alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Anthony Bertoldi et al., Appellants, v Albert M. Rosenblatt et al., Respondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Dontzin, J.), entered on November 17, 1989, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition seeking to set aside the supplemental determination, dated June 22, 1988, of the Director of Employee Relations of the New York State Unified Court System, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners sought a judgment setting aside, as arbitrary and capricious, a supplemental determination of the Director of Employee Relations (the Director) that the assignment of Senior Court Clerks to IAS Parts did not constitute out-of-title work, in violation of Civil Service Law § 61 (2), and was not prohibited by section 15.1 (b) (4) of the 1985-1988 collective bargaining agreement between the New York State Court Clerks Association and the Unified Court System. Petitioners also challenge the Director’s finding which upheld the validity of the 1986 amendment to the Senior Court Clerk title standard, which incorporated the assignment of Senior Court Clerks to the IAS Parts.

The IAS court did not err in dismissing the petition. The Director’s determination, that the assignment of Senior Court *238Clerks to IAS Parts did not involve assignments to "duties substantially different” from those stated in the Senior Court Clerk title standard, had a rational basis and was therefore not arbitrary and capricious *(Cove v Sise,*71 NY2d 910, 912).

The Director specifically recognized that there is an overlap in the duties of the Associate and Senior Court Clerk title standards, and that some of the former functions performed by Associate Court Clerks under the Master Calendar System were now performed by Senior Court Clerks in the IAS Parts. Nevertheless, he concluded that the distinction between the positions has been and continues to be that Associate Court Clerks are assigned duties involving a higher degree of complexity and difficulty and, unlike the Senior Court Clerks, have responsibility for supervising Senior Court Clerks and other clerical personnel. Thus, the Director concluded that "the range of clerical duties now performed by Senior Court Clerks in multi-faceted IAS Parts are appropriate for the title and are set forth in the title standard for the position or are reasonably related to the duties therein”.

As we are unable to conclude that the Director’s reasoning lacked a rational basis, we accordingly affirm *(Matter of Grossman v Rankin,*43 NY2d 493, 503). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3044 

AN ACT 

To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties 

in Iuka, Mississippi. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3044 EH

1 SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF YELLOW CREEK PORT PROP2 ERTIES. 

3 In accordance with section 4(k) of the Tennessee Val4 ley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)), Congress 

5 approves the conveyance by the Tennessee Valley Author6 ity, on behalf of the United States, to the State of Mis7 sissippi of the Yellow Creek Port properties owned by the 

8 United States and in the custody of the Authority at Iuka, 

9 Mississippi, as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3044 

AN ACT 

To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port 

properties in Iuka, Mississippi.
Exhibit 10.a


                                                    Buenos Aires, June 26, 2002


To:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission


     Re:  Arthur Andersen LLP
          ("Andersen")


Dear Sirs:

     Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Temporary Final Rule and
Final Rule "Requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP Auditing Clients" issued by
this Commission on March 18, 2002 (17 CFR PARTS 210, 228, 229, 230, 240, 249
and 260; RELEASE NOS. 33-8070, 34-45590; 35-27503; 39-2395; IA-2018; IC-25464;
FR-62; File No. S7-03-02 and RIN 3235-AI46), and in view of the audit report
issued by Andersen to MASTER FRANCHISEE ARGENTINA S.A. ("MFA"), by its duly
authorized representative, MFA hereby declares that it has received by letter
dated June 18, 2002 certain representations from Andersen concerning audit
quality controls in connection with the audit of the financial statements of
MFA as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001, including representations
regarding the continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, the
availability of national office consultation, and the availability of personnel
at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct relevant portions of the audit.


                                Sincerely yours,

                          /s/ Leonardo Federici Guedes

                        MASTER FRANCHISEE ARGENTINA S.A.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7509

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STEVEN HOLMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR98-97, CA-99-3100-S)

Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 14, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Holman, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as

“filed” on October 18, 1999, the district court’s records show that

it was entered on the docket sheet on October 19, 1999. Pursuant

to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it

is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket

sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s

decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Holman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Holman, Nos. CR-98-97; CA-99-

3100-S (D. Md. Oct. 19, 1999).* 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.

DISMISSED
#### TATE v. STATE.

No. 24385.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1949.

*635G. H. Williamson, Co. Atty., Stephen--ville, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., Dallas, for the State.

Chas. Nordyke, Stephenville, for defend•ant.

■KRUEGER, Judge.

On the 25th day of May, 1949, during the preceding term of this court, we dismissed the appeal in this case, 220 S.W.2d 662, because the record failed to show that any judgment had been entered .upon the minutes of the court. Appellant, in due time, filed a motion to reinstate the.appeal and caused a supplemental transcript to be filed in this court showing entry of a final judgment. Therefore, the. appeal will he reinstated .and the case will be disposed of on its merits.

Appellant brings forward a number of complaints, but in view of the disposition we are making of this case, we deem it only necessary to discuss his complaint challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of conviction.

It was charged in .the complaint and information that “on or about the 11th day of April, A.D. 1948, R. L. Tate Jr. did then and there unlawfully, while intoxicated and while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drive a motor vehicle, to-wit: A 1942 Model Ford Four Door Sedan, upon a public highway within said county, to-wit: U. S. Highway #108 about two miles north of the City of Stephen-ville, Texas, * *

We have carefully examined the statement of facts, but we are unable to find any evidence therein that he drove a motor vehicle upon U.S. Highway No. 108. There is evidence to the effect that he drove his automobile on Highway 108, but this does not meet the allegations that it was U.S. Highway No. 108. The state, having particularly described the highway, was required to prove it as charged in the complaint and information. The identical question here presented was before this court in the following cases: Walker v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 368, 125 S.W.2d 571; Malone v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 117 S.W.2d 779; and Spencer v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 336; 42 S.W.2d 259. It will thus be noted that the averment and the proof fail to correspond. In other words, there is a variance between the allegation and the proof which calls for a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       State or Other
                                                                       Jurisdiction of           Percentage
                                                                       Incorporation             Ownership
                                                                       ---------------           ----------
Parent
------
<S>                                                                    <C>
BCSB Bankcorp, Inc.                                                    United States

Subsidiary (1)
----------

Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B.                                  United States                  100%

BCSB Bankcorp Capital Trust I                                          Delaware                       100%


Subsidiaries of Baltimore County Savings Bank, F.S.B. (1)
-----------------------------------------------------

Baltimore County Service Corp.                                         United States                  100%
Ebenezer Road, Inc.                                                    United States                  100%


<FN>
_____________
(1)      The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included
         in the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report
         to Stockholders attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
</FN>
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63089-63090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27000]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Geological Survey


Request for Public Comments on Proposed Information Collection To 
Be Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Review Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposal for the collection of information described below will 
be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 
Copies of the proposed collection of information and related forms may 
be obtained by contacting the Bureau's clearance officer at the phone 
number listed below. Comments and suggestions on the proposal should be 
made within 60 days directly to the Bureau clearance officer, U.S. 
Geological Survey, 807 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, 
Reston, Virginia, 20192, telephone (703) 648-7313.
    Specific public comments are requested as to:
    1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions on the bureaus, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    2. The accuracy of the bureau's estimate of the burden of the 
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology 
and assumptions used:
    3. The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and
    4. How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
    Title: National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) Cooperative 
Agreements Program (CAP).
    OMB approval number: New collection.
    Abstract: Respondents submit proposals for receiving assistance in 
implementing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) including 
metadata, clearinghouse, and

[[Page 63090]]

framework. The technological and institutional development of NSDI 
supports the ease of discovery, access and utilization of geographic 
information on the Internet. This information will be used as the basis 
for selection and award of projects meeting program objectives. Annual 
or final reports are required on the performances of each selected.
    Bureau form number: None.
    Frequency: Annual proposals and final reports.
    Description of respondents: State, local, and Federal government, 
academic institutions, private business, and non-profit organizations.
    Annual responses: 120.
    Annual burden hours: 6,640 hours.
    Bureau clearance officer: John Cordyack, 703-648-7313.

    Dated: October 11, 2000.
Barbara J. Ryan,
Associate Director for Geography.
[FR Doc. 00-27000 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-7Y-M
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-8131

 Directorate Identifier: 2015NM073AD

737-57-1296, R1 --- 09/26/2012

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Exhibit 31.1
 WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-K
Year ended December 31, 2008
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
   By:
    
    /s/ Edward J. McKeon
    
    
    
    Date: March 30, 2009Edward J. McKeon, President and CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PATHMARK
STORES, INC. CONSOLDIATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 13 WEEKS ENDED MAY 2,
1998 AND CONSOLDIATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MAY 2, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAY-2-1998
<CASH>                                           7,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,251)
<INVENTORY>                                    156,180
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               265,423
<PP&E>                                         910,428
<DEPRECIATION>                               (389,400)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 880,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          320,548
<BONDS>                                      1,277,826
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,084,801)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   880,191
<SALES>                                        916,015
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               916,015
<CGS>                                          651,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  651,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    15
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (40,874)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,434)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (27)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,461)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,461)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<CIK>                                            0001051904
<NAME>                                 Frisby Technologies, Inc.
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                 6,516,138
<SECURITIES>                                           1,555,683
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,075,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (30,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              671,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      10,443,522
<PP&E>                                                   360,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (82,603)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        13,113,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,928,908
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                            2,479,000
<COMMON>                                                   5,121
<OTHER-SE>                                             7,233,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          13,113,232
<SALES>                                                2,198,275
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       2,869,139
<CGS>                                                  2,125,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          2,518,989
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       4,285,279
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      (366,635)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (3,918,644)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (3,918,644)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (3,918,644)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (0.84)
        


</TABLE>
Order entered January 13, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00475
- CR EULALIO BRAVO MEZA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16
- 00492
- W



### O RDER Appellant’s brief was due September 27, 2019. When it was not filed, we notified appellant by postcard dated October 1, 2019 and directed him to file a brief and a mot ion to extend time to file the same. To date, no brief or motion has been filed, nor have we had any communication from appellant counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regar d, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, whether appellant has abandoned the appeal, or whether appointed counsel has abandoned the appeal.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is in digent, the trial

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written fin dings and recommendations, to this Court within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Tracy Holmes , Presiding Judge, 363rd Judicial District Court; to J. Daniel Oliphant; and to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Division. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated t wenty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is ea rlier.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 23375.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 29, 1946.

Garland Casebier, of Fort Stockton, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $50.

The charging part of the information reads as follows: “* * * that heretofore, to-wit: on or about the 18th day of September, 1945, in said County of Pecos and State of Texas, one C. C. Johnson late of said County and State did then and there unlawfully drive an automobile on a public highway, to-wit, Highway No. 290 while the said C. C. Johnson was under the influence of intoxicating liquor * *

Appellant contends that such information does not charge that either the act of driving or the fact of intoxication occurred in Pecos County. The information is deemed sufficient, and appellant’s contention is overruled.

This is the sole question presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DEREE J. NORMAN,

 Petitioner

 v.

SAMUEL A. DION,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 183 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Motion for Leave to File a Response

to the Answer and the Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED.