alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fourth Street Associates of Garden City et al., Appellants, v Incorporated Village of Garden City et al., Respondents.

In an action for a judgment declaring Local Laws, 1984, No. 1 of the Incorporated Village of Garden City to be void and unenforceable, and for related relief, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated December 4, 1985, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment (one paper) is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision declaring that Local Laws, 1984, No. 1 of the Incorporated Village of Garden City is valid and enforceable; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents.

Pursuant to Local Laws, 1984, No. 1 of the Incorporated Village of Garden City, restaurants were excluded from districts zoned as commercial LC-2. The plaintiffs own property in a commercial LC-2 district and seek permission to operate a restaurant. In an effort to obtain such permission, they commenced (1) the present declaratory judgment action, in which they challenge the facial validity of this local law, and (2) a related proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, in which they contend that they are entitled to operate their premises as a restaurant because the defendants intentionally delayed the issuance of a building permit until after the local law had been enacted *(see, Matter of Fourth St. Assocs. v Building Div. & Bur. of Fire Prevention,*168 AD2d 618 [decided herewith]).

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the affidavits and other papers submitted by the plaintiffs in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment failed to overcome the presumption that the local law in question represents a valid exercise of the village’s police powers *(see generally, Matter of Town of Bedford v Village of Mount Kisco,*33 NY2d 178; *Levitt v Incorporated Vil. of Sands Point,*6 NY2d 269; *Coutant v Town of Poughkeepsie,*69 AD2d 506). Also, we agree that no issue of fact exists as to whether the law was adopted in a manner consistent with the village’s "Development Plan”, adopted in 1971. We modify the order and judgment under review only so as to make the appropriate declaration *(see, Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334, *appeal dismissed*371 US 74, *cert denied*371 US 901). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 7, 2008*

#### RUSSELL R. DEEM VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-06-076)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Andrew F. Tarr, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Claimant brought this action for personal injuries which occurred as a result of a wooden plank falling off Hutchinson Bridge while he was walking on County Route 90/3 near Worthington, Marion County. County Route 90/3 is a road maintained by respondent. The Court is of the opinion to deny the claim for the reasons more fully stated below.

The incident giving rise to this claim occurred between 12:00p.m. and 1:00p.m. on February 13, 2006. Hutchinson Bridge on County Route 90/3 is a one-lane highway with a wooden sidewalk at the area of the incident involved in this claim. Claimant testified that he was walking across Hutchinson Bridge when a wooden board fell out from the bridge after he stepped on it. Mr. Deem stated that he then fell into the road, injuring his right arm and back. Claimant stated that his damages were $5,000.00.

The position of the respondent is that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition on Hutchinson Bridge on County Route 90/3 at the site of the claimant’s accident for the date in question. Randy Harris, District Bridge Engineer for the respondent in District 4, which includes Marion County, testified that he had no knowledge of any loose wood planks on Hutchinson Bridge on County Route 90/3. Mr. Harris stated that the bridge is a one lane bridge with a sidewalk made up of two by six wood planks. He testified that there had been no complaints regarding Hutchinson Bridge prior to claimant’s incident. Respondent had received no notice of loose planks *94in the sidewalk on Hutchinson Bridge on County Route 90/3 on the day of the incident in question.

The well-established principle of law in W est Virginia is that the State is neither an insurer nor a guarantor of the safety of travelers upon its roads. *Adkins*vs. *Sims,*130 W.Va. 645; 46 S.E.2d 81 (1947). In order to hold respondent liable for road defects of this type, a claimant must prove that respondent had actual or constructive notice of the defect and a reasonable time to take corrective action. *Chapman*vs. *Dept. of Highways,*16 Ct. Cl. 103 (1986).

In the instant case, the evidence established that the respondent did not have actual or constructive notice of loose wooden planks on Hutchinson Bridge on County Route 90/3 prior to the incident in question. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence of negligence upon which to justify an award. Thus, the claimant may not make a recovery for his loss in this claim.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does deny this claim.

Claim disallowed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Pablo Arce, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered January 4, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Incidental to the execution of a warrant to search a drug seller’s apartment, the police discovered the defendant in possession of two packages containing a total of 5.3 ounces of cocaine. The defendant threw down the packages and attempted to flee from the police, but he was immediately apprehended and arrested.

The defendant contends that his arrest was improper, and therefore, the evidence seized should have been suppressed. We disagree. Here, the officers entered the foyer of a two-story dwelling to execute a warrant for a so-called "buy and bust” operation in the second-story apartment. As one officer entered the foyer, he saw the defendant who immediately turned and dropped a package wrapped in a white paper towel behind an old television set located in the foyer. This wrapping was similar to that of packages previously purchased during the course of the investigation of the upstairs seller. A second officer recovered the white package and, through a tear in the paper, observed plastic covering a white powder which he believed to be cocaine. He then examined a second package, containing a white powder he believed to be cocaine, which the defendant had also discarded. Under the totality of the circumstances, the hearing court properly determined that the defendant had abandoned the property and that the evidence seized was admissible *(see, People v Kosciusko,*149 AD2d 620; *People v Hogya,*80 AD2d 621).

*502The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of MBNA Corporation, and in the related Prospectuses, of our report
dated January 14, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
MBNA Corporation, included in the 2001 Annual Report to Stockholders of MBNA
Corporation and incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2001:

|       |  |           |  |                                                                                   
|------ |  | --------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Number |  | 33-41936  |  | on Form S-8 dated July 22, 1991                                                   
|Number |  | 33-41895  |  | on Form S-8 dated July 24, 1991                                                   
|Number |  | 33-50498  |  | on Form S-3 (as amended by Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1) dated August 28, 1992  
|Number |  | 33-71640  |  | on Form S-8 dated November 15, 1993                                               
|Number |  | 33-76278  |  | on Form S-3 (as amended by Post-Effective
Amendment No. 2) dated April 8, 1994    
|Number |  | 33-95438  |  | on Form S-8 dated August 4, 1995                                                  
|Number |  | 33-95600  |  | on Form S-3 (as amended by Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1) dated September 1, 1995
|Number |  | 333-17187 |  | on Form S-3 (as amended by Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1) dated December 3, 1996 
|Number |  | 333-15721 |  | on Form S-3 (as amended by Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1) dated December 10, 1996
|Number |  | 333-21181 |  | on Form S-4 (as amended by Amendment No.1)
dated February 25, 1997                
|Number |  | 333-06824 |  | on Form S-8 dated April 22, 1997                                                  
|Number |  | 333-47179 |  | on Form S-3 (as amended by Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1) dated April 6, 1998    
|Number |  | 333-51477 |  | on Form S-8 dated April 30, 1998                                                  
|Number |  | 333-74919 |  | on Form S-3 (as amended by Post-Effective
Amendment No. 1) dated March 24, 1999   
|Number |  | 333-79987 |  | on Form S-8 dated June 4, 1999                                                    
|Number |  | 333-44422 |  | on Form S-8 dated August 24, 2000                                                 
|Number |  | 333-45814 |  | on Form S-3 dated September 14, 2000                                              

|                                   |  |                      
|---------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|                                   |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                                  
|Baltimore, Maryland
March 21, 2002 |  |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

y0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140764 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140764 

 COA: 295684 

Otsego CC: 08-003961-FH 

SHELLY JEAN PATTERSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 28, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 27, 2016

t0919

Order 

Clerk

September 27, 2016

151587

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151587

COA: 324817 

Kent CC: 08-006820-FC

CORY LEE SOUDERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of 

People v Comer (Docket No. 152713) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the 

decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to 

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in 

that case.
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District * of South Dakota, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-1903EA

_____________ Pamela Hill, * *

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: November 20, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, District Judge. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. Pamela Hill appeals the district court's grant of summary j udgment upholding the Commissioner's decision to deny Hill disability insurance benefits. Aft er careful review of the administrative record and the parties' briefs, we conclude substantial evidence support s the decision of the Commissioner that Hill is not disabled for social security purposes and the judgment of the district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

                    By Notice dated June  14, 2000, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 26, 2000, (65 FR 39430), Celgene Corporation, 7 Powder Horn Drive, Warren, New Jersey 07059, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of methylphenidate (1724), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.                

The firm plans to manufacture methylphenidate for product research and development.

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Celgene Corporation to manufacture methylphenidate is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated the Celgene Corporation on a regular basis to ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent with the public interest. These investigations have included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, audits of the company's records, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class of controlled substance listed above is granted.

Dated: October 10, 2000.

John H. King,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-30933  Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
P. 1


# RCRA Box 321 Prepped by Ryan Dugan



## Document

Number: 

# 208 ) OGRC-S000 9 Docket Number: 

# F-93-OGRC-FFFF F

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:31 PM

Sheet 208of 259P. 2 

## Os*C-sooo< ?



# ^fef o ^Mexic o JStat e ^Legislatur e
STAT E CAPITO L ^ant a JF r Octobe r 12 , 199 0

Willia mK . Reill y Administrator , Environmenta l Protectio n Agency 40 1 M Stree t S W Washington , DC 2046 0 Dea r Mr . Reilly : A t the Septembe r 28 , 199 0 meetin g o f the Revenu e Stabilizatio n an d Tax PolicyRevie wCommittee , th e committe e member s vote d unanimousl yt o expres s thei r concer n abou t you r Septembe r 25 , 199 0 directiv e statin g tha t oilfiel d waste s wil l n o longe r b e exemp t fro mhazardou s wast e guidelines . Th e committee , whic h i s a n interi mcommitte e o f the Ne wMexic o Stat e Legislature , believe s thi s reclassificatio n o f oilfiel d waste s wil l hav e a n extremel ydetrimenta l effec t o n th e stat e o f Ne wMexico . Fo r example , oi l reclamatio n plant s i n Ne wMexic o ar e likel yt o clos e a s a resul t o f thi s action , whic h wil l adversel yaffec t th e oi l an d ga s industr yi n th e state . Moreover , suc h plan t closure s maycreat e environmenta l problem s fa r greate r than an yproblem s thi s regulatio n purport s t o void . j A s a resul t o f th e potentiall yadvers e impac t i n Ne wMexic o o f thi s reclassification , w e hav e urge d the Ne wMexic o congressiona l delegatio n t o tak e appropriat e actio n t o revers e thi s directive . W e woul d als o urg e yo u t o revie wthi s directiv e an d tak e actio n t o retur n oi l waste s t o thei r presen t exemptio n fro mhazardou s wast e guidelines . Sincerel yyours ,
SENATOR EDWARD J . LOPE Z Chairman , Revenu e Stabilizatio n an d Ta x PolicyRevie wCommitte e 

# oJ. REPRESENTATIV

E JERRY W . SANDE L Vic e Chairman , Revenu e Stabilizatio n an d Tax PolicyRevie wCommitte e
EXHIBIT 32-2





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 on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund V, L.P., Series 3 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk, Vice President -Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.








/s/MELANIE R. WENK





Melanie R. Wenk





Vice President-Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.








Date:    February 14, 2011
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30862]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Assessment Governing Board; Meeting

AGENCY: National Assessment Governing Board; Education.

ACTION:  Notice of teleconference meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a 
forthcoming meeting by teleconference of the Executive Committee of the 
National Assessment Governing Board. This notice also describes the 
functions of the Board. Notice of this meeting is required under 
Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

DATES: December 5, 2000.

TIME: 4:00-5:00 p.m.

LOCATION: National Assessment Governing Board, Suite 825, 800 North 
Capital Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ray Fields, Assistant Director for 
Policy, National Assessment Governing Board, Suite 825, 800 North 
Capital Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20002-4233, Telephone: (202) 
357-6938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Assessment Governing Board is 
established under section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act 
of 1994 (Title IV of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994), 
(Pub. L. 103-382).
    The Board is established to formulate policy guidelines for the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress. The Board is responsible 
for selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment 
objectives, identifying appropriate achievement goals for each grade 
and subject tested, and establishing standards and procedures for 
interstate and national comparisons. Under Public Law 105-78, the 
National Assessment Governing Board is also granted exclusive authority 
over developing Voluntary National Tests pursuant to contract number 
RJ97153001.
    On December 5, 2000, between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m, the Executive 
Committee of the National Assessment Governing Board will hold an open 
teleconference meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to review and 
take action on a proposal concerning assessment in urban school 
districts that was received from the Council of Great City Schools.
    Because this is a teleconference meeting telephonic devices and 
seating space will be arranged to permit the public to have access to 
the Committee's deliberations.
    Records are kept of all Board proceedings and are available for 
public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, National 
Assessment Governing Board, Suite #825, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Dated: November 30, 2000.
Roy Truby,
Executive Director, National Assessment Governing Board.
[FR Doc. 00-30862 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M
```