alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert J. Propst, Also Known as Robert Joseph Propst, Also Known as Robert Propst, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 487]

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered March 2, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him *1698upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because it was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. We reject that contention. The record establishes that County Court engaged defendant “in an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of the right to appeal was a knowing and voluntary choice” *(People v Carr,*147 AD3d 1506, 1506 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Furthermore, the plea colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Gibson,*147 AD3d 1507, 1507 [2017]; *see generally People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]), adequately apprised defendant that “the right to appeal is separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty” *(People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *see Carr,*147 AD3d at 1506). The valid waiver of the right to appeal with respect to both the conviction and the sentence forecloses defendant’s challenge to the severity of his sentence (see *Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255-256; *Carr,*147 AD3d at 1506; *cf. People v Maracle,*19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]).

Present—Carni, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, Curran and Troutman, JJ.
*February 14, 2017*

2017-Ohio-507.]

2016-0302.

#### State ex rel. Bennett v. Aldi, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 14AP-632, 2016-Ohio-83. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Upon consideration of the application for dismissal of its appeal filed by the Industrial Commission of Ohio, it is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.

It is further ordered that a mandate be sent to and filed with the clerk of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fateen Akbar, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 234]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered May 30, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a six-count indictment* stemming from the sale of heroin on three occasions, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree as charged in the first count. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal and signed a written waiver in open court and, in exchange, County Court agreed to impose a prison term of seven years with three years of postrelease supervision. The court thereafter exercised its discretion and sentenced defendant, as an admitted second felony offender, to six years in prison with three years of postrelease supervision, and ordered that he make restitution. Defendant now appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record and counsel’s brief, we agree. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s request for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

3⁄8

 The indictment was amended during the plea allocution to correct the spelling of defendant’s last name.
No. 12-5915.

#### Isais Esparza, aka Esparza Isais, aka Isais *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Maria-Leticia Ossa Daza, Respondent, v Juan Carlos Torres Leclerc, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 858]—

*418Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered January 26, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s application for pendente lite relief only to the extent of awarding him temporary spousal maintenance of $10,100 per month and child support of $1,405.62 per month and directing’plaintiff to bear 70% of the child’s add-on expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to show either that the motion court failed properly to apply the formulas or to consider the factors set forth in the version of Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5-a) applicable to this case, which was commenced in March 2015, or that there are exigent circumstances warranting reversal of the temporary maintenance award *(see Aron v Aron,*216 AD2d 98 [1st Dept 1995]). Defendant contends that the amounts are insufficient to meet his reasonable living expenses at a level consistent with the parties’ pre-separation standard of living, but he offered no documentation of those expenses, did not identify any expenses that he had not been, or would not be, able to pay, and offered no rebuttal to plaintiff’s claim that some of his expenses appear to have been inflated for litigation purposes *(see Hearst v Hearst,*29 AD3d 395 [1st Dept 2006]). To the extent this temporary award is inadequate, the proper remedy is a speedy trial *(Turret v Turret,*147 AD3d 467 [1st Dept 2017]).

Similarly, we decline to disturb the award of temporary child support. Defendant, failed to identify any child-related expense that he had not been, or would not be, able to pay as a result of the award *(see Matter of Vladlena B. v Mathias G.,*52 AD3d 431 [1st Dept 2008]; Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]).

The court properly pro-rated the child’s add-on expenses. Again, defendant failed to identify any expenses that he had not been, or would not be, able to pay. Moreover, the court properly took into account the temporary maintenance awarded *(see Lundgren v Lundgren,*127 AD3d 938 [2d Dept 2015]). Given the temporary nature of the award, defendant’s obligations are not, as he claims, “open-ended” *(cf. Kosovsky v Zahl,*272 AD2d 59 [1st Dept 2000] [limiting an obligation for all potential add-on expenses in an award that was not by definition temporary]).

The court properly declined to require plaintiff to guaranty a *419renewal lease on the three-bedroom marital residence, where defendant continues to reside, in light of her willingness to guaranty a lease on another apartment for up to $5,000 in monthly rent.

We decline to disturb the court’s deferral of defendant’s application for interim counsel fees until such time as defendant retains substitute counsel.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli and Gische, JJ.
|                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                                  
|                                                                               
|Price of Eastport, ID Natural Gas LNG Imports (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               
|                                                                               
|Price of Eastport, ID Natural Gas LNG Imports (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                               

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov  | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | ---
|2018                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 9.23 |    
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      | W  
|- = 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William K. Holloway, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 803]

Appeal from a judgment of Orleans County Court (Punch, J.), entered February 15, 2002, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (§ 220.06 [5]). We reject the contention of defendant that County Court erred in permitting the People to introduce proof of an uncharged sale of cocaine that occurred two hours before his arrest. It is well settled that evidence of uncharged crimes may be relevant to establish intent *(see People v Molineux,*168 NY 264, 293-294 [1901]). Here, an element of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree is intent to sell (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]), and the court properly determined that evidence of the uncharged drug sale that occurred just two hours before defendant’s arrest was admissible as evidence of defendant’s intent to sell the cocaine possessed by defendant at the time of his arrest *(see People v Maddox,*272 AD2d 884 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 867 [2000]). We further conclude that the court’s error in admitting such proof without first conducting a hearing is harmless *(see People v Watkins,*229 AD2d 957 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 931 [1996]; *People v Robinson,*202 *1330AD2d 1044, 1044-1045 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 1006 [1994]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly instructed the juiy on the elements of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree *(see People v Encarnacion,*190 AD2d 607, 607-608 [1993], *lv denied*81 NY2d 1072 [1993]). Present—Green, J.P., Scudder, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
#### Isaac Thompson, Respondent, v Robert Pizzaro et al., Appellants.

[62 NYS3d 807]-

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti, J.), entered June 22, 2016, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff satisfied his prima facie burden by submitting photographic evidence of the accident site and an affidavit in which he averred that while turning right from a designated lane, defendants’ vehicle, which had been in the lane to the immediate left of plaintiff, turned wide to the right, entered plaintiff’s lane, and collided with his car. Unless refuted or excused, defendants’ actions violated Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1128 (a) and 1163 (a), establishing negligence (see *Delgado v Martinez Family Auto,*113 AD3d 426, 427 [1st Dept 2014]).

In opposition to plaintiff’s prima facie showing, defendants failed to submit any evidence to raise a triable issue of fact, and instead relied solely upon the pleadings and the arguments of counsel. Since counsel claimed no personal knowledge of the accident, his affirmation has no probative value *(Bendik v Dybowski,*227 AD2d 228, 229 [1st Dept 1996]).

Plaintiff’s motion was not premature. Depositions are unnecessary, since defendants have personal knowledge of the facts, yet “failed to meet their obligation of laying bare their proof and presenting evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact” *(Avant v Cepin Livery Corp.,*74 AD3d 533, 534 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Oing and Singh, JJ.
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Pippin, Sheri (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 7:42 PM

To: Thomas, Ronald

Subject: Docket FAA 2015-4867 Use Outside U.S.

Mr. Thomas,

In accordance with Title 14 CFR § 11.81(h), if American Airlines wants to exercise the privileges of an exemption, if

granted, outside the United States, “the reason why you need to do so” must be included in the petition for exemption.

Otherwise, in accordance with § 11.83, the FAA will limit the exemption, if granted, to use within the United States.

The American Airlines petition for exemption from Title 14 CFR §§ 121.438 and 121.652, dated December 19, 2015, did

not specifically request use of the petition outside of the United States. However, the FAA is aware that American

Airlines conducts international operations with the Boeing 767. Therefore, the FAA requests clarification on whether

American Airlines wants to exercise the privileges of this exemption, if granted, outside the United States.

Please submit the clarification directly to the docket ID FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 4867. If American Airlines wants to exercise the

privileges of this exemption, if granted, outside the United States, please also include the information required by §

11.81(h).

Thanks,

Sheri Pippin

Air Transportation Division

Air Carrier Training Systems and Voluntary Safety Programs Branch, AFS

‐ 280

800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591

(310) 725

‐ 7342

Remote Sited Address: Los Angeles IFO, 15000 Aviation Blvd. Lawndale, CA 90261

This message is intended solely for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is

privileged, confidential, or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this communication in

error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email. Thank you
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1922 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1922

                To suspend temporarily the duty on ACM.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 10 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

  Mr. Riegle introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                To suspend temporarily the duty on ACM.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
    

       ``  9902.31.12   3-(acetoxy)-3-                           No change      No change      On or before     
                         Cyanopropyl]methyl-                                                    12/31/98      ''
                         phophinicaid, 2-methylproply                                                          .
                         ester (provided for in                                                                 
                         subheading 2931.00.50)......  Free                                                     

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
No. 12-7391.

#### In re West.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14229]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[OMB Control No. 3090-0198]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Entitled Foreign 
Acquisition

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, GSA.

ACTION: Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance 
(3090-0198).

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Office of Acquisition Policy has submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and 
approve an extension of a previously approved information collection 
requirement concerning Foreign Acquisition.

DATES: Comment Due Date: July 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect 
of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing 
this burden, should be submitted to: Edward Springer, GSA Desk Officer, 
Room 3235, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and to Marjorie Ashby, General 
Services Administration (MVP), 1800 F Street NW, Washington, DC 20405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Al Matera, Office of GSA Acquisition Policy (202) 501-1224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Purpose

    The GSA is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 
review and approve information collection, 3090-0198, concerning 
Foreign Acquisition. Offerors are required to identify whether items 
are foreign source end products and the dollar amount of import duty 
for each product.

B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 9; annual responses: 9; average hours per response: 
.10; burden hours: 1.5.

Copy of Proposal

    A copy of this proposal may be obtained from the GSA Acquisition 
Policy Division (MVP), Room 4011, GSA Building, 1800 F Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20405, or by telephoning (202) 501-3822, or by faxing 
your request to (202) 501-3341.

    Dated: May 22, 1998.
Ida M. Ustad,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Acquisition Policy.
[FR Doc. 98-14229 Filed 5-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-61-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>              OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                          140,724
<SECURITIES>                  2,713,878
<RECEIVABLES>                     2,217
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,923,356
<PP&E>                        1,383,471
<DEPRECIATION>                1,304,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                3,017,153
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           459,849
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                          9,031
<OTHER-SE>                    2,548,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  3,017,153
<SALES>                       1,580,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,733,845
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              2,578,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (844,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (844,175)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                  (844,175)
<EPS-BASIC>                    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (0.10)


</TABLE>
<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 am 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 or not 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: March 22, 2004
/s/ Hoolae Paoa
Hoolae Paoa
President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       18