alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-1279 (Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on hydrofluorocarbon blends from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2021 (86 FR 35131) and determined on October 4, 2021 that it would conduct an expedited review (87 FR 117, January 3, 2022).

                    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on February 7, 2022. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5278 (February 2022), entitled                     *Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1279 (Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: February 7, 2022.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2022-02927 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Troy HAYS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5563

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### David MEYERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden S. K. YOUNG; Director Harold Clarke, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6269

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

David Meyers, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Meyers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v.*McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 'demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Meyers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Meyers’ motion for the record on appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Randal Thomas ROSADO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Donald Boggus, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ J. DONALD BOGGUS, JR.J. Donald Boggus, Jr.President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 10, 2007
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 of Catalina Marketing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rick P. Frier, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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/ Rick P. Frier                           
|Rick P. Frier                               
|Executive Vice President and                
|Chief Financial Officer                     
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|August 9, 2006
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 21, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01198

- CV

JOSE R. TORRES , Appellant

V. SONIA L. MCGINNIS AN D ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 01286



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Carlyle Appellant’s bri ef in this case is overdue. By postcard dated April 24, 2019, we notified appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. We directed appellant to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file a brie f and an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed his brief or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

18119 8F.P05 /Cory L. Carlyle/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JOSE R. TORRES, Appellant

No. 05

- 18

- 01198

- CV V.

SONIA L. MCGINNIS AND ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 01286. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle, Justices Myers and Molberg participating.

In accorda nce with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that appellees SONIA L. MCGINNIS AND ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant JOSE R. TORRES.

Judgment entered this 21 st day of May, 2019.
# Uradni list C 182A/14.

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 182A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 5714. junij 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 182A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 5714. junij 2014

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Objave |
| | UPRAVNI POSTOPKI |
| | Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Obvestilo o preklicu | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

V   Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Obvestilo o preklicu

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Pregled Natečajev UL C A | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Pregled Natečajev UL C A

2

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

V Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 182/1

---

OBVESTILO O PREKLICU

2014/C 182 A/01

Razpis javnih natečajev:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 – korektorji (AST 3) za grški jezik (EL)

  in |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 – korektorji (AST 3) za grški jezik (EL)

in

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 – korektorji (AST 3) za portugalski jezik (PT), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 – korektorji (AST 3) za portugalski jezik (PT),

ki je bil 8. maja 2013 objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije
   (1), je preklican.

---

(1)  UL C 131 A, 8.5.2013, str. 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 182/2

---

PREGLED NATEČAJEV UL C A

2014/C 182 A/02

Spodaj je naveden seznam UL C A, objavljenih v tekočem letu.

Če ni drugače navedeno, so bili UL objavljeni v vseh jezikovnih različicah.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---
opgn-ex41_521.htm



Exhibit 4.1

 



Number op Shares Specimen OpGen, inc. incorporated under the laws of the state of deleware see reverse for certain definitions common stock cusip 68373l 20 8 This certifies that: specimen – not negotiable is the owner of fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of $.01 par value each of opgen, inc. transferable on the books of the corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate duly endorsed or assigned. This certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the state of Delaware, and to the Certificate Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation, as now or hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent. WITNESS the facsimile seal of the corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. DATED: countersigned Philadelphia stock transfer. Inc 2320 haverford rd. suite 230. Ardmore, PA 19003 Transfer Agent authorized signature  corporate SEAL 2001 Delaware Specimen not negotiable Chief financial officer CEO/President
ESTATE OF Paul D. KELL v. UNION STATE BANK

1151113

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Affirmed.
Gregory D. THOMAS, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5111

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
#### INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Appellant v. COMPASS BANK, Commerce Bancshares, Inc., First National Bank of Omaha, Appellees

2016-1416

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 9, 2016

Brenton R. Babcock, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Edward M. Cannon.

Jason Stewart Jackson, Kutak Rock LLP, Omaha, NE, argued for appellees. Also represented by Hilda C. Galvan, Jones Day, Dallas, TX; Geoffrey K. Gavin, Atlanta, GA. Appellee Compass Bank also represented by Mark Howland, Carring-ton Coleman Sloman *&*Blumenthal, Dallas, TX. Appellee Commerce Bancshares, Inc. also represented by Marc Wade Van-der Tuig, Senniger Powers LLP, St. Louis, MO.

(Dyk, Plager, and Reyna, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
C.B., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4320

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# Επίσημη Εφημερίδα C 160A/27 Μ

| | ISSN 1977-0901 |
| --- | --- |
| Επίσημη Εφημερίδα
  της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | C 160A |
| | |
| Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα | Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες | 57ό έτος27 Μαΐου 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0901

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα

της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

C 160A

Έκδοση στην ελληνική γλώσσα

Ανακοινώσεις και Πληροφορίες

57ό έτος27 Μαΐου 2014

---

| Ανακοίνωση αριθ | Περιεχόμενα | Σελίδα |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Γνωστοποιήσεις |
| | ΔΙΟΙΚΗΤΙΚΕΣ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΕΣ |
| | Eυρωπαϊκός Οργανισμός Φαρμάκων |
| 2014/C 160A/01 | Ειδοποίηση ακύρωσης | 1 |

Ανακοίνωση αριθ

Περιεχόμενα

Σελίδα

V   Γνωστοποιήσεις

ΔΙΟΙΚΗΤΙΚΕΣ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΕΣ

Eυρωπαϊκός Οργανισμός Φαρμάκων

2014/C 160A/01

Ειδοποίηση ακύρωσης

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 160A/02 | Ανακεφαλαιωτικός πίνακας της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας C A Διαγωνισμοί | 2 |

2014/C 160A/02

Ανακεφαλαιωτικός πίνακας της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας C A Διαγωνισμοί

2

| EL | |
| --- | --- |

EL

---

V Γνωστοποιήσεις

ΔΙΟΙΚΗΤΙΚΕΣ ΔΙΑΔΙΚΑΣΙΕΣ

Eυρωπαϊκός Οργανισμός Φαρμάκων

| 27.5.2014 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CA 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CA 160/1

---

Ειδοποίηση ακύρωσης

2014/C 160 A/01

Ο Ευρωπαϊκός Οργανισμός Φαρμάκων αποφάσισε να ακυρώσει την ακόλουθη διαδικασία επιλογής προσωπικού:

| — | EMA/AD/359: προϊστάμενος τμήματος υπηρεσιών ΤΠ, Διεύθυνση Τεχνολογίας Πληροφοριών (AD 10). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/AD/359: προϊστάμενος τμήματος υπηρεσιών ΤΠ, Διεύθυνση Τεχνολογίας Πληροφοριών (AD 10).

---

27.5.2014

| 27.5.2014 | EL | Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης | CA 160/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

EL

Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

CA 160/2

---

ΑΝΑΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΩΤΙΚΌΣ ΠΊΝΑΚΑΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΊΣΗΜΗΣ ΕΦΗΜΕΡΊΔΑΣ C A ΔΙΑΓΩΝΙΣΜΟΊ

2014/C 160 A/02

Κατωτέρω παρατίθεται πίνακας των τευχών της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας C A που δημοσιεύθηκαν το τρέχον έτος.

Εκτός αντίθετης ένδειξης, οι Επίσημες Εφημερίδες δημοσιεύονται σε όλες τις κοινοτικές γλώσσες.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

---
Adrian Lamar GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-0938

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 13, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant challenges his judgment and sentence, after jury trial, on one count of battery on a law enforcement officer. He asserts error in the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, denial of a requested jury instruction, exclusion of a video from evidence, and denial of his motion for new trial. However, we do not reach these issues because Appellant also asserts and the State concedes error in the pretrial proceedings under rule 3.212, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires reversal.

The record reflects that prior to trial Appellant was found incompetent to proceed to trial due to mental illness. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.212(c). A subsequent evaluation indicated the psychologist's opinion that Appellant was competent to proceed. However, the record contains no transcript or other indication of an independent hearing or written order by the court finding that Appellant had been restored to competence prior to the trial.

Under these circumstances, proceeding to trial violated Appellant's due process rights and reversal is required. *Dougherty v. State* , 149 So.3d 672 (Fla. 2014). The case is remanded for further proceedings in light of *Blaxton v. State* , 188 So.3d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) and *Belizaire v. State* , 188 So.3d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016).

REVERSED and REMANDED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Bilbrey and Jay, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
23.1











CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








The Board
of Directors and Stockholders


Pacific
Continental Corporation and Subsidiary








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Pacific Continental Corporation of our report dated March 12,
2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Pacific Continental
Corporation and Subsidiary (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and
the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2009, and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2009, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2009.





·
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-158283) pertaining to registration of
      shares issued in connection with a private placement transaction;
      and


·
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-161703) pertaining to the 2006 Stock Option
      and Equity Compensation Plan of Pacific Continental Corporation;
      and


·
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-134702) pertaining to the 2006 Stock Option
      and Equity Compensation Plan of Pacific Continental Corporation;
      and


·
            Registration
      Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-130886) pertaining to the NWB Financial
      Corporation Stock Option Plan.

















Portland,
Oregon


March 15,
2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1321 

CAF 12-00970 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF AMANDA R. DIETZMAN, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JASON E. DIETZMAN, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

FARES A. RUMI, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, AMHERST, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

LINDA M. JONES, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, BATAVIA.

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R.

Adams, J.), entered April 26, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family

Court Act article 8. The order, among other things, directed

respondent to stay away from petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 8 of the

Family Court Act, respondent, the former husband of petitioner and the

father of her two children, appeals from an order of protection

directing him, inter alia, to stay away from petitioner. Contrary to

respondent’s contention, Family Court’s finding that he committed the

family offenses of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00

[1]), harassment in the second degree (§ 240.26 [1]), and disorderly

conduct (§ 240.20 [1]) is supported by a preponderance of the evidence

(see Matter of Marquardt v Marquardt, 97 AD3d 1112, 1113; see

generally Family Ct Act § 812 [1]). The testimony presented at the

fact-finding hearing established that respondent kicked petitioner in

the face, resulting in bruises, swelling, and a cut lip requiring

stitches, and that while on top of petitioner he put his hands around

her neck to prevent her from breathing. The court’s determination

that respondent was not acting in self-defense is supported by the

record and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Medranda v Mondelli,

74 AD3d 972, 972). We reject respondent’s further contention that he

was denied effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Amodea D.,

___ AD3d ___ [Dec. 27, 2013]). 

Entered: December 27, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court