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

[66 NYS3d 123]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edwardo Padro, J.), rendered November 4, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur— Richter, J.P., Tom, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Genesis A. and Another, Children Alleged to be Abused and/or Neglected. Candido A., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[56 NYS3d 281]

Order of fact-finding and disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Robert D. Hettleman, J.), entered on or about February 9, 2016, which, inter alia, found that respondent father sexually abused the subject child Ada A., and derivatively neglected the subject child Genesis A., granted a final order of protection against the father to stay away from the children, except for court-ordered visitation, and directed the father to complete sex offender and parenting skills programs, and all services he was engaged in at Friends to Fathers, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly concluded that petitioner demonstrated *617by a preponderance of the evidence that the father sexually abused Ada and derivatively neglected Genesis, based on Ada’s in-court testimony, the testimony of the social worker, and the records of the Child Advocacy Center, despite the father’s denials. The court’s credibility determinations are accorded great weight on appeal *(see Matter of Irene O.,*38 NY2d 776, 777 [1975]).

No corroboration was necessary for Ada’s statements because she testified in court and was subjected to cross-examination *(see Matter of Karime R. [Robin P.],*147 AD3d 439, 440 [1st Dept 2017]). Although the court noted some discrepancies in how Ada had reported the abuse to others, the court found her explanation believable, and expert testimony was not required under Family Court Act § 1012 *(see Matter of Lonell J.,*242 AD2d 58, 61 [1st Dept 1998]).

The court properly found that the father’s sexual abuse of Ada demonstrated such an impaired level of parental judgment as to create a substantial risk of harm to Genesis, despite the passage of time. The father presented no evidence that he underwent treatment or that his proclivities had changed *(see Matter of Nyjaiah M. [Herbert M.],*72 AD3d 567 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-6504.

#### Gray *v.*Gipson, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# L_2010336EN.01001301.xml

| 21.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 336/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 336/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1226/2010

of 20 December 2010

amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 of 27 June 2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 lists the competent authorities to which specific functions related to the implementation of that Regulation are attributed. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 lists the competent authorities to which specific functions related to the implementation of that Regulation are attributed.

| (2) | Further to a request made by Estonia the information concerning the competent authority in Estonia should be amended, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Further to a request made by Estonia the information concerning the competent authority in Estonia should be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 200, 30.7.2005, p. 1.

1

---

ANNEX

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 is amended as follows:

The information in Part A for Estonia is replaced by the following:

| ‘ESTONIA |
| --- |
| Eesti Välisministeerium |
| Rahvusvaheliste organisatsioonide ja julgeolekupoliitika osakond |
| Relvastus- ja strateegilise kauba kontrolli büroo |
| Islandi väljak 1 |
| 15049 Tallinn |
| Eesti |
| Tel: +372 637 7200 |
| Faks: +372 637 7288 |
| E-post: stratkom@mfa.ee’ |

‘ESTONIA

Eesti Välisministeerium

Rahvusvaheliste organisatsioonide ja julgeolekupoliitika osakond

Relvastus- ja strateegilise kauba kontrolli büroo

Islandi väljak 1

15049 Tallinn

Eesti

Tel: +372 637 7200

Faks: +372 637 7288

E-post: stratkom@mfa.ee’

---
# Navy celebrates 245 years of victories at sea

/ Published Oct. 14, 2020
RICHMOND, VA, 
On this day, way back in 1775, the Continental Congress established the first American naval force, the precursor to today’s United States Navy.

Now fast forward to 1972, when then Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt authorized Oct. 13 to be recognized as the official birthday of the U.S. Navy as a celebration “to enhance a greater appreciation of our Navy heritage, and to provide a positive influence toward pride and professionalism in the naval service.”

This year marks the Navy’s 245th birthday. In celebration of this milestone, the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Customer Operations Directorate’s Naval Aviation Customer Facing Division hosted a cake cutting ceremony in the Lott’s Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia Oct. 13.

Those in attendance included active duty, reserve and retired Navy, as well as members from other military branches.

Recorded video birthday messages by the Secretary of the Navy Kenneth Braithwaite and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday, kicked off the ceremony.

This was followed by the cutting of the Navy's birthday cake by the most senior and the most junior personnel. This honor went to Navy Captain Kenneth Ryker, who is the chief of Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Customer Operations Directorate’s Naval Aviation Customer Facing Division and the most senior Navy representative at DLA Aviation Richmond and Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Kevin Coers, an inventory management specialist within the Directorate’s Mapping Division, who is the most junior.

After the ceremony, Ryker took a few minutes to reflect on his more than three decades of Naval service.

“It has changed tremendously over the years. This one is probably the most different than any of the previous birthdays just due to the pandemic situation we have found ourselves in,” he said.

This year’s birthday celebration comes 20 years and a day after one of the darkest episodes in the services’ history. On Oct. 12, 2000, a suicide bombing attack on the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) in Aden, Yemen killed 17 sailors.

A grime anniversary not lost on those who attended the celebration.

“During this year’s birthday celebration, we remember those lost during the Cole attack and honor those heroes who fought to save lives and their ship.  Cole’s sailors remind us what sailors do in the face of great challenges, they fight and overcome,” said Commander Jon Schumann, who serves as the operations officer for the division.
Exhibit 11.
 
                                     MOBIL CORPORATION
                         COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                        (In millions, except for per-share amounts;
                              number of shares in thousands)



                                                           For the Three Months
                                                            Ended March 31,
                                                           ____________________

Primary                                                         1996      1997
_______                                                     ________   ________

  Net income .............................................  $    736   $    826
  Less dividends on preferred stock ......................        14         13
                                                            --------   --------
  Net income applicable to common shares .................  $    722   $    813
                                                            ========   ========

  Weighted average number of primary common shares
    Outstanding ..........................................   394,488    394,075
    Issuable on assumed exercise of stock options ........     5,087      5,322
                                                            --------   --------
       Total .............................................   399,575    399,397
                                                            ========   ========
  Primary earnings per common share ......................  $   1.81   $   2.04
                                                            ========   ========
Fully Diluted
_____________
 
  Net income .............................................  $    736   $    826
  Less additional contribution to ESOP ...................         5          4
                                                             --------   --------
  Adjusted net income applicable to common shares ........  $    731   $    822
                                                            ========   ========

  Weighted average number of primary common shares .......   399,575    399,397
  Increment to assumed exercise of stock options to
    reflect maximum dilutive effect ......................       227        208
  Assumed conversion of preferred stock ..................     9,154      8,724
                                                            --------   --------
       Total .............................................   408,956    408,329
                                                            ========   ========
  Fully diluted earnings per common share ................  $   1.79   $   2.01
                                                            ========   ========

___________

This Exhibit is included to show that dilution of earnings per common share is
immaterial and therefore not necessary for presentation on the Consolidated
Statement of Income.







    MOBIL                            - 16 -
2017-1156.

#### State v. Stewart.

Delaware App. No. 17 CAA 01 0004, 2017-Ohio-2842. On appellee’s motion to strike. Motion denied.
2016-1765.

#### Phelps v. Saffian.

Cuyahoga App. No. 103549, 2016-Ohio-5514.
[Cite as Langshaw v. N. Royalton , 2021-Ohio-3534.]

{¶1} On June 15, 2021, a Special Master issued a Report and Recommen dation in this public-records case. The Special Master recommends a f inding by the Court that Requester has not shown that Respondent violated R.C. 149.43(B) and an assessment of costs to Requester. {¶2} Neither party has filed timely written objections to the Report and Recommendation, as permitted by R.C. 2743.75(F)(2). 1 Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a special mas ter’s report and recommendation, then this Court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is a n error of law or other defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” {¶3} The Court determines that there is no error of law or other def ect evident on the face of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation of J une 15, 2021. The

1 Requester—a self-represented litigant—has failed to notify th e Court of a change of address because a mailing from the Court, which contained a copy of the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, was returned to the Court by the United States Postal Service with the following notation: “Return To Sender[,] Unclaimed[,] Unable To Forward.” (Docket Entry, 8/20/2021.) The Tenth District Court of Appeals has stated, “Ohio courts have held th at pro se litigants have the same duty as counsel to keep the trial court apprised of a change of address .” Investors REIT One v. Fortman , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-195, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 6267, at *14 (Jan. 16, 2000). Here, Requester ostensibly has failed to fulfil his duty to keep the Court appr ised of a change of address. DANIEL R. LANGSHAW

Requester

v.

CITY OF NORTH ROYALTON

Respondent Case No. 2021-00070PQ

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

JUDGMENT ENTRYCase No. 2021-00070PQ -2- ENTRY

Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Judgment is render ed in favor of Respondent. Court costs are assessed to Requester. The Clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Jud g e

Filed September 21, 2021 Sent to S.C. Reporter 10/1/21
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections 
recently submitted to OMB.
    1. Applicant Background Survey--0990-0208--Extension--This form 
will be used to ask applicants for employment how they learned about a 
vacancy, to make sure that recruitment sources yield qualified women, 
minority and handicapped applicants in compliance with EEOC Management 
Directives. Respondents: Individuals; Annual Number of Respondents: 
310,000; Annual Frequency of Response: one time; Average Burden per 
Response: 2 minutes; Total Annual Burden: 10,333 hours.
    OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
    Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be 
obtained by calling the OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk officer designated 
above at the following address: Human Resources and Housing Branch, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, 725 17th Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503.
    Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports 
Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenue S.W., Washington DC, 20201. Written comments should be received 
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 29, 1998.
Dennis P. Williams,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 98-15274 Filed 6-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
No. 09-1319.

#### Hinkle Oil & Gas, Inc., Petitioner v. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, LLP, et al.

562 U.S. 829, 131 S. Ct. 82,

178 L. Ed. 2d 26,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6633.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 400.
#### Avdyl Berisha, Appellant, v 209-219 Sullivan Street L.L.C. et al., Respondents.

[64 NYS3d 890]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered July 20, 2016, which, in this Labor Law action, denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of de*458fendants’ section 240 (1) liability where he was injured when the mobile scaffold upon which he was standing wobbled, causing him to fall to the ground. The record establishes that the scaffold had no railings to prevent the fall, there is no evidence, that defendants provided an adequate safety device that plaintiff refused to use, and Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes no obligation that he affirmatively request one *(see e.g. Vergara v SS 133 W. 21, LLC,*21 AD3d 279 [1st Dept 2005]).

In view of the foregoing, the issue of Labor Law § 241 (6) liability is academic *(see Jerez v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y.,*118 AD3d 617 [1st Dept 2014]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Gische, Oing and Singh, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Marquez, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 266]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered October 2, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of seven years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding the matter for a youthful offender determination, and otherwise affirmed.

As the People concede, defendant is entitled to an express youthful offender determination pursuant to *People v Rudolph*(21 NY3d 497 [2013]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 10-5115.

#### Ralph O. Douglas, Petitioner v. Harris County District Attorney, et al.

562 U.S. 805, 131 S. Ct. 243,

178 L. Ed. 2d 7,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7751.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 476.
### C OU RT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 21

- 00703

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2019

- 07703

Style: City of Houston v. Shadi M. Sukhta

Date motion filed * : August 5, 2022

Type of motion: Motion for Rehearing

Party filing motion:

Documen t to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

_____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s / Sherry Radack

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Hightower

Date: Au gust 23, 2022
#### Anil Sehgal et al., Respondents, v www.nyairports-bus.com, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[59 NYS3d 441]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pineda-Kirwan, J.), entered January 8, 2015, which, upon the granting of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages awarding the plaintiff Anil Sehgal the sum of $150,000 for past pain and suffering, $50,000 for future pain and suffering, and $505,050 for future medical expenses, and awarding the plaintiff Renu Sehgal the sum of $100,000 for loss of services, and upon the denial of that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and excessive, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On August 7, 2010, at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and West 57th Street in Manhattan, the plaintiffs’ vehicle was preparing to stop at a red light when it was struck from behind by the defendants’ vehicle. The plaintiffs successfully moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability *(see Sehgal v www.nyairportsbus.com, Inc.,*100 AD3d 860 [2012]). At the ensuing damages trial, the Supreme Court precluded the defendants from impeaching the plaintiff Anil Sehgal (hereinafter the injured plaintiff) with questions concerning his employment by the law firm representing him in the action and his referral to certain doctors by the law firm. The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The defendants appeal.

“[T]he scope of cross-examination and the determination of the evidence which may be introduced for impeachment purposes lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed unless there was an improvi*572dent exercise of discretion” *(Linker v Sears Roebuck & Co.,*232 AD2d 613, 613 [1996]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendants from questioning the injured plaintiff concerning his employment by the law firm which represented him in the action and his referral to doctors by the law firm, in an effort to establish their unsubstantiated and prejudicial claim that he was “working the system” *(see Smith v Rudolph,*151 AD3d 58, 64 [2017]; *Maraviglia v Lokshina,*92 AD3d 924, 924-925 [2012]).

The awards for future medical expenses and loss of services were not contrary to the weight of the evidence *(see Roman u Brooklyn Navy Yard Dev. Corp.,*63 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2009]), and did not deviate from what would be reasonable compensation *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]).

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Albert C., Petitioner, v Michael A. Gross, Respondent.

[64 NYS3d 523]

The CPLR article 78 application seeking relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus is denied and the proceeding dismissed, without costs.

Pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 (a), a trial shall be commenced within 60 days of the court’s probable cause determination. However, this deadline is not strictly construed *(Matter of State of New York v Keith F,*149 AD3d 671 [1st Dept 2017], *lv denied*29 NY3d 917 [2017]). The State’s failure to comply with the deadline does not affect the validity of the article 10 petition or actions subject to deadlines *(id.; see also Matter of Grossman v Rankin,*43 NY2d 493, 501 [1977]). The 32-day delay of trial did not otherwise violate petitioner’s due process rights where it was done to accommodate a family medical emergency of a crucial expert witness.

*422Accordingly we deny a writ of mandamus compelling the respondent to restore the jury trial.

Justice Michael A. Gross has elected, pursuant to CPLR 7804 (i), not to appear in this proceeding.

Concur—Gische, J.P., Kapnick, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
2013-0536.

#### State v. Spaulding.

Summit App. No. CR 12 05 1508. On appellant’s application for reopening under S.CtPrac. R. 11.06. Application denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.