alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Patricia Parton et al., Respondents, v Michael A. Piscitello, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 883]

*1383Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Mintz, J.), entered October 7, 2002, that denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Patricia Parton (plaintiff) as a result of a motor vehicle accident with defendant. Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant’s motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to the serious injury category of significant limitation of use of a body function or system *(see*Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). A significant limitation of use must be established by objective evidence and cannot be *“a*‘minor, mild or slight limitation of use’ ” *(Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 957 [1992]; *see also Lanuto v Constantine,*192 AD2d 989, 991 [1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 654 [1993]). Here, defendant’s own submissions in support of the motion establish that plaintiff sustained such an injury, and thus the burden never shifted to plaintiffs to raise an issue of fact in that respect *(see Cosovic v Term Leasing,*234 AD2d 79, 80 [1996]; *see generally Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Defendant submitted the medical records of plaintiffs treating physician indicating that, upon examination, plaintiffs lumbosacral spine revealed restrictions of extension at 50% of normal and side flexion at 50% of normal, and those identical findings were made by the examining physician for defendant’s insurance carrier two years later. Because defendant’s own submissions set forth actual quantified limitations of motion, defendant failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the significant limitation of use category of serious injury (see *O’Neal v Cancilla,*294 AD2d 921, 921-922 [2002]; see *also Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 352-353 [2002]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.
#### R2B Investors, LLC v. Reynolds

CAAP-11-0000684

05/14/2014

Dismissed
Docket No.: FAA-2016-3987 Dir ID: 2015-NM-165-AD 

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 10/13/15

Regional Airline Association 10/13/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association David Oord 10/13/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 10/13/15
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shaheem Chavis, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 897]

—Application by the *873appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 24, 1997 *(People v Chavis,*237 AD2d 527 [1997]), determining an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered May 25, 1995.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see Jones *v Barnes*, 463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]).

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cody L. Barnes, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 438]

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Lambert, J.), rendered October 9, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In June 2014, defendant was charged in an indictment with two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. Following his arraignment on that indictment, defendant was charged in another indictment with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, and in full satisfaction of both indictments, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and executed a written waiver of appeal in open court. Consistent with the terms of the plea agreement, County Court imposed upon defendant, as a second felony offender, a prison sentence of five years to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending that his appeal waiver is invalid and that his agreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive.

Initially, we are unable to conclude that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made inasmuch as County Court failed to explain to defendant the import of the appeal waiver or that his waiver of the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty *(see People v Lemon,*137 AD3d 1422, 1423 [2016], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1135 [2016]; *People v Williams,*132 AD3d 1155, 1155 [2015], *lv denied*27 NY3d 1157 [2016]; *People v Rabideau,*130 AD3d 1094, 1094-1095 [2015]). Further, “[t]he written waiver [of appeal] also failed to explain the separate and distinct nature of the right being waived” *(People v Bouton,*107 AD3d 1035, 1036 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 1072 [2013]). As County Court never adequately discussed the waiver of appeal with defendant, the appeal waiver is invalid and defendant is not precluded from challenging the severity of the sentence *(see People v Lopez,*6 *1339NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; *People v Bates,*146 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2017]; *People v Larock,*139 AD3d 1241, 1242-1243 [2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 932 [2016]; *People v Zabawczuk,*128 AD3d 1267, 1269 [2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 937 [2015]). In so concluding, we flatly reject the unsupportable position taken by the People that “[i]f [defendant’s] plea was voluntary and knowing, then his waiver of appeal as part of that plea was also.”

Turning to defendant’s challenge to his sentence as harsh and excessive, given defendant’s extensive criminal record and his agreement to the sentence as part of the negotiated plea agreement in satisfaction of two indictments, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Bates,*146 AD3d at 1076; *People v Day,*133 AD3d 920, 920 [2015]; *People v Rabideau,*130 AD3d at 1095).

Garry, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwan Torres, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 804]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2014, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s statements that he was intoxicated at the time of the underlying sex crime, even if intended to be self-serving, were sufficiently reliable, and they were corroborated by the victim’s grand jury testimony and the fact that defendant was evaluated as requiring alcohol abuse treatment while he was incarcerated. Accordingly, there was clear and convincing evidence to support the court’s assessment of points under the risk factor for alcohol and substance abuse *(see e.g. People v Zewge,*142 AD3d 880 [1st Dept 2016]). The fact that, at the *419trial of the underlying charge, the jury apparently rejected defendant’s intoxication defense, which asserted that he was so intoxicated as to be unable to form the requisite intent *(see*Penal Law § 15.25), has no bearing on the reliability of the evidence that he was, in fact, intoxicated.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Hoolae Paoa, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.
and Subsidiary;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: January 10, 2004

/s/ Hoolae Paoa
---------------------------------
Hoolae Paoa
Chief Executive Officer


                                       13
# DLA, GSA train together in Battle Creek

/ Published Sept. 23, 2019
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
More than two dozen sales officials from the Defense Logistics Agency and U.S. General Services Administration converged on the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center in Battle Creek in mid-September for a week of federal Sales Contracting Officer training.

Topics presented by both DLA and GSA contracting experts included SCO roles and responsibilities, breakdowns of solicitation and award processes, how do handle disputes, protests, claims and contract modifications, maintaining auditability and contract closure. Attendees included both well-seasoned SCOs and those with less than a week of experience in the role.

DLA Disposition Services Public Sales Division Chief Carlos Torres said including GSA officials allows DLA’s sales contracting force to hear a different perspective on government contracting from an authoritative source and encourage future engagement.

“This is the beginning of a sales partnership,” Torres said. “We envision future SCO training will be done jointly.”

GSA Southwest Central Branch Chief Ericka Grim and GSA Senior SCO Iris Wright-Simpson have a combined six decades of experience with their agency, and they could not recall participating in previous DLA-GSA combined training. They shared GSA standard and process details on various topics while developing a more nuanced understanding of DLA’s property disposal mission.

“It’s definitely been worthwhile,” Grim said. “There’s been information shared on both ends. We’ve identified so many commonalities in the way we perform.”

In 2018, officials from both agencies began examining potential synergies in how they deal with the used and unwanted materials accumulated by the military and other parts of government. Initial meetings involved exploration of scrap sales contracts.

“From there, an understanding grew that there might be lots of other ways we can collaborate,” Grim said.   

Other areas identified for potential exploration included firearm disposal, auditability efforts and automated systems, Wright-Simpson said. Many military excess and surplus items end up in GSA’s stream, and the “ultimate dream,” she said, might someday look like a collaborative automated disposal and sales system.  

“Being able to tap into each others’ customer bases would be great for all involved,” Grim said. “For us, it would be hugely beneficial and our customers would love that.”
# DLA leaders brief DOD comptroller on financial successes, challenges during pandemic

/ Published Oct. 29, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Fiscal responsibility and Defense Logistics Agency’s global support were focus areas during an Oct. 23 briefing to Acting Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller Hon. Thomas Harker.

DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic provided Harker a tour of the Agency Synchronization and Operations Center at the McNamara Headquarters Complex and several agency senior leaders briefed Harker on agency operations, the DLA Service Readiness Dashboard and other financial issues. Agency leaders highlighted the complexity of the Defense Working Capital Fund and DLA’s role in supporting the National Defense Strategy lines of effort: improving lethality, maintaining and building strong alliances, and reforming Defense Department business practices. 

DLA Executive Director of Operations Dave Kless summarized the agency’s end-to-end global supply chain management achievements including revenue, foreign military sales, contract management and COVID-19 support. He noted the agency manages over 6 million items and awards 9,000 contracts a day, 92% of which are automated.

“While we sleep at night, thousands of awards continue to be made based on algorithms,” Skubic said. “That’s a very critical capability that DLA provides.”

DLA also supports over 40 federal agencies. Although whole-of-government support fluctuates from year to year depending on natural disasters, last year’s sales totaled $7.3 billion, Kless said, adding that DLA allows federal agencies to focus on their primary mission rather than logistics and acquisition.

In addition to increasing support to entities like the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DLA recently partnered with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Harker asked about the growth of DLA’s support to the VA and Kless said DLA is projecting $3 billion.

“We focused on the medical surgical equipment, now we’re focusing on the pharmaceutical side and seeing where it makes sense,” Kless said.

Other topics included cost recovery and management, inventory and demand planning, and information technology modernization.    

Adarryl Roberts, DLA Information Operations’ program executive officer, outlined DLA’s Warehouse Management System, which aligns with agency efforts to improve inventory accountability. The system includes delivery processing, work scheduling, shipping and receiving, physical inventory, reporting and monitoring, and transportation management and disposal.

Harker said he gleaned a lot of information that will help him convince DOD officials to invest in DLA’s global mission requirements.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 16, 2017

No. 04-16-00286-CV

Margaret Landen SAKS and Philip M. Ross,

Appellants

v.

Marcus P. ROGERS, A. Chris Heinrichs, J. Barrett Shipp and Heinrichs & De Gennaro, P.C.,

Appellees

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PC-3466B

Honorable Kelly Cross, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice 

Karen Angelini, Justice 

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice 

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The en banc court has considered Appellants’ motion for en banc reconsideration. The 

motion is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.7.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of November, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
# ROCHESTE RARE A CHAMBT R O ? COMMERC E Marc h11 , 201 0 Th e Honorabl e Raymon dH . LaHood Secretary U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docke t DOT-OST-2010-lB i Dear Mr . Secretary : Than k yo u for th e opportunity t o expres s m y suppor t fo r th e applicatio nfor

antitrus t irrmiunit y an dpropose djoin t

busines s agreemen t

file db y America nAirline s an dJapa n Airlines . Th e propose dallianc e betwee nthes e tw o airline s i s vita l for oneworl dt o compet e effectivel y withth e Star an dSkyTea malliance . Thi s increase dinterallianc e competitio n wil l i n tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f th e Department' s Ope nSkie s polic y - first b y solidifyin g U.S.-Japa n Ope nSkies , the nb y servin g a s afoundatio nfo r fiarthe r liberalizatio n acros s Asia . After athoroug hreview , I encourag e th e Departmen t o f Transportatio nt o approv e thi s applicatio n a s i t

woul denabl e thes e oneworl dallianc e airline s t o work closel y togethe r

t o delive r highl y competitiv e ai r

transportatio nservices . Approva l fo r AA/JA Lallianc e \n\ \ hav e apositiv e impac t

o n ai r trave l b y offerin g customer s mor e service , schedulin g an d pricin g option s an dv^dl

l hel p t o ensur e tha t

customer s continu e t o benefi t fro mhavin g thre e competitiv e ai r

alliance s t o choos e from . I iirg e yo u t o quickl y approv e thi s application .

Joh nWad e Rocheste r Are aChambe r

O f Commerc e 22 0 S . Broadway , Suit e 100 Rochester , Minnesot a5590 4 jwade@rochestermnchamber.co m

220 Sout h Broadwa y» Suit e 10 0 > Roctiester , M N 5590 4 - 507-288-112 2 = Fax507-282-896 0 Website : www.roche5termnchamber.co m » email : chamber@rochestermnchamber.co m Accredite d Chambe ro f Commerc e sinc e 196 5
SHAWN THOMAS STULLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-213

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 19, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

Jason T. Forman, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
**Exhibit21.1**

**EPIQSYSTEMS, INC.**

**Listof Subsidiaries**
| **Subsidiary**                    | ** ** | **State or Other Jurisdiction of  Organization** | ** ** | **Doing Business As**                     |
|-----------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------------------------|
| EPIQ Systems Acquisition, Inc.(1) |       | New York                                         |       |                                      |
| Bankruptcy Services LLC(2)        |       | New York                                         |       | BSI                                       |
| Financial Balloting Group LLC(2)  |       | New York                                         |       | Financial Balloting Group                 |
| Poorman-Douglas Corporation(1)    |       | Rhode Island                                     |       | Poorman Douglas  Poorman Douglas Noticing |
| Novare, Inc.(2)                   |       | Illinois                                         |       | Novare                                    |
| Hilsoft, Inc.(2)                  |       | Pennsylvania                                     |       | Hilsoft Notifications                     |
| Epiq Advisory Services, LLC(2)    |       | New York                                         |       | Epiq Advisory Services                    |
| nMatrix, Inc.(2)                  |       | Delaware                                         |       | Epiq Electronic Discovery                 |
| nMatrix Australia Pty. Ltd.(2)    |       | Australia                                        |       | nMatrix                                   |
| nMatrix Ltd.(3)                   |       | England and  Wales                               |       | nMatrix                                   |

 

----

(1) 100% owned byEPIQ Systems, Inc.

(2) 100% owned byEPIQ Systems Acquisition, Inc.

(3) 100%owned by nMatrix Australia Pty. Ltd.

----
#### People v Fuentes

2d Dept: 148 AD3d 734

denied*