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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting Special Agent Tillery’s testimony regarding Davila’s translation of defendant’s statements to him. Davila was selected by defendant to act as his agent to effectuate the drug transaction with Tillery. The fact that Davila was also employed by the police as an informant does not alter his status as defendant’s agent and the admissibility of this testimony *(see, United States*v *Alvarez,*755 F2d 830, *cert denied sub nom. Hernandez v United States,*474 US 905; *United States v Da Silva,*725 F2d 828, 831-832). Davila, by acting as defendant’s translator, was his agent and provided “no more than a ’language conduit’ ” for him *(United States v Da Silva, supra,*at 832). We additionally note that Davila testified to defendant’s statements. Since Davila acted by common consent of the parties as their translator and agent and testified to defendant’s statements, thereby verifying his translation, the trial court correctly admitted Special Agent Tillery’s testi*924mony of Davila’s translation of defendant’s statements to him (see, *People v Randazzio,*194 NY 147; *cf., People v Chin Sing,*242 NY 419, 423).

Defendant further contends that his due process rights were violated because the agreement with the paid informant Davila constituted an unlawful contingent fee arrangement. From our review of the contingent fee agreement, we conclude that it did not violate defendant’s due process rights *(see, People v Thomasula,*158 AD2d 126).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defense counsel and defendant *pro se*and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Mulroy, J.—criminal sale of controlled substance, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 191 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25206]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Panel for Systematic and Population Biology; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meetings of the Advisory Panel for Systematic and Population 
Biology (1753):

    Date and Time: October 17-20, 2000.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rooms 310 
and 390 Arlington, VA.
    Contact Person: Mark Courtney, Division of Environmental 
Biology, Room 635, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8481.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Population Biology proposals as 
part of the selection process for awards.

    Date and Time: October 24-27, 2000; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 375, 
Arlington, VA.
    Contact Person: Matthew Kane, Division of Environmental Biology, 
Room 635, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8481.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Systematic Biology proposals as 
part of the selection process for awards.

    Type of Meetings: Closed.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c),(4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: September 27, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-25206 Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1208 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 103 ) II-E-1 3 Docket Number: 

# A-89-1 0

Printed 5/9/200810:59:28AM

Sheet 103 of 127P. 2


## < g ® m I P 

## ® i s JL V 

## i ® S 3 . le a II-E-1 3 CONTAC TREPOR T Dat e -—

^ AT ^ * ^ ' i ' > '

wOriginato r

## ^CsZTTI CONTACTBY : TELEPHON E W MEETIN G Q Othe r 

## JAA J ^ , /

? ? 0 

# /Vl , NAME , TITL E & ORGANIZATIO N ADDRES S & TELEPHON E NUMBE R (J t_ ^ % W7 ? \

^''^-'"" , PURPOS E O R SUBJEC

T (Giv e project numbe ri f appropriate ) 

# Cos t oS

- <*- ^ SUMMAR Y


# 5 o ^

/fcL.c.cLA . "fi r-/roi ^ COJ/ I Qy



## Ji;<k. a f T ^
a-^ck/o rAKmi'-jor.vA

c Q 

## | - /»aaccess."(*•(*•• - cc^_/n*\fi . Distribution : 

# J
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1708
IRVING BENNETT JEFFRESS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:05- cv-02888-JFM) Submitted: January 26, 2007 Decided: February 13, 2007 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Irving Bennett Jeffress, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Meeka Savage Drayton, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Irving Bennett Jeffress, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting the Appellee’s motion for summary judgment in his employment discrimination and retaliation action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jeffress v. Barnhart , No. 1:05-cv-02888-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 18, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Legends Financial Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Billy P. Atkins,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Billy P. Atkins                   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Billy P. Atkins                       |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Legends Financial Holdings, Inc. |
|   | March 30, 2005                   |

 

1

----
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

EDDIE LEE WILSON and §

CHESTER JACKSON, SR., §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § 1:20-CV-311-RP

§

ROBERT RILEY BAUCOM, §

DEPUTY JOHN K. BENNETT, §

SHERIFF THOMAS NORSWORTHY, §

CITY OF CALDWELL, and §

BURLESON COUNTY, §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark 

Lane concerning Defendant City of Caldwell’s Second Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to 

State a Claim or, alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 58). (R. & R., Dkt. 79). In his 

report and recommendation, Judge Lane recommends that the Court grant the motion. (Id. at 13). 

Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Objs., Dkt. 89). 

A party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and 

recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Because Plaintiffs timely objected to the report and recommendation, the Court

reviews the report and recommendation de novo. Having done so, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’

objections and adopts the report and recommendation as its own order.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States 

Magistrate Judge Mark Lane, (Dkt. 79), is ADOPTED.

Case 1:20-cv-00311-RP Document 99 Filed 09/30/21 Page 1 of 2
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City of Caldwell’s Second Renewed Motion to 

Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. 58), is 

GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Caldwell are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SIGNED on September 30, 2021.

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00311-RP Document 99 Filed 09/30/21 Page 2 of 2
#### Joseph P. DiIorio, Appellant, v Gibson & Cushman of New York, Inc., et al., Respondents. Joseph P. DiIorio, Appellant-Respondent, v Gibson & Cushman of New York, Inc., Defendant, and Gibson & Cushman Dredging Corporation, Respondent-Appellant.

Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on October 12, 1989, which awarded plaintiff the total sum of $2,030,201, and orders of said court and Justice entered on November 24, 1989 and on or about April 16, 1990, which, respectively, denied plaintiff’s motion for further amendment of the judgment and denied defendant’s motion to vacate the amended judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

As the question of prejudgment interest was not presented to the jury in this maritime personal injury action, the court is without authority to award it. *(Pires v Frota Oceanica*
      *268
      *Brasileira,*161 AD2d 129, 132; *Havis v Petroleum Helicopters,*664 F2d 54, 55.) Even without that rule, plaintiffs failure to seek prejudgment interest in connection with the original judgment, which this court modified to reduce the award for future earnings (151 AD2d 402), would act as a waiver of any claim with respect thereto. As to whether $600,000, the amount of the earlier settlement in a related action against a nonparty joint tort-feasor, should have been deducted from the damage award, our prior determination is the law of the case. *(See, Locilento v Coleman Catholic High School,*134 AD2d 39, 43.) In any event, while plaintiff urges that maintenance and cure paid in exchange for a release cannot be deducted from a damage award, there is nothing in this record to suggest that the $600,000 was paid as maintenance and cure, which is "designed to provide a seaman with food and lodging when he becomes sick or injured in the ship’s service” *(Vaughan v Atkinson,*369 US 527, 531); the $600,000 payment was made in connection with a broad general release executed in full settlement of the related action. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
#### Hal Elliot WOMACK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27313.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 8, 1954.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The unlawful driving, while intoxicated, of a motor vehicle upon a public highway is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $50.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Zeller & Goldschmidt et al., Respondents, v Cooper, Selvin *&*Strassberg, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), dated January 6, 1989, which, upon granting the petition and confirming the award, is in favor of the petitioners in the principal amount of $54,618.30.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On February 1, 1986, the parties entered into a partnership agreement. Paragraph (16) (d) of the agreement provides that: "All claims, disputes and other matters in questions between the Partners arising out of, or relating to the Partnership Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be determined by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. However, the losing party shall pay all expenses of the Arbitration including reasonable attorney’s fees or the expenses shall be prorated if the decision requires it”.

Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties and they submitted the claim to arbitration. After a hearing, the arbitrator awarded the petitioner $18,319 and directed the appellant to reimburse the petitioner for attorney’s fees incurred during the arbitration in the sum of $32,286.46. The appellant contends that the award exceeded the scope of the arbitrator’s powers.

The appellant’s contention that the arbitrator improperly added attorney’s fees incurred prior to the arbitration, to the $18,319 figure is without merit. Where an award does not indicate how the amount awarded has been computed or that the arbitrator has included an element of damages specifically excluded by the contract, it cannot be concluded that the arbitrator exceeded his powers under the contract *(see, Matter of Deering Milliken & Co. [Boepple Sportswear Mills],*4 AD2d 652, *affd*4 NY2d 956). The appellant concedes that the *549arbitrator did not specify the formula used in calculating the award. Thus, its assertion is based on pure speculation.

The appellant’s further contention that the arbitrator exceeded his power in awarding the petitioner attorney’s fees incurred during the arbitration is equally without merit. The appellant asserts that it was not the "losing party” within the meaning of the agreement since the award, exclusive of attorney’s fees, was "minor” in comparison to what the petitioners sought in their counterclaim. It has been held that an arbitrator’s "award will not be vacated even though the court concludes that his interpretation of the agreement misconstrues or disregards its plain meaning or misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power” *(Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats],*61 NY2d 299, 308). In this case, the arbitrator’s determination that the appellant was the "losing party” was neither completely irrational nor violative of a strong public policy. Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4774 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4774

To extend the suspension of duty on Paraquat dichloride (1,1'-dimethyl-
                     4,4'-bipyridinium dichloride).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

Mr. Ross of Arkansas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the suspension of duty on Paraquat dichloride (1,1'-dimethyl-
                     4,4'-bipyridinium dichloride).

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

SECTION 1. PARAQUAT DICHLORIDE (1,1'-DIMETHYL-4,4'-BIPYRIDINIUM 
              DICHLORIDE).

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.06 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Paraquat dichloride (1,1'-
dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium dichloride)) is amended by striking the date 
in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                   
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                             
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Extensions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 27     |        |        |        |        | 43     | 15     | 44     | 45    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 15     | 103    | 1      | 40     | 7      | 17     | 29     | 31     | 5      | 23    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 67     | 68     | 42     | 28     | 27     | 29     | 79     | 18     | 22     | 14    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 15     | 12     | 12     | 17     | 1      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                        
|                                                                                                     
|Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                     
|Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 949    | 4,656  | 4,966  | 2,318 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,565  | 3,757  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023