alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shiloh Hylton, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 825]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered October 17, 2000, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Firetog, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the lineup was unduly suggestive because the fillers differed in age, skin tone, and facial hair is partially unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]) and in any event, is without merit *(see People v Brabham,*271 AD2d 692 [2000]; *People v Cintron,*226 AD2d 390 [1996]). However, in view of the fact that the defendant was *460the only person in the lineup wearing the beige color which had figured prominently in the witness’ description of one of the perpetrators, the lineup was unduly suggestive *(see People v Bady,*202 AD2d 440 [1994]; *People v Lloyd,*108 AD2d 873 [1985], *affd*66 NY2d 964 [1985]; *People v Sapp,*98 AD2d 784 [1983]; *cf. People v Tinnen,*238 AD2d 615 [1997]). Reversal is not mandated, however, because the suggestive procedure did not create a substantial likelihood of misidentification. The witness who identified the defendant at the lineup had identified the defendant at a prior photographic array and also had the opportunity to view the defendant before, during, and after the shooting *(see People v Lizardi,*166 AD2d 672 [1990]; *People v Darnell,*146 AD2d 583 [1989]; *People v Lloyd, supra; People v Adams,*115 AD2d 542 [1985]).

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The trial court’s marshaling of the evidence did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial *(see People v Culhane,*45 NY2d 757 [1978], *cert denied*439 US 1047 [1978]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
#### Kauffman Metals, LLC v. Department of Labor and Industry Office of Unemployment Compensation Tax Services

03/23/2016

874 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 126 A.3d 1045
#### Noel Willis, Respondent, v Plaza Construction Corp. et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[54 NYS3d 281]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered May 6, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence claim, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.10 (b) (2) and 23-4.2 (k), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court erred in denying defendants’ motion as to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, because the construction accident — that is, the bursting of a hose pouring liquid cement — arose out of the means and methods of plaintiff’s work, and there was no evidence that defendants actually controlled or exercised supervisory authority over how plaintiff performed that work *(see Alonzo v Safe Harbors of the Hudson Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.,*104 AD3d 446, 449 [1st Dept 2013]). At most, defendants had general authority over work site safety, which is insufficient to hold them liable for plaintiff’s injuries *(see id.; see also Hughes v Tishman Constr. Corp.,*40 AD3d 305, 306 [1st Dept 2007]).

12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (k) is insufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim *(Sparendam v Lehr Constr. Corp.,*24 AD3d 388, 389 [1st Dept 2005], *lv denied*7 NY3d 703 [2006]), and 12 NYCRR 23-1.10 (b) (2), involving the use of hand tools, is inapplicable to the facts of this case.

Nevertheless, the motion court correctly sustained the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a) and (c) (4), because plaintiff’s evidence, including his deposition testimony, raises a question of fact as to whether plaintiff was provided with and used proper eye protection *(cf. Beshay v Eberhart L.P. #1,*69 AD3d 779, 781 [2d Dept 2010] [the plaintiffs’ counsel’s admission that the plaintiff worker removed the protective eye gear before being struck by flying debris absolved the defendant of liability]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.
# C_2011209EN.01001701.xml

| 15.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/17

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 12 July 2011

appointing the alternate to the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office

2011/C 209/09

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (1), and in particular Article 47(1) thereof,

1

Having regard to the list of candidates proposed by the Commission on 20 April 2011, after obtaining the opinion of the Administrative Council of the Community Plant Variety Office,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 17 December 2007, the Council adopted Decision 2007/858/EC (2) appointing Mr Paul A.C.E. VAN DER KOOIJ as the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office and Mr Timothy MILLETT as his alternate. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 17 December 2007, the Council adopted Decision 2007/858/EC (2) appointing Mr Paul A.C.E. VAN DER KOOIJ as the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office and Mr Timothy MILLETT as his alternate.

2

| (2) | Following the resignation of Mr Timothy MILLETT, the position as alternate to the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal has become vacant, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the resignation of Mr Timothy MILLETT, the position as alternate to the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal has become vacant,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ms Sari Kaarina HAUKKA, born on 12 July 1966, is hereby appointed alternate to the Chairperson of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office for a period of five years.

Her term in office shall run from the date on which she take up her duties. Such date shall be agreed with the President and the Administrative Council of the Office.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2011.

For the Council

The President

J. VINCENT-ROSTOWSKI

---

(1)  OJ L 227, 1.9.1994, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 337, 21.12.2007, p. 105.

2

---
2017-0204.

#### In re Application of Dayton Power & Light Co.

Public Utilities Commission, Nos. 12-426-EL-SSO, 12-427-EL-ATA, 12-428-ELAAM, 12-429-EL-WVR, and 12-672-EL-RDR. On application for dismissal filed by appellant Ohio Energy Group. Application granted. The other appeals in this cause remain pending.
No. 12-7548.

#### Bacon *v.*Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Clark County, et al.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certio-rari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43350

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

DENISE E. CLARK ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 201 6 Unpublished Opinion No. 308

Filed: January 6, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Denise E. Clark pled guilty to grand theft . I.C. §§ 18

- 2403(1), 18

- 2407(1)(b) . The

district court sentenced Clark to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of
confinement of one year

. The di strict court suspended the sentence and placed Clark on
probation.
Clark thereafter admitted to violating the terms of her probation. The district court
revoked probation but placed Clark back on probation with the requirement that she complete the
drug c ourt program. Clark was discharged from drug court and admitted to again violating the
terms of her probation. The district court revoked probation, ordered execution of her previously2 suspended sentence, but retained jurisdiction. After Clark complet ed her rider, the district court
relinquished jurisdiction. Clark moved for a reduction of her sentenced pursuant to I.C.R 35

, which the district court denied. Clark appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing
to grant probation.
We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to
relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district
court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discre tion. State v. Hood , 102

Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee , 117 Idaho 203, 205

- 06, 786 P.2d 594, 596

- 97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the

information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Clark has
failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

Clark argues that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been accomplished
with probatio n. As noted above, however, the district court found that probation was not an
appropriate course of action in Clark ’s cas e. The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
# INSPIRE 1

V1.2

2015.3 

# User Manual

Link :

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.4_en.pdf

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved. 

# Using this manual

Legends

Warning Important Hints and Tips Reference



## Before Flight

The following tutorials and manuals have been produced to ensure you to make full use of your Inspire 1.

1.Disclaimer

2.In the Box

3.Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide

4.Safety Guidelines

5.Inspire 1 User M anual

6.Intelligent Flight Battery Safety GuidelinesWatching all the tutorial videos and reading the Disclaimer before flight is recommended. Afterwards,

prepare for your first flight by using the Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide. Refer to this manual for more

comprehensive information.



## Watch the video tutorials

Please watch the tutorial video below to learn how to use Inspire 1 correctly and safely:

www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1/video



## Download the DJI Pilot app

Download and install the DJI Pilot app before use. Scan the QR code or visit

“ http://m.dji.net/djipilot ” to download the app.

For the best experience, use mobile device with Andriod V 4.1.2 or above. Requires iOS 8.0 or later.

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserv ed.



# Contents

Using this manual

Legends 2

Before Flight 2

Watch the video tutorials 2

Download the DJI Pilot app 2



### Product Profile

Introduction 6

Feature Highlights 6

Assemble the Aircraft 7

Aircraft Diagram 9

Remote Controller Diagram 9



### Aircraft

Flight C ontroller 12

Flight Mode 12

Flight Status Indicator 12

Return to Home (RTH) 13

Dynamic Home Point 15

Vision Positioning System 16

Flight Recorder 17

Attaching and Detaching the Propellers 17

DJI Intelligent Flight Battery 18



### Remote Controllers

Remote Contr oller Profile 24

Remote Controller Operations 24

Dual Remote Controllers Mode 29

Remote Controller Status LED 31

Linking the Remote Controller 32

Remote Controller Compliance Version 33



### Gimbal and Camera

Camera Profile 35

Gimbal 36

© 2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved.



### DJI Pilot App

Camera 40

Map 43

Academy 43

User Center 43



### Flight

Flight Environment Requirements 45

Flight Limits and Flight Restriction Area 45

Preflight Checklist 49

Calibrating the Compass 49

Auto Take

- off and Auto Landing 50

Starting/Stopping the Motors 51

Flight Test 51



### FAQ

Appendix

Specifications 57

Intelligent Orientation Control (IOC) 60

How to Update Firmware 61

FCC Compliance 62
#### State v. Nakayama

CAAP-11-0000494

07/31/2014

Vacated and Remanded
#### Com. v. Shadle 2

10/26/2015

297 WAL (2015)

2

. Reconsideration Denied December 1, 2015,

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1148
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1431]



[[Page 3174]]

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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 22, 1998.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Request from a Federal Credit Union to Convert to Non Credit 
Union Status.
    2. Request from a Federal Credit Union to Convert to a de novo 
(new) Federal Mutual Savings Association.
    3. Requests from Two (2) Federal Credit Unions to Convert to 
Community Charters.
    4. Request from a Credit Union to Merge and Convert Insurance.
    5. Request from a Corporate Federal Credit Union for a Field of 
Membership Amendment.
    6. Amendments to IRPS 94-1. (Chartering Manual), Community Charter, 
Expansion, Conversion Requirements.
    7. NCUA's Year 2000 (Y2K) Contingency Plan.
    8. Final Rule: Amendments to Parts 791.5 and 791.6, NCUA's Rules 
and Regulations, Rules of Board Procedure.

RECESS: 11.15 a.m.

TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m., Thursday, January 22, 1998.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. One (1) Administrative Action under Section 206 of the Federal 
Credit Union Act. Closed pursuant to exemptions (5), (7), and (10).
    2. Four (4) Personnel Actions. Closed pursuant to exemptions (2) 
and (6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone 703-518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-1431 Filed 1-15-98; 4:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
#### Wakeley v. Brunner

08/29/2016

154 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 147 A.3d 1
**Exhibit 32.01**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gerald Corcoran, ChiefExecutive Officer of R. J. O’Brien Fund Management, Inc., (“RJOFM”), ManagingOwner of JWH Global Trust (the “Trust”), certify that (i) the attached annualreport on Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) theinformation contained in the attached annual report on Form 10-K fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Trust.
| By:                                     | /s/ G. Corcoran |   |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------|--------|
| Gerald Corcoran                         |
| Chief Executive Officer                 |
| R.J. O’Brien Fund Management, Inc. |
| July 5, 2007                            |

 

----
2016-0282.

#### Cleveland v. Oles.

Cuyahoga App. No. 102835, 2016-Ohio-23. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.

Upon consideration of the joint motion of appellant and amicus curiae Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney for divided argument time scheduled for Wednesday, March 1, 2017, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted. Amicus curiae shall share the time allotted to appellant.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                            PROCOM TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                      EXHIBIT 21.1 -- LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             STATE OR JURISDICTION
          NAME OF LEGAL ENTITY                 OF INCORPORATION
          --------------------               ---------------------

<S>                                          <C>
Procom Technology FSC                        U.S. Virgin Islands
Megabyte Computerhandels AG                  Germany
Invincible Technology Acquisition Corp.      Massachusetts
Procom AG, formerly known as Pera AG         Switzerland
Gigatek SRL                                  Italy

</TABLE>

          All are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Procom Technology, Inc.

                                      E-1
No. 12-6866.

#### Plancarte *v.*Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
#### Rodriguez v Daily News, L.P.

2d Dept: 142 AD3d 1062

denied
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33598]

OmniTRAX, Inc.--Control Exemption--Northern Ohio & Western 
Railway, LLC

    OmniTRAX, Inc. (OmniTRAX), a noncarrier holding company has filed a 
notice of exemption to control Northern Ohio & Western Railway, LLC 
(NOW), a Class III rail carrier. OmniTRAX is proposing to acquire all 
of the issued and outstanding stock of NOW.
    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on May 14, 1998, 
the effective date of the exemption.
    Applicant currently controls 9 Class III railroad subsidiary 
operating in 7 states: Central Kansas Railway LLC and Kansas 
Southwestern Railway LLC, in Kansas; Chicago Rail Link LLC and 
Manufacturers' Junction Railway LLC, in Illinois; Georgia Woodlands 
Railroad LLC, in Georgia; Great Western Railway of Colorado LLC, in 
Colorado; Great Western Railway of Iowa LLC, in Iowa; Newburgh and 
South Shore Railroad Limited, in Ohio; and Panhandle Northern Railroad 
LLC, in Texas.
    OmniTRAX states that: (1) the railroads do not connect with each 
other or any railroad in their corporate family; (ii) the acquisition 
of control is not part of a series of anticipated transactions that 
would connect the ten railroads with each other or any railroad in 
their corporate family; and (iii) the transaction does not involve a 
Class I carrier. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior 
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. See 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2).
    Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption 
authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to 
protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does 
not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 
and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Because this 
transaction involves Class III rail carriers only, the Board, under the 
statute, may not impose labor protective conditions for this 
transaction.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33598, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Karl Morell, Esq., BALL JANIK LLP 1455 F Street, N.W., Suite 
225, Washington, DC 20005.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: June 2, 1998.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15065 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafy Duma, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 632]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered December 22, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of nine years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding for a youthful offender determination, and otherwise affirmed.

As the People concede, based on *People v Middlebrooks*(25 NY3d 516 [2015]) and *People v Rudolph*(21 NY3d 497 [2013]), defendant is entitled to an express youthful offender determination.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99-9


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Chairman, President, Chief Executive and Chief
Operating Officer of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company (the "Company"), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



Dated:   May 14, 2003                     /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                             Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
                                 Chairman, President, Chief Executive and Chief
                                             Operating Officer of
                                       Michigan Consolidated Gas Company


                                       19
#### Marin v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

1st Dept: 145 AD3d 484

denied