alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Sean M., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Yanny M., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Petitioner. In the Matter of Tameya H. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Justine D., Appellant; Administration for Children’s Services, Petitioner.

[58 NYS3d 334]

Order (denominated a decision), Family Court, Bronx County (Alma M. Gomez, J.), entered on or about October 3, 2016, and order (denominated a decision), same court (Michael R. Milsap, J.), entered on or about July 22, 2016, which denied the respective motions of mothers Yanny M. and Justine D. for clarification as to whether each could share with her defense counsel in her respective, related criminal proceeding, Administration for Children’s Services progress notes received in discovery in her respective neglect proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to clarify that each may share the progress notes with her criminal defense counsel.

The courts’ decisions affected the rights of the mothers to consult with fully informed criminal defense counsel and the mothers were aggrieved by the limitations the court placed on their ability to share information with their respective counsel.

The restrictions noted in Social Services Law § 422 (4) (A) did not bar them from providing to their criminal defense counsel ACS records lawfully obtained in their neglect proceedings. Any other result would violate their First and Sixth Amendment rights *(see People v Knowles,*88 NY2d 763, 766 *637[1996]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Webber, Gesmer and Kern, JJ.
# In Their Own Words Mary Martinez, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, DLA 60th Anniversary Interview

/ Published Sept. 21, 2021
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
16:38VIDEO  | 16:38 |In Their Own Words Mary Martinez, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, DLA 60th Anniversary Interview

Mary Martinez, DLA Distribution San Joaquin, talks about her history with the agency for DLA's 60th Anniversary.

For more information about DLA's history visit: https://www.dla.mil/About-DLA/History/60th-Anniversary/
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16067]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Export Administration (BXA).
    Title: Written Assurances for Exports of Technical Data Under 
License Exception TSR.
    Agency Form Number: None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0694-0023.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of 
information.
    Burden: 104 hours.
    Average Time Per Response: 30 minutes per response and 1 minute for 
recordkeeping.
    Number of Respondents: 200 respondents.
    Needs and Uses: The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) require 
in Section 740.6 that exporters obtain letters of assurance from their 
importers stating that technology or software will not be reexported or 
released to unauthorized destinations that are subject to controls for 
national security or foreign policy and nuclear non-proliferation 
reasons. The importer, in making these assurances acknowledges his/her 
requirement to comply with the EAR. The written assurance requirement 
of License Exception TSR (Technology and Software Under Restriction) 
provides greater security for the protection of U.S. origin technology 
and software that becomes incorporated into foreign products.
    Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit 
institutions.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: Victoria Baecher-Wassmer (202) 395-5871.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, Room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Victoria Baecher-Wassmer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New 
Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20230.

    Dated: June 11, 1998.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 98-16067 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barry Charles, Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 309]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 10, 2015, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. The evidence established defendant’s guilt of fourth-degree grand larceny under a theory of a taking from the person of another (Penal Law § 155.30 [5]). Defendant, while employing a ruse, engaged in conversation with a man who was attempting to use a MetroCard vending machine and holding cash in his hand. While the victim was considering defendant’s offer of assistance, defendant grabbed the money and departed. The evidence fails to support defendant’s assertion that he was only guilty of tricking the victim into handing over his money.

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the court’s charge on grand larceny, and we decline to consider it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. The trial court correctly explained the elements of the crime of from-the-person grand larceny, stressing that this was the only charge before them. At defense counsel’s request, the trial court contrasted the grand larceny charge with the uncharged crimes of robbery and larceny by trick, and the court’s instruction made clear to the jury that in this case, a finding that defendant engaged in conduct constituting either of the other two uncharged crimes would require a finding that he was not guilty of grand larceny. We do not find that the wording of the charge was confusing.

*424The court properly denied defendant’s motion for substitution of counsel. The court, whose inquiry into defendant’s complaints was sufficient under the circumstances and accorded him ample opportunity to be heard, correctly found that there was no good cause for assignment of another attorney on the eve of trial *(see People v Linares,*2 NY3d 507, 511 [2004]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-8066.

#### Preston *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31736-31737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15347]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


National Institute of Standards and Technology, et al.; Notice of 
Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific 
Instruments

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be 
viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, 
for such purposes as each is intended to be used, is being manufactured 
in the United States.
    Docket Number: 98-009. Applicant: National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Instrument: Neutron Velocity 
Selector. Manufacturer: Mirrotron Ltd., Hungary. Intended Use: See 
notice at 63 FR 11870, March 11, 1998. Reasons: The foreign instrument 
provides a monochromatic low-energy neutron beam using a time-of-flight 
method (``chopper'') for study of the microstructure of materials. 
Advice received from: Argonne National Laboratory, May 6, 1998.
    Docket Number: 98-013. Applicant: North Carolina State University, 
Raleigh, NC 27695-7212. Instrument: Automatic Pure Bending Tester, 
Model NESFB2-A. Manufacturer: Kato Tech

[[Page 31737]]

Co., Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 63 FR 12452, March 13, 
1998. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides simulation of fabric 
wear conditions using a cantilever method which calculates the bending 
movement over a variable arc of constant curvature. Advice received 
from: A domestic manufacturer of similar equipment and a university 
laboratory textile laboratory, May 8, 1998.
    Argonne National Laboratory, a domestic manufacturer of similar 
equipment and a university textile laboratory advise that (1) the 
capabilities of each of the foreign instruments described above are 
pertinent to each applicant's intended purpose and (2) they know of no 
domestic instrument or apparatus of equivalent scientific value for the 
intended use of each instrument.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus being manufactured in 
the United States which is of equivalent scientific value to either of 
the foreign instruments.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 98-15347 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Wallace v M&C Hotel Interests, Inc.

4th Dept: 150 AD3d 1652

denied
No. 09-1100.

#### Connie E. Yant, et al., Petitioners v. United States.

562 U.S. 827, 131 S. Ct. 69,

178 L. Ed. 2d 23,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6737.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 588 F.3d 1369.
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 12.1 - COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Year Ended December 31,
                                                       ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1999         1998         1997         1996         1995
                                                       --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
                                                        (000's)      (000's)      (000's)      (000's)      (000's)

<S>                                                    <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Income before provision for income taxes               $203,013     $ 32,322     $ 39,763     $136,280     $ 68,607

Add:

  Interest on term loans and notes, net of
    interest capitalized                                 96,676       92,920      100,192       16,411           --

  Amortization of debt costs                              4,259        3,067        4,741          661           --

  Portion of rents representative of interest             1,903        2,629        1,394          628        1,988
                                                       --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
Income as adjusted                                     $305,851     $130,938     $146,090     $153,980     $ 70,595


Fixed Charges:

  Interest on term loans and notes                     $ 96,676     $ 93,639     $100,192     $ 16,411     $     --


  Amortization of debt costs                              4,259        3,067        4,741          661           --

  Portion of rents representative of interest             1,903        2,629        1,394          628        1,988
                                                       --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
Total fixed charges                                    $102,838     $ 99,335     $106,327     $ 17,700     $  1,988


Ratio of Consolidated Earnings to Fixed Charges            2.97         1.32         1.37         8.70         35.5
                                                       ========     ========     ========     ========     ========
</TABLE>
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3379

___________

John Fiola, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United

States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

Social Security Commissioner, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: August 22, 1997

 Filed: September 9, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Fiola appeals the district court's order

1

granting summary judgment affirming the Commissioner's

decision to deny Fiola disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed

the record and the parties' submissions, we affirm the

judgment of the district court on the basis of the

reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's report. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 09-11297.

#### 1 Starr Dalton, Petitioner v. David Ballard, Warden.

562 U.S. 872, 131 S. Ct. 174,

178 L. Ed. 2d 104,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6591.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000068619
<NAME> MOUNTAIN STATES RESOURCES CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          997,591
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     78,946
<COMMON>                                     4,843,348
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,919,885)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (98,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (98,291)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-5181.

#### Bradley Lee Winters, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 908, 131 S. Ct. 255,

178 L. Ed. 2d 169,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7078.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 600 F.3d 963.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1577]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Office of Consumer Affairs; Statement of Organization, Functions, 
and Delegations of Authority

    Introduction. Part A, Chapter AW, U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs 
(USOCA), of the Statement of Organization, Functions and Delegations of 
Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, as last 
amended at 62 FR 29349, May 30, 1997 is being amended to reflect the 
elimination of the USOCA. This is a Notice of the abolishment of the 
U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs. The change is as follows:
    Part A, Chapter AW, ``U.S. Office of Consumers Affairs'' is deleted 
in its entirety.
    This reorganization is effective January 9, 1998.

    Dated: January 2, 1998.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1577 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-04-M
#### Raymond C., Matter of (Maria V.)

1st Dept: 150 AD3d 476

denied
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14496

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cr-00016-ACC-TBS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DANIEL THOMAS, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(March 27, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Harrison T. Slaughter, Jr., appointed counsel for Daniel Thomas, Jr., has 

moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief 

Case: 12-14496 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of 

the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the 

appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no 

arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and 

Thomas’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14496 Date Filed: 03/27/2013 Page: 2 of 2
#### Leckey v. Gottlieb

05/03/2016

32 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 103
#### Com. v. Perkins 16

08/24/2016

178 EAL (2016)

16

. Justice MUNDY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

No. 210 EDA 2015
No. 10-5123.

#### Antraun Coe, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 905, 131 S. Ct. 245,

178 L. Ed. 2d 163,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6105.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-10598.

#### Natalie V. Blair, Petitioner v. Jeffrey C. Blair.

562 U.S. 847, 131 S. Ct. 92,

178 L. Ed. 2d 58,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5808.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, denied.
NO. 07-08-0106-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	MARCH 28, 2008

	______________________________

	In re JOHANSON LEE WATSON,

									Relator  

	_________________________________

	Opinion on Original Proceeding for Writ of Mandamus

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	Johanson Lee Watson, an indigent inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus.  Through the purported application for habeas corpus, he attempts to nullify his prior felony conviction.  For the reason expressed below, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	The Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases.  See id.; Board of Pardons and Paroles ex. rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App.1995); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (original proceeding) (stating that courts of appeal have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases).  So, to complain about any action, or inaction, of the convicting court, the applicant may seek mandamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.  See In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d at 196. 	

	Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

							Per Curiam
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shaina Foster, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 226]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), rendered August 6, 2015, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of her right to appeal *(see People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094 [2016]), which forecloses review of her claims that her sentence was excessive and that the court should have granted youthful offender treatment *(see People v White,*141 AD3d 463 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 975 [2016]). Regardless of the validity and scope of defendant’s waiver of her right to appeal, we perceive no basis for *548reducing the sentence or substituting a youthful offender adjudication.

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,832
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,948
<PP&E>                                          26,314
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,794
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,132
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         14
<COMMON>                                         5,815
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,651
<SALES>                                         23,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,064
<CGS>                                           18,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   101
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,362
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  89
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    835
<INCOME-TAX>                                       255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                580
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       580
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>