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

[768 NYS2d 907]

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Sirkin, J.), entered July 9, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the first 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 upon his plea of guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree (Penal Law § 135.10). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying without a hearing his motion *1429to suppress evidence obtained as a result of an allegedly unlawful search and seizure. We disagree. Defendant failed to make a sufficient factual showing to require a hearing *(see*CPL 710.60 [3] [b]; *see generally People v Dixon,*85 NY2d 218, 221 [1995]; *People v Mendoza,*82 NY2d 415, 426 [1993]). If there is “no dispute as to the underlying facts, but only as to application of the law to the facts, . . . the motion [can] be determined on papers alone” *(Mendoza,*82 NY2d at 427). Here, it is undisputed that the police responded to defendant’s home to remove defendant’s girlfriend on a mental health arrest. Defendant was outside the house when the police arrived, and was yelling loudly and behaving wildly, but he eventually acquiesced in an officer’s request for him to go back inside the house. After an ambulance took defendant’s girlfriend to the hospital, the officer went back to defendant’s house to see whether anyone was injured. As the officer approached the house, defendant slammed and locked the door and ran around the house closing and locking the windows while yelling threats to the officer. At about the same time, a child inside the house yelled to the police from a window upstairs that defendant was going crazy and asked the police to remove defendant from the house. The officer asked the child to toss him the keys to the house, which the child did, and the officer entered the house. Based on those circumstances, the court properly concluded that the police were justified in entering the house under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement *(see generally People v Molnar,*98 NY2d 328, 332 [2002]). Defendant’s conclusory allegations that the child was not in danger and that there were no exigent circumstances are insufficient to raise an issue of fact requiring a hearing *(see People v Graham,*258 AD2d 387 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 899 [1999]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.
#### Kenneth LaRiviere, Appellant, v Anthony Williams et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 413]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about April 7, 2016, which, in an action arising out of defendants’ refusal to authenticate a certain painting, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

This Court, in considering a similar case, held that “[h]aving the status of the de facto sole arbiter of authenticity of an artist’s work is not automatically coupled with a legal obligation to take any particular steps regarding authentication. . . . *433[L]egal obligations must be grounded in contractual duties, tort duties or statutory duties” *(Thome v Alexander & Louisa Calder Found.,*70 AD3d 88, 110 [1st Dept 2009], *lv denied*15 NY3d 703 [2010]). In his complaint, plaintiff does not allege any legal obligation that defendants had to take any steps to authenticate plaintiffs alleged Jackson Pollock painting. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).

Furthermore, plaintiff is collaterally estopped from bringing this action (CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). In a prior action, Supreme Court determined that plaintiff’s allegations regarding the authenticity of the painting were unsupportable *(Lariviere v Thaw,*2000 NY Slip Op 50000[U], *7 [Sup Ct, NY County 2000]). In rejecting plaintiff’s claims of authenticity of the painting, the court in that action made a final determination, and plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to contest the decision *(see Schwartz v Public Adm’r of County of Bronx,*24 NY2d 65, 71 [1969]).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32242-32243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[NV-930-1430-01; NV-19622]


Notice of Public Meeting; Proposed Extension of Withdrawal; 
Nevada

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the time and place for two public 
meetings that will provide an opportunity for public involvement 
regarding the Department of the Navy's proposed extension of the land 
withdrawal for the Bravo-20 Bombing Range in Churchill County.

DATES: July 13 and 14, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis J. Samuelson, BLM Nevada State 
Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520, 702-861-6532.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that two public 
meetings will be held to provide an opportunity for public involvement 
regarding the application by the Department of the Navy for the land 
withdrawal extension for the Bravo-20 Bombing Range. A Notice of 
Proposed Extension of Withdrawal was published in the 63 FR 30250-
30251, June 3, 1998, FR Doc. 98-14654.
    There will be two meetings. The first meeting will be on Monday, 
July 13, 1998, at the Fallon Convention Center, 100 Campus Way, Fallon, 
NV. The second meeting will be on Tuesday, July 14, 1998, at the 
Airport Plaza Hotel, 1981 Terminal Way, Reno, NV. An open house will 
begin each day 3:00 p.m. at both locations and continue until 5:30 p.m. 
The purpose of the open house is for people to gather information on 
the proposed land withdrawal extension and ask questions. A formal 
public hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m. each day

[[Page 32243]]

and continue until 10:00 p.m. People interested in the proposed 
extension of the land withdrawal will have the opportunity to make 
formal remarks.

    Dated: June 9, 1998.
William K. Stowers,
Lands Team Lead.
[FR Doc. 98-15804 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANDRE ROMERO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 532 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of May, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

                         THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY
                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                                SECTION 906
                                  OF THE
                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
          Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Monarch Cement Company and will be retained by The
Monarch Cement Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


Dated:  May 14, 2004

                                         /S/ Walter H. Wulf, Jr.
                                        Walter H. Wulf, Jr.
                                        President and
                                        Chairman of the Board
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ALICIA WOODFORD , individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff ,

v. YAZAM INC

. , d/b/a EMPOWER,
Defendant

. Civil Action No. 22

- 0 3665 (BAH) Judge Beryl A. Howell

ORDER Upon consideration of defendant ’ s Motion to Dismiss , ECF No. 20 , plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class, ECF No. 19, the legal memoranda in support and in opposition, and the entire record herein, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED ; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Certify Class, ECF No. 19, is DENIED as moot; it
is further
ORDERED th at plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, ECF No. 1 7 , is dismissed ; and it is
further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case

. SO ORDERED

.
Date: November 21 , 202 3

____ ___________________________ BERYL A. HOWELL United States District Judge
# DLA Intelligence publishes new controlled unclassified information policy

/ Published Feb. 23, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Say goodbye to For Official Use Only. A Defense Logistics Agency policy published Jan. 28 by DLA Intelligence provides new guidance on labeling unclassified information that’s sensitive but doesn’t require classification.In March 2020, the Defense Department released DOD Instruction 5200.48 directing the use of “Controlled Unclassified Information” on documents, emails and other products previously labeled by various designations including “For Official Use Only,” “Sensitive But Unclassified,” “Limited Official Use” and “Law Enforcement Sensitive.”“At least 17 DOD and other federal agencies have over time adopted various identification, marking and safeguarding schemes to control access and dissemination of unclassified information that’s sensitive but doesn’t require classification. This inconsistency led to misunderstanding regarding what protection standards should be applied to those products,” said DLA Information Security Program Manager Matthew Baker.The new DLA policy, DLAI 5200.48, outlines how employees should apply the new markings as well as standards like encrypting emails containing CUI. It also helps employees identify information that requires protection and provides instructions on applying appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure.New mandatory training on CUI was launched Feb. 2 through the Learning Management System.“It is important to take the CUI training because this is a new approach to identifying and protecting information, and employees need to understand how to do so. They have a responsibility to follow the guidance of the CUI program,” Baker said.Baker said some of the changes include a requirement to include the following CUI designation indicator on the first page of all documents, unclassified or classified, that contain CUI:
      - Controlled by: [Name of DoD Component] (Only if not on letterhead)
      - Controlled by: [Name of Office]
      - CUI Category: [List category or categories of CUI]
      - Distribution/Dissemination Control: [Who is authorized to receive the information]
      - POC: [Phone or email address]  

“The new policy streamlines how sensitive, unclassified information is protected and eliminates confusion on how to protect data that is often an adversary’s path of least resistance,” said DLA Intelligence Director Stephanie Samergedes. “When employees fail to protect sensitive information, they risk consequences for negligence and become unwitting insider threats.”A DOD CUI registry also identifies CUI information.Employees should direct CUI questions to their local DI office. A CUI resource page is available on eWorkplace (a DLA Common Access Card is required to access the resources).
#### Melissa H., Matter of, v Shameer S.

1st Dept: 145 AD3d 472

denied*
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 12

                    U S WEST Communications, Inc.
                 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                        (Dollars in Millions)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Quarter Ended
                                                  9/30/96    9/30/95
------------------------------------------------ ---------  ---------
<S>                                                   <C>        <C>
Income before income taxes, extraordinary
  item and cumulative effect of change in
  accounting principle                                $477       $478
Interest expense (net of amounts capitalized)          104         98
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                        12         13
                                                 ---------  ---------
Earnings                                              $593       $589

Interest expense                                       105        109
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                        12         13
                                                 ---------  ---------
Fixed charges                                         $117       $122

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                    5.07       4.83
------------------------------------------------ ---------  ---------


<CAPTION>
                                                     Year-to-Date
                                                  9/30/96    9/30/95
------------------------------------------------ ---------  ---------
<S>                                                 <C>        <C>
Income before income taxes, extraordinary
  item and cumulative effect of change in
  accounting principle                              $1,500     $1,460
Interest expense (net of amounts capitalized)          308        284
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                        41         44
                                                 ---------  ---------
Earnings                                            $1,849     $1,788

Interest expense                                       337        314
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                        41         44
                                                 ---------  ---------
Fixed charges                                         $378       $358

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                    4.89       4.99
------------------------------------------------ ---------  ---------
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

 

**                                                THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY                                                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                                                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                                                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                                                                      SECTION 906                                                                           OF THE                                                    SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects,the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The MonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  November 14, 2006

                                                                                              /s/ Debra P. Roe                                                                                                                      Debra P. Roe, CPA                                                                                            Chief Financial Officer and                                                                                            Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
#### Delight Bvunzawabaya, Appellant, v JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al., Respondents.

[54 NYS3d 276]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lucy Billings, J.), entered January 22, 2015, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff asserts that he and a friend went together to Chase Bank, his friend’s bank, because he wanted to cash a check from his employer, and he had no identification due to his immigration status. The two signed their names in front of the teller, before sliding it under the teller window, with a deposit slip that instructed to clear the funds into the friend’s account. Chase, however, rejected the deposit, closed the friend’s account, and did not issue a replacement check until several months later.

When plaintiff endorsed and delivered the check to his friend, the friend became the holder of the check (UCC 3-202 [1]). Thus, only the friend was entitled to negotiate the check or to “enforce payment in [her] own name” (UCC 3-301). Plaintiff’s arguments in support of his contention that he, as payee of the check, is entitled to enforce its return or payment are unavailing. Plaintiff lacks standing to sue the bank for the return or *553proceeds of the check, because he is no longer the holder of the check *(see Gallery Garage Mgt. Corp. v Chemical Bank,*226 AD2d 305, 305 [1st Dept 1996]).

Plaintiff has abandoned his claims against the individual defendants *(see Derico v City of New York,*66 AD2d 740, 740 [1st Dept 1978]).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
# DLA now the sole provider for printing AND office devices in DOD 

/ Published June 4, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va. , 
The Defense Logistics Agency, already the designated sole provider of Department of Defense printing services, expanded its mission to include office print devices. In a directive signed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment last month, DLA will now procure, deliver and sustain all office devices for DOD. This includes office, desktop and stand-alone printers. It also includes copiers, fax machines, scanners and multi-function devices.

DLA’s office device program has been growing for years and already supports many DOD customers, including the Department of the Navy. The program is aimed at leasing networked MFDs – devices that print, scan and fax all in one.

“Using our cumulative DOD-wide savings data, we estimated the current DOD requirements and calculated we could potentially save the department, and ultimately the taxpayer, $247 million annually  if we transitioned all DOD office printers under DLA,” said Terra Nguyen, the division director for DLA’s office device program.

Customer relations specialists are located across the globe to help customers with these services. They assess what devices a customer needs and recommend configurations that will meet their equipment requirements. This eliminates redundant equipment and shifts from a single-function or standalone environment to a business model of shared resources with MFDs.

CRSs are also available to discuss printing and order options via  Data Services Online. DLA’s print facilities provide scanning and conversion as well as high quality, low-cost printing for anything from training manuals, brochures, and programs to banners, stickers, and signs. Ask a CRS for more details.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15096]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-2-8-000]


South Georgia Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes to 
FERC Gas Tariff

June 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 29, 1998, South Georgia Natural Gas Company 
(South Georgia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, to be 
effective July 1, 1998:

Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 5
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 6

    South Georgia states that the instant filing is submitted pursuant 
to Section 19.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of its Tariff to 
adjust its fuel retention percentage (FRP) for all transportation 
services on its system effective July 1, 1998. The derivation of the 
revised FRP is based on South Georgia's gas required for operations 
(GRO) for the twelve-month period ending April 30, 1998, adjusted for 
the balance accumulated in the Deferred GRO Account at the end of said 
period, divided by the transportation volumes received during the same 
twelve-month period. Based on this calculation, the revised FRP is 
2.24% which is an increase from the currently effective FRP of 1.70%.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15096 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M