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

[49 NYS3d 912]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Greller, J.), rendered May 1, 2014, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Smith,*81 NY2d 875, 876 [1993]; *People v Anderson,*142 AD3d 509, 509 [2016]; *People v Wallace,*128 AD3d 866, 868 [2015]; *People v Hunter,*16 AD3d 187, 188 [2005]; *People v Fuller,*302 AD2d 405 [2003]). In any event, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination *(see People v Hecker,*15 NY3d 625, 655 [2010]; *People v Brown,*97 NY2d 500, 508 [2002]; *People v Childress,*81 NY2d 263, 267-268 [1993]; *People v Bolling,*79 NY2d 317, 325 [1992]; *People v Anderson,*142 AD3d at 509).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived *of*a fair trial because of certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Rivera,*73 NY2d 941, 942 [1989]; *People v Ford,*69 NY2d 775, 776 [1987]; *People v Nuccie,*57 NY2d 818, 819 [1982]; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]; *People v Eugene,*27 AD3d 480, 481 [2006]; *People v Hudgins,*20 AD3d 489, 490 [2005]). In any event, to the extent that some of the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, those remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, and any other error in this regard was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that any error contributed to the defendant’s convictions *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Moore, 142 AD3d 1024 [2016]; *People v Roscher,*114 AD3d 812, 813 [2014]).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*
      *87190 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# SIP - SWCAA - Section 400-107

SWAPCA 400-107 EXCESS EMISSIONS (1) The owner oroperator ofa source shall have the burden ofproving to the Authority orthe decision-making entity (e.g., Pollution Control Hearings Board) in an enforcement action that excess emissions were unavoidable. This demonstration shall be a condition to obtaining relief undersubsections (4), (5) and (6) ofthis section. (2) Excess emissions determined by the Authority to be unavoidable underthe procedures and criteria in this section shall be excused and notsubjectto penalty. (3) Excess emissions shall be reported to the Authority as soon as possible. Upon request by the Authority, the owner(s) or operator(s) ofthe source(s) shall submit afull written report including the known causes, the corrective actions taken, and the preventive measures to be taken to minimize or eliminate the chance of recurrence. (4) Excess emissions due to startup orshutdown conditions shall be considered unavoidable provided the source reports as required undersubsection (3) ofthis section and adequately demonstratesthatthe excess emissions could not have been prevented through careful planning and design and ifa bypass ofcontrol equipment occurs, that such bypass is necessaryto prevent loss of life, personal injury, orsevere property damage. 

### (5) Excess emissions due to scheduled maintenance shall be considered unavoidable if the source reports as required under subsection (3) ofthis section and adequately demonstrates thatthe excess emissions could not have been avoided through reasonable design, better scheduling for maintenance orthrough betteroperation and maintenance practices. 

### (6) Excess emissions due to upsets shall be considered unavoidable provided the source reports as required undersubsection (3) ofthis section and adequately demonstrates that: (a) The event was not caused by poor or inadequate design, operation, maintenance, orany other reasonably preventable condition; 

### (b) The eventwas not ofa recurring pattern Indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and (c)The operatortook immediate and appropriate corrective action in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions during the event, taking into accountthe total emissions impact ofthe corrective action, including slowing orshutting down the emission unit as necessary to minimize emissions, when the operator knew orshould have known that an emission standard or permit condition was being exceeded. State effective: 9/21/95; EPA effective: 4/28/97
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133861 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133861 

 COA: 266369 

Kent CC: 05-001001-FH 

MICHAEL JAY JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons stated in her dissent in 

People v Bell, 473 Mich 275 (2005). 

p0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00176-CV

In the Matter of X.J.T. §

§

§

§

§

From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-98064J-13)

February 27, 2014

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

Dissent by Justice Dauphinot

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was some error in the trial court’s judgment. We modify the deadly weapon 

finding in the trial court’s commitment order as follows:

The Court affirmatively finds that the Respondent used or 

exhibited a deadly weapon, to-wit: a firearm, during the commission 

of the offense found by the jury in Special Issue Number Two or

during the immediate flight therefrom.

We modify the trial court’s judgment for determinate sentencing to replace 

the paragraph entitled, “Special Issue Number Two,” as follows:

Do you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that

the Respondent, [appellant], on or about the 5th day of January, 

2013, in the County of Tarrant and State of Texas, engaged in 
delinquent conduct by committing the offense of aggravated robbery 

against Anuj Shrestha as hereinbefore defined?

We affirm the remainder of the judgment as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Lopez, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 883]

*532Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGer-ald, J.), entered on or about July 27, 2016, which denied defendant’s Correction Law § 168-0 (2) petition to modify his sex offender classification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence a basis for modification of his risk level (see *People v Lashway,*25 NY3d 478 [2015]). Defendant’s expression of remorse is not new, and was considered by the SORA court at the original hearing. The remaining mitigating factors cited by defendant, including his failure to reoffend since his release from prison on the underlying conviction, do not outweigh the seriousness of the sex crime, which was committed against a child over an extended period of time *(see People v Johnson,*124 AD3d 495 [1st Dept 2015]; *People v Vega,*115 AD3d 461, 461-462 [1st Dept 2014], *lv denied*23 NY3d 905 [2014]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.
# C_2015371EN.01002302.xml

| 9.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Wahlström v Frontex

(Case T-653/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Reports procedure - Career development report - 2010 assessment period - Annual dialogue with the reporting officer - Setting objectives))

(2015/C 371/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 9 October 2013 in Wahlström v Frontex (F-116/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:143), and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

Wahlström

Frontex

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 in Wahlström v Frontex (F-116/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:143) to the extent that the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the second and third parts of the second ground for annulment relied on at first instance and the claim for compensation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 in Wahlström v Frontex (F-116/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:143) to the extent that the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the second and third parts of the second ground for annulment relied on at first instance and the claim for compensation;

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

| 3. | Annuls the assessment report for the year 2010 of Mr Kari Wahlström; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Annuls the assessment report for the year 2010 of Mr Kari Wahlström;

| 4. | Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) to pay EUR 2  000 to Mr Wahlström by way of compensation; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) to pay EUR 2  000 to Mr Wahlström by way of compensation;

| 5. | Orders Frontex to bear the entirety of the costs both at first instance and of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Frontex to bear the entirety of the costs both at first instance and of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2406

To amend title 17, United States Code, relating to the definition of a local

service area of a primary transmitter, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 18, 1994

Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

A BILL

To amend title 17, United States Code, relating to the definition of a local service area of a primary transmitter,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. LOCAL SERVICE AREA OF A PRIMARY TRANS4 MITTER.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 111(f) of title 17, United

6 States Code, is amended in the paragraph relating to the

7 definition of ‘‘local service area of a primary

8 transmitter’’—
2

•S 2406 CPS

1 (1) by striking out ‘‘comprises the area’’ and

2 inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘comprises either the area’’;

3 and

4 (2) by inserting after ‘‘April 15, 1976,’’ the fol5 lowing: ‘‘or such station’s television market as de6 fined in section 76.55(e) of title 47, Code of Federal

7 Regulations (as in effect on September 18, 1993), or

8 any subsequent modifications to such television mar9 ket made pursuant to section 76.55(e) or 76.59 of

10 title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations,’’.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made under

12 subsection (a), relating to the definition of the local service

13 area of a primary transmitter, shall take effect on

14 July 1, 1994.

Æ
No. 10-6443.

#### Hermon Yoh, Petitioner v. Andrew Pallito, Commissioner, Vermont Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1047, 131 S. Ct. 605,

178 L. Ed. 2d 441,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8856.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.48 N 77.37 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

★

● ●

●

●
# Women's History Month Spotlight: Margaret Ross

/ Published March 13, 2023
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
In honor of Women’s History Month, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution spotlights Margaret Ross, the director of Acquisition Operations for DLA Distribution Headquarters in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania.

Ross has worked at DLA Distribution Acquisition since 2003.Throughout her tenure here, she has had various positions.

“I have sat in many different seats at DLA Distribution Acquisition,” she said. “I worked a variety of procurement actions as both a buyer and contracting officer and held a position with our policy team as a procurement analyst. Those positions all provided varying perspectives and experiences that led to my growth as an acquisition professional.”

An important accomplishment throughout Ross’s life is that she has a daughter who she is proud of.

“I have a daughter and more than anything I want to serve as a good example to her throughout school as she entered the workforce. I am proud of the young lady that she has become, full of confidence and striving to be successful as a professional. While I may not take full credit, I would like to believe I had some small part in her development into the adult she is today.”

A little-known fact about Ross is that she was originally a history major in college.

“When I first entered college, I declared as a history major. I believe there are many things that history can teach us and can be applied to current and future problems. Eleanor Roosevelt once said “Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all.””

Ross believes that recognizing Women’s History Month is important because it acknowledges the achievements that women have made throughout history.

“Women’s History Month celebrates the achievements of women in all disciplines throughout history and highlights the successes of our predecessors,” she said. “I believe that it is important for us to all have role models. This month helps to inspire future generations to pave their own ways to success on the foundation built by those women that proceeded them.”

One thing unique about women’s history that Ross finds unique is how influential female historical figures were.

“I believe there is much women’s history for us to all uncover. I am an avid reader of historical fiction, and I am overwhelmed at times in learning about women historical figures and their impact in history; women behind the curtain, if you will, that influenced those in power and those that fought for our rights.”

It is important to Ross that the DLA workforce recognizes Women’s History Month because it is important to recognize the female DLA Distribution leaders that trailblazed the way for other women to come into positions of power.

“We have so many women that shaped DLA Distribution into the organization it is today. As you look along the Hall of Fame at the HQ building, you see a glimpse of those women that served at the helm of DLA Distribution to ensure that we met our mission requirements. There are many women today that have taken up the mantle to ensure warfighter support.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         391,688
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,529
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,644
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               419,300
<PP&E>                                         570,149
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 910,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,619
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   910,193
<SALES>                                         81,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,781
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  138,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (68,413)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (68,413)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (68,413)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Fotios Douvartidis, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 890]

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Court of Claims (Scuccimarra, J.), dated September 27, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion *486which was for summary judgment dismissing the claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) on the ground that it was not the owner of the property upon which the alleged accident occurred and denied as moot his cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the claim pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion, and (2) deleting therefrom the words “as moot”; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We disagree with the Court of Claims’s determination that the defendant was not an “owner” for the purpose of establishing liability under Labor Law § 241 (6). The defendant owned the property on behalf of the State University of New York at Purchase and was specifically referenced within the subject contract for which, inter alia, an indemnification provision was drafted in the defendant’s favor *(see Coleman v City of New York,*91 NY2d 821 [1997]; *Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply,*82 NY2d 555, 560 [1993]; *Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494, 501-502 [1993]; *Shoemaker v State of New York,*186 AD2d 1028 [1992]).

However, the claimant failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his cross motion for summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Federal Invention Available for Licensing and Intent To 
Grant Co-Exclusive Licenses

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of availability and intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a Federally owned invention U.S. 
Serial No. 08/876,800, filed June 16, 1997, entitled, ``Apparatus and 
Procedure for Placement of Bale Ties'' is available for licensing and 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 
intends to grant to Harrell Equipment Company, Inc., of Pelham, 
Georgia, and Leggett & Platt Packaging Group, of Carthage, Missouri, 
co-exclusive licenses to Serial No. 08/876,800.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
Room 415, Building 005, BARC-West, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights to 
this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this invention as the Harrell Equipment Company, 
Inc., and the Leggett & Platt Packaging Group, have submitted complete 
and sufficient applications for licenses. The prospective co-exclusive 
licenses will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and 
conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective co-
exclusive licenses may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from 
the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service 
receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant 
of the licenses would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Richard M. Parry, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-1508 Filed 1-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
2017-0424.

#### State v. Cleary.

Stark App. No. 2017CA00016.
No. 10-6951.

#### Lawrence W. Few, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1050, 131 S. Ct. 614,

178 L. Ed. 2d 446,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8945.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 564.