alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard Pierre-Paul, Respondent, v Brandon A. Price et al., Appellants.

[48 NYS3d 745]

In an action to recover dam*848ages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Capetola, J.), entered November 16, 2015, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury to the lumbar region of his spine *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5870.

#### Young Bok Song, Petitioner v. Benjamin Smith, et al.

562 U.S. 982, 131 S. Ct. 416,

178 L. Ed. 2d 325,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8150.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### Com. v. Pal 23

05/11/2016

922 MAL (2015)

23

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

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 496
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip Estevez, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 236]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered June 1, 2015, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree (three counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, three counts of assault in the second degree, *651and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, based on a series of physical altercations involving four victims, all of which occurred on a single day inside the Brooklyn home in which the defendant and the victims resided.

During the course of the trial, the Supreme Court repeatedly and prejudicially questioned the defendant, who testified in his own behalf, and also extensively intervened in the questioning of prosecution witnesses. Although defense counsel did not specifically object to the court’s questioning of the witnesses *(cf. People v Yut Wai Tom,*53 NY2d 44, 55-56 [1981]), we reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; *People v Davis,*147 AD3d 1077 [2017]).

While trial judges play a vital role in “clarifying confusing testimony and facilitating the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial,” their power to examine witnesses “is one that should be exercised sparingly” *(People v Yut Wai Tom,*53 NY2d at 57). Indeed, such power “carries with it so many risks of unfairness that it should be a rare instance when the court rather than counsel examines a witness” *(id.).*

Here, the Supreme Court effectively took over the direct examination of one of the complaining witnesses at key moments in her testimony where she was describing how the defendant shot the victim *(see People v Robinson,*151 AD3d 758, 759-760 [2017]). Moreover, in its extensive questioning of the defendant, the court repeatedly highlighted apparent inconsistencies in the defendant’s testimony. Viewing the record as a whole, the court assumed the appearance, if not the function, of an advocate at the trial by its extensive examination of certain witnesses *(see id.*at 761-762). Accordingly, we must remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial.

As a new trial must be ordered, we note that it was improper for the prosecutor to elicit from the defendant the fact that he was incarcerated pending trial *(see People v Machicote,*251 AD2d 684 [1998]; *People v Connor,*137 AD2d 546, 550 [1988]), as no legitimate State interest was served by disclosing that information under the circumstances of this case *(cf. People v Jenkins,*88 NY2d 948 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit *(see People v Rielly,*190 AD2d 695, 697 [1993]).

Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Duffy and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
No. 10-248.

#### Rayshawn C. Abram, Petitioner v. Nebraska.

562 U.S. 963, 131 S. Ct. 476,

178 L. Ed. 2d 290,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7927.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nebraska denied.
2017-1365.

#### Bedford Assocs. v. Coleman.

Cuyahoga App. No. 106097. Appellant’s motion to stay and appellees’ motion to dismiss and motions to strike denied as moot.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2696 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2696

 To provide for the establishment of a pilot program to provide grants 
to community mental health centers for the placement of social workers 
         with law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2019

   Mr. Harder of California introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the establishment of a pilot program to provide grants 
to community mental health centers for the placement of social workers 
         with law enforcement agencies, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting the Health and Safety of 
Law Enforcement Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT.

    Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General shall establish a pilot program to provide grants 
to community mental health centers for the placement of social workers 
with law enforcement agencies to facilitate closer coordination on law 
enforcement issues with an underlying connection to mental health.

SEC. 3. NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF GRANTS.

    The Attorney General shall award not more than 4 grants each fiscal 
year to community mental health centers (as such term is defined in 
section 1861 of the Social Security Act) in each of the 4 census 
regions. Each such grant shall be in an amount not to exceed $300,000. 
The term of such a grant shall be 3 years. Each such mental health 
center shall partner with a law enforcement agency that employs not 
more than 100 officers in order to carry out the purposes of the grant.

SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR PLACEMENT WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

    To be eligible for placement with a law enforcement agency under 
this Act, a social worker shall be--
            (1) licensed under the applicable State law; and
            (2) employed by a community mental health center.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act 
$2,500,000 for fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022.

SEC. 6. TERMINATION OF PROGRAM; REPORT TO CONGRESS.

    This Act is repealed on the date that is 3 years after a grant is 
first made under this Act. The Attorney General shall report to 
Congress not later than six months thereafter on the outcomes of any 
cases where the social worker became involved and the total number of 
such cases, and any other information deemed relevant.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1998 and the
Company's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended
December 31, 1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             362
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10567
<ALLOWANCES>                                       601
<INVENTORY>                                       3960
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 15342
<PP&E>                                            7735
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   20564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            13104
<BONDS>                                           2142
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1233
<OTHER-SE>                                        2436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     20564
<SALES>                                          40389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 40529
<CGS>                                            35767
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    35767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   272
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2080)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2080)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.55)
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-6429.

#### Rafael Martel, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1047, 131 S. Ct. 604,

178 L. Ed. 2d 440,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8932.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-7203.

#### Jose Rico-Carrillo, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1075, 131 S. Ct. 677,

178 L. Ed. 2d 503,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9238.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 631.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ADANTE L. SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 143 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of August, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### In the Matter of Marya Jahaira Laureano, Appellant, v Michael Wagner, Respondent.

[49 NYS3d 630]

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Nilda Morales Horowitz, J.), dated December 29, 2015. The order, among other things, in effect, denied, without a hearing, the mother’s petition to modify the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce so as to award her sole custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Pursuant to the parties’ judgment of divorce dated February 20, 2008, the father was awarded sole custody of the subject child. In May 2015, the mother filed a petition to modify the custody provisions of the judgment of divorce so as to award her sole custody of the child. In an order dated December 29, 2015, the Family Court, among other things, in effect, denied, without a hearing, the mother’s petition.

“Where modification of an existing custody order is sought, the petitioner must make a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to protect the best interests of the child” *(Matter of Pena v Lopez,*140 AD3d 967, 968 [2016]). “When the allegations of fact in a petition to change custody are controverted, the court must, as a general rule, hold a full hearing” *(Matter of Fielder v Fielder,*137 AD3d 1129, 1130 [2016]; *see S.L. v J.R.,*27 NY3d 558, 564 *746[2016]). Here, the mother established her entitlement to a hearing by alleging, inter alia, that the father prevented her from visiting with or speaking to the child, and was attempting to alienate the child from her *(see Matter of Ruiz v Sciallo,*127 AD3d 1205, 1206-1207 [2015]; *Matter of Darla N. v Christine N.,*289 AD2d 1012, 1012-1013 [2001]). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, the Family Court should have conducted an in camera interview of the child *(see Matter of Fielder v Fielder,*137 AD3d at 1130).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions.

Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Family Court, West-chester County, for a new determination of the mother’s petition following a full hearing, including an in camera interview of the child.

Balkin, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q REPORT OF  REDDY ICE HOLDINGS, INC.  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C. SS.SS.
1350(a) AND (b))

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), the
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation.

Date: August 6, 2010/s/ GILBERT M. CASSAGNE Gilbert M. Cassagne, Chief Executive Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350(a) and (b)), is not
a part of the Form 10-Q to which it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by the above signatory to the extent of his knowledge.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation and will be retained by Reddy Ice
Holdings, Inc. and Reddy Ice Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### Com. v. Yelverton

05/17/2016

9 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 102
Employee Spotlight: Tom Whipple
 
  **Man sitting in chair smiling.
        Employee Spotlight: Tom Whipple
            Get to know Tom Whipple of Disposition Services Qatar.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: DLA Disposition Services
                    
                    VIRIN: 220713-D-D0441-203** My home station is Barstow, California where I am a disposal service representative at Edwards Air Force Base and China Lake Weapons Station. **What is your best memory of working here?**My favorite memory with DLA is my deployment with the Afghanistan Closure Team. **What is the best piece of advice someone has given you?**Best piece of advice is to never be afraid to bet on yourself. **Have you been recognized for any awards?** I’ve been awarded the DLA Superior Civilian Service award and the DLA Director’s Strategic Goals award. **What is one characteristic that you believe every leader should possess?**The first characteristic leaders should possess is to be willing to listen. **What was your first job?**My first job was in a cannery factory. **Tell us something that most people might not know about you.** Most people assume that I retired from the military. I in fact did not retire from the military, I served a 4-year enlistment.
### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL S FOR THE SE VENTH CIRCUIT

E ve r ett McKinle y Dirksen United Sta t es C ou r t ho u se Ro om 2722 - 219 S
. Dearborn S treet Chic ago, Illin ois 60604 Office of th e Cle rk Phone : (312) 435-5850 www .ca7. usco urts. gov

OR DER Jun e 24, 2014
B e fo re WI L L I A M J
. B A U E R

, C ir c u it J u d

ge M I C H A E L S
. K

A N N E , C ir c u it J u d

ge J O H N D A N I E L T I N D E R , C ir c u it Ju d

ge

No. : 1 3- 34 47 UNITE D STA TES OF AME RICA, Plai ntif f - App el l ee

v . SOUB AHN S ENYMA NOLA, Defendant - A ppel l ant Origina tin g Case Informati on: Distri ct Co urt No : 2 :13 -cr- 00 07 3- CNC-1 Eastern Distri ct o f Wi sconsi n Distri ct Jud ge Charle s N. Cl evert The nonprecedenti al di sposi tion of thi s court i ssu ed on June 18, 2014, i s AMENDED as follows: On page 2, in the fi fth li ne of the second paragr aph, the refer ence to "the § 942(c)(1) violati on" should b e "the § 924(c)( 1) vi olation".

fo rm na me: c7_Order_ 3J (fo rm ID: 17 7 )
No. 10-461.

#### United States ex rel. Sadek R. Ebeid, Petitioner v. Theresa A. Lungwitz, et al.

562 U.S. 1102, 131 S. Ct. 801,

178 L. Ed. 2d 546,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9456.

December 6, 2010.

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

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

Same case below, 616 F.3d 993.
No. 10-5895.

#### Ronald G. Dandar, Petitioner v. Pennsylvania (two judgments).

562 U.S. 978, 131 S. Ct. 417,

178 L. Ed. 2d 318,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8210.

October 18, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari *319to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office, dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
July 31, 2014

CAAP-13-0000401

#### State v. Abregano

Affirmed
#### Maryann Patisso, Appellant, v Matthew P. Brady, Respondent.

[56 NYS3d 465]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Diamond, J.), dated March 3, 2016, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical and lumbar regions of the plaintiff’s spine did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]). In addition, the defendant established, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the cervical region of the plaintiff’s spine were not caused by the subject accident *(see Gouvea v Lesende,*127 AD3d 811 [2015]; *Fontana v Aamaar & Maani Karan Tr. Corp.,*124 AD3d 579 [2015]; *see generally Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]).

*783In. opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether she sustained a serious injury to the cervical and lumbar regions of her spine under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and as to whether the alleged injuries to the cervical region of her spine were caused by the subject accident *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6554.

#### Gerry Dale Roadcap, Petitioner v. Kevin Milyard, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1015, 131 S. Ct. 534,

178 L. Ed. 2d 393,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8340.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 381 Fed. Appx. 859.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.
DI STRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No
. 22 -BG- 123
IN R E SAM BABBS, I II , ESQUIRE Respondent

. Board Docket No. 22- BD -0 09 Bar Registration No. 989170 D DN s : 20 21- 142, 2021

- 143, et al.
B EFORE: Beckwith and McLeese , Associate Jud ges , and Steadman , Senior Judge

.

O R D E R (FILED – March 24 , 202 2)
O n consideration of the affidavit of Sam Babbs, I II , wherein he consents to disbarment from the bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI , § 12 , which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this court, and the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility , it is
OR DERED that Sam Babbs, I II, is hereby disbarred by con sent , effective April 11, 2022

. T he Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon written consent of the respondent.
T he Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which set forth certain rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply therewith.

P ER CURIAM
Sanitized

Report on 

Overview of 

Potential 

Hazard of 

Different Solar 
Panel

Technologies