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

[54 NYS3d 871]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), dated August 28, 2016, which, after a hearing, designated him a level three sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

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

The County Court properly rejected the defendant’s request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level. A court determining a defendant’s risk level under the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA) may not downwardly depart from the presumptive risk level unless the defendant first identifies and proves by a preponderance of the evidence the facts in support of “a mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is not otherwise adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines” *(People v Lathan,*129 AD3d 686, 686-687 [2015]; *see*SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]). Here, the defendant failed to identify a proper mitigating factor *(see People v Rodriguez,*145 AD3d 489, 490 [2016]; *People v Roldan,*140 AD3d 411, 412 [2016]). The defendant’s contention that use of the risk assessment instrument violated due process is without merit *(see People v Ferrer,*69 AD3d 513, 514 [2010]; *cf. People v McFarland,*29 Misc 3d 1206[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51705[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2010], *affd*88 AD3d 547 [2011]; *cf. generally*New York City Bar Association, Report on Legislation by the Criminal Courts Committee, the Criminal Justice Operations Committee, the Criminal Law Committee, and the Corrections and Community Reentry Committee, A2190, S3097 [reissued June 2015], available at http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/ uploads/20072469-SexOffenderRegistrationActReport.pdf [accessed June 15, 2017]).

Balkin, J.R, Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                               HEALTH GRADES, INC.

                  CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      PURSUANT TO RULE 15D-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

         I, Kerry R. Hicks, Chief Executive Officer of Health Grades, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that, based on my
knowledge:

         (1)      The Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                    *   *   *

KERRY R. HICKS
--------------------
Kerry R. Hicks
President and CEO

Date: March 30, 2004
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                            |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Synplicity Deutschland GmbH                     |  | Germany                      
|Synplicity Europe Ltd.                          |  | United Kingdom               
|Synplicity France SARL                          |  | France                       
|Synplicity Israel Ltd.                          |  | Israel                       
|Synplicity Japan KK                             |  | Japan                        
|Synplicity Software India Pvt. Ltd              |  | India                        
|SYNP AB                                         |  | Sweden                       
|Synplicity Arastirma Gelistirme Limited Sirketi |  | Turkey                       
|Synplicity International, Inc                   |  | Korea                        
|Synplicity International, Inc                   |  | Taiwan                       
|Synplicity International, Inc                   |  | China
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29699-29700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14445]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Docket 28-98]


Foreign-Trade Zone 204--Blountville, TN, Application for Subzone 
Status, Hanover Direct, Inc. (Distribution of Consumer Goods) Roanoke, 
VA

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) by the Tri-Cities Airport Commission, grantee of FTZ 204, 
requesting special-purpose subzone status for the consumer goods

[[Page 29700]]

distribution facility of Hanover Direct, Inc., located in Roanoke, 
Virginia. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of 
the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the 
regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on 
May 26, 1998.
    The Roanoke facility (545,000 sq. ft. on 52 acres) is located at 
5022 Hollins Road, Roanoke, VA. The facility (300 employees) is used 
for storage, inspection, packaging and distribution of a wide variety 
of consumer products such as home furnishings, housewares, home 
improvement accessories, garden products, safety products, men's and 
women's apparel and accessories, golf equipment and accessories, 
athletic wear, and jewelry and gifts. The facility supports Hanover's 
mail order business. About 20 percent of the products are sourced from 
abroad and over five percent are exported.
    Zone procedures would exempt Hanover from Customs duty payments on 
foreign products that are reexported. On its domestic sales, the 
company would be able to defer duty payments until merchandise is 
shipped from the plant. The application indicates that the savings from 
zone procedures would help improve the plant's international 
competitiveness.
    In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ 
staff has been appointed examiner to investigate the application and 
report to the Board.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
(original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive 
Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is 
July 31, 1998. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted 
during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-
day period to August 17, 1998.
    A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be 
available for public inspection at each of the following locations:

Tri-Cities Regional Airport, P.O. Box 1058, Air Cargo Building, 
Blountville, Tennessee 37617.
Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 
3716, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20230.

    Dated: May 26, 1998.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-14445 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          73,861                  73,861
<SECURITIES>                                 1,350,000               1,350,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  840,606                 840,606
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    312,300                 312,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,748,414               2,748,414
<PP&E>                                       2,032,979               2,032,979
<DEPRECIATION>                               (545,339)               (545,339)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,236,054               4,236,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,298,570               3,298,570
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                  7,502,458               7,502,458
<COMMON>                                     1,312,799               1,312,799
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,347,056)             (8,347,056)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,236,054               4,236,054
<SALES>                                      1,345,633               2,941,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,345,633               2,941,542
<CGS>                                        1,215,633               2,608,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,742,521               4,280,676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               104,140                 798,062
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,642                  41,035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,716,661)             (4,745,324)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,716,661)             (4,745,324)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,716,661)             (4,745,324)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)                  (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)                  (0.39)
        

</TABLE>
# FILED
July 9, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9812-CC-00383 ) vs. ) DYER COUNTY ) DARREN A. DIXON, ) No. C98-16 ) Appellant. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon the state’s motion to affirm the tr ial court judgment pursuant to R ule 20, Rules of the Court of Cr iminal Appeals. The appellant in this case pled guilty to possessi on of a controlled substance w ith intent to sell or deliver and being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun and was sentenced to twelve y

ears imprisonment. The appellant is seeking to appeal a cer tified question of law, that is, whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence due to an illeg al search. After the appellant filed his brief, the state filed th e present motion claiming that this Court is preclud ed from reviewing the denial of the motion to suppress because the tr anscript from the hearing on the motion is not included in the appellate record. The appellant has no t responded to the state’s motion.
While the state’s position is correc t, we believe the tr

ial court judgments should be affirmed for another reason. The j udgments of guilt in this c ase were entered on July 9, 1998. Howev er, nowhere in the final j udgments is there any menti on that the appellant is reservi ng a dispositive q uestion of law for appellate r eview. On August 3 , 1998, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to this Court. Subsequent ly, on August 4, 19 98 , t he

tr ia l c ou rt fi le d a co ns en t o rd er

pu rp or ti ngto ce rt if y t he qu esti on of

la w. We believe, however, the appellant failed to expli citly reserve a certified question of law that is dispositive of this

case in accordance with Tenn.R.Crim.P. 37(b)(2) (i) or (ii) and State2

v. Preston , 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988). The history of this case is almost identical to that in State v. Pendergrass , 937 S.W.2d 834 (Te nn. 1996), which controls the Court’s decision in this matter.

Accordingly, for the r

easons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that t he state’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is af firmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Since the record reflects the appellant is indigent, c

osts of this proceeding shal l be assessed to the state.

______________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

______________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E

______________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
# Disposition Services in Columbus, Ohio plays host to Logistics Operation Director  

/ Published Sept. 3, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Defense Logistics Agency Director of Logistics Operations and Commander of Joint Regional Combat Support, Rear Admiral Joseph Noble recently toured the Disposition Services site in Columbus, Ohio. 

The purpose of this tour was to give the Director some insight on the inner workings and procedures of the Columbus facility, which is one of the busiest within the agency. The on-hand staff were able to explain and demonstrate the site’s capabilities for RADM Noble. 

                Disposition Services in Columbus plays host to Logistics Operation Director                            Defense Logistics Agency Director of Logistics Operations and Commander of Joint Regional Combat Support, Rear Admiral Joseph Noble and Brian Decarlo of Disposition Services Columbus, Ohio facility converse during a recent site visit.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Disposition ServicesVIRIN: 210903-D-AU600-201“The goal is for him to see the complexity of the operations,” said Ken Mayle, the facility’s operations manager. “I would hope his take away is the depth and the breadth of [our] process. It’s not just throwing an item away. There are so many processes and so many checks and balances that we have to do.” 

The day’s activities included a briefing and walking the warehouse. During this portion the Director was able to observe material, examiner and inspection team members working property which is one of the core functions within the disposition process.

For Noble, this was an opportunity to witness Disposition Services staff in person supporting DLA’s no-fail mission. 

“DLA has a great mission across all of the major subordinate commands, but I feel like Disposition Services are oftentimes the unsung heroes,” said Noble. “Nobody else can do what you all do and that’s pretty special. Thanks for what you’re doing.”

This was the first trip to the Columbus facility for Noble as he makes his way to multiple Disposition Services locations to include Battle Creek, Michigan, in the coming weeks.                 Defense Logistics Agency Director of Logistics Operations and Commander of Joint Regional Combat Support, Rear Admiral Joseph Noble poses with facility staff during a recent visit to the Disposition Services Columbus warehouse.                            Disposition Services in Columbus plays host to Logistics Operation Director                            Defense Logistics Agency Director of Logistics Operations and Commander of Joint Regional Combat Support, Rear Admiral Joseph Noble poses with facility staff during a recent visit to the Disposition Services Columbus warehouse.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Disposition ServicesVIRIN: 210903-D-AU600-203
Exhibit 10.2

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Elbit Systems
Ltd. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-9354) of our report dated March 5, 2006, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Elisra Electronic Systems Ltd. and subsidiaries,
which report appears in this December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 20-F of Elbit Systems
Ltd.

/s/ Somekh Chaikin
Somekh Chaikin
Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

Tel-Aviv, Israel,
June 26, 2006
Order entered September 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00546-CV

ARHONDA JONES, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06537-B

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 19, 2019 third motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to October 18, 2019. We expressly 

caution appellant that failure to file a brief by October 18, 2019 may result in dismissal of this 

appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
# University of Toledo Fall 2020 Virtual Engineering Career Expo

/ Published Oct. 15, 2020
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime’s Engineering and Technical Directorate participated in a Virtual Engineering Career Expo with the University of Toledo Sept. 29. This online event connected employers with engineering students, recent graduates, and alumni seeking both internships and full-time employment. 

The DLA virtual booth spoke to several potential applicants. Attendees from a variety of engineering disciplines including aerospace, biomedical, chemical, computer, electrical and mechanical were interested in either internship opportunities or full-time employment.

Topics of interest included career progression such as the Pathways to Career Excellence program, engineering roles within DLA hazardous materials programs, document standardization, audits, testing, work-life balance, benefits, telework, flexible hours, credit hours, exercise/wellness programs, tuition assistance, reasonable accommodations and loan forgiveness. Many attendees were excited to learn about the possibilities and benefits of a career with the federal government.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morgans Foods, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
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-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and
Rule 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
   Date: December 23, 2009
    /s/ Leonard R. Stein-SapirLeonard R. Stein-SapirChairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      23.1**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
      (No.333-49759 and No. 333-104144) on Form S-8 of First South Bancorp, Inc.
      and
      Subsidiary of our reports dated March 5, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
      financial statements of First South Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiary, management's
      assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
      and
      the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports
      appear in First South Bancorp, Inc.'s 2007 Annual Report on Form
      10-K.





/s/
      Turlington and Company, L.L.P.





Lexington,
      North Carolina


March
      5,
      2008
#### Com. v. Williams 32

04/05/2016

824 MAL (2015)

32

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 477
# The BOTS are coming

/ Published Jan. 31, 2019

Computer-programmed Robotic Process Automation, or BOTS, can be developed to perform routine tasks done by humans and eliminate repetitive, manual data-entry tasks. Soon, tedious and time consuming technological tasks could become a thing of the past.

Defense Logistics Agency Energy’s Business Process Support Directorate and Procurement Process Support Directorate are in the forefront of employing a couple of BOT initiatives to improve the quality and increase productivity of routine automated processes. 

Tom Turets, director of DLA Energy BPSD, explained how BOTS can make life easier for DLA Energy employees.

“For the DLA Energy BPSD Change Management team, a BOT can help send routine email notifications to Enterprise Business Portal users,” he said. “Currently, the team manually distributes custom notifications to employees, customers and partners for EBS maintenance windows or downtime. Potentially, the BOT could be expanded in scope for other similar communication efforts.” 

In DLA Energy PPSD, a BOT is being implemented to pull and populate pricing data on large DLA Energy contract solicitations. Detailed data manipulation and repetitive data entry requires extensive time to update the solicitation, averaging around a minute per line item. 

“BOTs can be commanded to gather the pricing data and perform this same entry overnight,” explained Bruce Blank, director of DLA Energy PPSD.

Robotic Process Automation is well suited for processes that are clearly defined, repeatable and rules based, Turets explained. To be most efficient and useful, BOTS are usually developed to perform processes that can save 2,000 man hours or more per year.

“While these BOTS will certainly spare employees the task of performing tedious and time-consuming computer processes, the intent is not to take away anyone’s job,” said DLA Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Albert Miller. “Using technology, we can save critical man-hours and allow employees to focus on more engaging, complex, analytical work.” 

Miller added these projects are being coordinated with DLA Information Operations and, based on the results, the intent is to go out to a broader DLA Energy audience to solicit additional projects.

For more information on DLA and BOTS, you can read this story by Sara Moore with DLA Information Operations.
#### Com. v. Soldridge

03/29/2016

871 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 98
Wyoming Nitrate Contribution to Sula Peak

Worst

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 24 WY 0.0055625 0.0001417 0.003425 0.0001792 0.0014458 0.0107542

Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Worst) to Nitrate at Sula Peak = 0.01 divided by 0.4, or 3%

Best

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 23 WY 0.0002 0 0.0002304 8.70E-06 9.13E-05 0.0005304

Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Best) to Nitrate at Sula Peak = 0.0005 divided by 0.5, or < 1%