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

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**603 KA 15-00261** 
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARK KREBBEKS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SESSLER LAW PC, GENESEO (STEVEN D. SESSLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Robert B. Wiggins, J.), rendered January 6, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of falsifying business records in the first degree, making a punishable false written statement, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a bench trial of falsifying business records in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.10), making a punishable false written statement (§ 210.45), and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree (§ 240.50 [3] [a]). We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support those convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must ( see People v Contes
, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by County Court with respect to each count ( see People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495; see generally People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349).

With respect to the count of falsifying business records in the first degree, the evidence established that, at a bank, defendant completed and signed a form wherein he alleged that another individual had used his debit card without his permission and made a series of unauthorized withdrawals from an ATM machine. Photographic evidence taken at the ATM machine from the dates and times reported on the form established that defendant himself made the alleged unauthorized withdrawals. Thus, the evidence established that defendant “inten[ded] to commit” the crime of larceny by seeking reimbursement for overdraft fees associated with those transactions (Penal Law**-2- 603 KA 15-00261** 

§ 175.10).

With respect to the counts charging him with making a punishable false written statement and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, we reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient with respect to the element of knowledge. Defendant was directed by bank personnel that he must file a criminal complaint in order to recover overdraft fees he claimed were generated by the unauthorized transactions, and the court was entitled to credit the testimony of the People’s witnesses, and not defendant’s testimony, in determining that defendant’s report of the theft to the police and his written statement were knowingly false ( see generally Danielson , 9 NY3d at 349; Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495).

Entered: June 17, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000938322
<NAME> CIGFII
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         285,836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  322,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               377,101
<PP&E>                                      12,521,649
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,946,437)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,560,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,252,826
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,307,998
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,560,824
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               924,208
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               876,524
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,919
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,765
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,765
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 28



 
		

°
űĀĹűĶnìűtLāĊűōűMűBÿĂKœű|ř}h}űįűĄ-=/í)ű7ĖĺėÝ BG,űšð~oîűĸűl(űİz<űuĘŚs #ű

Ŭ ØŦnt/ēűAđ)ăNűŘgxdD!űH0

 (&

7ęLj8ŖDű$

ÕċCĬEsűĵ0ű1©\ű	


ŭŮű apĔśvűû+þűNMñ,fy űı0

!(cŨ

ÖűĚ!>.FŗĥŎűķũ

5ČĕGě*ŪűHűÉű »¤Êű

 ̈ůű Ù9ŧBw/Cű@)lMű!"òĜeű |ű

"(%(

`!8L+űHæű

V		&ű

%^
$ű

3RW·ű

4$1⁄4ű

	S1⁄2ű

1	ű 
*ĦŠIŅű P%2ű

aZS2«ű

(

#[2ű

	(



( &ű{Ŝ~ű ¬
#%Ïű


Èű

Ò--Þűŋč: Jű

6ű'hűkĭĻűą;rűxdűŢë ĆGDű

&1
Æű

ËR3⁄4ű

	#¿ű

_3$ű W
ű*ħŝļű PY
ű

5QCĨFŕűIJß0ÜU3^ű	ű ű

Űű£űa'wŞuűü+)mŐűà!Ŕ?e,ű&

bşńgĽűbű

×ğő?.ENpĪĠáűijâű

­3	 ́ű ÓĝĞűņ'Ď.ű


Çoű 6ĒűJŏ?űýIűŇêrű:EfűţèĈĩ,ű

\]$]ű

 [ű

	1ÌÀű

4TÁVű ±&űm{/Jňű 

2¢X
ű

5ovī-*ű7ű Ĵã®U ű¥ ̧ű ZÂű

' #(Ń >ű(@A(<Œqťű ̄


ģű Úűl·9"øűù=OóűűQÄX§_

Í
	¡
μű ÔġĢűŌ:Iű

¶Ã
ű 6ďĐű.9"ű@ĮľűKć;ĉűFïűŤä=ç+zyű

 cåűł'">Ŋűú(<OôűÅ%4YÎűT
ű`Ĥ;L·õʼnöūű

ÛűŁ8"jKűikAié qO÷űÐű ű	¦Ñű

	



Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 29
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 30
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 31
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 1-1 Filed 04/20/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 32
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3578 

AN ACT 

To establish requirements for the adoption of any new or 

revised requirement providing for the screening, testing, 

or treatment of an airman or an air traffic controller 

for a sleep disorder, and for other purposes. 

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

•HR 3578 EH

1 SECTION 1. MEDICAL CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 

2 AIRMEN AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS 

3 RELATING TO SLEEP DISORDERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Transportation 

5 may, consistent with accepted medical standards and prac6 tices, implement or enforce a requirement providing for 

7 the screening, testing, or treatment (including consider8 ation of all possible treatment alternatives) of an airman 

9 or an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder— 

10 (1) in the case of an airman, only if the re11 quirement is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking pro12 ceeding; and 

13 (2) in the case of an air traffic controller, only 

14 if the Federal Aviation Administration meets its ob15 ligations pursuant to chapter 71 of title 5, United 

16 States Code. 

17 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall not apply 

18 to a requirement that was in force before November 1, 

19 2013. 

20 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following defi21 nitions apply: 

22 (1) AIRMAN.—The term ‘‘airman’’ has the 

23 meaning given that term in section 40102(a) of title 

24 49, United States Code. 

25 (2) AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER.—The term ‘‘air 

26 traffic controller’’ means a civilian employee of the 
3 

•HR 3578 EH

1 Department of Transportation described in section 

2 2109 of title 5, United States Code. 

3 (3) SLEEP DISORDER.—The term ‘‘sleep dis4 order’’ includes obstructive sleep apnea. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 11, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3578 

AN ACT 

To establish requirements for the adoption of any 

for other purposes. an air traffic controller for a sleep disorder, and screening, testing, or treatment of an airman or new or revised requirement providing for the
#### Nathaniel “Beano” JOHNSON, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 21, 1951.

Lay & Knuckles, Pineville, Lewis & Weaver, London, R. Campbell VanSant, Frankfort, for appellant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., H. D. Reed, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted of maliciously striking and wounding another, and sentenced to 15 years in the penitentiary. The assault grew out of the same circumstances as appear in the case of Helton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 244 S.W.2d 762, this day decided. The principal questions raised on this appeal are identical with those raised in the Helton case, and our conclusions in this case are the same as those appearing in that opinion.

The defendant was indicted with Helton and Clarence “Pretty Boy” Floyd upon the charge of maliciously assaulting and wounding Joe Blanton with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill him. There is testimony that Johnson assaulted Walter Evans, Robert Evans, Joe Ferguson and Douglas Blair, but we find no reference to any assault by Johnson upon Joe Blanton as charged in the indictment. It might be said that the evidence was sufficient to convict Johnson as an aider and abettor or member of a conspiracy, but the error in the other instructions must be deemed prejudicial.

The judgment is reversed.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Mine Safety and Health Administration 

          - 30 CFR Part 62
          - RIN 1219-AA53 

# AGENCY:

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor. 

# ACTION:

Correcting amendment. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Mine Safety and Health Administration published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of Monday, September 13, 1999, (64 FR 49548) the final rule relating to the health standards for occupational noise exposure. This document contains a correction to that document.                     

# DATES:

Effective on November 8, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carol J. Jones, Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, (703) 235-1910 (not a toll-free call). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

As published, the final rule contains an error which needs to be corrected. 

Accordingly, 30 CFR part 62 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment: 

# PART 62—OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE 

1. The authority citation for part 62 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority:30 U.S.C. 811.

## Appendix to Part 62 [Amended]

2. In the Appendix to part 62, in the note to Table 62-1, the formula for T is revised to read as follows: 

                    T = 8/2(L-90)/5

Dated: November 1, 2000. 

J. Davitt McAteer, 

Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 00-28586 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-43-P
Exhibit 21

Omega Protein Corporation owns 100% of the common stock of:



| |  |  | Protein Finance Company, a Delaware corporation
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Omega International Distribution Company, a Delaware corporation (formerly named Omega Net, Inc.)
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Omega Shipyard, Inc., a Delaware corporation
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Omega Protein, Inc., a Virginia corporation
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Protein Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, wholly owned subsidiary
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Owns 1% of the equity of Omega Protein Mexico S. de R. L. de C.V., a Mexican corporation (Omega Protein Mexico)
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Cyvex Nutrition, Inc., a California corporation
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Omega International Marketing Company, a Delaware corporation
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Owns 99% of the equity of Omega Protein Mexico
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------
#### WHITE v. STATE.

No. 24993.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1950.

Vernon McDaniel, Wichita Falls, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Attempting to pass a forged check is the offense; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The count in the indictment upon which this conviction rests charges that appellant, knowing it to be forged, attempted to pass a forged check to one Smith.

All the testimony shows that the check was presented and attempted to be passed to one Brown, who was an employee of the store of which Smith was the assistant manager.

This constitutes a fatal variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof. Brown v. State, 71 Tex.Cr.R. 45, 158 S.W. 533; Crisp v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 163 S.W.2d 209.

The State’s Attorney before this Court concedes the variance.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
Case 3:22-cr-00108-K Document 50 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 388
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67444-67445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28732]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Public Notice For Waiver of Aeronautical Land-use Assurance 
Lawrence Municipal Airport, North Andover, Massachusetts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for Public Comments. Notice of Intent to Waiver with 
respect to land.

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

[[Page 67445]]

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal that a portion of the 
airport (approximately 2 acres located on Sutton Street along the 
southwest corner of the airport) is not needed for aeronautical use, as 
shown on the Airport Layout Plan. There appear to be no impacts to the 
airport by allowing the airport the use of the land under a 45 year 
lease, for public self storage units. Approximately 20 percent of the 
land was acquired by the airport under FAA Project No. 9-19-007-0804 
(parcel 9 and a portion of parcel 12).
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States 
Code, the notice is required to be published in the Federal Register 30 
days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the property 
to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The purpose of this lease is to make use of surplus land to 
generate needed revenue for the operations and maintenance of the 
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Mr. William Cronan, Special Projects 
Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 12 New 
England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Cronan, Special Projects 
Officer, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 
01803. Telephone number 781-238-7610/Fax number 781-238-7608. Documents 
reflecting the FAA action may be reviewed at the 16 New England 
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 or at the Lawrence 
Municipal Airport 492 Sutton Street, North Andover, Massachusetts 
01845.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA intends 
to authorize the release of the subject airports property at the 
Lawrence Municipal Airport, North Andover, Massachusetts. The 
disposition of proceeds from the leasing of the airport property will 
be in accordance with FAA's policy and procedures concerning the use of 
the airport revenue, published in the Federal Register on February 16, 
1999.

    Issued in Burlington Massachusetts on October 30, 2000.
Vincent A. Scarano,
Manager, Airports Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 00-28732 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
WEITZ BUILD IN GOOD COMPANY. 

5901 THORNTON AVENUE DES MOINES lA 50321 P : 515 . 246.4700 F 515.246 4799 WWW. WEITZ . COM 

September 30, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Transmittal of Section 333 Exemption Request 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

The Weitz Company, LLC ("Weitz") has attached to this letter its request for exemption 

from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations to allow commercial operation of its Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems ("sUASs") for aerial imaging for safety and monitoring of 

construction sites. 

Weitz owns drones manufactured by DJI (more particularly the DJI Phantom 2, the DJI 

Phantom 2 Vision Plus, and the DJI Phantom 3 Advanced). Weitz seeks an exemption 

that will allow for it to operate DJI Phantom sUASs in accordance with the limitations 

proposed in its exemption request. 

Attached to this letter are the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus and DJI 

Phantom 3 User Manuals, Pilot Training Guides, and the Quick Start Guides ("Manuals 

and Guides") which outline the operating requirements, limitations, and technical 

specifications. Weitz has reviewed the Manuals and Guides and found them to be 

acceptable for its sUAS operations on its construction sites. Weitz submits the Manuals 

and Guides as confidential under 14 CFR 11.35 (b) as the Manuals and Guides contain 

proprietary information that Weitz has not and will not share with others. The Manuals 

and Guides contain operating conditions and procedures that are not available to the 

public and are protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act 5 USC 552 

et. seq. 

Sincerely, 

THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC 

f=:ambT.:a/:!:aunsel 

P: 515.698.4282 C: 515.330.8754 

rvan.lamb@weitz.com 

HONESTY AND INTEGRITY • RESPECT FOR PEOPLE • PERFORMANCE WITH ABSOLUTE RELIABILITY • LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVE • NURTURING PERSONAL GROWTH
Notice of Appeal to a Court of Appeals From an 

Appealable Order of a District Court

United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Texas

Docket Number 4:22-cv-00262

Michael

Moates, Plaintiff

v. 

Michael 

Arismendez 

et al, Defendants

 Notice of Appeal

 

Plaintiff Michael Moates hereby appeals to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the order

Accepting/Adopting Findings and Recommendations

entered on 18 April 2022.

_/s/ Michael Moates_________________

Pro Se

Address: 2700 Colorado Boulevard #1526

Denton, Texas 76210

817-999-7534

michaelsmoates@gmail.com

Case 4:22-cv-00262-P Document 11 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 135
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Crude Oil Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Crude Oil Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 8      | 15    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 2      | 10    
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025