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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.), rendered on March 31, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree and sentencing defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *Slá*to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3003]



[[Page 6591]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 020100C]


Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to the International 
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); Spring 
Species Working Group Meeting

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:  Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY:  The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section to ICCAT announces 
its spring meeting with its Species Working Groups on March 6 and 7, 
2000.

DATES:  The open sessions of the Committee meeting will be held on 
March 6, 2000, from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and on March 7, 2000, from 
9:00 a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Closed sessions will 
be held on March 6, 2000, from 2:30 p.m. to approximately 6:00 p.m., 
and on March 7, 2000, from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES:  The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Silver Spring, 
8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kim Blankenbeker at (301) 713-2276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section 
to ICCAT will meet in open session to receive and to discuss 
information on (1) 1999 ICCAT meeting results and U.S. implementation 
of ICCAT decisions, (2) NMFS and ICCAT research and monitoring 
activities, (3) the Food and Agriculture Organization's work related to 
illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, (4) the second meeting of 
ICCAT's Working Group on Allocation Criteria, (5) Advisory Committee 
operational issues, (6) consultation regarding the identification of 
countries that are diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT, (7) the 
results of the meetings of the Committee's Species Working Groups, and 
(8) other matters relating to the international management of ICCAT 
species. The public will have access to the open sessions of the 
meeting, but there will be no opportunity for public comment.
    Sessions of the Advisory Committee's Species Working Groups will 
not be open to the public, but, as noted earlier, the results of the 
working group discussions will be reported to the full Advisory 
Committee during the Committee's afternoon open session on March 7.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting locations are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Kim Blankenbeker at (301) 713-2276 
at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 3, 2000.
Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-3003 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### JACOBSEN et al. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 7478.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

June 21, 1940.

Felix & Felix, of Philadelphia, Pa. (by David H. H. Felix, of Philadelphia, Pa.), for petitioners.

Warwick Potter Scott, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Protective Motor Service Co.

Charles Fahy, of Washington, D. C., for National Labor Relations Board.

Before BIGGS, JONES, and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Counsel has petitioned us to the end that the persons whom he represents may be permitted to proceed for a review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board in forma pauperis. During the course of the argument upon this petition it appeared that the object was to cause this court to require the National Labor Relations Board to grant a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings before the Board without prepayment of costs.

The petitioner contends that Section 10 (f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(f), gives us this power. We do not so construe the statute, the pertinent part of which states: “Any person aggrieved by a final order of the Board granting or denying in whole or in part the relief sought may obtain a review of such order in any circuit court of appeals of the United States in the circuit wherein the unfair labor practice in question was alleged to have been engaged in * * *. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the Board, and thereupon the aggrieved party shall file in the court a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, certified by the Board, including the pleading and testimony upon which the order complained of was entered and the findings and order of the Board.”

Though we are willing to permit the persons upon whose behalf the instant petition was filed to proceed in this court without prepayment of the costs of this court and in forma pauperis, none the less we cannot require the Board to deliver a certified copy of the transcript of the entire record in the proceeding before it without prepayment of costs. The principal relief here sought by the petitioner can be granted to him only by the Board.

Accordingly, we will restrict our order to permit the persons whom the petitioner represents to proceed in this court in for-ma pauperis only in so far as the costs of this court are concerned.
* Pursuant to 5 THC IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-11353

_____________________
WASTE CONTROL SPECIALISTS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; ALVIN L. ALM, Assistant Secretary for Enviornmental Management; MARY ANN SULLIVAN, Deputy General Counsel for Environment and Civilian Nuclear Defense Programs; JAMES M. OWENDOFF, Acting Secretary for Environmental Management, Defendants-Appellants.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Wichita Falls

(7:97-CV-202)

_______________________________________________________ June 17, 1998 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Waste Control Specialists complains by petition for rehearing that we have decided its due process claims prematurely. To the contrary, we have decided that Waste Control’s lawsuit is premature. We have only decided that the Department of Energy has followed the statutes in the policies2

thus far announced for Fernald contract proposals. Waste Control’s suit seeks a declaration that its proposal may not be rejected by DOE because the DOE policy is illegal. We deny that claim without reaching any due process contention about DOE’s conduct of the contract procedure in any other respect for cleanup of the Fernald nuclear site. Amicus Andrews Industrial Foundation complains that our opinion allows the Department of Energy to surrender all regulation of disposal sites to the states or to no one. Our opinion did not address the regulation of disposal sites except to say that the statutes provide for either Nuclear Regulatory Commission or Department of Energy control. The petition for rehearing is denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7114

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DWAYNE MANNING, a/k/a Jonathan Manning, a/k/a Rude Dog,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:95-cr-00156-H-1)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Manning, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Manning appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for return of property. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Manning, No. 5:95-cr-00156-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 10, 2011). 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
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30775]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Future Flight Data Collection Committee

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for the 
Future Flight Data Collection Committee meeting to be held January 11, 
2000, starting at 9 a.m. This meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 
Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036.
    The agenda will include: (1) Welcome and Introductory Remarks; (2) 
Review Meeting Agenda; (3) Review Previous Meeting Minutes; (4) Receive 
report on the deliberations of Working Group 1 (Data Needs); (5) 
Receive report on the deliberations of Working Group 2 (Technology); 
(6) Discuss Interim Report; (7) Review First Draft of Final Report 
Outline; (8) Presentations; (9) Other Business; (10) Establish Agenda 
for Next Meeting; (11) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (12) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements, obtain information or pre-register for the committee should 
contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, 
Washington, DC, 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax). 
Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee 
at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 22, 2000.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 00-30775 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10351

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80117-KLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDDY WILMER VAIL-BAILON, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, 

WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JULIE CARNES, and 

JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A petition for rehearing en banc having been filed, a member of this Court in 

active service having requested a poll on whether this case should be reheard en 

banc, and a majority of the judges of this Court in active service having voted in 

Case: 15-10351 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
favor of granting rehearing en banc, it is ORDERED that this case will be reheard 

en banc. The panel’s opinion is VACATED. 

Case: 15-10351 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 2 of 2
#### SKAGGS v. STATE.

No. 20191.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1939.

Wallace Hughston, of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s A tty.,. of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment 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.
#### ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO. v. ASHINHURST.

No. 3902.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Nov. 2, 1939.

Hill D. Hudson, of Pecos, for appellant..

*319J. B. Cotten and John J. Watts, both of Crane, for appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

In this case briefs have not been filed by any of the parties and no excuse shown for such failure. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.2d 811.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1513 Committee Discharged Senate (CDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1513

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 5 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

           September 20 (legislative day, September 7), 1993

                          Committee discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 10th and Main 
  Streets in Richmond, Virginia, as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF LEWIS F. POWELL, JR. UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse located at 10th and Main Streets in 
Richmond, Virginia, is designated as the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

    Any references in any law, regulation, document, record, map, or 
other paper of the United States to the courthouse referred to in 
section 1 is deemed to be a reference to the ``Lewis F. Powell, Jr. 
United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LeCroy Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott D. Kantor, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and result of
               operations of the Company.

/s/ Scott D. Kantor
-------------------
Scott D. Kantor
Chief Financial Officer
May 9, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Rahana Coaxum et al., Appellants-Respondents, v City of New York et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered March 23, 1989, which, after a jury trial, found in plaintiffs’ favor in the amount of $25,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this personal injury action, plaintiffs recovered damages for an attack on plaintiff Christine Long by a fellow student, Lawrence Redick, which occurred on January 16, 1985 at Harry S. Truman High School in the Bronx. We agree with the IAS court that, while there is much conflicting evidence, *313the jury was reasonably able to conclude that defendants were negligent, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Specifically, there was a sufficient basis for the jury to conclude that Redick and Ms. Long had altercations in the past, that the school was aware of these altercations, and that immediately before the attack Redick had been yelling at Ms. Long for several minutes and that two teachers in the vicinity could have prevented the attack.

While plaintiffs claim that the damage awards are inadequate, there are insufficient grounds to substitute our judgment for the jury’s, especially in light of the conflicting medical evidence. *(See, Grimaldi v Finch,*99 AD2d 920.)

We have considered all other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1451

To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to include

Montgomery, Roanoke, and Rockbridge Counties, Virginia, as part of

the Appalachian region.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 24, 1993

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself and Mr. BOUCHER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Appalachian Regional Development Act of

1965 to include Montgomery, Roanoke, and Rockbridge

Counties, Virginia, as part of the Appalachian region.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF MONTGOMERY, ROANOKE, AND

4 ROCKBRIDGE COUNTIES, VIRGINIA, AS PART

5 OF APPALACHIAN REGION.

6 The 12th undesignated paragraph of section 403 of

7 the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (40

8 U.S.C. App. 403) is amended—
2

•HR 1451 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘Montgomery,’’ after ‘‘Lee,’’;

2 and

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘Roanoke, Rockbridge,’’ after

4 ‘‘Pulaski,’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dean Gates, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the evidence supporting his conviction of assault in the second degree *(see,*Penal Law § 120.05 [3]) was legally insufficient in that there was no proof that he knew the victim was a police officer or that he intended to prevent him from performing a lawful duty. That contention is belied by defendant’s statement to the officer that he would not get any help from other police officers, and by defendant’s forceful removal of the microphone from the police vehicle. Under the circumstances, we find no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495).

Moreover, we reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction *(see,*CPL 440.10 [1] [b], [c]) on the ground that the police, prosecutor, and the Trial Judge had engaged in a conspiracy to fabricate evidence in violation of his civil rights, and thus denied him a fair trial. Defendant submitted no evidence to support his claim, but made only conclusory allegations of wrongdoing. That is insufficient *(see,*CPL 440.30 [4] [b]).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — assault, second degree.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 90 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 90

    To designate the week beginning November 21, 1993, and the week 
   beginning November 20, 1994, each as ``National Family Caregivers 
                                Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1993

Ms. Snowe introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
           to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    To designate the week beginning November 21, 1993, and the week 
   beginning November 20, 1994, each as ``National Family Caregivers 
                                Week''.

Whereas the number of Americans who are age 65 or older is growing dramatically, 
        with an unprecedented increase in the number of frail elderly age 85 or 
        older;
Whereas approximately 5,200,000 older persons have disabilities that leave them 
        in need of help with their daily tasks, including food preparation, 
        dressing, and bathing;
Whereas families provide help to older persons with such tasks, in addition to 
        providing between 80 and 90 percent of the medical care, household 
        maintenance, transportation, and shopping needed by older persons;
Whereas 80 percent of disabled elderly persons receive care from their family 
        members, most of whom are their wives, daughters, and daughters-in-law, 
        who often must sacrifice employment opportunities to provide such care;
Whereas family caregivers are often physically and emotionally exhausted from 
        the amount of time and stress involved in caregiving activities, and 
        therefore need information about available community resources for 
        respite care and other support services;
Whereas the contributions of family caregivers help maintain strong family ties 
        and assure support among generations; and
Whereas there is a need for greater public awareness of and support for the care 
        that family caregivers are providing older persons: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the week beginning 
November 21, 1993, and the week beginning November 20, 1994, are each 
designated ``National Family Caregivers Week'', and the President is 
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the 
people of the United States to observe such weeks with appropriate 
programs, ceremonies, and activities.

                                 <all>
```