alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30761-30762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15158]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 10, 1998.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

Supplementary Information: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.bog.frb.fed.us for an electronic announcement that not only 
lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information 
about the meeting.


[[Page 30762]]


    Dated: June 3, 1998.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-15158 Filed 6-3-98; 2:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30814-30815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14958]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Treasury Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of the U.S. 
Customs Service; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Departmental Offices, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the date and location of the next 
meeting and the agenda for consideration by the Treasury Advisory 
Committee on Commercial Operations of the U.S. Customs Service.

DATES: The next meeting of the Treasury Advisory Committee on 
Commercial Operations of the U.S. Customs Service will be held on June 
26, 1998. The session will be held at the Marriot Financial Center, 85 
West Street, New York, New York. (Tel. 212-266-6246, FAX: 212-385-9174) 
from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis M. O'Connell, Director, Office of Tariff and Trade Affairs, 
Office of the Under Secretary for Enforcement, Room 4004, 1500 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. Tel.: (202) 622-0220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the seventh meeting of the current 
two-year term of the Committee. The provisional agenda to be considered 
at the meeting is as follows:
    1. Introduction of the Chief U.S. Textile Negotiator, Mr. Donald 
Johnson, and a discussion of the textile program.

[[Page 30815]]

    2. Automated Export System: report of the subcommittee to develop 
industry recommendations.
    3. Status and progress of Customs automation.
    4. Current priorities in commercial enforcement.
    5. The Merchandise Processing Fee and aggregation of entries: How 
can they be harmonized?
    The foregoing provisional agenda may be modified prior to the 
meeting.
    Members of the public may verify the final content of the agenda by 
calling the information number one week prior to the meeting. The 
Committee, in its discretion, may take up other matters, time 
permitting. The meeting is open to the public. However, participation 
in the discussion is limited to Committee members and Treasury and 
Customs staff. It is necessary for any person other than an Advisory 
Committee member who wishes to attend the meeting to give notice by 
contacting Ms. Theresa Manning no later than June 19, 1998 at 202-622-
0220.

    Dated: June 2, 1998.
Dennis M. O'Connell,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary (Regulatory, Tariff and Trade 
Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 98-14958 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-M
#### In the Matter of Ivy Garduno, Appellant, v Franklin Valdez, Respondent.

[52 NYS3d 345]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fasanaya, J.), entered on or about October 13, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondent ex-husband’s objections to a modification of an earlier support order (the modified order) and remanded the matter for recalculation by the Support Magistrate, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the objections denied, and the modified order reinstated. Appeal from order, Family Court, New York County (Karen D. Kolomechuk, S.M.), entered on or about November 15, 2016, issued upon the aforementioned remand, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The modified order was consistent with the application of the statutory formula followed in *Matter of Cassano v Cassano*(85 NY2d 649, 651 [1995], citing Family Ct Act § 413; Domestic Relations Law § 240), and the Support Magistrate did not improvidently exercise her discretion in issuing it. The Support Magistrate properly calculated the husband’s 2015 salary as $126,160.15, which was the salary the husband testified to at the support hearing and the amount of his gross income as reflected on his 2015 W-2. The husband’s voluntarily deferred income in the form of his 401 (k) contributions was properly included in his income (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5] [iii]; *see also Gilbert v Gilbert,*32 AD3d 414, 416 [2d Dept 2006]).

The Family Court also incorrectly found that the Support Magistrate improperly applied the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) to the parties’ combined income above the statu*552tory cap of $143,000. The Support Magistrate had the option of applying the statutory percentage (here, 17% for one child) “and/or” the statutory factors contained in subsection (f) of Family Ct Act § 413, or some combination of those two methods *(see Cassano,*85 NY2d at 653-654; *see also Gina P. v Stephen S.,*33 AD3d 412 [1st Dept 2006]). The Support Magistrate elected to apply the statutory percentage to the parties’ above-the-cap income and provided three sound reasons for doing do, including the child’s special needs, which was not an improvident exercise of discretion *(id.; see also Anonymous v Anonymous,*286 AD2d 585 [1st Dept 2001]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
No. 12-7105.

#### Shahin *v.*Visalli et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
Exhibit
15.9



CONSENT



We
hereby consent to the reference to our valuation of options granted by the Elbit Imaging Ltd. during the year ended December 31,
2016 under the Elbit Medical Ltd. and Elbit Imaging Ltd. option plans, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elbit Imaging
Ltd., and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report in the Registration Statement on Form F-1 (Registration No.
333-194519) and in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-172122) and in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (Registration No. 333-117509, No. 333-130852, No. 333-136684 and No. 333-152820) of Elbit Imaging Ltd.



This
consent is not to be construed as an admission that we are an expert or that we are a person whose consent is required to be filed
under the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.



|/s/
    Pulvernis Bareket Ben-Yehuda Ltd. | 
|----------------------------------------- | 
|Pulvernis
    Bareket Ben-Yehuda Ltd.     | 
|Formerly
    Known as De- Kalo Ben Yehuda | 
|                                          | 
|[Budapest,
    Hungary]                   | 
|November
    9, 2017                      |
# DLA sees supplier favorability rise in 3 of 4 categories in 2020 survey

/ Published March 23, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Early results of a 2020 survey that measures suppliers’ experience doing business with the Defense Logistics Agency during contract solicitation and post-award processes show positive improvements in attitudes in three of four overarching areas. 

The DLA Supplier Survey measures 17 factors in four categories: communications, effectiveness, supplier relationships, and growth and profit potential. 

“Our trends are up from the 2018 survey in all areas except growth and profit potential, which measures how suppliers see us as a business opportunity,” DLA Ombudsman Tim Stark said. “The slight dip there can probably be attributed to some of the challenges we’ve had in the past year with the funding environment and pandemic.”

The biggest improvement was seen in innovation followed by timeliness. Over 8,100 suppliers were invited Nov. 12 to complete the anonymous survey, which closed March 18. The response rate was 34% compared to 38% in 2018, with 81% of participants being small businesses; 16%, large businesses and 3%, non-profits. The demographics closely match those of the previous survey and allows for close comparison between the two, Stark said.

DLA Acquisition officials at DLA Headquarters are breaking down results by supply chain to share with major subordinate commands in the next couple weeks. Results will be used to drive improvements like those made following the 2018 survey. DLA Aviation invested more resources in post-award reporting, for example, and DLA Energy recently debuted an industry newsletter that features upcoming procurement opportunities and demand information planning. 

Modernizing acquisition and supply chain management is one of five lines of effort featured in the upcoming DLA Strategic Plan for 2021-2026, Stark added. Strengthening supplier relationships is expected to aid those efforts and ensure a diverse industrial base. 

DLA will also present survey results to suppliers in a May 5 webinar with industry leaders.
|                                                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                               
|View History:                                                                                                
|                                                                                                             
|Price of Freeport, TX Natural Gas LNG Imports from Other Countries  (Nominal Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                             
|Price of Freeport, TX Natural Gas LNG Imports from Other Countries  (Nominal Dollars per Thousand 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | --     | 12.95  | --     | --     | --     | --     |       
|- = 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 Sheldon Herron, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 398]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Maxwell Wiley, J.), rendered March 4, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and resisting arrest, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Initially, we find no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations.

The evidence supports an inference that the injury to a detective who was attempting to arrest defendant was more than mere “petty slaps, shoves, kicks and the like” *(Matter of Philip A.,*49 NY2d 198, 200 [1980]), and that it caused “more than slight or trivial pain” *(People v Chiddick,*8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]). The injury to the detective’s hand caused pain that lasted at least a week, required the use of pain relievers, and interfered with the detective’s ability to work and perform other activities. The detective’s hand was also splinted during an emergency room visit, which was followed up by other medical examinations. The jury was entitled to base its finding of substantial pain on the detective’s testimony *(see People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]), which was corroborated in any event.

The evidence also established that the injury was caused by defendant when he was resisting arrest. Even if the precise manner in which the injury was caused is unknown, the only rational explanation of the injury is that defendant caused it in the course of his violent struggle with the detective.

The evidence also established that the detective was performing a lawful duty (Penal Law § 120.05 [3]), consisting of arresting defendant for selling drugs. The fact that the jury acquitted defendant of the sale charge does not warrant a different *416conclusion (see *People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557 [2000]), particularly because the People were only required to prove that the detective had probable cause for an arrest, not that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime for which he was being arrested.

Defendant’s arguments concerning the People’s summation and the court’s charge do not warrant reversal.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
# DDTP’s Safe and Sound Fair mixes information with fun and games

/ Published Sept. 24, 2019
TOBYHANNA, Pa., 
The Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, Safety Team held a Safe and Sound Fair as part of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s annual Safe and Sound Week Campaign Aug.12-13. The campaign is a nationwide event held each August that recognizes the successes of workplace safety and health programs and offers information and ideas on how to keep America's workers safe.

According to Scott Kinney, safety team member, DDTP, this campaign places emphasis on management leadership, employee involvement, and identifying and fixing hazards.

“Information booths were set up from various organizations to raise safety awareness not only at work, but at home as well,” said Kinney, who continued, “Our host site presenters consisted of Industrial Hygiene, Medical Clinic, Environmental, Employee Assistance Program, Army Community Services and the Fire Department.”

Demonstrations were held and blood pressure screenings were conducted by the health clinic. DLA Safety and Security also had booths and games set up for the employees. The Pennsylvania Boat and Fish Commission donated informational booklets, bags and brochures for all of the attendees.

DDTP’s Defense Logistics Employee and Community Outreach Organization hosted a safety poster contest for employees and their family members, set up a hydration station during the fair and rewarded employees for working safely with an ice cream social.

Additionally, Safe and Sound Week activities consisted of daily safety messages, spot the hazard contest, employee safety banner, managers participating in a “Take 3 in 30” challenge, and the safety fair itself. 

The DLA Safety Team hosted games which focused on alcohol impairment and boating safety. Drunk Buster goggles were utilized to simulate alcohol impairment; employees attempted to walk a straight line and operate a tri-cycle through a slalom course.

"The boating awareness game consisted of employees properly wearing a life jacket and fishing out of a cardboard pirate ship which was created by Jeffrey Arnold, a DDTP employee,” said Kinney, adding, “This event was a great success and we look forward to next year’s campaign!”
(June 15, 2017)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daquan Anderson, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 272]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Eugene Oliver, Jr., J.), rendered February 29, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of six months, concurrent with five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094 [2016]), which forecloses review of his suppression claims. The court’s oral explanation of the appeal waiver “was sufficient because the right to appeal was adequately described without lumping it into the panoply of *543rights normally forfeited upon a guilty plea” *(People v Sanders,*25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]). Even if there was any ambiguity in the colloquy, defendant executed a detailed written waiver that he discussed with counsel, and which explained that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the rights forfeited by pleading guilty. Furthermore, although defendant also pleaded guilty to an unrelated misdemeanor, the court clearly stated that the appeal waiver applied to the felony conviction at issue.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Feinman, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
#### State v. Young

CAAP-13-0002226

07/31/2014

Affirmed
*April 24, 2017*

2017-Ohio-1475.]

2013-0924.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall.

On application for reinstatement by respondent, Joy Lenore Marshall, Attorney Registration No. 0073585, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio. Application denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,523
<INVENTORY>                                        268
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,717
<PP&E>                                          11,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,568
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 269,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,589
<BONDS>                                         72,354
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           196
<OTHER-SE>                                     144,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   269,227
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               108,406
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,076
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,892
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,842
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,522
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,320
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53


</TABLE>
No. 10M3.

#### Mark A. McCord, Petitioner v. Michael G. O’Neill.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 373,

178 L. Ed. 2d 10,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6268.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 237.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Migali Gonzalez, Also Known as Mercedes Morejon, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 917]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment

of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered January 11, 2002, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing on the issue of the defendant’s termination from her Day top Village drug rehabilitation program, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Queens County, shall file its report with all convenient speed.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, a hearing is necessary to clarify the appellate record as to the reasons for the defendant’s discharge from the drug program. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.
# What the holidays mean to me: Staci Clark-Allen

/ Published Dec. 28, 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:** Staci Clark-Allen

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Jacksonville

**What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically?** I’m a management assistant, providing administrative support to the Commander and Deputy Commander here at DLA Aviation in Jacksonville, Florida.

**What do the holidays mean to you?**It is a time for family and reflecting on all the blessings we have received throughout the year.

**What are your fondest holiday memories?** My fondest memory of the holidays was treading through the snow and cold to get to my grandmother’s house by 10 p.m. for our annual Christmas Eve celebration. It was a tradition that was started in 1974 and continues today. The time was so significant because it ensured we brought in Christmas Day as a family. It was also a time for our family, friends and extended family to get together, have a great meal, laugh and have tons of fun.

**What are your favorite holiday traditions?**My favorite holiday traditions are attending Christmas Eve parties and exchanging gifts with my family.

**Name your favorite holiday song and why it’s your favorite:**My favorite holiday song is**“**This Christmas” by Donny Hathaway. I remember my mother playing this song at the start of every Christmas holiday season. I still play it for my children, which is the signal that it is officially Christmas time in the Allen house.
No. 09-10551.

#### Reginald Young, Petitioner v. Blaine C. Lafler, Warden.

562 U.S. 846, 131 S. Ct. 89,

178 L. Ed. 2d 56,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5972.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 10M20.

#### Curtis L. Smith, Petitioner v. Lynn Cooper, Warden.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 375,

178 L. Ed. 2d 12,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6494.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.