alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dawn Bortman, Respondent, v Henry Lucander, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 401]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 4, 2014, which granted the petition to confirm a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

An arbitral award can only be challenged under the criteria set forth in CPLR 7511 *(see Ingham v Thompson,*113 AD3d 534 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*22 NY3d 866 [2014]). Respondent’s procedural arguments that there was an agreement to arbitrate in New York and that the panel should have adjourned the hearing are not recognized grounds to bar confirmation *(id.;*CPLR 7510). In any event, they were waived by his participation in the arbitration, through his answer, selection of arbitrators, two motions to remove arbitrators, and two motions to dismiss *(see Matter of Meisels v Uhr,*79 NY2d 526, 538 [1992]).

Although an agreement can supersede FINRA’s arbitration rules *(see Goldman, Sachs & Co. v Golden Empire Schs. Fin. Auth.,*764 F3d 210, 215 [2d Cir 2014]), the alleged agreement here was never placed into the record, and even accepting *418respondent’s characterization, it still provided for arbitration, albeit in New York rather than Florida.

Similarly, respondent’s argument with regard to the failure to adjourn is unavailing. Not only is it not a ground under CPLR 7511, but even under the Federal Arbitration Act, refusal to adjourn where a party has full notice and provides no excuse for not attending is not misconduct *(see*9 USC § 10 [a] [3]; *ARW Exploration Corp. v Aguirre,*45 F3d 1455, 1464 [10th Cir 1995]).

Respondent’s arguments of arbitrator bias are cognizable; however, he failed to substantiate them. His allegations that one arbitrator was biased because he was once bankrupt, and another because he had once represented a claimant at a FINRA arbitration, are insufficient *(see generally Matter of CPG Constr. & Dev. Corp. v 415 Greenwich Fee Owner, LLC,*117 AD3d 623 [1st Dept 2014]).

Finally, we decline to consider respondent’s argument based on standing, which is predicated on documents and factual allegations never presented to the FINRA arbitration panel, as a basis to deny confirmation.

Concur—Sweeny, J.R, Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
# L_2011249EN.01002101.xml

| 27.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 249/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 249/21

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1061/2010 of 28 September 2010 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of household washing machines

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 314 of 30 November 2010
  )

On page 61, Annex VII, the mathematical formula in point 1(c)(i) should read as follows:

Formula

On page 62, Annex VII, the mathematical formula in point 1(c)(ii) should read as follows:

Formula

---
A PP EAL -D EM O C R AT 1530 Ellis Lak e Driv e, P.O. Box 431, Marysville, CA 95901

( 5 3 0 ) 741- 2345 Affidavit of Publication
( 2015.5 C. C. P ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Counties of Yuba and Sutter Feather River Air Quality Management District" Notice of Public Hearing & Public Workshop

Iam not a party to, nor interested in the above entitled matter. Iam the principal clerk of the printer and

publisher of THE APPEAL-DEMOCRAT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed & published in the City

of Marysville, County of Yuba, to which Newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by The Superior Court of the County of Yuba, State of

California under the date of November 9, 1951, No. 11481, and County of Sutter to which Newspaper

has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation

by the Superior Court of the County of Sutter, State of

California under the date of May 17, 1999, Case No. C V PT99-0819 that the notice of which the annexed

isa printed copy (s e t in type not smaller than nonpareil),

ha s been published in each regular and entire issue of

s aid newspap er and not in any supplement thereof on

the following dates, to-wit: March 20, 2006 I d e clar e under p e nalt y of perjury

th a t the f oreg oin g is tru e and co rrect.

Exec ute d at Mary s vill e, C alifornia March 20, 2006 This sp ac e is for th e C ount y C le rk 's filing s ta mp. PROOF OF PUBLICATION MarchlO Ad tll025357 61
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30019-30020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14500]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY


Agency For International Development Interim Advisory Committee 
on Food Security; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby 
given of the Interim Advisory Committee on Food Security. The meeting 
will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on June 10, 1998, at the 
Ronald Reagan Building, located at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 
M.01-07, Washington DC, 20523.
    As part of its half-day agenda, Board members will focus on the 
U.S. Action Plan on Food Security. The meeting is open to the public. 
Any interested person may attend the meeting, may file written 
statements with the Committee before or after the meeting, or present 
any oral statements in accordance with procedures established by the 
Committee, to the extent that time available for the meeting permits.

[[Page 30020]]

    Those wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. George Like 
at the Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, 
Office of Agriculture and Food Security, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Room 2.11-072, Washington DC, 20523-2110, telephone (202) 712-1436, fax 
(202) 216-3010 or internet[<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e090207050b2e1b1d0f070a40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f89f9491939db88d8b99919cd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>] with your full name.
    Anyone wishing to obtain additional information about BIFAD should 
contact Mr. Tracy Atwood the Designated Federal Officer for BIFAD. 
Write him in care of the Agency for International Development, Ronald 
Reagan Building, Office of Agriculture and Food Security, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2.11-005, Washington DC, 20523-2110, 
telephone him at (202) 712-5571 or fax (202) 216-3010.
Tracy Atwood,
AID Designated Federal Officer (Deputy Director, Office of Agriculture 
and Food Security, Economic Growth Center, Bureau for Global Programs).
[FR Doc. 98-14500 Filed 6-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Annunziata 

JUSTIN EVERETT PECK 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 1401-06-4 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 10, 2006 

R.G. MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Benjamin J. Trichilo; Trichilo, Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & 

Judkins, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Frederick T. Schubert, III; Angela Fleming Gibbs; Midkiff, 

Muncie & Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Justin Everett Peck (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission finding that (1) he failed to prove he sustained an injury by accident arising out of 

his employment on December 8, 2004; (2) the effects of his idiopathic fall were not compensable 

within the purview of Southland Corp. v. Parson, 1 Va. App. 281, 338 S.E.2d 162 (1985); and 

(3) the “street risk” doctrine was inapplicable. Claimant also contends the commission 

improperly relied upon the transcript of his deposition testimony, which was not filed or made a 

part of the record. We have reviewed the record, the commission’s opinion, and its order 

denying claimant’s motion for reconsideration, and find that this appeal is without merit.1 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 We disagree with claimant’s assertion that the commission’s order ruling on claimant’s 

motion for reconsideration was merely advisory because the commission lost jurisdiction over 

the case before it entered that order. The commission denied claimant’s motion for 

reconsideration on June 6, 2006. The United States Postal Service “Track & Confirm” receipt 

contained in the record reflects that claimant’s counsel received the commission’s May 5, 2006 

review opinion on May 10, 2006. Therefore, the commission retained jurisdiction over the case 

for the thirty-day period after May 10, 2006. See Code § 65.2-706(B); Rule 5A:11(b), Rules of 
 - 2 - 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion and order 

denying the motion for reconsideration. See Peck v. R.G. Management Services, Inc., VWC File 

No. 221-86-15 (May 5, 2006), and Peck v. R.G. Management Services, Inc., VWC File 

No. 221-86-15 (June 6, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 

Supreme Court of Virginia. Thus, as of June 6, 2006, the commission still had jurisdiction over 

the case. Claimant’s filing of his notice of appeal prior to that date did not deprive the 

commission of jurisdiction.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 97N-0486]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Registration of Producers of Drugs 
and Listing of Drugs in Commercial Distribution'' has been approved by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (the PRA).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen L. Nelson, Office of Information 
Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of December 11, 1997 
(62 FR 65274), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 
section 3507 of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507). An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB 
control number 0910-0045. The approval expires on April 30, 2001.

    Dated: May 7, 1998.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 98-13044 Filed 5-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Panama (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Panama (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 5.46   | 7.62  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6.98   | 7.11   | 10.90  | 6.70   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-6938.

#### Al-Qaisi *v.*United States.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-8037.

#### Lloyd *v.*Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13574]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION BOARD MEETING


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: June 8, 1998, 11:30 a.m.--3:30 p.m.

PLACE: 901 N. Stuart Street, Tenth Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Approval of the Minutes of the February 9, 1998, Meeting of the 
Board of Directors.
    2. Report on Grants in Ecuador.
    3. Proposal on Future of In-Country Service Contracts.
    4. Report on Congressional Affairs.
    5. Report by the Board Audit Committee.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Adolfo A. Franco, Secretary to the 
Board of Directors, (703) 841-3894.

    Dated: May 8, 1998.
Adolfo A. Franco,
Sunshine Act Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-13574 Filed 5-18-98; 11:56 am]
BILLING CODE 7025-01-M
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 14, 2010 |                                                                                                                                    |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | /s/ Venerando J. Indelicato                   |
|               | Venerando J. Indelicato                                                                                                                 |
|               | Principal Financial Officer                                                                                                             |
No. 12-7901.

#### Anderson *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Lithuania (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Lithuania (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr   | May   | Jun   | Jul   | Aug   | Sep | Oct   | Nov   | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- | --- | ----- | ----- | -----
|2020                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |       |       |       |       |       |     |       | 3,621 | 3,246
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | 3,403 | 3,194 | 3,328 | 3,636 | 3,434 |     | 3,484 | 3,708 |      
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | 3,412 |       |       |       |       |     | 2,921 |       |      
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
2017-0878.

#### State v. Kerr.

Mahoning App. No. 15 MA 0083, 2016-Ohio-8479. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
2017-0245.

#### State v. Tooles.

Hamilton App. No. C-1603222. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Fischer, J., not participating.
#### Alan Blattberg, Appellant, v 52 & 58-27th Street, Jackson Heights, Incorporated, Respondent.

[53 NYS3d 536]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered July 27, 2016, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affidavit of defendant cooperative apartment’s president *494demonstrated a sufficient basis for personal knowledge, and otherwise made out a prima facie case on each prong for vacatur of the default judgment *(cf. John v Arin Bainhridge Realty Corp.,*147 AD3d 454 [1st Dept 2017]; CPLR 317).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Andrias, Moskowitz and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### Com. v. Jones

03/23/2016

428 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 524
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jasper Grayson, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 577]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Villegas, J.), entered on or about May 2, 2013, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated the denial of defendant’s motion (s*ee People v Sosa,*18 NY3d 436, 442-443 [2012]; *People v Paulin,*17 NY3d 238, 244 [2011]), particularly in light of the very serious criminal conduct in which defendant engaged shortly after he was released on parole for the underlying drug conviction.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Gische and Web-ber, JJ.
*January 2, 2018*

2018-Ohio-14.]

2017-1782.

#### State ex rel. Coleman v. Russo.

In Prohibition. On emergency motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of petition for writ. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
#### Tahj Cole et al., Appellants, v Bay Shore Union Free School District, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[768 NYS2d 372]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), entered September 16, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant Bay Shore Union Free School District for summary judgment dismissing all claims and *562cross claims insofar as asserted against it based on a theory of negligent supervision.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Bay Shore Union Free School District (hereinafter the School District) established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that its supervision of the infant plaintiff was not a proximate cause of the accident *(see Lopez v Freeport Union Free School Dist.,*288 AD2d 355 [2001]; *see also Weinblatt v Eastchester Union Free School Dist.,*303 AD2d 581 [2003]; *Navarra v Lynbrook Pub. Schools, Lynbrook Union Free School Dist.,*289 AD2d 211 [2001]). In response to the School District’s motion, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to a raise triable issue of fact as to whether the School District’s alleged negligent supervision was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiffs injuries *(see Lopez v Freeport Union Free School Dist., supra; Weinblatt v Eastchester Union Free School Dist., supra; Navarra v Lynbrook Pub. Schools, Lynbrook Union Free School Dist., supra).*

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.