said petition contains a number of general allegations .and then a large number of other allegations which are wholly inconsistent with the general, allegations which were made. It is very difficult for us to determine just what the petitioner had in mind as forming a basis for a contention that he was illegally deprived of his liberty. No copy of the information and no copy of the judgment and sentence was attached to the petition; neither was any date on which the alleged judgment and sentence was pronounced set forth in the petition.

We carefully scrutinize every petition filed by one who is restrained of his liberty so that no person may be unjustly deprived of his liberty. Rarely do we find a petition for habeas corpus filed by an inmate of the penitentiary with any substantial merit. It would appear that some inmate with a smattering of law had developed a racket in the penitentiary which enabled him to prey upon inmates with little knowledge of the law and the function of courts.

The deduction that we have made from the petition is that petitioner is complaining that he was given a sentence of 10 years imprisonment on a plea of guilty to the crime of assault with intent to kill whereas he should not have received more than 5 years imprisonment in the penitentiary.- Under Tit. 21 O.S.1951 § 652 a person convicted of assault with intent to kill,, in the manner provided by said statute may be sentenced to a term of 10 years imprisonment in the penitentiary. In the absence of' the information which would enable us to. determine whether the petitioner was charged with assault with intent to kill, we must: assume that he was so charged because the petitioner in substance says that was the-charge. We set this petition for hearing and offered to let the petitioner introduce-affidavits in support of his petition but no-evidence was offered in support of it. There is nothing before us to show the judgment and sentence was rendered without jurisdiction and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.
Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
	with Minimum Servicing Standards

March 13,2002


As of and for the year ended December 31, 2001, GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company) have complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth In the Company's minimum servicing standards (attached), which were derived from the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same period. GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation had in effect a General Motors Corporation Fidelity bond of $150 million and a GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation errors and omissions policy in the amount of $50 million.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4606 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4606

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 6, 2018

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To provide that applications under the Natural Gas Act for the 
  importation or exportation of small volumes of natural gas shall be 
                 granted without modification or delay.

    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 ``Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty 
and Access Act''.

SEC. 2. SMALL SCALE EXPORTATION OR IMPORTATION OF NATURAL GAS.

    Section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717b(c)) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting ``(1) For 
        purposes''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) For purposes of subsection (a), and in addition to any 
importation or exportation of natural gas described in paragraph (1), 
importation or exportation of natural gas shall be deemed to be 
consistent with the public interest, and an application for such 
importation or exportation shall be granted without modification or 
delay, if--
            ``(A) the application for such importation or exportation 
        proposes to import or export a volume of natural gas that does 
        not exceed 0.14 billion cubic feet per day; and
            ``(B) the Commission's approval of such application does 
        not require an environmental impact statement or an 
        environmental assessment under the National Environmental 
        Policy Act of 1969.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 6, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to



Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the
Report) of MCG Capital Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bryan J. Mitchell, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    BRYAN J. MITCHELLName: Bryan J. MitchellDate: November 4, 2004