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

[53 NYS3d 833]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered February 24, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

*538Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
Exhibit 10.5

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Elbit Systems
Ltd. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-9354 and 333-139512) of our report dated January 11,
2007, with respect to the financial statements of Microwave Networks Solutions, Inc.,
which report appears in this December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 20-F of Elbit
Systems Ltd.

/s/ Hoberman, Miller, Goldstein & Lesser,
CPAs, P.C. Hoberman, Miller, Goldstein & Lesser,
CPAs, P.C.

June 12, 2007
#### Jorge Gandarillas, Respondent, v EAN Holdings, LLC, Defendant, and Fleet Staff, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[58 NYS3d 523]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Fleet Staff, Inc., and Tiffany C. Glover appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Greco, Jr., J.), entered May 10, 2016, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of their liability.

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

On January 13, 2015, at approximately 9:00 a.m., the plaintiff, who was crossing Ditmars Boulevard at its intersection with 79th Street in Queens, was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant Fleet Staff, Inc., and operated by the defendant Tiffany C. Glover (hereinafter together the appellants), as that vehicle was making a left turn from 79th Street onto *572Ditmars Boulevard. Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the appellants, alleging negligence resulting in personal injuries. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of, inter alia, the appellants’ liability. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of the appellants’ liability. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the appellants’ liability by presenting proof that he was struck while walking within an unmarked crosswalk, that he had observed the conditions of approaching traffic before he began to cross, and that the defendant driver was negligent in failing to yield the right-of-way (see *Friedman v Rogerson,*131 AD3d 1204 [2015]; *Garcia v Lenox Hill Florist III, Inc.,*120 AD3d 1296, 1297 [2014]). In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of the appellants’ liability.

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                             GOLDSTEIN & GANZ, P.C.
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                               98 CUTTERMILL ROAD
                           GREAT NECK, NEW YORK 11021
                              ---------------------
                                 (516) 487-0110
                            Facsimile (516) 487-2928



Board of Directors
Tilden Associates, Inc.
1325 Franklin Ave., Suite 165
Garden City, New York 11530

         We hereby consent to the use of our reports dated April 13, 2001,
appearing on pages F-2 and F-22 of Form 10-KSB of Tilden Associates, Inc. for
the fiscal year ending December 31, 2000.


                                                     Goldstein & Ganz, CPA's, PC

Great Neck, NY
February 12, 2002
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Price of Laredo, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Price of Laredo, TX Natural Gas Pipeline Exports to Mexico  (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 4.07   | 2.51  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2.14   | 5.89   | 6.35   | 2.50   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,966]


Cason Manufacturing Company Stephenville, Texas; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 24, 1997, applicable 
to all workers of Cason Manufacturing Company, Stephenville, Texas. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1997 (62 
FR 65100).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that 
the Department incorrectly limited the certification to ``all workers 
engaged in employment related to the production of women's pants and 
skirts.'' The intent of the Department's certification is to include 
``all workers'' of Cason Manufacturing Company, Stephenville, Texas 
adversely affected by increased imports.
    The Department is amending the certification determination to 
correctly identify the worker group to read ``all workers.''
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-33,966 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers at Cason Manufacturing Company, Stephenville, Texas 
who became totally or partially separated from employment on or 
after October 24, 1996 are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of January 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-1468 Filed 1-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14901]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Public Information Collections Approved by Office of Management 
and Budget

May 29, 1998.
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the following public 
information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-13. 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 control number. For further information 
contact Shoko B. Hair, Federal Communications Commission, (202) 418-
1379.

Federal Communications Commission

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0106.
    Expiration Date: 05/31/2001.
    Title: Section 43.61--Reports of Overseas Telecommunications 
Traffic.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 248 respondents (only five respondents are 
subject to the quarterly filing requirement); 30.45 hours per response 
(avg.); 7554 total annual burden hours for all requirements.
    Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $18,000.
    Frequency of Response: Quarterly, annually, on occasion.
    Description: Section 43.61 requires each common carrier that 
provides international facilities-based switched service between the 
United States and any foreign country to file an annual traffic and 
revenue report. The annual report includes actual traffic and revenue 
data for each service provided by a common carrier, divided among 
service billed in the United States, service billed outside the United 
States, and service transiting the United States. In IB Docket No. 96-
261, released 8/7/97, the Commission increased the filing frequency in 
order to detect market distortion that may occur from the routing of 
U.S. international switched, basic traffic over private lines. Common 
carriers subject to the existing Section 43.61 requirement will be 
required to file the quarterly reports, in addition to annual reports 
for each quarter reporting period in which their minutes of switched 
telephone traffic meet certain thresholds established by the 
Commission. However, we will require that carriers file their traffic 
and revenue data only for switched facilities-based telephone services 
and switched facilities resale telephone services--not for their other 
international services. Obligation to respond: required. Public 
reporting burden for the collection of information is as noted above. 
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of the 
collections of information, including suggestions for reducing the 
burden to Performance Evaluation and Records Management, Washington, 
D.C. 20554.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14901 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 28, 2019

No. 04-19-00134-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R., ET AL,

Appellant

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA00445

Honorable Genie Wright, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s, N.H., First Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby 

GRANTED. The appellant’s brief is due on or before June 3, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of May, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
Security officials caution employees to be aware of force protection conditions
 
  By Russell Pitts, DLA Installation Support antiterrorism officer
  As military installations tighten security in response to heightened activity in the Middle East, Defense Logistics Agency security officials are reminding employees to be aware of force protection condition levels. The Defense Department oversees FPCON, a terrorist threat system that describes the measures taken by installation commanders in response to various levels of terrorist threats against military facilities. The system is defensive in nature but proactive enough to help commanders protect DoD personnel, resources and interests. It is divided into five levels: **FPCON NORMAL:** Applies when a general threat of terrorist attacks, hostile acts or other security threats exist. At a minimum, access control is conducted at all installations and facilities. **FPCON ALPHA:** Applies to a non-specific threat of a terrorist or hostile act directed against DoD elements and personnel. **FPCON BRAVO:** Applies when an increased or more predictable threat of terrorism exists and is directed against DoD elements and personnel. **FPCON CHARLIE:** Applies when a terrorist or hostile incident occurs within the commander’s area of interest or intelligence is received indicating a hostile act, some form of terrorist action, or targeting of DoD elements, personnel or facilities. **FPCON DELTA:** Applies when a terrorist attack or hostile act has occurred or is anticipated against specific installations or operating areas. Usually a localized condition. The FPCON level is set by each major command using threat intelligence. In the United States, U.S. Northern Command sets the FPCON level. Installation commanders may raise the FPCON level for their installations in response to local threats and activity but can’t lower it below NORTHCOM’s direction. A series of mandatory measures must be in place according to each FPCON level to assure effectiveness and can be as simple as 100% ID checks. Antiterrorism officers and security and law enforcement officials have the lion’s share of effort to ensure force protection these measures are accomplished, but employees are also vital in protecting DoD personnel and property. Here are a few actions employees can take to ensure a safer environment: •    Complete annual Level I Antiterrorism Training, 
•    Complete all other security training,
•    Support the local, commander-directed Random Antiterrorism Measure Program, 
•    Practice good operations security,
•    Stay informed of policies and procedures,
•    Remain vigilant and maintain situational awareness off and on DoD property, and 
•    Be aware of local processes for reporting suspicious activity. For more information on this or other security programs, call DLA Installation Operations at 571-767-1326 or email DLAForceProtection@dla.mil.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Capriata, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 595]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered May 1, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The indictment alleged, and defendant’s plea allocution established, that defendant committed a continuing possessory crime *(see Matter of Johnson v Morgenthau,*69 NY2d 148 [1987]) that began when he was 18 but ended when he was 19, *529and whose elements persisted during that time span. Accordingly, he was not eligible for youthful offender treatment *(see People v White,*131 AD3d 891, 892 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 1093 [2015]), and there was no reason for the court to consider it *(see People v Middlebrooks,*25 NY3d 516, 525 [2015]). A youthful offender sentence would have been an illegal sentence; accordingly, we find defendant’s procedural arguments to be unavailing.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094 [2016]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim. Regardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Acosta, Kapnick, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             790,033
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      236,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                        22,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,145,642
<PP&E>                                          12,904,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,044,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,155,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              567,678
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            25,039
<OTHER-SE>                                         446,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,155,429
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   945,031
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      878,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  33,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     32,797
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 32,797
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        32,797
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.13
                                               



</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7478

HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. DAVID MILLIS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv - 00332

- WO

- JEP )

Submitted : February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ( 201 8 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (201 8 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

con stitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (201 8 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims de batable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatab le claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in t he materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14722]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than June 18, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Philip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1413:
    1. Unionbancorp, Inc., Ottawa, Illinois; to retain Sainet, 
Streator, Illinois (an Internet service provider), and thereby engage 
in providing access to the Internet to their institutions, and in data 
processing activities, pursuant to Sec.  225.28(b)(14)(ii) of 
Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 29, 1998.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-14722 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Grabell, Matter of, v New York City Police Dept.

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 477

denied