alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1954

To extend the deadlines applicable to certain hydroelectric projects under

the Federal Power Act, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 22 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1994

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To extend the deadlines applicable to certain hydroelectric

projects under the Federal Power Act, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROJECT NUMBER 3943.

4 (a) EXTENSION.—Notwithstanding the time limita5 tions of section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.

6 806), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (re7 ferred to in this Act as the ‘‘Commission’’), upon the re8 quest of the licensee for FERC Project No. 3943 (and

9 after reasonable notice), may extend the time required for

10 commencement of construction of such project for not
2

•S 1954 IS

1 more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods, in accordance

2 with subsections (b) and (c).

3 (b) CONDITIONS.—An extension may be granted

4 under subsection (a) only in accordance with—

5 (1) the good faith, due diligence, and public in6 terest requirements contained in section 13 of the

7 Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806); and

8 (2) the procedures of the Commission under

9 such section.

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

11 for FERC Project No. 3943 upon the expiration of the

12 extension of the period required for commencement of con13 struction of such project issued by the Commission under

14 section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).

15 SEC. 2. PROJECT NUMBER 3944.

16 (a) EXTENSION.—Notwithstanding the time limita17 tions of section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C.

18 806), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, upon

19 the request of the licensee for FERC Project No. 3944

20 (and after reasonable notice), may extend the time re21 quired for commencement of construction of such project

22 for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods, in accord23 ance with subsections (b) and (c).

24 (b) CONDITIONS.—An extension may be granted

25 under subsection (a) only in accordance with—
3

•S 1954 IS

1 (1) the good faith, due diligence, and public in2 terest requirements contained in section 13 of the

3 Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806); and

4 (2) the procedures of the Commission under

5 such section.

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

7 for FERC Project No. 3944 upon the expiration of the

8 extension of the period required for commencement of con9 struction of such project issued by the Commission under

10 section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).

Æ
No. 09-11259.

#### Arthur Garcia, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 870, 131 S. Ct. 169,

178 L. Ed. 2d 100,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6664.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 293.
2016-1871.

#### In re Resignation of Boston.

Sua sponte, Shannon C. Boston, Attorney Registration No. 0068515, last known business address in Westerville, Ohio, found in contempt for failure to surrender his certificate of admission and file an affidavit of compliance on or before February 21, 2017.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1218 CUSTOM METALCRAFT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. HOOVER MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2007-1242 CUSTOM METALCRAFT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. HOOVER MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ON MOTION Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges

. LINN, Circuit Judge

. O R D E R Custom Metalcraft, Inc. moves to di smiss Hoover Materi als Handling Group, Inc.'s appeal, 2007-1242. Hoover moves to stay disposition of the motion to dismiss. Custom Metalcraft opposes.On February 8, 2007, the Un ited States District Court for the Western District of Missouri certified its judgment of noninfringement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Custom Metalcraft appealed, appeal no. 2007-1218. Hoover filed a cross-appeal, appeal no. 2007-1242, seekin g review of an order granting summary judgment that the patent was not invalid on cert ain grounds. On May 9, 2007, after Hoover filed its appeal, the district court denied Hoover's motion to certify it s disposition of Hoover's invalidity counterclaims pursuant to Rule 54(b). Because there is no final judgment disposing of Hoover's counterclaims concerning invalidity, Hoover's appeal must be dismissed. Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc. , 339 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss appeal no. 2007-1242 is granted. (2) Hoover's motion to stay is denied. (3) A copy of this order shall be tran smitted to the merits panel assigned to hear appeal no. 2007-1218 to inform the panel of the disposition of the cross-appeal. FOR THE COURT

June 5, 2007 /s/ Richard Linn Date Richard Linn Circuit Judge cc: Scott R. Brown, Esq. Robert C. Haldiman, Esq.
s8 ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to 2007-1242 only): June 5, 2007

2007-1218, 2007-1242 - 2 -
DLA Distribution celebrates 72 years of the Air Force service
 
  By Dawn Bonsell, DLA Distribution Public Affairs Officer
  The Defense Logistics Agency Distribution team came together Sept. 18 to celebrate the United States Air Force’s 72nd birthday. DLA Distribution’s Current Operations logistics officer, Air Force Col. Patrick Launey, opened the event by citing the core values of DLA:  leadership, professionalism, dedication to duty, integrity, ethics, honor, courage and loyalty. He added that, based on our core values, “We have a responsibility to collectively develop future airmen to protect our nation.” Rear Adm. Kevin M. Jones, commanding officer, DLA Distribution, applauded the Air Force for their support to the nation and our military. “As a serviceman who’s been downrange in Afghanistan and Iraq, I always appreciated some air support!” Jones went on to congratulate Launey on his recent promotion to colonel and his new command with the 374th Mission Support Group, Yokota, Japan. With three major Air Force customer bases in Hill, Utah; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Warner Robins, Georgia, DLA Distribution centers are collocated to fulfill both on-base and off-base requirements for Air Force customers.
DLA Distribution Hill, Utah is located at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The distribution center supports two on-base fighter wings and maintenance functions performed by the Ogden Air Logistics Center as well as numerous military units throughout the world.
DLA Distribution Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, provides a full range of distribution services in support of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base tenants, and other global customers.
More than half the work completed at the Warner Robins, Georgia, distribution center is in support of the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center. The organization’s $12.5 billion inventory includes parts and equipment for F-15, C-130, C-5 and C-17 aircraft, target acquisition systems, and most airborne electronic warfare systems.
#### David Goodman, Appellant, v New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 365]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated January 9, 2003, which denied his motion for leave to enter judgment upon the defendant’s default in answering and for an inquest on the issue of damages, and granted the defendant’s cross motion to compel him to accept its answer.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of his motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon its default in answering, the plaintiff failed to proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts *(see*CPLR 3215 [f]; *Paz v Long Is. R.R. Co.,*204 AD2d 611 [1994]; *Drake v Drake,*296 AD2d 566 [2002]; *Parratta v McAllister,*283 AD2d 625 [2001]; *Fiorino v Yung Poon Yung,*281 AD2d 513 [2001]). Accordingly, the motion was properly denied.

*582Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept its answer and in excusing the defendant’s delay in serving an answer *(see*CPLR 2004, 3012 [d]). In view of the absence of any prejudice to the plaintiff, the existence of a possible meritorious defense, the lack of willfulness on the part of the defendant, and the public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, we agree with the Supreme Court that, as a matter of discretion, the defendant’s delay in answering was properly excused *(see Drake v Drake, supra; Calcagno v Magistrelli,*284 AD2d 289 [2001]; *Kaiser v Delaney,*255 AD2d 362 [1998]; *Van Man Adhesives Corp. v City of New York,*236 AD2d 465 [1997]). Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
#### Butterfield, Matter of, v Annucci

3d Dept: 144 AD3d 1284

denied*
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15414]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Office of the Chief Information Officer; Public Notice of Waiver 
of Federal Information Processing Standards

SUMMARY: Under the waiver authority granted by the Secretary of 
Commerce, The General Services Administration must make public all 
actions taken on waivers of Federal Information Processing Standards. 
The Administrator of the General Services Administration has granted 
the Agency a waiver to acquire and use any commercial-off-the-shelf 
product(s) which meet the Agency's requirement for information 
technology security. This notice serves to make this information 
public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this 
notice, contact L. Diane Savoy, Acting Assistant Chief Information 
Officer, General Services Administration, Room 3024, 18th & F Street, 
NW, Washington, DC 20405; telephone (202) 219-3062.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The General Services Administration (GSA) 
requires secure electronic communication with private sector vendors to 
perform its day-to-day functions. The limited availability of products 
employing FIPS compliant security techniques produced many 
incompatibilities with the vendor community. To eliminate or reduce 
this problem, the GSA Chief Information Officer requested and was 
granted Agency-wide authority to use commercial-off-the-shelf products 
that employ techniques for assuring identity, authenticity, integrity, 
or confidentiality in addition to those employing techniques specified 
in the FIPS. The waiver granted by the GSA Administrator became 
effective on September 29, 1997 and remains in effect until July 31, 
2002.

    Dated: June 5, 1998.
Donald P. Heffernan,
Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-15414 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-34-M
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3915

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Walter Lee Anderson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 2004

Filed: February 18, 2005

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Walter Lee Anderson appeals the revocation of his federal supervised release

and subsequent resentencing by the District Court1

 after testing positive for cocaine.

Anderson's counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), identifying six issues that "might arguably support"

Anderson's appeal. Id. at 744.
-2-

Having conducted an independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we conclude there are no nonfrivolous issues. We therefore

affirm the judgment of the District Court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

______________________________
#### Com. v. Sessa

04/06/2016

49 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 503
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Herrera, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 220]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Lieb, J.), rendered February 28, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of two years, unanimously affirmed.

Because defendant had an opportunity to move to withdraw his plea, but did not do so, his challenge to the voluntariness of the plea is unpreserved *(see People v Conceicao,*26 NY3d 375, 381 [2015]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. The narrow exception to the preservation rule *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]) does not apply, because “[defendant said nothing during the plea colloquy or the sentencing proceeding that negated an element of the crime or raised the possibility of a justification [or intoxication] defense” *(People v Pastor,*28 NY3d 1089, 1090-1091 [2016]). As an alternative holding, we find that the sentencing court had no obligation to conduct a sua sponte inquiry into postplea statements by defendant that were reflected in the presentence report *(see e.g. People v Bryan,*129 AD3d 524 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*26 NY3d 965 [2015]). In any event, there is no indication in the postplea statements, or elsewhere in the record, to suggest that defendant had any viable defenses.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Andrias, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Dilone, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 242]—

Judgment, Supreme *442Court, Bronx County (William McGuire, J.), rendered June 13, 2014, 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 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— Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Andrias, Gische, Kern and Singh, JJ.
No. 09-11344.

#### Ernest Miller, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 875, 131 S. Ct. 183,

178 L. Ed. 2d 109,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6567.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
#### Com. v. Roberts

03/17/2016

803 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 83
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31937-31938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 245

[DFARS Case 98-D004]

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Use of 
Auctions, Spot Bids, or Retail Sales of Surplus Contractor Inventory by 
the Contractor

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense Procurement has issued a final rule 
amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 
to lower the level at which the Government must approve the use of 
auctions, spot bids, or retail sales, when a contractor is disposing of 
surplus inventory on the Government's behalf. This change is expected 
to expedite the disposal process.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rick Layser, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, PDUSD (A&T) DP 
(DAR), IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. 
Telephone (703) 602-0131; telefax (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS 
Case 98-D004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    DFARS Subpart 245.73 contains procedures for the sale of surplus 
Government property that is in the possession of a contractor. This 
final rule amends DFARS 245.7301 to lower, from the headquarters of the 
contract administration activity, to the commander of the contract 
administration office, the level at which the Government must approve 
the use of auctions, spot bids, or retail sales to dispose of such 
property.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The final rule does not constitute a significant revision within 
the meaning of FAR 1.501 and Pub. L. 98-577 and publication for public 
comment is not required. However, comments from small entities 
concerning the affected DFARS subpart will be considered in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should cite DFARS Case 98-D004.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the final rule 
does not impose any information collection requirements that require 
the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq.

[[Page 31938]]

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 245

    Government procurement.
Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.

    Therefore, 48 CFR Part 245 is amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Part 245 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

PART 245--GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

    2. Section 245.7301 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

245.7301  Policy.

* * * * *
    (c) The commander of the contract administration office must 
approve the use of auctions, spot bids, or retail sales.

[FR Doc. 98-15429 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
```
No. 10-5399.

#### Ivan Von Staich, Petitioner v. Ben Curry, Warden.

562 U.S. 919, 131 S. Ct. 291,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7219.

178 L. Ed. 2d 190,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Order entered May 1 , 2015

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00507

- CR

FLOR DEMARI BALCARCE L, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB10

- 33676C



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATE S the appeal.

On April 29, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings appellant’s brief ha d not

been filed. Appellant has tendered his brief, together with an extension motion. Therefore, in

the in terest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the April 29, 2015 order requiring findings.

We GRANT the April 29, 2015 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed as

of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
EX-10.2






AMENDMENT NO. 1




2005 UNITED AMERICA INDEMNITY, LTD. ANNUAL INCENTIVE AWARDS PROGRAM




This AMENDMENT No. 1 (the “Amendment”) dated 31 March 2006 amends the terms and conditions of the
United America Indemnity, Ltd. Annual Incentive Awards Program (the “Program”).



WHEREAS, the Directors of United America Indemnity, Ltd., an exempted company incorporated with
limited liability under the law of the Cayman Islands, desire to effect the revisions to the
Program set forth herein effective the date hereof.



NOW THEREFORE, the Program is amended as follows:



1. The following shall be added to the “Performance Criteria” listed in Appendix A of the Program
as a new subclause (xiii):



“achievement of certain targets with respect to the Company’s book value, assets or
liabilities”
No. 10-5111.

#### Jorge Vasquez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 904, 131 S. Ct. 243,

178 L. Ed. 2d 162,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5981.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 541.
#### Gloria Cavaliere, Respondent, v 1515 Broadway Fee Owner, LLC, Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[52 NYS3d 910]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants 1515 Broadway Fee Owner, LLC, SL Green Realty Corp., and Transel Elevator & Electric, Inc., also known as Transel Elevator, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pineda-Kirwan, J.), dated October 19, 2015, which denied their motion for leave to reargue their prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them or, alternatively, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

No appeal lies from the denial of a motion for leave to reargue *(see Boakye-Yiadom v Roosevelt Union Free School Dist.,*57 AD3d 929, 930 [2008]). Thus, this appeal must be dismissed.

Hall, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Teofilo Lopez, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 808]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered July 27, 1999, as amended July 19, 2010, as amended July 22, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of eight counts each of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 15 years, with 5 years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously modified, as an exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentences on the first degree robbery convictions to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

In 2012, this Court granted the People’s motion to dismiss for lack of timely prosecution. The Court of Appeals remitted for the assignment of counsel and a de novo determination regarding dismissal (23 NY3d 89, 101-102 [2014]).

“Whether [late] appeals [by fugitives returned to custody] should be permitted to proceed is subject to the broad discretion of the Appellate Division” *(People v Taverns,*10 NY3d 227, 233 [2008]; *see*CPL 470.60 [1]). We exercise our discretion to consider this appeal on the merits.

We find that the trial issues raised by defendant are not meritorious.

We find however, that defendant’s sentence was excessive to the extent indicated and modify accordingly.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 on Form 10-KSB/A2 of Bioenvision, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended June 30, 2003as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David P. Luci,
Director of Finance and General Counsel 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/ David P. Luci
                                ---------------------------------------
                                David P. Luci
                                Director of Finance and General Counsel
                                May 24, 2004