alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Plaza Collectibles Corp., Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Directors Guild of America, Inc., Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 41]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered November 1, 2016, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a *Yellowstone*injunction, granted defendant’s motion to vacate a temporary restraining order, and denied plaintiffs’ request for a declaration that the parties’ lease had been renewed, unanimously modified, on the law, *513solely to declare that the lease was not renewed, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a *Yellowstone*injunction and granted defendant’s motion to vacate the temporary restraining order because plaintiffs no longer held a lease to the premises *(see Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc.,*93 NY2d 508, 514 [1999]). Alternatively, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their readiness to cure any claimed default.

The court erred in finding that plaintiffs did not validly exercise the option to renew the lease on the ground that the letter declaring their intent to do so was not sent more than 180 days before the lease’s expiration. As the parties admit, the lease was set to expire on December 31, 2014, not September 19, 2014. Thus, plaintiffs’ April 12, 2014 letter was timely. Nevertheless, plaintiffs did not validly exercise the renewal option, because the letter did not strictly comply with the written notice requirements of the lease *(see American Realty Co. v 64 B Venture,*176 AD2d 226, 227 [1st Dept 1991], *lv denied*79 NY2d 756 [1992]). In any event, defendant was permitted to cancel the renewal option, because, at the time they sought to exercise it, plaintiffs were in incurable breach of the lease *(see Nobu Next Door v Fine Arts Hous.,*3 AD3d 335, 336 [1st Dept 2004], *affd*4 NY3d 839 [2005]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.
No. D-2556.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of David Benjamin Stocker.

562 U.S. 816, 131 S. Ct. 408,

178 L. Ed. 2d 272,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7521.

October 4, 2010.

David Benjamin Stocker, of Phoenix, Arizona, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### Lisa Kurcias et al., Respondents, v 1043 Rest. Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[64 NYS3d 541]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered on or about October 14, 2016, which denied the motion of defendant 1043 Restaurant Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant did not establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action for personal injuries sustained when an unidentified bicycle delivery person struck plaintiff as she crossed the street. Defendant failed to demonstrate that the bicycle delivery person was not its employee. Although several of its delivery personnel testified that they were not involved in the accident, defendant did not submit affidavits from its undeposed employees who worked as bicycle delivery persons at the time of the accident averring that they had no involvement in the collision with plaintiff, or, alternatively, from someone else with that same knowledge *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]; *compare Morales v Living Space Design,*278 AD2d 48 [1st Dept 2000]).

Since defendant failed to meet its initial burden to show that none of its employees were involved in the accident, the burden to offer evidence on the issue never shifted to plaintiff *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing and Singh, JJ.
No. 10-5545.

#### Orestes Cabrera, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 928, 131 S. Ct. 316,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7157,

178 L. Ed. 2d 206,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 78.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of PrincipalExecutive OfficerRequired by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)of the Exchange Act**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanstar, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Joseph Loggia, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)         The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| By:    | /s/ JOSEPH LOGGIA        |   |     |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|----------|
|   | Joseph Loggia            |   |     |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer*     |   |     |
|   | Date: November 15,  2004 |   | * * |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

In connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”) of NovAtel Inc., I,Jonathan Ladd, President and Chief Executive Officer, of NovAtel Inc., herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  such Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in such Report fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of NovAtel Inc.

 

 
| May 26, 2004 |                                  | /s/ JONATHAN W. LADD |   |
|--------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
| Date         | Jonathan W. Ladd                      |
|         | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
No. 09-11514.

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

562 U.S. 885, 131 S. Ct. 213,

178 L. Ed. 2d 128,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6964.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
No. 10-5939.

#### Johnny Ray Fancher, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 942, 131 S. Ct. 361,

178 L. Ed. 2d 233,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7441.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 259.
# CBS 6 profiles historic Bellwood Elk on Defense Supply Center Richmond

/ Published Aug. 6, 2021
RICHMOND, Va, 
A film crew from WTVR CBS 6 in Richmond, Virginia, came on Defense Supply Center Richmond July 30 to record a story on the historic Bellwood elk as part of the station’s weekly series “I have a Story.” 

The “I have a Story” segment profiling the Bellwood Elk airs Friday, Aug. 6 at 11 p.m. and again Saturday, Aug. 7 between 6 - 8 a.m. If you miss it, you can also catch it on the station’s website: https://www.wtvr.com/i-have-a-story

The elk are well known throughout the Defense Department, Defense Logistics Agency and around the nation. They are often the first feature visitors ask to see. The elk are a living link to the historic Bellwood Farms and show the post’s commitment to retaining the cultural, historic and environmental landscape. There are currently 24 elks. 

James Bellwood was the last private owner of the land that DSCR occupies. Bellwood was a highly respected and successful farmer. He was also an animal enthusiast, so he set aside acreage on his property for a wooded park where deer, rabbits and other wildlife could live and roam freely.

Around 1900, Bellwood imported a pair of elk from Yosemite National Park and Washington State to start a herd on his land. According to newspaper and magazine articles of the time, the elk became an immediate hit with both the family and the community. With plenty of forage and room to graze, the herd multiplied to more than 20 during the time Bellwood owned the land. On weekends, hundreds of visitors would take the Richmond-Petersburg trolley to picnic and enjoy Bellwood’s animal park.

After Mr. Bellwood’s death, his family decided to sell the land; however, they were concerned about the future of their father’s beloved elk.

To read more about the Bellwood Elk, click here.
2016-1559.

#### State v. Watkins.

Lucas App. No. L-15-1213, 2016-Ohio-5756.

O’Donnell and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.
#### Com. v. Mannepuli 21

05/17/2016

88 MAL (2016)

21

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

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 105
No. 10-5026.

#### Robert Martin, Petitioner v. Cashier Holloway, et al.

562 U.S. 899, 131 S. Ct. 230,

178 L. Ed. 2d 153,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6184.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.

Same case below, 125 Ohio St. 3d 1409, 925 N.E.2d 998.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1615]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3048]


State of Florida

    Broward County and the contiguous Counties of Collier, Dade, 
Hendry, and Palm Beach in the State of Florida constitute a disaster 
area as a result of damages caused by a fire that occurred on December 
18, 1997 in the Kings Court Condominium Development in Oakland Park. 
Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster 
may be filed until the close of business on March 16, 1998 and for 
economic injury until the close of business on October 14, 1998 at the 
address listed below or other locally announced locations: Small 
Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, 
Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For physical damage:                                                    
  Homeowners with credit available elsewhere..................     7.625
  Homeowners without credit available elsewhere...............     3.812
  Businesses with credit available elsewhere..................     8.000
  Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit                
   available elsewhere........................................     4.000
  Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit               
   available elsewhere........................................     7.125
For economic injury:                                                    
  Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without                
   credit available elsewhere.................................     4.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 304805 
and for economic injury the number is 971500.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: January 14, 1998.
Aida Alvarez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-1615 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### In the Matter of Christina McK., Respondent, v Kyle S., Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 261]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Susan K. Knipps, J.), entered on or about June 10, 2016, which denied respondent’s motion to vacate an order of filiation entered upon his default, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to vacate the default *(see Matter of Tyieyanna L. [Twanya McK.],*94 AD3d 494, 494-495 [1st Dept 2012]; *Matter of Jones,*128 AD2d 403, 404 [1st Dept 1987]). Respondent’s claim that he did not appear at the December 11, 2015 hearing because he was under a mistaken belief as to the next hearing date was insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse and belied by the transcript of the October 2, 2015 hearing, which showed he was present when the next hearing date was selected and told by his counsel that he was required to appear *(see Matter of Brittany J.,*235 AD2d 310, 311 [1st Dept 1997], *lv dismissed*89 NY2d 1086 [1997]; *Bicknell v Bicknell,*214 AD2d 598, 598-599 [2d Dept 1995]). Respondent’s failure to maintain contact with his attorney and to keep himself apprised of the status of the hearing date demonstrated that his default was due to his overall lack of attention to the proceeding *(see Sheikh v New York City Tr. Auth.,*258 AD2d 347, 348 [1st Dept 1999]).

Because respondent failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for his default, we need not determine whether there existed a meritorious defense to the petition *(see Matter of Amirah Nicole A. [Tamika R.],*73 AD3d 428, 429 [1st Dept 2010], *lv dismissed*15 NY3d 766 [2010]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.R, Maz-zarelli, Moskowitz, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 21**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN DENTAL PARTNERS, INC.**

ADP-CFK, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

ADP of New York, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Apple Park Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

American Dental Partners of Alabama, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Arizona, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of California, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

American Dental Partners of Florida, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Louisiana, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

American Dental Partners of Maryland, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Michigan, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Minnesota, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Missouri, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of North Carolina, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners ofOhio, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

American Dental Partners of Oklahoma, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

American Dental Partners of Pennsylvania, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Professional Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Tennessee, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Texas, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners of Virginia, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

American Dental Partners ofWisconsin, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Care for Kids – USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Care for Kids of Arizona, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a Arizona’s Tooth Doctor for Kids 

CFK of Texas, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Edgewater Indemnity Company, a Vermont Corporation 

Voss Dental Lab, Inc., a NewYork corporation
No. 10-6004.

#### James Mondrnea Carroway, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 943, 131 S. Ct. 365,

178 L. Ed. 2d 236,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7646.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 334.
# Employee Spotlight: Megan Foxworth

/ Published Jan. 11, 2023
RICHMOND, Va., 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs.*

**Name:** Megan Foxworth

**Organization:** DLA Aviation Richmond

**How long have you worked for DLA:** 14 years

**What is your job title:** I’m a post-award contract specialist.

**Describe your job in a sentence or two:**In this capacity, I am responsible for resolving contract issues after a contract is awarded. This includes payment issues, contract errors which result in modifications and communication with resolution and product specialists. I am currently training those going through the DLA Pathways to Career Excellence (PaCE) Program in post-award contract administration.

**What do you like most about your job and why**? What I enjoy more about my job is the problem-solving aspect and being able to resolve some of the more complicated issues that will ultimately result in a contractor being able to deliver good material to the warfighter especially when there’s a great need for a particular item. Being able to resolve issues when an item is in high demand also is how I help to support to warfighter. I always keep the warfighter in mind when working to resolve any issue.

**What are your best practices for achieving goals or accomplishing tasks?**I am an inquisitive person by nature, so I tend to ask a lot of questions to gain an understanding in different facets of the procurement process from post-award and contract administration to disciplines outside of contract administration such as resolution or product specialist and how we affect each other. Gaining, understanding and keeping open communication helps me learn something new every day from fellow co-workers throughout DLA.

**What are some of your passions outside of work**? My passions outside of work are running and studying different languages*.*
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended May 25,
2008, (the Report), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:  July 9, 2008
    /s/ Leonard R. Stein-SapirLeonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer 
 17
No. 10-5522.

#### Dwayne Palmer, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 954, 131 S. Ct. 313,

178 L. Ed. 2d 253,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7690.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 374 Fed. Appx. 208.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20838

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFONSO PENA-PEREZ,

also known as Nicolas Arambula-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-207-1

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

April 12, 2001

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alfonso Pena-Perez appeals the 85-month sentence imposed

following his plea of guilty to a charge of being found in the

United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends that the felony conviction that resulted in his

increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of

the offense that should have been charged in the indictment.

Pena-Perez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
No. 00-20838 

-2-

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue

for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

120 S. Ct. at 2362; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). PenaPerez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### The People of State of New York, Respondent, v Carl Sykes, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 632]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), dated June 20, 2012, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sex offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A defendant seeking a downward departure from the presumptive risk level has the initial burden of “(1) identifying, as a matter of law, an appropriate mitigating factor, namely, a factor which tends to establish a lower likelihood of reoffense or danger to the community and is of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the [Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter SORA): Risk Assessment] Guidelines [and Commentary]; and (2) establish*785ing the facts in support of its existence by a preponderance of the evidence” *(People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]; *see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841, 861 [2014]; *People v Wallace,*144 AD3d 775 [2016]). If the defendant “surmounts the first two steps, the law permits a departure, but the court still has discretion to refuse to depart or to grant a departure” *(People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d at 861; *see People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d at 128).

Here, the defendant failed to sustain his burden of proof in support of his request for a downward departure. The mitigating circumstances identified by the defendant either were adequately taken into account by the SORA Guidelines, or were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence *(see People v Rossano,*140 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2016]; *People v Sanchez,*138 AD3d 946, 947 [2016]; *People v Santiago,*137 AD3d 762, 765 [2016]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his request for a downward departure.

Rivera, J.R, Hall, Roman and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5594.

#### Mattie Turner, Petitioner v. Bobbie Edmonds.

562 U.S. 930, 131 S. Ct. 324,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7210,

178 L. Ed. 2d 210,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas denied.
160 A.3d 701

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JAMES WANGER, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.