alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2017-0464.

#### State ex rel. Cleveland Browns Football Co., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 14AP-1031, 2017-Ohio-837. This ease is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. The appellant shall file a brief within 40 days, and the parties shall otherwise proceed in accordance with S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02 through 16.07. As provided in S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.07, the court may dismiss the case or take other action if the parties fail to timely file merit briefs.
No. 12-8322.

#### Armstrong *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certio-rari denied.
#### Burton v Lucido

2d Dept: 135 AD3d 885

denied
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 08, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 08, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A0393. LORI DAVIS v. IGNACIO AMBROSIO NINHO.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hugo Garcia, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 500]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert A. Sackett, J.), rendered August 25, 2011, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the third degree, attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, menacing in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to one year of probation, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s verdict, rejecting defendant’s justification defense, was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, including its evaluation of the possible biases of witnesses. Although defendant’s testimony was supported by that of several witnesses, it is the quality of the testimony that controls, not the number of witnesses who testify.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Mazzarelli, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30493-30494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14849]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6107-6]


Proposed Settlement; SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS Remand

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notification is hereby given of a 
proposed settlement regarding EPA's timing of its response to the 
remand of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit in ALA v. Browner, No. 96-1255 (D.C. Cir., decided, 
January 30, 1998). This case involves a challenge to EPA's decision not 
to revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for sulfur dioxide, 
issued on May 22, 1996. (61 FR 25566, May 22, 1996).
    EPA's planned schedule for responding to the court's remand is set 
forth in a Federal Register Notice (63 FR 24782, May 5, 1998) that is 
included as an attachment to the settlement agreement. As set forth 
therein, EPA would propose a response to the remand in the summer of 
1999 and take final action on the remand by December 2000.
    Under the settlement agreement, in return for EPA agreeing to the 
schedule set forth in the notice, ALA agrees to not file a petition for 
rehearing or a suggestion for rehearing en banc in the above-referenced 
case and to refrain from bringing any unreasonable delay claims or 
mandatory duty suits regarding the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS prior to 
January 2001.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication 
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to 
the settlement from persons who were not named as parties to the 
litigation in question. The Agency or the Department of Justice may 
withhold or withdraw consent to the proposed settlement if the comments 
disclose facts or circumstance that indicate that such consent is 
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the 
requirements of the Act. Copies of the

[[Page 30494]]

settlement, which includes as an attachment the Federal Register 
document outlining EPA's schedule for responding to the remand, are 
available from Samantha Hooks, Air and Radiation Law Office (2344), 
Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260-3804. Written comments 
should be sent to Michael L. Goo, Air and Radiation Division, Office of 
General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 and must be submitted on or before July 6, 
1998.

    Dated: May 30, 1998.
Jonathan Z. Cannon,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-14849 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNITED
CAPITAL CORP.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES, 
THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                               2,965
<SECURITIES>                                                           236
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       15,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           561
<INVENTORY>                                                          8,468
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    29,389
<PP&E>                                                              14,351
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       6,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     110,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                               40,887
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                               543
<OTHER-SE>                                                          27,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       110,053
<SALES>                                                             14,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                    21,248
<CGS>                                                               11,614
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       19,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      (351)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      1,898
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           912
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    986
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           986
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          .18
        

</TABLE>
2016-1846.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Edmondson.

Sua sponte, Christina Rose Edmondson, Attorney Registration No. 0080214, last known business address in Hebron, Kentucky, found in contempt for failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before February 10, 2017.
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Price of Calais, ME Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Price of Calais, ME Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb   | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2018                                                                                                                              |     | 14.05 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|- = 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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13451]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Environmental Management


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Renewal

    Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and in accordance with title 41 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, section 101-6.1015(a), and following consultation 
with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services 
Administration, notice is hereby given that the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board has been renewed for a two-year 
period beginning May 16, 1998.
    The purpose of the Board is to provide the Assistant Secretary for 
Environmental Management with advice and recommendations on 
environmental management projects and issues such as risk management, 
economic development, future land use, and budget prioritization 
activities, from the perspectives of affected groups and State and 
local governments. Board membership will reflect the full diversity of 
views in the affected community and region and be composed primarily of 
people who are directly affected by site clean-up activities. Members 
will include interested stakeholders from local governments, Indian 
Tribes, environmental and civic groups, labor organizations, 
universities, waste management and environmental restoration firms, and 
other interested parties. Representatives from the Department of Energy 
(DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency, and State governments will 
be ex-officio members of the Board. Selection and appointment of Board 
members will be accomplished using procedures designed to ensure 
diverse membership and a balance of viewpoints. Consensus 
recommendations to the DOE from the Board on the resolution of numerous 
difficult issues will help achieve DOE's objective of an integrated 
environmental management program.
    The Secretary of Energy has determined that renewal of the 
Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board is necessary to 
conduct DOE's business and is in the public interest. The Board will 
operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), and rules and 
regulations issued in implementation of those Acts.
    Further information regarding this advisory board may be obtained 
from Rachel M. Samuel at (202) 586-3279.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 15, 1998.
James N. Solit,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-13451 Filed 5-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
# DLA Distribution commander lauded for establishing forward-deployed teams

/ Published June 20, 2019
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 
As commander of Defense Logistics Agency Distribution in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, retired Army Maj. Gen. Michael J. Lally III spearheaded initiatives that literally moved mountains of material and supplies. For that and numerous other accomplishments from August 2004 to August 2006, Lally will be inducted into the DLA Hall of Fame June 26.

In just nine months, Lally established four distribution centers to support forward-deployed warfighters:  DLA Distribution Kuwait, Southwest Asia; DLA Distribution Korea; DLA Distribution Guam, Marianas; and DLA Distribution Sigonella, Italy. Throughout the years, the sites’ operations have saved millions of dollars in transportation costs and have substantially improved customer wait times. 

“It was a very challenging time with workload doubling because of the war on terror,” said former DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Keith Lippert in the inductee’s nomination package. “Gen. Lally focused on delivering requested material on time and with accountability.”

In January 2006, after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Lippert tasked Lally with building a deployable distribution center to provide disaster response. Within five months, Lally stood up an expeditionary team of 75 people and necessary equipment. More than a decade later, DLA’s expeditionary teams partner with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and U.S. Northern Command, deploying as part of real world missions to deliver hurricane relief in the Continental United States.

“Mike’s leadership style, ability to get along with everyone and deliver results in a high-pressure environment impressed me immensely,” Lippert said. 

*Read more about the DLA Hall of Fame and previous inductees on the DLA Hall of Fame website.*
No. 12-8655.

#### Mendoza-Perez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Phyllis Maldarelli, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 688]

*960Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 5, 2003, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant made a willful false statement to obtain unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant began receiving pension benefits, fully funded by her former employer, effective February 1, 2001. Nonetheless, on February 26, 2001, she filed an original claim for unemployment insurance benefits, at which time she answered “no” to the question of whether she was currently receiving pension benefits. Unemployment insurance benefits were then awarded to claimant.

In March 2002, claimant applied to extend her benefit payments. Contrary to her response on her original application, she answered “yes” to the question of whether she was currently receiving pension benefits. As this response required a reduction in the amount of claimant’s benefit payments *(see*Labor Law § 600 [7] [b]), various administrative hearings and review proceedings ensued, resulting in the decision under review wherein the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board charged claimant with a recoverable overpayment of benefits and reduced her right to receive future benefits on the ground that she had made a willful false statement to obtain them.

Claimant gave exculpatory testimony, averring that her negative answer to the question pertaining to pension benefits on her original application for unemployment benefits must have been caused by an error in the Department of Labor’s automated telephone claims system. She further testified that she could not remember if she had been asked whether she was receiving pension benefits at that time. Claimant asserted that she would not have given a willful false answer, as evidenced by her truthful response when the question was posed on her application for extended benefits in March 2002.

Claimant’s testimony, however, was controverted by that of representatives from the Department of Labor who testified that the responses recorded by the telephone claims system are highly accurate and that their accuracy is in every case confirmed by a staff member who personally reviews with each claimant all responses, as recorded by the system to ensure their accuracy. Whether the recording of this false response was caused by computer error or was a deliberate misstatement on claimant’s part, enabling her to receive benefits to which she was not entitled, raised an issue of credibility which the Board was free, in the exercise of its discretion, to resolve against claimant *(see Matter of Cuttitto [Commissioner of Labor],*303 AD2d 814, 815 [2003]). Under the circumstances presented here, *961we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision *(see Matter of Dobbs [Commissioner of Labor],*277 AD2d 550, 551 [2000]; *Matter of Vasta [Commissioner of Labor],*268 AD2d 653 [2000]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 262-263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-133]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Docket 97-170]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that Automated Analysis Corporation, 
2805 South Industrial, Suite 100, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-6767, has 
applied for an exclusive copyright license for computer software 
entitled ``Structural Acoustics Optimization (SAOpt) Software.'' NASA 
received assignment of the copyright on September 18, 1997, from 
Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Company. Written objections to the 
prospective grant of a license should be sent to Ms. Robin W. Edwards, 
Patent Attorney, NASA Langley Research Center.

DATES: Responses to this notice must be received by March 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney, NASA Langley Research Center, 
Mail Code 212, Hampton, VA 23681-0001, telephone (757) 864-3230.


[[Page 263]]


    Dated: December 22, 1997.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-133 Filed 1-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
# DLA delivers fresh baked goods to Naval Station Rota

/ Published Oct. 30, 2019
KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany, 
Sailors’ morale has improved aboard Naval Station Rota, Spain, now that they are able to enjoy ensaimadas, a traditional local pastry, and other fresh baked goods, the base dining facility manager said.

“We had some pastries before,” said Senior Chief Petty Officer Leah Bongbonga, Gateway Galley acting food service officer. “But now that we have donuts, croissants and the ensaimadas, they are excited and happy about it.”

The USS Carney received the first delivery of fresh baked goods Oct. 18, said Senior Chief Petty Officer Jake Rivera, a Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Europe & Africa liaison in Rota.

Rivera has been working with several Navy units at Rota since they first showed interest in getting deliveries from a local bakery. The contracting team at DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa in Kaiserslautern, Germany, recently awarded the contract.

In addition to the USS Carney and the galley, other ships at Naval Station Rota can now order among 14 fresh baked items for delivery the next day.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Scattareggia, Appellant.

[55 NYS3d 144]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Apotheker, J.), dated February 14, 2013, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the timing of the proceedings held pursuant to the provisions of the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C; hereinafter SORA) did not violate his constitutional due process rights. The appellant concedes that the SORA hearing was held in compliance with the provisions of Correction Law § 168-n. Cor*1034rection Law § 168-n (2) states that the court shall make its determination “thirty calendar days prior to [the offender’s] discharge, parole or release.” Correction Law § 168-1 (8) states: “A failure by a state or local agency or the board to act or by a court to render a determination within the time period specified in this article shall not affect the obligation of the sex offender to register or verify under this article nor shall such failure prevent a court from making a determination regarding the sex offender’s level of notification and whether such offender is required by law to be registered for a period of twenty years or for life.”

Under the circumstances of this case, there is no basis upon which to conclude that any perceived delay in commencing the SORA proceedings or in conducting the SORA hearing was “so outrageously arbitrary as to constitute a gross abuse of governmental authority” *(People v Gonzalez,*138 AD3d 814, 815 [2016]; *see People v Gallagher,*129 AD3d 1252, 1253 [2015]; *People v Martin,*119 AD3d 1385 [2014]; *People v Wilkes,*53 AD3d 1073, 1074 [2008]; *People v Meyers,*16 Misc 3d 115, 117-118 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]; *cf. People v Gregory,*71 AD3d 1559 [2010]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.R, Hall, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
CAAP-11-0001036

#### Lui v. Waikiki Business Plaza

Affirmed