alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mrs. Hortense J. Reese, *Plaintiff in Error,*vs. Arthur C. Schenck, as Receiver of and for the Bank of Wauchula, *Defendant in Error.*

144 So. 313.

Opinion filed November 2, 1932.

*Leitner & Leitner,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Latimer G. Farr,*for Defendant in Error.

Buford, C. J.

In this case Schenck, as receiver, sued Mrs. Reese on certain promissory notes.

The second amended second plea of the defendant, in which it is attempted to plead “no consideration” and the allegations of which must be construed most strongly against the pleader, shows that Mrs. Reese while under coverture executed a note with her husband. The plea further shows that after Mrs. Reese was divorced the bank threatened suit. Mrs. Reese, to avoid the threatened suit and because of alleged misrepresentations by the Bank as to her legal liability, made and executed her individual notes to the bank and received in exchange therefor the note executed by herself and her former husband, being the note first above mentioned. The note being valid obligation of the divorced husband constituted a valuable consideration for the notes of Mrs. Reese. The plea is silent as to whether or not the original notes were endorsed by the Bank before delivery to her, but this is *167immaterial, as in any event she would he entitled to have the endorsement of the bank on the notes. See Parr v. Fort Pierce Bank & Trust Co., 100 Fla. 941, 130 South. Rep. 445.

The note of husband and wife was void as to the married woman. After the execution of the note Mrs. Reese was divorced and thereby became *sui juris.*As the plea shows upon its own allegations that there was valuable consideration for the original individual notes of Mrs. Reese and that the notes sued on were notes given by her in renewal of such original individual notes, the demurrer was properly sustained.

The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
2017-1759.

#### State v. Gordon.

Summit App. No. 28331, 2017-Ohio-7147. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion fails for *1526want of four votes. Cause dismissed.

Kennedy and O’Donnell, JJ., would grant the motion for leave.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Neill, J., not participating.
# Workforce responding to DLA Culture/Climate Survey

/ Published Oct. 21, 2020
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Good participation is key to a successful survey, according to Denison Consulting, the firm that oversees the Defense Logistics Agency Culture/Climate Survey.

DLA Disposition Services has continually enjoyed higher response rates when compared among DLA’s major subordinate commands, and so far, this year’s 2020 DLA Culture/Climate Survey rate is no different. More than 20% of the workforce had completed the survey within the first few days of the survey period.

DLA Human Resources Director Brad Bunn gave kudos to DLA Disposition Services in a recent DLA Human Resources Bulletin. DLA Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon also praised the workforce, noting that the early results represented a larger percentage than any part of DLA with more than 300 people assigned.

The survey shows what areas an organization needs to focus on and where it is doing well, according to Denison. Once the survey period closes, reports are created that include a colored wheel representing the degree of alignment within different areas of an organization. The more color, the better the alignment.

To encourage honest responses, the DLA survey is confidential. No names are linked to responses and raw data is processed by Denison. Employees are asked to provide demographic information when completing the survey and the DLA Culture Team has said employees have asked if that data makes them identifiable and why that information is included.

The answer is no, survey participants cannot be identified. Reports can only be generated for groups of 10 or more to keep responses confidential. If less than 10 individuals from a work area respond, those responses are aggregated into the next level work area data.

Information such as grade, gender, race and length of time employed at DLA is used to create reports and identify trends. For example, are the results for wage grade and general schedule employees similar or do they vary? Is the wheel for men as full of color as it is for women?

Agency leadership and the DLA Culture Team review results to determine reasons for response differences and identify actions needed to improve organizational culture.

Cannon regularly encourages employees to take advantage of the comment write-in section of the survey, as he said he personally reads every comment and they often help leadership pinpoint what needs to change and aids in the development of an action plan.

The DLA Culture/Climate Survey continues through November 13. Any person employed by DLA Disposition Services since before June 30, 2020, who has not received a survey link can contact their local Culture Champion or the DLA Disposition Services Culture Champion.
2017-1406.

#### State ex rel. Schroeder v. Gallagher.

In Procedendo and Prohibition. On relator’s application for dismissal. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8593

RONALD JERRY SAWYER, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus B. F. FERGUSON, Captain; K. L. OSBORNE; G. D. JOHNSON; LIEUTENANT DOSS; I. OHARA; MS. RECTOR; PAM SHUMATE; MRS. RATCLIFFE; MRS. THOMAS; ELAINE MORRIS; BRENDA CREGGER; SERGEANT SNIDER; PATRICIA WOODS; KAREN RUSSELL; MIKE HENDERSON; HERMAN L. WYNN; MR. TEASTER; MR. SLATE; MR. BLEVINS; MARIE BLEVINS; BOB STAMPER, Sergeant; KAREN RUSSELL; MR. RUSSELL; MR. HASH; RONALD POSTON; STEVE GUY; OFFICER COUTRAN; MR. MCMILLAIN; MR. SHEFFY; ARMENTROUT, Assistant Warden; R. D. BARLOW; OFFICER MARTIN; MR. CULLOP; T. R. DOSS; SERGEANT DOSS; J. CLARKE; OFFICER COE; COLIN ANGLICKER; MR. CONNERS; LINDA GOODE; JOHN FAULS, Doctor; R. DAY, Captain; P. J. MULLER, Counselor; P. BRERETON, Counselor; F. S. SPENCE, Major; P. A. TERRAING; E. T. TURNER; AL TURNER; G. PUGH; J. A. SMITH, JR.; MRS. CODY; MRS. DELBOARD; RONALD ANGELONE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-1058-R) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 28, 19962 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Jerry Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § (1983) (1988) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sawyer v. Ferguson , No. CA-94-1058-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 1, 1995). We deny Appellant'smotions for appointment of counsel and for preparation of a transcript at government expense. We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### ESRT 250 West 57th St., L.L.C., Respondent, v 13D/West 57th LLC et al., Appellants. 13D/West 57th LLC, Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant, v ESRT 250 West 57th St., L.L.C., et al., Counterclaim Defendants-Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 363]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered March 4, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of plaintiff and counterclaim defendants’ to dismiss the first, second and third counterclaims and the fourth, fifth and part of the third affirmative defenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants, a commercial tenant and its principal, asserted counterclaims and affirmative defenses predicated on the violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment or constructive eviction. Those claims were properly dismissed, as the only harm suffered was by tenant’s purported subtenant, which subtenancy was wholly unauthorized, in violation of the lease *(see Excel Graphics Tech. v CFG/AGSCB 75 Ninth Ave.,*1 AD3d 65, 70 [1st Dept 2003], *lv dismissed*2 NY3d 794 [2004]). Tenant cannot recover for interference by landlord with an unlawful subtenancy *(cf. 150 Greenway Terrace, LLC v Cullen,*14 Misc 3d 130[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50020[U] [App Term, 2d Dept. 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Defendants’ claims are further barred by the clause in the lease that prohibits landlord from being liable for the acts of other tenants *(see Alpha Holding Corp. v Brescio,*2009 NY Slip Op 30936[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2009]).

The counterclaim and affirmative defense based on fraud were also properly dismissed. While landlord allegedly knew that the neighboring unit’s marijuana smoking would impair defendants’ use of the premises, the landlord made no actionable misstatement, and it had no duty to speak, given the arm’s length nature of the landlord-tenant relationship *(see Sehera Food Servs. Inc. v Empire State Bldg. Co. L.L.C.,*74 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur — Richter, J.R, Mazzarelli, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

[Prior Case History: 2016 NY Slip Op 30353(U).]
#### In the Matter of Margaret Wooster et al., Appellants, v Queen City Landing, LLC, et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[51 NYS3d 918]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered November 9, 2016 in this CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment granted those parts of respondents’ motions to dismiss the claim of petitioners alleging that respondents violated the performance bond provisions of General City Law §§ 27-a (7) and 33 (8) (a).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Wooster v Queen City Landing, LLC*([appeal No. 1] 150 AD3d 1689 [2017]).

Present—Whalen, P.J., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Scudder, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory J. Vogt, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 259]

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered June 8, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree.

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

*1705Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [2]). Defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered is not preserved for our review because defendant “did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction” *(People v Laney,*117 AD3d 1481, 1482 [2014]), but we agree with defendant that his recitation of the facts underlying the charge cast significant doubt upon his guilt insofar as it negated the element of intent, and thus this case “falls within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement” *(People v Bertollini*[appeal No. 2], 141 AD3d 1163, 1164 [2016]). Nevertheless, we affirm, inasmuch as County Court conducted the requisite inquiry to ensure that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). Here, while defendant’s initial statements regarding his intent to injure the victim “ ‘trigger [ed] the trial court’s duty to conduct a further inquiry to ensure that defendant’s plea was knowingly and voluntarily made’ ” *(People v Bonacci,*119 AD3d 1348, 1349 [2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 1042 [2014], quoting *People v McNair,*13 NY3d 821, 822-823 [2009]), we conclude that the court “properly conducted such an inquiry and that ‘defendant’s responses to the court’s subsequent questions removed [any] doubt about [his] guilt’ ” *(id.; see People v Ocasio,*265 AD2d 675, 677-678 [1999]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court had no duty to engage in an additional inquiry regarding a possible justification defense. “ ‘[N]othing [defendant] said [during the plea colloquy] raised the possibility of a viable justification defense’ ” *(People v Manor,*121 AD3d 1581, 1582 [2014], *affd*27 NY3d 1012 [2016]; *see People v Wilson,*107 AD3d 532, 532 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 1160 [2014], *denied reconsideration*23 NY3d 1069 [2014]; *cf. People v Ponder,*34 AD3d 1314, 1315 [2006]), and the court “had no duty to conduct an inquiry concerning the potential defense of [justification] based upon comments made by defendant during the . . . sentencing proceeding” *(People v Phillips,*30 AD3d 911, 911 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 869 [2006]).

Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

Application of: RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC.

FAA Order No. 2011-12

Docket No. CP10GL0010

FDMS No. FAA-2010-09731

Served: November 22, 2011

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

AND REMANDING MATTER TO 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE2

Applicant Recurrent Training Center (“Recurrent”) appealed from the written 

initial decision by Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin, holding that the 

FAA’s position in the underlying civil penalty action3 was substantially justified, and 

denying Recurrent’s application under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. 

§ 504. In its reply brief, the FAA conceded, after “in-depth review,” that it was not 

substantially justified in proceeding with the underlying civil penalty action. 

(Complainant’s Reply Brief at 4.) The FAA argued further that the EAJA award sought 

by Recurrent was excessive and requested that the Administrator resolve the issues 

regarding the amount of legal and agent fees and other expenses that should be awarded 

 

1 Generally, materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in 

security cases) are also available for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov. 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13.210(e)(1). 

2 The Administrator’s civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the 

rules of practice, and other information, are available on the Internet at the following address: 

www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/AGC400/Civil 

_Penalty/. See 14 C.F.R. § 13.210(e)(2). In addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing 

publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS 

(TRANS library) and WestLaw (FTRAN-FAA database). For additional information, see the 

Web site.

3

FAA Docket No. CP09GL0008; FDMS No. FAA-2009-0971.
2

to Recurrent. However, neither the ALJ in his initial decision nor Recurrent in its appeal 

brief addressed any issue other than whether the FAA’s position in the underlying 

litigation was substantially justified. Hence, Recurrent’s appeal is dismissed, and this 

matter is remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings as necessary to resolve the 

remaining issues regarding the proper award under the EAJA.

4

[Original signed by J. Randolph Babbitt]

J. RANDOLPH BABBITT

ADMINISTRATOR

Federal Aviation Administration

 

4

In light of this order, there is no need to rule upon Recurrent’s request to file an 

additional brief, which was opposed by Complainant.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Chen Zhaobin, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of APT Satellite Holdings
Limited;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects of the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of
the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

(4) The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the company and have:

      (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
            disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
            supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
            company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
            us by others within those entities, particularly during the period
            in which this annual report is being prepared;

      (b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
            procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about
            the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of
            the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such
            evaluation; and

      (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal
            control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
            covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
            reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal
            control over financial reporting; and

(5) The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the company's auditors and the audit committee of the
company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      (a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
            or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
            reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the company's
            internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 29, 2005

/s/ CHEN ZHAOBIN
--------------------------------
Chen Zhaobin
Executive Director and President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James McKeown, Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 806]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), rendered July 15, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2103 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2103

To make the provisions of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 applicable 
                              to Cambodia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 11 (legislative day, May 2), 1994

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make the provisions of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 applicable 
                              to Cambodia.

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

SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO CAMBODIA.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, title IV of the Trade 
Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.) shall apply for purposes of 
determining the eligibility of the products of Cambodia to receive 
nondiscriminatory (most-favored-nation) trade treatment.

                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Theresa M., Respondent, v Antoine A., Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 815]

Order of protection, Family Court, Bronx County (Tracey A. Bing, J.), entered on or about April 8, 2016, bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 5, 2016, which found that the respondent father had violated an earlier order of protection by committing the family offenses of harassment in the second degree and disorderly conduct, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s findings that the father committed the family offenses of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]) and disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20) were supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence, including the mother’s testimony that, inter alia, the father grabbed the mother in the lobby of her apartment building and cursed at *415her with the intent to alarm her through physical contact, and that his conduct had alarmed and annoyed the public. The father, too, admitted the truth of some of the mother’s allegations regarding the incident, including that he had cursed and yelled at the mother and that the child was frightened. The fact that the father denied some of the mother’s allegations simply created an issue of credibility, which was properly resolved by the court *(Matter of Everett C. v Oneida P.*61 AD3d 489, 489 [1st Dept 2009]). As the court’s findings had a sound and substantial basis in the record, there is no reason to disturb them on appeal *(id.).*

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.