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

[66 NYS3d 129]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered August 7, 2015, 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 thirty (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— Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
#### Weston v Martinez

4th Dept: 149 AD3d 1505

denied
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16816]



[[Page 34365]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 061598B]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the New 
England Fishery Management Council will hold a Joint Dogfish Committee 
meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 8, 1998, from 9:30 
a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Logan Airport, 
225 McClellan Highway, E. Boston, MA; telephone: 617-569-5250.
     Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. 
New Street, Dover, DE 19904, telephone: 302-674-2331.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Acting 
Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: 
302-674-2331, ext. 16.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to review 
analyses conducted by the Technical Committee concerning the stock 
rebuilding options, revised discard mortality estimates, and alternate 
minimum size limits. Management options to be included in the public 
hearing draft of the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan will be 
finalized.
    Although other issues not contained in this agenda may come before 
the Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the 
subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted 
to those issues specifically identified in this notice.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Joanna Davis at the Council (see ADDRESSES) at 
least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 98-16816 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Site spotlight: Warner Robins
 
  **man standing
        Old equipment finds new home with DLA Disposition Services
            ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. -- David Smith, Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services material examiner and identifier, show the variety of equipment available for sale at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, Jan. 5, 2021. DLA Disposition Services Warner Robins provides the necessary outlet for local units to dispose of their excess and unserviceable equipment. (U.S. Air Force photo by Joseph Mather)

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: Joseph Mather
                    
                    VIRIN: 210105-F-ED303-1004** DLA Disposition Services, Warner Robins **Site Size**: Large **Location:** BLDG. 1602, 1200 Macon St. Warner AFB, GA 31098 **Hours of Operations:** Monday - Friday 0700 - 1530 **What services does the site provide?** Disposal Services, Scrap, Environmental, and RTD. **What are the major units supported at the site?** All military installations within the South East region and Glynco (the headquarters for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center). **Has the site provided any humanitarian support, if so, what?** Yes, during the pandemic we supplied body bags, and oxygen ventilators. **Does the site have any focus areas?** Yes, training aids from multiple training facilities around Georgia. **Does the office have a quote, motto, or philosophy?** We do daily send outs for inspirational quotes but nothing that is permanent. **Any special takes/influences on organizational culture?** A mixed culture and bringing all aspects, beliefs and culture to the table. In the end, one family – one theme. **Are there any unique challenges the site faces?** Yes. Dealing with two different distribution hubs and multiple training facilities in one state brings a lot of material into one area. **What are the goals for the site for the coming year?** To provide proficient training to all new employees improving our stats and capabilities. We also look at working on everyone utilizing the “whole person” concept to better our employees while bettering the organization. **Is there anything unique about the site or unusual fact about the office?** There is supposedly a Native American burial ground located across the street from our building. Some people claim the facility is haunted...... **Does the site team do any volunteering?** Nothing formal but discussions are underway about working at team building exercises once the pandemic is behind us.
June 2, 1967

Mrs. Bess Blackwell Executive Secretary Opinion No. M-81 State Board of Hairdressers Re: Whether the State Board has & Cosmetologists the authority to require an Sam Houston Building applicant for an original liAustin, Texas tense to select a name other than one already recorded with DearMrs. Blackwell: the Board.

You have requested the opinion of this office regarding the above question. In this connectionwe quote from Section 10, Article 73&b, Vernon's Penal Code:

"TheBoard may refuse to issue or to renew ormay suspend or revoke any license issued in accordancewith the provisions of this Act for the followingreasons: 11

. . . . "(e) Advertising,practicing, or attempting to practice under the name or trade name of another licenseeunder thisAct; II

. . . .' (Emphasis supplied.) Under the above quoted statutoryprovision, it is the opinion of this office that the StateBoard of Hairdressers and Cosmetologistshas the authority, in the proper exercise of Its discretion, to refuse to Issue a license to an applicant who has selected the same name as a business previously licensedby the Board and stin In operation. Any such refusal to issue a licensemust, of course3be dependentupon a Board hearing conducted in accordancewith Sections 11(a) and 11(b), Article 73&b, Vernon's Penal Code.

In connectionwith any possibleBoard hearing held In the future on the subject of trade names, you are advised that

- 363-Mrs. Bess Blackwell, page 2 (~~-81)

Section 2(h), Article 73)-&b, cation to the determinationVernon's Penal Code, has no appliof what constitutes 'advertising, practicing, or attemptlng to practiceunder the name or trade name of another licenseeunder this Act." The said Section 2(h) is concerned solelywith defining those businesses subject to licensing; the specific listing of names ismade to Insure that a business engaged In the oractice or teaching of cosmetology or hairdressingmay not escape licensing through the use of a subterfuge.

SUMMARY

After proper hearing, as provided In Article 73&b, Vernon's Penal Code, the StateBoard of Hairdressers and Cosmetologistshas the authority to refuse to issue a license for the operation of a businesswhich has the same name as a business previously licensedby theBoard and still in operation.

neral of Texas Prepared by Malcolm L. Quick AssistantAttorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Hawthorne Phillips,Chairman W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman PaulMartin W. 0. Shultz Milton Richardson John Duren STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT A. J. Carubbi, Jr.

-364-
No. 10-112.

#### Subbamma V. Vadde, Petitioner v. Bank of America.

562 U.S. 1088, 131 S. Ct. 694,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9121.

178 L. Ed. 2d 524,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 894, 131 S. Ct. 298, 178 L. Ed. 2d 143, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6399.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16988]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Cochgalechee Creek Watershed, Russell County, AL; Availability of 
No Significant Impact

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of a Finding Of No Significant Impact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an 
environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the 
Cochgalechee Creek Watershed, (Russell County, Alabama).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronnie D. Murphy, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, 3381 Skyway Drive, Auburn, Alabama, 36830, (334) 887-4535.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this 
federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As 
a result of these findings, Ronnie D. Murphy, State Conservationist, 
has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental 
impact statement are not needed for this project.
    The project purpose is flood prevention. The planned works of 
improvement include: selective clearing and snagging, and sediment 
removal in Cochgalechee Creek from 1000 feet downstream of Brickyard 
Road to Seale Road (2 miles), and selective placement of riprap around 
bridges.
    The notice of a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been 
forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various 
Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited 
number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy 
requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the 
environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting 
Ronnie D. Murphy, State Conservationist.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be 
taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal 
Register.
Ronnie D. Murphy,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 98-16988 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34645-34646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-54-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Refund

June 19, 1998.
    Take notice on June 15, 1998, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing a report of Gas Research 
Institute (GRI) refunds made to its customers.
    Transco states that refunded amounts were made to eligible shippers 
via Mail or wire transfer based on non-discounted GRI demand amounts 
paid during the year ended December 31, 1997. The amounts refunded by 
Transco resulted from refunds made to Transco by the GRI.

[[Page 34646]]

    Transco states that copies of this filing are being served to each 
affected customer.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rule 
sand Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before June 26, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16889 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
						Search

		Submit


Southern Tick–Associated Rash Illness


Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate





Distribution																									Related Pages
												Lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum)
STARI is specifically associated with bites of *Amblyomma americanum*, known commonly as the lone star tick. Lone star ticks can be found from central Texas and Oklahoma eastward across the southern states and along the Atlantic coast as far north as Maine. The adult female is distinguished by a white dot or “lone star” on her back. All three life stages of *A. americanum* aggressively bite people.

Lone Star Tick Distribution, 2011 Cdc-pdf[PDF – 2 pages].

			
							
								Page last reviewed:  November 19, 2018						Content source:  	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Division of Vector-Borne Diseases (DVBD) STARI Home
STARI or Lyme?
Symptoms
Distribution
References


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov





Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
No. 10-6744.

#### Kenneth Bridgewater, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1019, 131 S. Ct. 545,

178 L. Ed. 2d 400,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8372.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 606 F.3d 258.
No. 10-6295.

#### Marco Antonio Nunez-Gonzalez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 973, 131 S. Ct. 489,

178 L. Ed. 2d 310,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7892.

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 87.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLOVUS M. SYKES,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 14

- 70446

Tax Ct. No. 18787

- 12L

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

Submitted April 19, 2018 **

Before: THO MAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Clovus M. Sykes appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment

upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ’s determination to proceed with

the proposed collection action for tax year 200 8 , and imposi ng a penalty under 26

U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 70446

Tax Court’s legal conclusio ns de novo. Severo v. Comm’r , 586 F.3d 1213, 1215

(9th Cir. 2009). We review the imposition of penalties under § 6673 for abuse of

discretion. Wolf v. Comm’r , 4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir. 1993)

. We affirm.

The Tax Court properly sustained the collection action against Sykes

because he failed to raise any permissible issues or defenses at the collection due

process (“CDP”) hearing. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2) (listing issues that may be

considered at the CDP hearing); § 6330(c)(2)(B ) (taxpayer may raise at the CDP

hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability only if

he or she did not receive a notice of deficiency).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a gainst Sykes a

$25,000 penalty under § 6673 for maintaining frivolous positions despite the Tax

Court’s repeated warnings. § 6673(a )(1) (authorizing penalty not to exceed

$25,000 where taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless); see Wolf , 4 F.3d at

7 16 (concluding T ax C ourt was within its discretion in imposing penalties under §

6673 against taxpayer who persist ed in litigating frivolous positions following

warning)

. We reject as unsupported Sykes’s contention that the 21

- day safe

- harbor

provision se t forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 applies to the Tax Court’s

imposition of penalties.

We reject as meritless Sykes’s contention that he was not required to pay

taxes

, because his argument is based on withholding provisions applicable only to3 14

- 70446

fo reign citizens . We also reject as meritless Sykes’s challenge to the

Commissioner’s substitute for return

.

Syke s ’s motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
No. 09-10778.

#### Sherry Studli, Petitioner v. Charles A. Crimone, et al.

562 U.S. 1086, 131 S. Ct. 690,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9055.

178 L. Ed. 2d 519,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 851, 131 S. Ct. 108, 178 L. Ed. 2d 66, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6124.
No. 10-6244.

#### Shabaka K. Boyd, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 647,

178 L. Ed. 2d 487,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9420.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 608 F.3d 331.
Letter Agreement, dated as of November 30, 2004


 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION 
 383 MADISON AVENUE 
 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10179 
  
 As of November 30, 2004 
  
 NC Capital Corporation 
 18400 Van Karman 
 Suite 1000 
 Irvine, CA 92617 
  
 Attention: Mr. Richard Holguin 
  

	Re:	Master Repurchase Agreement between Bear Stearns Mortgage Capital Corporation and NC Capital Corporation dated as of October 31, 2003 (the “Agreement) and amended as of October
1, 2004 to include NC Residual II Corp, and New Century Credit Corporation 

  
 Dear Mr. Holguin: 
  
 This letter will confirm
the mutual agreement between Bear Stearns Mortgage Capital Corporation and NC Capital Mortgage Corporation, NC Residual II Corp, and New Century Credit Corp, to extend the term of the Agreement as described in paragraph 21, “Non-assignability;
Termination” to December 30, 2004. The extension shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in the Agreement. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,

	 BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE CAPITAL
 CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Eileen M. Albus


	 Name:
	 	 Eileen M. Albus

	 Title:
	 	 Managing Director



  

			
	 AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

	 NC CAPITAL CORPORATION

		
	 BY:
	 	 /s/ Kevin Cloyd


	 Name:
	 	 Kevin Cloyd

	 Title:
	 	 President
Order entered February 23, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00861-CR

No. 05-20-00862-CR

RAYAN DHANES GANESH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-76113-S & F16-76111-S

ORDER

Appellant’s brief, initially due on November 29, 2020, has not been filed. In 

addition, the clerk’s record does not contain the trial court’s certification of 

appellant’s right to appeal the September 14, 2020 judgments revoking community 

supervision. These appeals cannot proceed without the trial court’s certifications of 

appellant’s right to appeal or appellant’s brief.
We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make 

appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant 

desires to prosecute these appeals, whether appellant has abandoned the appeals, or 

whether appointed counsel has abandoned the appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). 

If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court 

shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 

708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, 

the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure 

effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to complete and cause to be filed, in a 

supplemental clerk’s record in each appeal, certifications that accurately reflect

appellant’s right to appeal the September 14, 2020 judgments in these appeals.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings regarding

appellant’s brief, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to 

this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Amber 

Givens, Presiding Judge, 282nd Judicial District Court; to J. Daniel Oliphant; and 

to the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Division.
These appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the 

above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order 

or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE