alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Bevtek Corp., Respondent, and Mr. Natural, Inc., Now Known as Snapple Distributors, Inc., Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 624]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered April 18, 2003, which granted petitioner’s application to confirm an arbitration award, denied respondent’s cross motion to vacate the award in part, *158and awarded petitioner the total sum of $137,692.88, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Respondent has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting vacatur of the arbitrator’s award. The arbitrator did not exceed her authority in rendering this award, particularly in view of the provision in the agreement that a distributor whose route was terminated for cause was nonetheless entitled to compensation for the value of that route. Under the circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the arbitrator “gave a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties” *(see Matter of National Cash Register Co. [Wilson], 8*NY2d 377, 383 [I960]). Nor is there anything in this award or the agreement from which to conclude that enforcement of the award would violate public policy *(Matter of Etkin & Co. [Play It Again Apparel],*235 AD2d 264 [1997]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Williams, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 (2018) 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) (2018). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). 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 debatable 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 debatable 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 the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Aquila, Inc.**

**Chief Executive Officer**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

|   | I, Richard C. Green, certify that: |
|--------|------------------------------------|

 

|   | 1. | Aquila, Inc.’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2007 accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aquila, Inc. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Dated: May 7, 2007

 

|   | /s/ Richard C. Green |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | Richard C. Green |
|--------|------------------|

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer 

Aquila, Inc.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2094

To make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to

approve basic educational assistance for flight training.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 10 (legislative day, MAY 2), 1994

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. FORD, and Mr. SIMON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’

Affairs

A BILL

To make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to approve basic educational assistance for

flight training.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO APPROVE BASIC

4 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR FLIGHT

5 TRAINING.

6 (a) ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE ASSISTANCE.—Section

7 3034(d) of title 38, United States Code, is amended—

8 (1) by striking out paragraph (2); and

9 (2) in paragraph (1)—
2

•S 2094 IS

1 (A) by striking out ‘‘(1)’’; and

2 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A),

3 (B), and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3),

4 respectively.

5 (b) POST-VIETNAM ERA ASSISTANCE.—Section

6 3241(b) of such title is amended—

7 (1) by striking out paragraph (2); and

8 (2) in paragraph (1)—

9 (A) by striking out ‘‘(1)’’; and

10 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A),

11 (B), and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3),

12 respectively.

13 (c) ASSISTANCE FOR SELECTED RESERVE.—Section

14 2136(c) of title 10, United States Code, is amended—

15 (1) by striking out paragraph (2); and

16 (2) in paragraph (1)—

17 (A) by striking out ‘‘(1)’’; and

18 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A),

19 (B), and (C) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3),

20 respectively.

Æ
DLA San Joaquin Firefighters assist in saving homes
 
  By  Annette Silva, DLA Distribution San Joaquin Public Affairs
  The fire crew at Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management San Joaquin’s Fire Station 262 were dispatched for mutual aid by South San Joaquin County Dispatch in the late afternoon of July 5. They were later called out for a second alarm working residential structure fire in the city of Tracy, California. They responded with a crew of four firefighters and were assigned fire attack on Marie Avenue. The crew deployed 700 feet of 3-inch supply line to the rear of the structures off Clover Avenue. Further, Engine-262 deployed two attack lines off the 3-inch supply line and made an aggressive fire attack stopping the progress of the fire and saving the last residential unit on the row of duplexes. “E-262’s specific actions during this mutual aid had a direct impact in preventing further homes from being destroyed along Marie Avenue,” said Fire Capt. Donald Cabral Jr. E-262 was first to arrive from the south along Marie Avenue and the crew engaged the chain of homes being consumed by fire head on. They deployed hose lines by foraging their way through backyards, going up, around and physically through fences. The hose advancements were so entangled due to the composition of the neighborhood that lay citizens were helping them hand jack hundreds of feet of hose. After arriving at the first savable residence, crews anchored in and combated flames that were 15 to 20 feet above the roof tops of the duplex units. Cabral further commented that the strategy worked, and they were able to prevent fire spread to many other homes in the direct and immediate vicinity. Mutual aid was provided by nine area fire departments. The Clover incident grew to five alarms bringing additional manpower to the scene. A total of nine residences were destroyed or damaged in the incident. It took fire crews approximately five hours to bring the incident under control and the crew remained on scene for an additional two hours, mopping up the incident. “DLA San Joaquin’s Fire and Emergency Services E-262 crew made an aggressive attack stopping the fire at this location,” concluded Cabral. The E-262 crew on scene included Cabral, Driver Robert Hanks, Firefighter Ian Thulin and Fire Medic Lawson Stuart.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,113
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,169
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,131
<PP&E>                                          52,914
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,001
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,617
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,401
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,131
<SALES>                                         25,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,988
<CGS>                                           22,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   448
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (124)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (48)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (48)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-931.

#### Artz *v.*State Bar of California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                  GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY
                         SURRENDER CHARGE ENDORSEMENT

This endorsement is effective on the Contract Date. It amends the Definitions
section by deleting the Surrender Value definition and adding the following:

Surrender Value - The Contract Value on the date we receive your written
request for surrender in our Home Office less any premium tax and charges.
These charges include any surrender charge.

The Contract Value Benefits section is amended by deleting the Withdrawal
provision and adding the following:

Withdrawal

You may take a withdrawal from the Contract Value prior to the Annuity
Commencement Date. The allowable withdrawal amount is subject to limitations as
shown on the Contract Data Pages. The amount payable to you will be the amount
of the withdrawal, less any surrender charge and premium tax.

You may tell us how to deduct the withdrawal from the Investment Options. If
you do not, the withdrawal will be deducted from the Investment Options on a
prorata basis. A Portfolio may impose a redemption charge on Subaccount assets
that are redeemed from the Portfolio in connection with a withdrawal. The
Portfolio determines the amount of the redemption charge. The charge is
retained by or paid to the Portfolio. The charge is not retained by or paid to
us. The redemption charge may affect the number and/or value of Accumulation
Units withdrawn from the Subaccount that invests in that Portfolio and may
affect Contract Value.

Surrender Charge

All or part of the amount withdrawn or surrendered may be subject to a
surrender charge. The surrender charge is a percentage of each Purchase
Payment. The applicable percentage for each Purchase Payment is shown in the
Table of Surrender Charges on the Contract Data Pages. The number of years
shown in the table represents the number of full and partially completed years
since the Purchase Payment was received.

                                      1

<PAGE>

For each Contract year, an amount equal to the free withdrawal amount may be
withdrawn during each Contract year without a surrender charge (the "free
withdrawal amount"). The free withdrawal amount is defined on the Contract Data
Pages. Any amount withdrawn in excess of the free withdrawal amount may be
subject to a surrender charge. For purposes of determining the applicable
surrender charge, the amount subject to a surrender charge will be deducted
from Purchase Payments on a first-in, first-out basis. Amounts withdrawn that
are not subject to surrender charge may be taken as a series of periodic
payments instead of a lump sum.

For Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company,

                             /s/ Pamela S. Schutz
                           -------------------------
                                   President

                                      2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2100 Engrossed Amendment House (EAH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 7, 1994.
      Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2100) entitled ``An 
Act to provide for rural development, multiple-use management, 
expenditures under the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930, and ecosystem-
based management of certain forest lands, and for other purposes'', do 
pass with the following

                              AMENDMENTS:

        Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR THE SPECIAL USE OF TIMBER 
              REVENUES.

    (a) Demonstration Program.--The Secretary of Agriculture may carry 
out a demonstration program on National Forest System lands described 
in subsection (b) to develop and implement management practices that 
are ecosystem based and end-result oriented.
    (b) Applicability.--The demonstration program shall apply to the 
management of the Priest Lake District project, Idaho Panhandle 
National Forest.
    (c) Authorization.--Under the demonstration program, the Secretary 
of Agriculture may apply the value, or a portion of the value, of 
timber removed under a stewardship end result contract as an offset 
against the cost of stewardship services received, including site 
preparation, replanting, silviculture programs, recreation, wildlife 
habitat enhancement, and other multiple-use enhancements. The Secretary 
of Agriculture may apply such offsets until the demonstration project 
expires.
    (d) Compliance With Environmental Requirements.--Nothing in this 
Act shall be construed to alter the responsibility of the Secretary to 
comply with environmental laws applicable to the lands of the National 
Forest System described in subsection (b).
    (e) Expiration of Authority.--The authority provided in subsection 
(c) shall expire on December 31, 1995.
            Amend the title so as to read: An Act to provide for a 
        demonstration program to develop and implement special 
        management practices for certain National Forest System lands.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2100

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENTS
```
#### P.R., an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Shameka W., et al., Appellants, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[63 NYS3d 672]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 8, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint was warranted in this action for personal injuries sustained when infant plaintiff slipped off the bed and fell against hot pipes that conveyed steam to the radiators in the apartment. The court properly concluded that defendant did not violate its common-law duty to plaintiffs in failing to insulate the hot pipes *(see White v New York City Hous. Auth.,*139 AD3d 579, 580 [1st Dept 2016]; *see also Rivera v Nelson Realty, LLC,*7 NY3d 530, 535 [2006]). Plaintiffs argue that because the pipes were not the primary source of heat to the apartment, insulation would not have interfered with the functionality of the heating system, unlike in *White.*However, even plaintiffs’ expert acknowledged that the pipes were part of the heating system and supplied some heat to the room.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
163 A.3d 872

#### IN THE MATTER OF STEPHANIE A. HAND AN ATTORNEY AT LAW

July 6, 2017

ORDER

STEPHANIE A. HAND of LIVINGSTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2000, having been found guilty following a jury trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey of financial facilitation of criminal activity (second degree), in violation of *N.J.S.A*2C:21-25(b)(2)(a), and theft by deception (second degree), in violation of *N.J.S.A.*2C:20-4, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *Rule*1:20-13(b)(1), STEPHANIE A. HAND is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against him, effective immediately and until the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that STEPHANIE A. HAND be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that STEPHANIE A. HAND comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

*515ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this state.
# Net Natfonal LI -j 1ilI



## James E. McMahon (JEM cM ah o n@LBL v) Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

U.S. D O E Workshop on Standards for Distribution Transformers November 1, 2000 

# t

### Direct employment impacts related to

manufacturing of distribution transformers will be analyzed in detail as part of the manufacturer impact analysis.



### • Net national employment estimates the net effect of new standards on total employment, including effects on other sectors (utilities, commercial/industrial consumers).

2

# Net National Employmn

• Increased investment by transformer manufacturers
• Increased costs to transformer purchasers
• Decreased operating costs to transformer owners

# -i o nal Employmen

• Input costs and savings from National Energy Savings (NES) analysis


## • Consider impacts on different sectors - increased costs to manufacturers - increased costs to transformer purchasers - decreased operating costs to transformer owners


## • Estimate net employment impacts (using input/output or general equilibrium model) 42005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 1 N) Jobs (Thousands)
0) co 0 N A a) 8 N O

C!i

## oyment

• Possible decrease in employment in manufacturing and supporting sectors.
• Possible net increase in employment in utility and commercial/industrial sectors, depending upon whether the decreased operating costs exceed the increased installed costs.

• Net national employment impact from new ballast standards is small.
S. 202

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To designate the Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C., as the ‘‘Thurgood

Marshall Federal Judiciary Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal Judiciary Building in Washington, D.C., shall be

known and designated as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary

Building’’.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

Any reference in any law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the Federal Judiciary Building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.