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

[769 NYS2d 740]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered September 5, 2001, convicting him of falsifying business records in the first degree, falsifying business records in the second degree (two counts), and official misconduct, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People*u *Bynum,*70 NY2d 858 [1987]; *People v Fryar,*276 AD2d 641 [2000]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the trial court’s direction to court personnel to tell the jury “No,” in response to its request for a written version of the charges was ministerial in nature and did not require the presence of the defendant *(see People v Dickens,*259 AD2d 450 [1999]; *People v Buxton,*192 AD2d 289 [1993]; *People v Bonaparte,*78 NY2d 26 [1991] ).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court’s charge was inadequate is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Gurganious,*214 AD2d 681 [1995]), and in any event, is without merit, since the charge was a correct statement of the law and there was no basis for concluding that the jury was unable to follow the trial court’s instructions *(see People v Coleman,*70 NY2d 817, 819 [1987]; *People v Andujas,*79 NY2d 113, 118 [1992] ).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

IH/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIZANDRO JOSE CASTRESANARODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-75033

Agency No. A039-314-641

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 17, 2009** 

Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Lizandro Jose Castresana-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration

judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and relief

FILED

DEC 08 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
IH/Research 2 06-75033

under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review.

In concluding that Castresana-Rodriguez was statutorily ineligible for

cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2), the agency did not have the

benefit of our decision in Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190, 1201-03 (9th

Cir. 2006), in which we held that “part B of the stop-time rule of [8 U.S.C.]

§ 1229b(d)(1) does not apply retroactively to the seven-year continuous residence

requirement of § 1229b(a)(2) for an alien who pled guilty before the enactment of

[the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(“IIRIRA”)] and was eligible for discretionary relief at the time IIRIRA became

effective.” Cf. Valencia-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 569 F.3d 1319 (9th Cir. 2006). We

therefore remand for the agency to reconsider Castresana-Rodriguez’s eligibility

for cancellation of removal. 

In light of our disposition, we need not address Castresana-Rodriguez’s

remaining contentions.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000


<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            2,557
<SECURITIES>                                      3,144
<RECEIVABLES>                                    16,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                        528
<INVENTORY>                                      11,996
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 34,519
<PP&E>                                           59,353
<DEPRECIATION>                                   40,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   56,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            17,442
<BONDS>                                             162
<COMMON>                                          1,348
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       39,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     56,993
<SALES>                                          66,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 66,668
<CGS>                                            51,903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    51,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    (39)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     661
<INCOME-TAX>                                        178
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 483
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        483
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.41



</TABLE>
|                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                              
|View History:                                                                               
|                                                                                            
|Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Singapore (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                            
|                                                                                            
|Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Singapore (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                            

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May   | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep   | Oct   | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | ----- | ----- | --- | ---
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |       |     |     |     |       | 3,227 |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |       |     |     |     | 2,951 |       |     |    
|2024                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     | 3,188 |     |     |     |       |       |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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
#### HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), Respondent, v Judy G. Dickerson, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[55 NYS3d 150]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Judy G. Dickerson appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Garguilo, J.), dated October 30, 2014, which denied, without a hearing, her motion, in effect, to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered November 18, 2013, upon her default in appearing or answering the complaint, and to set aside the foreclosure sale held pursuant thereto.

Ordered that the order dated October 30, 2014, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Judy G. Dickerson (hereinafter the defendant) to foreclose a mortgage. The defendant allegedly was personally served with process in October 2008, pursuant to CPLR 308 (1), and failed to appear or answer the complaint. On November 18, 2013, the Supreme Court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale upon the defendant’s default. A foreclosure sale was held on February 27, 2014. Thereafter, the defendant moved, in effect, to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and to set aside the foreclosure sale held pursuant thereto on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction due to failure to serve process.

“Ordinarily, a process server’s affidavit of service establishes a prima facie case as to the method of service and, therefore, gives rise to a presumption of proper service” *(Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Chaplin,*65 AD3d 588, 589 [2009]; *see Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v Westervelt,*105 AD3d 896, 897 [2013]; *Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas,*303 AD2d 343, 343-344 [2003]). “However, when a defendant submits a sworn denial of receipt of service containing specific facts to refute the statements in the affidavit of the process server, the prima facie showing is rebutted and the plaintiff must establish personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing” *(U.S. Bank,*
      *969
      *N.A. v Peralta,*142 AD3d 988, 988-989 [2016]; *see Citibank, N.A. v Balsamo,*144 AD3d 964 [2016]; *U.S. Bank, N.A. v Tauber,*140 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2016]). “A hearing is not required where the defendant fails to ‘swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server’s affidavits’ ” *(U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peralta,*142 AD3d at 989, quoting *Simonds v Grobman,*277 AD2d 369, 370 [2000]). Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, her submissions in support of the motion were insufficient to defeat the presumption of proper service created by the process server’s affidavit. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion was properly denied without a hearing.

Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14822]


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

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: National Labor Relations Board.

TIME AND DATE: 3:00 p.m., Monday, May 18, 1998.

PLACE: Board Conference Room, Eleventh Floor, 1099 Fourteenth St., 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570.

STATUS: Closed to public observation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 
552b(c)(2) (internal personnel rules and practices); and (c)(6) 
(personal information where disclosure would constitute a clearly 
invasion of personal privacy).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Personnel.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: John J. Toner, Executive 
Secretary, Washington, D.C. 20570, Telephone: (202) 273-1940.

    Dated: Washington, D.C., May 27, 1998.

    By direction of the Board.
John J. Toner,
Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board.
[FR Doc. 98-14822 Filed 6-1-98; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7545-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Palmer, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 436]

Egan Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams Jr., J.), rendered June 11, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts).

Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of the reduced charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in satisfaction of a four-count indictment. As part of the agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal. County Court thereafter imposed the agreed-upon sentence of two consecutive one-year jail terms and ordered restitution in the amount of $360. Defendant appeals.

Defendant argues on appeal that the restitution component of his sentence should be vacated because, at the time of the plea, neither County Court nor the People advised him that restitution would be required as a condition of the plea agreement. As the People concede, the record reflects that, while restitution had been included in a prior plea offer that defendant had rejected, it was not included as a part of this plea agreement. Accordingly, under these circumstances, neither defendant’s unchallenged waiver of appeal nor his failure to preserve this issue through an objection at sentencing precludes this claim *(see People v Rubio,*133 AD3d 1041, 1042 [2015]; *People v Culcleasure,*75 AD3d 832, 832 [2010]).

The sole relief that defendant requests on appeal is modification of his sentence to vacate the provision requiring that he make restitution, and the People consent to that relief—representing that defendant has been released from custody. Under *1337the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to vacate the provision of defendant’s sentence imposing restitution, thereby conforming the sentence imposed to the promise made to defendant in exchange for his guilty plea *(see People v Nilsen,*129 AD3d 994, 995 [2015]; *cf. People v Gregory,*140 AD3d 1088, 1089 [2016]; *People v Roberts,*139 AD3d 1092, 1092 [2016]; *People v Sheats,*138 AD3d 894, 894-895 [2016]).

McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing so much thereof as directed defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $360, and, as so modified, affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29996]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14579]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than June 17, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand, Vice 
President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, P.O. Box 291, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Winter-Park Bancshares Reciprocal Voting Trust, Cameron, 
Wisconsin; to acquire voting shares of Winter-Park Bancshares, Inc., 
Cameron, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly acquire Brill State Bank, 
Brill, Wisconsin; State Bank of Gilman, Gilman, Wisconsin; and Chippewa 
Valley Bank, Winter, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 28, 1998.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-14579 Filed 6-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Eddy Guillaume, Respondent.

[59 NYS3d 61]—

Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Simpson, J.), dated November 10, 2015, as, upon granting an oral application by the defendant for a mistrial, dismissed the indictment.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

The defendant was indicted for criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, sexual misconduct, and endangering the welfare of a child, based on his alleged sexual abuse of a four-year-old child. After summations at a nonjury trial, where the mother of the four-year-old child testified for the prosecution, the prosecutor revealed that she had just received a report from the Office of Children and Family Services relating the statement of a social worker as to what the mother allegedly told her. The report stated that the mother told the social worker that she herself was sexually abused as a child. Concluding that the information was relevant to the mother’s credibility and could have been used by the defense for impeachment purposes, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s oral application for a mistrial, and dismissed the indictment.

The subject statement was not a written or recorded statement of the mother, but, rather, was the statement of an unidentified person as to what the mother allegedly said. Therefore, the statement was not *Rosario*material *(see*CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; *People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286 [1961]; *Matter of Catterson v Rohl,*202 AD2d 420, 423 [1994]; *People v Williams,*165 AD2d 839, 840-841 [1990], *affd*78 NY2d 1087 [1991]). In any event, even if there were a *Rosario*violation, the appropriate remedy was a new trial, not dismissal of the indictment *(see People v Ranghelle,*69 NY2d 56, 63 [1986]; *People v Garrett, 177*AD2d 1, 3 [1992]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment *(see People v Alonso,*91 AD3d 663, 666 [2012]).

Dillon, J.R, Hinds-Radix, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                           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 on Form 10-KSB of Bioenvision, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher B. Wood,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/ Christopher B. Wood
------------------------------------
Christopher B. Wood
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
September 30, 2002
*February 13, 2018*

2018-Ohio-554.]

2015-1403.

#### Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2014-2777. On joint indication of settlement. The parties shall file within 14 days either an application to dismiss the ease or a notice of failure of settlement.
*June 22,*2017

2017-Ohio-4433.]

*14362017-0188.

#### Georgetown/Chase Phase I, L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 2015-1903 and 2015-1904. On joint motion to remand. Motion granted. Cause remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              12
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      114
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (6)
<INVENTORY>                                        221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   378
<PP&E>                                             364
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (154)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              230
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                          67
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,262
<SALES>                                          1,222
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                              611
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     40
<INCOME-TAX>                                        16
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (4)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        20
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
# DSCR Visitor Center moves to appointment only for CAC, retiree, dependent ID cards

/ Published March 25, 2020
Richmond, Va., 
Due to the ongoing Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic and guidance regarding social distancing, the Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, Visitor Center will begin issuing common access cards, retiree and military dependent identification cards by appointment only effective March 26.

This will enable the Visitor Center to continue to support customers in an effective manner while complying with social distancing protocol and ensuring the maximum safety of customers and employees. 

Defense Biometric Identification System (DBIDS) cards and issuance of passes for official visits will continue as normal.  We appreciate your patience in the current environment.Appointments can be made through the following website https://www.dla.mil/Aviation/Installation/Visitors/