alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Roger Hicks, Appellant, v Raul Russi, as Commissioner of the New York State Division of Parole, et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 341]

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: Petitioner, a parolee, appeals from a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition seeking injunctive relief. Petitioner seeks to preclude respondent parole authorities from interfering with his work on criminal cases as a paralegal and his efforts to sell his book directly to prison inmates. Petitioner contends that respondents’ attempts to restrict his pursuits as a paralegal and author/publisher are illegal, arbitrary and capricious, and a violation of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause.

We conclude that respondents’ interpretation of the applicable regulation, 9 NYCRR 8003.2 (g), is arbitrary and capricious. The regulation provides that petitioner may "not be in the company of or fraternize with any person he knows to have a criminal record”, with four discrete exceptions for "accidental encounters in public places, work, school or in any other instance with the permission of his parole officer” (9 NYCRR 8003.2 [g]). It is well settled that the interpretation of a regulation by the agency responsible for its promulgation and enforcement is not entitled to deference where that interpretation is irrational or unreasonable *(see, Matter of Howard v Wyman,*28 NY2d 434, 438, *rearg denied*29 NY2d 749). Here, respondents distort the regulation by interpreting it to bar any "direct contact” between criminals that may lead to the "possibility of fraternization.” Further, respondents erroneously interpret the regulation to permit only "accidental” or "incidental” work-related contact.

As we interpret the regulation, respondents may not prohibit petitioner from advertising or selling his book to inmates by direct mail or working as a paralegal on criminal cases. Sending flyers to inmates or responding to their mail orders does not place petitioner in the "company” of inmates, nor does it constitute fraternization. Similarly, working as a paralegal on criminal matters does not constitute fraternization with criminals. Even if such business association may place petitioner "in the company” of known criminals, it nevertheless comes within the general exception for work-related contact (9 NYCRR 8003.2 [g]).

In view of our interpretation of the regulation, we see no need to consider petitioner’s constitutional challenges. (Appeal *852from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J.— CPLR art 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         168,102
<SECURITIES>                                   511,185
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               703,175
<PP&E>                                         140,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                (57,126)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,016,516
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,090
<BONDS>                                        153,492
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                     788,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,016,516
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,493
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  263,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (158,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (158,528)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (158,528)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.10)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.10)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>ON EACH OF APRIL 18, 2000 AND OCTOBER 4, 2000 A TWO-FOR-ONE STOCK SPLIT OF
OUR COMMON STOCK OCCURRED, WHICH WAS EFFECTED IN THE FORM OF A 100% STOCK
DIVIDEND. PRIOR FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULES HAVE NOT BEEN RESTATED FOR THE
RECAPITALIZATION.</FN>


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         266,059
<SECURITIES>                                   388,745
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,325
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               673,794
<PP&E>                                         112,337
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 943,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,906
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                     434,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   943,140
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,773
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,451
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (33,232)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,232)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,232)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.37)


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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 30, 2019

s0923 

# Order

Clerk September 30, 2019

156356

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156356

COA: 338522

Washtenaw CC: 14

- 000076

- FC

WILLIAM ALFRED GARDNER, IV,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of May 1, 2018, the application for leave t o appeal the July 17, 2017

order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v

Cameron (Docket No. 155849). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been

denied in Cameron on July 10, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the app lication is again

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 91-575.

#### Bhan *v.*NME Hospitals, Inc., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of American Association of Nurse Anesthetists for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-22-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                       928
<INVENTORY>                                     36,605
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,032
<PP&E>                                         220,073
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,979
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 507,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,809
<BONDS>                                        302,115
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   507,157
<SALES>                                         89,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,801
<CGS>                                           65,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,860
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,002
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,858
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,858
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7602

CURTIS LEE MAYFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus RUFUS FLEMING, Regional Director; P. A. TERRANGI, Warden; M. PORCHER, Therapeutic Community Director; L. CORNERS, Assistant Warden of Programs; J. JONES, Clinical Social Worker; S. SNYDER, Clinical Social Worker; J. LEWIS, Lieutenant, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1773-AM) Submitted: February 26, 2002 Decided: April 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Lee Mayfield, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Lee Mayfield appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. Mayfield was a prisoner in the Therapeutic Community at the Indian Creek Correctional Center (“ICCC”). As the district court noted, Mayfield is no longer a prisoner in that facility; consequently, his claim for injunctive relief is moot. Mayfield v. Fleming , No. CA-00-1773-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2001). Further, the district court correctly concluded that Mayfield’s claim for money damages is barred because he can show no physical injury. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(e) (West Supp. 2001). Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment against Mayfield. 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
#### In re QUALITY TRADING COMPANY, INC., Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 82-00498.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii.

April 26, 1984.

Sherman S. Hee, Clifford B. Hunt, Honolulu, Hawaii, for movant.

Harold Chu, Honolulu, Hawaii, for debt- or.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER DISMISSING INVOLUNTARY PETITION

JON J. CHINEN, Bankruptcy Judge.

On January 5, 1984, this Court entered an Order Dismissing Involuntary Petition in the instant case, ending sixteen months of involuntary bankruptcy for the alleged debtor, 36 B.R. 265. The Court’s Order contained Findings of Fact drawn from protracted evidentiary hearings, and the Court’s conclusion, based on the evidence, that the claims of only two of the four petitioning creditors were valid, that these aggregated claims did not exceed $5000.00, and the remaining creditors did not meet the standings requirements of § 303(b) or the substantive requirements of § 303(h). *43In reaching this decision, the Court made specific findings of bad faith on the part of petitioning creditors Graff and Arashiro in rejecting the validity of their claims and their standing as petitioning creditors.

On January 16,1984, counsel for petitioner Graff filed a Motion to Reconsider, which was not supported by a memorandum. As the Court prepared to summarily dismiss the Motion to Reconsider for lack of any justification and as such, as a dilatory tactic, a memorandum supporting the Motion to Reconsider was filed herein on February 29, 1984. A Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Reconsider was filed herein on March 29, 1984, by counsel for the alleged Debtor. An Affidavit by Larry Graff in Support of the Motion to Reconsider was filed herein on April 18, 1984.

The Court having reviewed the memoran-da submitted and being fully apprised of the record herein finds no grounds given to reconsider the court’s previous findings that the alleged claims of petitioning creditors Graff and Arashiro were not good faith claims and would not be considered under either the procedural or substantive requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 303.

The Motion to Reconsider is hereby denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,766
<ALLOWANCES>                                       247
<INVENTORY>                                      3,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,843
<PP&E>                                           3,226
<DEPRECIATION>                                     796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,768
<BONDS>                                             73
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,330
<SALES>                                         60,334
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,120
<CGS>                                           53,389
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,472
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,415<F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,057<F1>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,057<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES A PRO FORMA ADJUSTMENT TO INCLUDE INCOME TAXES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN
INCURRED IF THE COMPANY HAD NOT BEEN AN S CORPORATION FOR SUCH PERIOD.
</FN>
        

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

<ARTICLE>   5
       
<S>                                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                                       1,011,705
<SECURITIES>                                                    27,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   15,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             1,059,815
<PP&E>                                                          21,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   5,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               1,677,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          390,235
<BONDS>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                         1,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0   
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                                   1,287,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 1,677,590
<SALES>                                                        311,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               311,638
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  135,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                198,253
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            198,253
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   198,253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 15.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement No. 333-113687 on Form S-8 of ClaxsonInteractive Group, Inc. of our report dated July 15, 2005,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ClaxsonInteractive Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31,2004 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includesexplanatory paragraphs relating to the entity’s ability tocontinue as a going concern and relating to a change inaccounting principle for goodwill)./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPMiami, FloridaJuly 15, 2005
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Service Personnel Policies Help with Retention During Pandemic

By xxxC. Todd LopezDOD NEWS

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 10 (Friday, January 16, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 156: Mr. Roe of Tennessee.
       H.R. 205: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California, Mr. Conaway, 
     Mr. McHugh, Mr. Akin, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Linder.
       H.R. 333: Mr. Michaud, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. 
     Peterson, and Mr. Filner.
       H.R. 460: Ms. Hirono, Mr. Stark, Mr. Crowley, and Ms. 
     Wasserman Schultz.
       H.R. 546: Mrs. Bono Mack.
       H. Res. 39: Mr. King of New York, Ms. DeLauro, and Mr. 
     Wolf.
       H. Res. 49: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. 
     Richardson, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Baca, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Becerra, 
     Mr. Sherman, Mr. Stark, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms. 
     Loretta Sanchez of California.
```