alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter Gitzis et al., Appellants, v Daniel Isakov et al., Respondents.

[52 NYS3d 659]

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiffs separately appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated December 3, 2015, which granted the defendants’ unopposed motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffs failed to submit opposition to the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the unopposed motion.

No appeal lies from an order or judgment entered upon the default of the appealing party *(see*CPLR 5511; *T. Mina Supply, Inc. v Clemente Bros. Contr. Corp.,*139AD3d 1038, 1038 [2016]; *Yuan v Kaplan,*129 AD3d 714 [2015]; *Reynolds v Haiduk,*120 AD3d 656, 656 [2014]). Since the order appealed from was entered upon the plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the defendants’ motion, the appeals must be dismissed *(see T. Mina Supply, Inc. v Clemente Bros. Contr. Corp.,*139 AD3d at 1038; *Lillian H. Assoc., LLC v Halal,*137 AD3d 873, 874 [2016]; *Yuan v Kaplan,*129 AD3d at 714; *Reynolds v Haiduk,*120 AD3d at 656; *HCA Equip. Fin., LLC v Mastrantone,*118 AD3d 850 [2014]).

Dillon, J.P., Austin, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

142129 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142129 

 COA: 291790 

Genesee CC: 07-021714-FC 

IVAN LEE PAGE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# DLA Maritime Pearl Harbor commander earns meritorious award 

/ Published March 11, 2020
JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii , 
Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Commander Navy Rear Adm. John T. Palmer was on hand Feb. 28 to recognize DLA Maritime Pearl Harbor Director Cdr. Bruce Reilly with the Defense Meritorious Service Medal for his exceptional service.

Reilly took command of the Hawaii-based detachment in September of 2017.

The medal is bestowed by the Secretary of Defense to members of the Armed Forces who distinguish themselves by non-combat outstanding achievement or meritorious service while serving in a joint activity.

Reilly is a native of Altoona, Pennsylvania, and graduated from Juniata College with a Bachelor of Science in Biology. He enlisted in the Navy in 1997 as a Machinist’s Mate and served aboard the USS Boise (SSN 764) until his selection for Officer Candidate School where he received his commission as a Supply Corps Ensign in 2001. Reilly’s afloat assignments include the USS Montpelier (SSN 765) and the USS Frank Cable (AS40). His shore duties include assignments with Navy Information Operations Command, Naval Supply Systems Command, Central Command and as an individual augmentee assigned to the Combined Security Transition Command in Kabul, Afghanistan.

In his next assignment, he will return to the USS Frank Cable homeported in Guam and serve as the Supply Officer. He is scheduled to depart the detachment in April 2020.
2017-0936.

#### State v. Bowshier.

Clark App. No. 2015-CA-54 and 2015-CA-73, 2017-Ohio-1386. Cause accepted on proposition of law No. I.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                               
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Jamaica (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|Sabine Pass, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Jamaica (Million 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 1,303  | 11,572
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 12,067 | 22,444 | 0      | 5,622  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Amy D’Angelis et al., Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of David D’Angelis, Respondents, v Buffalo General Hospital et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[769 NYS2d 440]

— Appeals from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Howe, J.), entered January 9, 2003, which directed defendant Buffalo General Hospital to disclose certain material to plaintiffs.

It is hereby ordered that said appeals be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs *(see Matter of Eric D.*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051 [1990]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
No. 12-8062.

#### Moncivais *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# What the holidays mean to me: Chicnee Brown

/ Published Dec. 22, 2020
RICHMOND, VA, 
*During the month of December, DLA Aviation Public Affairs will be running a special series of stories titled “What the holidays mean to me.” The purpose is to spotlight members of the DLA Aviation workforce during the holidays.*

**Name:**Chicnee Brown

**Organization:**DLA Aviation in Richmond, Virginia

**What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically?** I am the executive assistant to the commander/senior command support analyst. I am responsible for providing technical administrative guidance to the subordinate command support staff, primarily to the commander, as well as the entire DLA Aviation administrative support staff on a variety of administrative systems, such as the Defense Travel System and the DLA Correspondence Guide.

**What do the holidays mean to you?**The holidays mean a lot to me because this is the season for love, charity and magic. This time of year, and for the majority of my adult life, has been about the wonder and the spirit of thanksgiving, charity and love. I love the feeling I get when I listen to Christmas music and I see the decorations. I love buying and donating to our Annual Angel Tree program for children gifts for children who are less fortunate than we are and getting all of the gifts they asked for. I just wish I could see their faces when they open their presents and see the smiles on their faces.

**What are your fondest holiday memories?**One of my fondest holiday memories happened when I was getting ready to turn six years old. You see, my birthday is just after Christmas and my mother always made sure my Christmas presents and birthday presents were separated. My mom gave me a pretty baby doll for Christmas and a kitchen set for my birthday. This particular holiday was special because it was my last holiday with my mother because she died a few months later in March.

**What is your favorite holiday tradition**? My favorite holiday tradition is listening to Christmas music and decorating the tree.

**Name your favorite holiday song and why it’s your favorite?**While I have many favorite holiday songs, my two all-time favorites are “A Five Pound Box of Money” by Pearl Bailey. This song is one my favorites because as a grown-up, I have always wanted Santa to bring me a whole lot of cash for Christmas! My second favorite holiday song is “I’ll Be Home for Christmas” by Bing Crosby. These songs really get me into the holiday spirit!
# L_2011136EN.01006401.xml

| 24.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 136/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 136/64

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2011/298/CFSP

of 23 May 2011

amending Decision 2010/279/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Article 43(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 30 May 2007 the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP (1) establishing the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 30 May 2007 the Council adopted Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP (1) establishing the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN).

| (2) | On 18 May 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/279/CFSP (2) which extended EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 May 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 18 May 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/279/CFSP (2) which extended EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 May 2013.

| (3) | The financial reference amount provided for in Decision 2010/279/CFSP and intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 May 2011 should cover the period until 31 July 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The financial reference amount provided for in Decision 2010/279/CFSP and intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 May 2011 should cover the period until 31 July 2011.

| (4) | Decision 2010/279/CFSP should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Decision 2010/279/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 13 of Decision 2010/279/CFSP, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 July 2011 shall be EUR 54 600 000.’.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 23 May 2011.

For the Council

The President

C. ASHTON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 139, 31.5.2007, p. 33.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 123, 19.5.2010, p. 4.

2

---
EXHIBIT 11

                                MAXXAM INC.

                         COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME
                   PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
        (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      Three Months Ended
                                                          March 31,
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                      1997          1996
                                                 ------------- -------------
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
Weighted average common and common equivalent
     shares outstanding during each period           9,326,330     9,376,703
Common equivalent shares attributable to stock
     options and convertible securities                101,780        98,369
                                                 ------------- -------------
     Total common and common equivalent shares       9,428,110     9,475,072
                                                 ============= =============

Net income                                       $          .7 $         5.8
                                                 ============= =============

Net income per common and common equivalent
     share                                       $         .07 $         .61
                                                 ============= =============

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13768]


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

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 FR 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects on the 
list specified below, to be included in the exhibit, ``Manet, Monet, 
and the Gare Saint-Lazare'' (See list \1\), imported from abroad for 
the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are 
of cultural significance. These objects are imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign lenders. I also determine that the 
exhibition or display of the listed exhibit objects at the National 
Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, from on or about June 14, 1998, to on 
or about September 20, 1998, is in the national interest. Public Notice 
of these determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

    \1\ A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Ms. 
Jacqueline Caldwell, Assistant General Counsel, at 202/619-6982, and 
the address is Room 700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 4th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: May 18, 1998.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-13768 Filed 5-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
Exposure Report

PMN Number: P-11-0447 

Assessor: Wong/SS

Ratings

Non-Occupational: Environmental:

Drop Criteria: EAB Drop

Criteria Reasoning: All releases are 

Exposure Based Assessment:

Exposure-Based (Non-Occupational): 

Exposure-Based (Environmental): 

Exposure Parameter Exposure-Based Persistent/Bioaccum Exposure Value

Surface DW:

 Fish Ingestion:

Ground DW:

Inhalation:

Water Releases:

Total Releases:

Consumer Exposure:

Recommended Fate Tests:

Consumer Use expected? 

Consumer Use remarks: 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 2
Scenario Comment Sites Location

1. Scenario -- Medium: (Engineering) ; , 

 2. Release -- Medium: (Engineering) ; 

3. Scenario -- Medium: (Engineering) ; 

 4. Release -- Medium: ction (Engineering) ; 

 5. Release -- Medium: Engineering) ; 

**Environmental Release Information for Those Releases Which Went to the Model (Release Identifier 

Number)

1

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Diane Mack, Appellant, v Harold Richardson, Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 424]

Appeal by the petitioner from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sharon A. Bourne-Clarke, J.), dated March 29, 2016. The order, upon the granting of the respondent’s motion, made at the close of the petitioner’s case, to dismiss the petition for failure to make out a prima facie case, dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, the motion is *741denied, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new fact-finding hearing and determination on the petition.

In 2015, the petitioner commenced this family offense proceeding against her former boyfriend, the respondent. The Family Court conducted a hearing on the petition and, at the conclusion of the petitioner’s case, granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss her petition for failure to establish a prima facie case. We reverse.

“A family offense must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence” *(Matter of Sealy v Sealy,*134 AD3d 725, 725 [2015]; *see*Family Ct Act § 832). “ Tn determining a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case, the evidence must be accepted as true and given the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be drawn therefrom . . . The question of credibility is irrevelant, and should not be considered’ ” *(Matter of Ramroop v Ramsagar,*74 AD3d 1208, 1209 [2010], quoting *Gonzalez v Gonzalez,*262 AD2d 281, 282 [1999]). Here, the Family Court failed to properly apply this standard. Viewing the petitioner’s evidence in a light most favorable to her, and accepting the evidence as true, it established a prima facie case *(see Matter of Prezioso v Prezioso,*79 AD3d 1043, 1043-1044 [2010]; *Matter of Awoleke v Awoleke,*79 AD3d 743, 743 [2010]; *Matter of Ramroop v Ramsagar,*74 AD3d at 1209).

The respondent’s remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to establish a prima facie case should have been denied.

Chambers, J.P., Roman, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.
#### Anton Bondarev, Respondent, v Valdirene Bondarev, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 143]-

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (IDV Part) (Susan M. Capeci, J.), entered January 27, 2016. The order, after a hearing, granted the plaintiff’s motion to modify the parties’ so-ordered stipulation of settlement pertaining to custody and visitation so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children.

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

During the pendency of their divorce action, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement dated August 5, 2014, which was so-ordered by the Supreme Court (hereinafter the stipulation). The stipulation awarded the parties joint legal custody of their two children, with primary residential custody to the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved to modify the stipulation so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the children. In an order entered January 27, 2016, the court, after a hearing, granted the plaintiff’s motion. The defendant appeals.

“A party seeking the modification of an existing court-ordered child custody arrangement has the burden of demonstrating that circumstances have changed since the initial custody determination” such that modification is necessary to ensure the children’s best interests *(Musachio v Musachio,*137 AD3d 881, 882-883 [2016]; *see Cook v Cook,*142 AD3d 530, 533 [2016]; see *also Matter of Lopez v Chasquetti,*148 AD3d 1151 [2017]; *Matter of O’Shea v Parker,*116 AD3d 1051 [2014]). The best interests of a child are determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances (see *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; *Matter of Lopez v Chasquetti,*148 AD3d at 1151). “[I]nasmuch as custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the [court’s] determination should be disturbed only if it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Matter of Bacchi v Clancy,*101 AD3d 993, 993 [2012]; see *Musachio v Musachio,*137 AD3d at 883).

Here, the record demonstrates, among other things, that the *483parties’ relationship deteriorated after the stipulation, that the defendant unilaterally made major decisions regarding the children in total disregard of the stipulation, and that the defendant made statements to the children suggesting that the plaintiff did not love them. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s determination that there, had been a change in circumstances, and that a transfer of sole legal and physical custody to the plaintiff would be in the children’s best interests, has a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed (see *Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d at 171; *Cook v Cook,*142 AD3d at 533-534).

Rivera, J.R, Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Meliza Torres, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 358]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Leonard Livote, J.), rendered May 30, 2012, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and sentencing her to a conditional discharge for a period of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. Initially, we find no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see *People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

The police were entitled to pass through the unlocked gate to defendant’s yard, approach the front door, and knock. Where there is no “evidence of intent to exclude the public, the entryway to a person’s house offers implied permission to approach and knock on the front door” *(People v Kozlowski,*69 *614NY2d 761, 763 [1987]). The fact that the police visit occurred at 1:30 a.m. does not provide a basis for distinguishing *Ko-zlowski*(which also apparently involved a nighttime incident). While uninvited visits are most likely to occur during the day, a caller on urgent business, such as a safety concern, that cannot wait until the morning may need to knock on a door at night, and we do not find that the occupant has a reasonable privacy expectation to the contrary. Furthermore, we conclude that *Florida v Jardines*(569 US 1, 133 S Ct 1409 [2013]), which reiterated that “a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do” (569 US at —, 133 S Ct at 1415-1416 [internal quotation marks omitted]), did not promulgate any per se rule excluding night visits from the ambit of this principle. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments on this issue.

The People met their burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of her home. Defendant was not restrained or in police custody at the time she allowed the officers inside, and she emphatically urged the officers to enter. The circumstances, viewed as a whole, support a finding of voluntary consent *(see generally People v Gonzalez,*39 NY2d 122, 128-131 [1976]).

Concur — Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 11-10607.

#### Rutledge *v.*City of Oakland, California, et al.,

*ante,*p. 930. Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements of
NewSouth  Bancorp,  Inc. on Form S-8 (File number 333-49759) of our report dated
November 2, 1999,  on our audits of the  consolidated  financial  statements  of
NewSouth  Bancorp,  Inc. as of September 30, 1999 and 1998,  and for each of the
three  years in the period  ended  September  30,  1999,  which  report has been
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
December 27, 1999