alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Andrew Greenberg, Inc., Respondent, v Sir-Tech Software, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Sir-Tech Canada, Ltd., et al., Appellants.

[768 NYS2d 420]

*1043Mercure, J.P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ledina, J.), entered April 2, 2003 in Sullivan County, which denied certain defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the third amended complaint against them.

On a prior appeal, this Court granted a motion by defendants 1259190 Ontario, Inc. and Sir-Tech Canada, Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) to dismiss the second amended complaint in this breach of contract action (297 AD2d 834 [2002]). We concluded that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction *(id.*at 836-837). While that appeal was pending before us, Supreme Court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint. Following this Court’s dismissal of the second amended complaint, defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Because issue had been joined, Supreme Court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and denied it. Defendants appeal, and we now reverse.

Although an amended complaint renders moot an appeal from an order addressed to the *sufficiency*of the original pleading *(see Smith v Russell Sage Coll.,*78 AD2d 913, 913 [1980], *affd*54 NY2d 185 [1981]; *see also Chalasani v Neuman,*64 NY2d 879, 880 [1985]; *Titus v Titus,*275 AD2d 409, 409-410 [2000]), the sufficiency of the complaint is not at issue on this appeal. Moreover, the third amended complaint did not cure the jurisdictional defects set forth in this Court’s prior decision. Accordingly, the filing of the third amended complaint did not render moot our decision on defendants’ prior motion to dismiss *(see EDP Hosp. Computer Sys. v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr.,*212 AD2d 570, 571 [1995]; *Poley v Rochester Community Sav. Bank,*140 AD2d 933, 934 [1988]; *see generally*Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 3025.07). Inasmuch as plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of personal jurisdiction during the prior appeal, our decision dismissing the second amended complaint constitutes the law of the case and defendants’ motion should have been granted *(see Shawangunk Conservancy v Fink,*305 AD2d 902, 903 [2003]; *Bennett v Nardone,*298 AD2d 790, 790-791 [2002], *lv dismissed*99 NY2d 579 [2003]).

Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur; Kane, J., not taking part. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, motion by defendants 1259190 Ontario, Inc. and Sir-Tech Canada, Ltd. granted, summary judgment awarded to said defendants and third amended complaint dismissed against them.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John C. Tulip, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 679]

*1565Mulvey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered February 26, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the second degree (two counts).

Defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to two counts of the reduced charge of attempted burglary in the second degree pursuant to a plea agreement that included a waiver of appeal. County Court imposed concurrent one-year terms of interim probation supervision and ordered defendant to comply with the terms and conditions thereof, warning him that, if he violated the conditions, he faced up to seven years on each count with three years of postrelease supervision. Months later, the Probation Department submitted notification that defendant had violated interim probation by being arrested on burglary and robbery charges. Defendant did not contest that he had violated the conditions of probation and consented to make restitution and, in exchange, the court agreed that the sentence to be imposed following his probation violation would also satisfy the new charges as well as three uncharged burglaries. The court thereafter found that defendant had failed to comply with the conditions of his interim probation and sentenced him to two consecutive six-year prison terms followed by three years of postrelease supervision, and ordered him to pay restitution. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the record reflects that his combined oral and written waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary and intelligent *(see People v Sanders,*25 NY3d 337, 339-341 [2015]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Toledo,*144 AD3d 1332, 1332-1333 [2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1148 [Apr. 6, 2017]). The plea minutes demonstrate that defendant was advised that an appeal waiver was a condition of the plea, he indicated that he understood and voluntarily agreed to this condition, and County Court made clear that the waiver of appeal was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights that he automatically forfeited by his guilty plea *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d at 256; *People v Belile,*137 AD3d 1460, 1461 [2016]). Defendant then signed a detailed written waiver in open court that outlined his rights and the consequences of the waiver and specifically waived his right to challenge the severity of the sentence, indicating to the court that he had read it, had a chance to discuss it with counsel and understood it. As defendant’s understanding of the waiver is established on the record, his sole contention on appeal, that *1566the sentence is unduly harsh, is precluded *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255-256; *People v Mann,*140 AD3d 1532, 1533 [2016]; *cf. People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 266-267 [2011]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 13.2

                            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 annual report of APT Satellite Holdings Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tong
Xudong, Executive Director and Vice President of the Company, certify, 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
      Section 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.

Date: June 28, 2007
                                         /s/ Tong Xudong
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Tong Xudong
                                         Executive Director and Vice President
                                         APT Satellite Holdings Limited
#### In the Matter of Keri Gibson, Appellant, v Matthew Greene, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Matthew Greene, Respondent, v Keri Gibson, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[58 NYS3d 551]

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Maria Arias, J.), dated April 29, 2016. The order, after a hearing, awarded the father residential custody of the parties’ child and awarded the mother parenting time.

Ordered the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother and the father each filed petitions for custody of their child. After a hearing, the Family Court awarded residential custody to the father and parenting time to the mother, including three weekends per month, and four weeks during the summer. The mother appeals.

“ ‘The court’s paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child’ ” *(Matter of Gooler v Gooler,*107 AD3d 712, 712 [2013], quoting *Matter of Julie v Wills,*73 AD3d 777, 777 [2010]; *see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]). In determining an initial petition for child custody, the court must consider, among other things, “(1) which alternative will best promote stability; (2) the available home environments; (3) the past performance of each parent; (4) each parent’s relative fitness, including his or her ability to guide the child, provide for the child’s overall well being, and foster the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent; and (5) the child’s desires” (Matter *of Supangkat v Torres,*101 AD3d 889, 890 [2012]). Custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, and deference is accorded to the Family Court’s credibility findings *(see Matter of Frankiv v*
      *593
      *Kalitka,*105 AD3d 1045 [2013]). The court’s custody and visitation determination will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see id.; Matter of Andrews v Mouzon,*80 AD3d 761, 763 [2011]).

Here, the Family Court evaluated the testimony, and considered the position of the attorney for the child, in determining that the child’s best interests would be served by an award of residential custody of the child to the father, with a parenting time schedule which ensured that both the mother and the father would have quality time with the child when she is not in school. That determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we decline to disturb it *(see Matter of Guzman v Pizarro,*102 AD3d 964 [2013]; *Matter of Andrews v Mouzon,*80 AD3d 761 [2011]).

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Duffy, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register: June 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 121)]
[Notices]               
[Page 36061-36062]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jn10-26]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

 
Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the North Carolina 
Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the North 
Carolina Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will convene 
on Wednesday, July 14, 2010,

[[Page 36062]]

at 1 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 4 p.m. (EST) at the 
International Civil Rights Center, 134 S. Elm Street, Greensboro, NC, 
27401. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to discuss its 
report on disparate discipline of minority youth by public school 
districts.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the Southern Regional Office by August 14, 
2010. The mailing address is Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 18T40, Atlanta, GA 30301. 
Persons wishing to e-mail their comments may do so to 
pminarik@usccr.gov. Persons that desire additional information should 
contact Peter Minarik, Regional Director, Southern Regional Office, at 
(404) 562-7000 (or for hearing impaired TDD 913-551-1414).
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional 
Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the 
meeting.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before 
and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory 
committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Southern Regional Office at the above 
e-mail or street address.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, June 18, 2010.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2010-15262 Filed 6-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abidali Haji, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 826]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered November 28, 2000, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, crimi*458nal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly issued an eavesdropping warrant and extensions of the warrant. The People’s applications demonstrated that probable cause existed for the issuance of the warrant and extensions and that the warrant and extensions were necessary to obtain information about the extent of the defendant’s narcotics distribution operations *(see*CPL 700.15; *People v St. Louis,*177 AD2d 882, 884-885 [1991]). The People were not required to show that every other method of investigation had been exhausted prior to obtaining an eavesdropping warrant *(see People v Sica,*163 AD2d 541 [1990]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly replaced a sworn juror with an alternate juror is without merit *(see People v Khan, 2*AD3d 461 [2003] [decided herewith]).

The imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion *(see People v Ortiz,*256 AD2d 424 [1998]) and the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief are without merit. Altman, J.P., Florio, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 8, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D23-0200

Lower Tribunal Nos. F04-25415, F04-25416

Ronnie Howard,

Appellant, 

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An appeal conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967), from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro Areces, 

Judge.

Ronnie Howard, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50159

Conference Calendar

 

BENNIE FINISTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THON WILEY NICHOLS et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CV-345

- - - - - - - - - -

February 21, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Bennie Finister, #649506, appeals from the district court’s

denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. He requested

that he be transferred from the Hughes Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to another TDCJ unit. 

Finister has informed this court that he has been transferred

from the Hughes Unit to the Michael Unit of TDCJ. Finister’s

appeal, therefore, is moot. The appeal is frivolous. See Howard
No. 96-50159

- 2 -

v. King, 715 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is DISMISSED.

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Finister’s motion for the appointment of

counsel on appeal is DENIED as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
# Supply technician shares a personal connection to DSCR aircraft

/ Published May 20, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
When David Buonconsiglio began his job as a supply technician for Defense Logistics Agency Distribution at Richmond, Virginia, on Defense Supply Center Richmond two months ago, it didn’t take him long to get reacquainted with a memory from his past.

“Finding out that there was an old friend here made me happy,” Buonconsiglio said.

That old friend Buonconsiglio is referring to is the Navy A-6E Intruder static display aircraft sitting outside the Bettye Ackerman-Cobb Child Development Center on DSCR. He said once he was able to break away from his desk and see the jet, tail number 157024, in person, he immediately knew it was one he had worked on during his active-duty time in the Navy.

From 1992 to 1995, then Petty Officer 2nd Class Buonconsiglio was a Navy aviation storekeeper assigned to Attack Squadron 115, based out of Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan. 

The squadron made multiple deployments on board the USS Independence (CV-62) enforcing a no-fly zone over southern Iraq..

“It brought back both good and bad memories, but I’m very glad to have a chance to see her again,” he said.
# Tour provides DLA Aviation glimpse into their role in keeping Virginia Army National Guard helicopters flying

/ Published March 28, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
More than a dozen members of Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Supplier Operations Original Equipment Manufacturer Directorate toured the Virginia Army National Guard’s Aviation Support Facility in Sandston, Virginia, March 17.

The facility, located adjacent to the Richmond International Airport, provides full-time support to Army aviation units including flight operations, safety, maintenance, standardization and training. The AASF and its annex at the Chesterfield County, Virginia, airport supports a number of Army aircraft including 18 UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters, three HH-60 Black Hawk medical evacuation helicopters, four UH-72 Lakota light utility helicopters and a C-12 twin turboprop passenger and cargo aircraft.

Rob Baker, deputy director, Supplier Operations OEM Directorate, said a few months ago, senior leadership within the directorate started monthly leadership events/lunches to get the leadership team back to interacting face-to-face again as they wait for the agency’s final re-entry plan to be finalized. To stop the spread of COVID-19, the DLA Aviation workforce force has been primarily teleworking for the last two years.

“We have hired a few new folks at the management level over the past two years and these events allow our leadership team to build a rapport with them and for some folks to actually meet in person for the time,” he said.

“Over the past couple of years, it has become easy to lose sight of the importance of what we do for some of our teammates,” said Sherri White, integrated supplier team lead within the Aviation Engines & Auxiliary Components Division “After the tour, I shared this experience with my team to remind them and help them understand that all of their efforts are not only appreciated, but they are more important than ever.”

Deputy chief for the Aviation Rotary Wings and Auxiliary Components Division, Angelia Booker said the trip was very inspiring.

“It really put a direct impact of the importance of what we do every day and the lives that are in our hands. I could actually envision a part that I awarded being put on the UH-60. The detailed information shared was very interesting,” she said.

The tour was led by Virginia Army National Guardsman Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Romero. In his civilian job, Romero works as a product specialist within DLA Aviation’s Supplier Operations Commodities Directorate’s Joint Commodities/Instrumentation Division.
No. 09-10570.

#### Gary L. Kretchmar, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania, et al.

562 U.S. 846, 131 S. Ct. 90,

178 L. Ed. 2d 57,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5969.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, denied.

Same case below, 605 Pa. 457, 991 A.2d 306.
# 60th Anniversary: Longtime associate recalls DLA jobs before today's technology

/ Published Aug. 25, 2021
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
Remember typing pools? Electric typewriters? Only one telephone per group? DLA Land and Maritime’s Debbie Miller talks about what it was like working in various DLA jobs before today's technology.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32022-32023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15562]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C. as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.


[[Page 32023]]


    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1-GRB-C (C3)-S.
    Date: June 25, 1998.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Embassy Suites Hotel Crystal City, 1300 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Dan E. Matsumoto, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 
6AS-37B, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-8894.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1-GRB-C (C2)-S.
    Date: June 25, 1998.
    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Embassy Suites Hotel Crystal City, 1300 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Dan E. Matsumoto, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 
6AS-37B, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-8894.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1-GRB-C (C1)-S.
    Date: June 26, 1998.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to Adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Embassy Suites Hotel Crystal City, 1300 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Dan E. Matsumoto, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 
6AS-37B, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-8894.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 4, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-15562 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M