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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

828 

KA 13-00829 

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

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KENNETH W. HOUGHTON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.

Farkas, J.), rendered April 24, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of reckless endangerment in the

first degree and attempted assault in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree

(Penal Law § 120.25) and attempted assault in the second degree (§§

110.00, 120.05 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record

establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived

the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256),

and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the

severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v

Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11169-11170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5991]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER97-1397-000]


South Jersey Energy Company; Notice of Issuance of Order

March 6, 1977.
    South Jersey Energy Company (South Jersey) submitted for filing a 
rate schedule under which South Jersey will engage in wholesale 
electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. South Jersey also 
requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, 
South Jersey requested that the

[[Page 11170]]

Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by South Jersey.
    On February 28, 1997, pursuant to delegated authority, the 
Director, Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power 
Regulation, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, 
subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by South Jersey should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, South Jersey is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of South Jersey's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is March 31, 1997. Copies of 
the full text of the order are available from the Commission's Public 
Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5991 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2022198EN.01002001.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu (Poland) lodged on 7 January 2022 — OP

(Case C-21/22)

(2022/C 198/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Opolu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OP

Other party to the proceedings: Notariusz Justyna Gawlica

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 22 [of Regulation No 650/2012] be interpreted as meaning that a person who is not a citizen of the European Union is entitled to choose the law of his or her native country as the law governing all matters relating to succession? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 22 [of Regulation No 650/2012] be interpreted as meaning that a person who is not a citizen of the European Union is entitled to choose the law of his or her native country as the law governing all matters relating to succession? (1)

| 2. | Must Article 75, in conjunction with Article 22, of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a third country does not govern the choice of law applicable to a case involving succession but indicates the law applicable to that case involving succession, a national of that third country residing in a Member State bound by that bilateral agreement may make a choice of law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 75, in conjunction with Article 22, of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a third country does not govern the choice of law applicable to a case involving succession but indicates the law applicable to that case involving succession, a national of that third country residing in a Member State bound by that bilateral agreement may make a choice of law?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.

---
#### Miyuki Maureen JOHNSON, Pro Se Attorney for Self, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Col. Eric EDWARDS, in his Individual and Personal Capacity; Col. Clem Donald McDuff, in his individual and personal capacity; GS-13 Carla M. Laird, in her individual and personal capacity; GS-15 Andrea V. Gardener, in her individual and personal capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2272

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 13, 2018

Decided: March 15, 2018

Miyuki Maureen Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Miyuki Maureen Johnson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s text order denying her motion for default judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
# Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)

- Education Department Releases Proposed Regulations to Expand and Improve Targeted Relief Programs Today, the U.S. Department of Education  (Department) released proposed regulations that would expand and improve the  major student loan discharge programs authorized by the Higher Education Act.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                                  MAXXAM INC.
 
                CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                             NINE MONTHS
                         ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,          YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                         ---------------------  ----------------------------------------
                           1995        1994      1994     1993     1992    1991    1990
                         ---------  ----------  -------  -------  ------  ------  ------
                                         (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
<S>                      <C>        <C>         <C>      <C>      <C>     <C>     <C>
Earnings are calculated
 as follows:
  Income (loss) before
   income taxes,
   minority interests,
   extraordinary item
   and cumulative effect
   of changes in
   accounting
   principles...........    $ 59.5     $(134.7) $(171.8) $(211.4) $(13.2) $ 67.4  $222.0
  Add (deduct):
    Fixed charges as
     calculated
     below..............     162.6       167.0    225.2    210.8   215.1   227.7   243.1
    Capitalized inter-
     est, included in
     fixed charges......      (2.0)       (2.6)    (3.0)    (4.3)   (5.2)   (5.1)  (10.2)
    Preferred stock div-
     idend requirements
     of subsidiaries,
     included in fixed
     charges............     (17.2)      (25.1)   (35.6)   (10.9)   (4.6)   (2.0)   (2.4)
                         ---------  ----------  -------  -------  ------  ------  ------
                            $202.9  $      4.6  $  14.8  $ (15.8) $192.1  $288.0  $452.5
                         =========  ==========  =======  =======  ======  ======  ======
Fixed charges are
 calculated as follows:
  Interest expense......    $129.7  $    124.6  $ 167.3  $ 169.5  $181.8  $198.8  $210.9
  Amortization of
   deferred financing
   costs................       6.4         7.4      9.6     15.6    13.8    12.1    11.2
  Capitalized interest..       2.0         2.6      3.0      4.3     5.2     5.1    10.2
  Interest component of
   rental expense.......       7.3         7.3      9.7     10.5     9.7     9.7     8.4
  Preferred stock
   dividend requirements
   of subsidiaries......      17.2        25.1     35.6     10.9     4.6     2.0     2.4
                         ---------  ----------  -------  -------  ------  ------  ------
                            $162.6  $    167.0  $ 225.2  $ 210.8  $215.1  $227.7  $243.1
                         =========  ==========  =======  =======  ======  ======  ======
Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges..........      1.2x                                          1.3x    1.9x
                         =========                                        ======  ======
Fixed charge coverage
 deficiency.............               $(162.4) $(210.4) $(226.6) $(23.0)
                                    ==========  =======  =======  ======
</TABLE>
#### IN RE: N.H., a minor, Appeal of: A.H.

90 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/21/2017

CP-02-AP-040-2016 (Allegheny)

Affirmed
# C_2022037EN.01005302.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/53

---

Action brought on 29 November 2021 — Associação do Socorro e Amparo v EUIPO — De Bragança (quis ut Deus)

(Case T-752/21)

(2022/C 37/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Associação do Socorro e Amparo (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Motta Veiga, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Duarte Pio De Bragança (Sintra, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark quis ut Deus — European Union trade mark No 9 131 566

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2021 in Case R 581/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | uphold the present action and replace the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal with a decision declaring European Union trade mark No 9 131 566 invalid in respect of all goods and services protected by the mark on the basis of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the grounds that the mark has not been put to genuine use for a continuous period of five years; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the present action and replace the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal with a decision declaring European Union trade mark No 9 131 566 invalid in respect of all goods and services protected by the mark on the basis of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, on the grounds that the mark has not been put to genuine use for a continuous period of five years;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs and other expenses incurred in the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees the amount of which is to be determined subsequently. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs and other expenses incurred in the proceedings, including lawyers’ fees the amount of which is to be determined subsequently.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40389

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID LEE SMITH,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CV-155

- - - - - - - - - -

January 27, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Lee Smith appeals the district court judgment denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to set aside his sentence. We have

reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and we affirm

the district court’s judgment. Smith’s claim regarding the

quantity of cocaine considered for sentencing purposes alleges an

error by the trial court in a technical application of the

Sentencing Guidelines. This is not an error of constitutional

magnitude. United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 
No. 98-40389

-2-

1992). The district court did not err in holding that this claim

was not cognizable under § 2255. Smith’s allegations that the a

court failed to make the proper findings at sentencing regarding

relevant conduct and Smith’s role as an organizer of the

conspiracy are not grounds for § 2255 relief when they could have

been raised on direct appeal. See United States v. Perez, 952

F.2d 908, 910 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court’s holding that

Smith’s appellate counsel was effective also does not rise to the

level of plain error. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-754

(1983)(an attorney handling an appeal need not argue every

possible issue, even if those issues are nonfrivolous). The

district court also did not plainly err in holding that Smith’s

deteriorating health was not a cognizable issue under § 2255.

Smith’s challenge to the district court’s imposition of a

two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) also fails. 

Upon vacating Smith’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for

possession of a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime,

the district court imposed the enhancement to the conspiracy

conviction for possessing a firearm during the commission of an

offense. The district court’s action was effectively a grant of

§ 2255 relief and a subsequent resentencing. The court could

look to the underlying record for resentencing, and it was not

required to make separate findings to repeat the reasons for

applying the enhancement.

AFFIRMED.
EPA Support Form 

Support Form Report Number Mark (X) if anything is CBI

I. ORIGINAL NOTICE SUBMISSION IDENTIFICATION 

Report Number TS 

Number 

Case 

Number 

Original Submission Date 

Original Submission Media Type 

II. ORIGINAL NOTICE SUBMITTER IDENTIFICATION CBI 

Authorized Official 

Name 

Company Name

Mailing Address 

(Number & Street) 

City State Postal Code 

e-mail Telephone 

(include area code) 

III. CURRENT SUPPORT DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION CBI 

Mailing Address 

(Number & Street) 

City State Postal Code 

e-mail Telephone 

(include area code) 

IV. TYPE OF SUPPORT (Check One) 

Letter of Support (Mark the certification statement checkbox below)

Withdrawal Request 

Other Correspondence 

TEST DATA (Health/Eco/Fate) 

Amendment (Changes made to PMN pages 1-13, MSDS or Physical/Chemical 

properties) 

Check if requested by EPA/ contractor 

EPA person/ contractor 

Position

(first) (last)

Name 

Position Company Name

(first) (last)

Submitter Signature

Province Country

All information provided in this Letter of Support is complete and truthful

as of the date of the submission.

Form Approved. O.M.B. No. 2070-0173.

EPAX140211535655116 X

FEA-110801029581242 D1474P P110549

Aug 1, 2011

CDX

X

XXX XXX

XXX XXX

XXX XXX

XXX

XXX XXX XXX

X

XXX XXX

XXX XXX

XXX XXX

XXX

XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX

X

SANITIZED SUBMISSION

SUP2014P1
V. TEXT / DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES CBI 

Insert Attachment 

X

XXX

SANITIZED SUBMISSION

SUP2014P2
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

# Number 

of Pages 

Associated 

Section 

Number 

CBI 

 

 

 Mark (X) this box if the data continues on the next page.

Attachment Name Attachment Filename 

001 EPA Letter (P-11-549) (Final Report - pig study

for HFO-1234yf) (2-11-2014) (public)

EPA Letter (P-11-549) (Final

Report - pig study for HFO1

002 HLS 13-6434_HFO-1234yf 28-day pig_public HLS 13-6434_HFO-1234yf 28-

day pig_Redacted.pdf

395

SANITIZED SUBMISSION

SUP2014P3
ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET

Attachment Number 001

Attachment Name

EPA Letter (P-11-549) (Final Report - pig study for HFO-1234yf) (2-11-2014) (public)

Associated PMN Section Number

N/A

Does not contain CBI

Report Number

EPAX140211535655116

SANITIZED SUBMISSION
ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET

Attachment Number 002

Attachment Name

HLS 13-6434_HFO-1234yf 28-day pig_public

Associated PMN Section Number

N/A

Does not contain CBI

Report Number

EPAX140211535655116

SANITIZED SUBMISSION
No. 10-10180.

#### Mills *v.*Alabama.

Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.
2018 EAVS Data Brief: Wyoming EAVS Jurisdictions 

23 

 Voter Registration 

Total Registered Voters, 

Nov. 20181 

283,941 

1 A1a of EAVS 

Registration Forms Received, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20182 

76,144 

2 A3a of EAVS 

New Voters Registered, 

E-Day 2016 – E-Day 20183 

22,239 

3 A3b of EAVS 

Sources of Registration Forms4 

4 A4a-l of EAVS 

Mail/Fax/Email 1,229 

In-Person 74,915 

Online 0 

Motor Vehicle Office 0 

Public Assistance 

Office 0 

Disability Office 0 

Military Recruitment 

Office 0 

Other Non-NVRA 

Office 0 

Registration Drives 0 

Other Sources or Not 

Categorized 0 

 Voter Turnout 

Voters Participating by Mode5 

In-Person Early 

25,659 

13% 

Other Mode 

409 

0% 

In-Person E-Day 

121,373 

59% 

By Mail 

57,834 

28% 

5 In-person Election Day 

voters is F1b. By-mail voters 

is F1d+F1g. In-person early 

voters is F1f. Other mode is 

F1c+F1e+F1h. 

Total Turnout:6 205,275 

6 F1a of EAVS 

Provisional Voters:7 23 

7 F1e of EAVS 

UOCAVA Voters:8 386 

8 F1c of EAVS 

Election Technology 

Technology Used by Jurisdictions9 

23 

20 

0 

3 

0 

DRE w/o DRE with Ballot Scanner Hand Electronic 

VVPAT VVPAT Marking Count Poll Book 

Device 

4 



9 F3a-d, F5a-F8a, and 

F11a of EAVS 

Election Policies 

Has online voter registration10 

10 Q6 of Policy Survey 

✔ Has a form of same-day voter registration (SDR)11 

11 Q7 of Policy Survey 

Has all-mail elections statewide12 

Has all-mail elections in certain jurisdictions12 

12 Q9a of Policy Survey 

Allows voters to register as permanent absentee 

voters13 

13 Q10 of Policy Survey Requires excuse for by-mail voting14 

Requires excuse for in-person early or in-person 14 Q8 of Policy Survey 

absentee voting15 15 Q12a of Policy Survey 

✔ Uses vote centers16 16 Q13 of Policy Survey 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at 

www.eac.gov. 

Responses of “Does not apply” and “Data not available”

are shown as zeroes.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 885 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to modify the dischargeability 

of debts for certain educational payments and loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Mr. COHEN (for himself, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. MCNERNEY, Ms. MOORE, Ms. NORTON, 

Mr. SWALWELL of California, Ms. TITUS, Mr. WELCH, and Mr. YARMUTH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to modify 

the dischargeability of debts for certain educational payments and loans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Private Student Loan 

5 Bankruptcy Fairness Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE. 

7 Section 523(a)(8) of title 11, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 885 IH

1 (1) by striking subparagraph (B); and 

2 (2) in subparagraph (A)— 

3 (A) in clause (i)— 

4 (i) by striking ‘‘(i)’’; and 

5 (ii) by inserting ‘‘any program for 

6 which substantially all of the funds are 

7 provided by a’’ after ‘‘unit or’’; and 

8 (B) in clause (ii)— 

9 (i) by striking ‘‘(ii)’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘(B)’’; and 

11 (ii) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end. 

12 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

13 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub14 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

15 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

16 Act. 

17 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend18 ments made by this Act shall apply only with respect to 

19 cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code 

20 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS