alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Simone Williams, Respondent, v Deborah Williams, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 535]

Appeal by Deborah Williams from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Dennis Lebwohl, J.), dated November 17, 2015. The order denied the motion of Deborah Williams to vacate an order of protection that was entered against her and in favor of her sister upon her failure to appear at a hearing.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, the appellant’s motion to vacate the subject order of protection is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the family offense petition.

In this family offense proceeding, the Family Court issued an order of protection against the appellant and in favor of her sister upon the appellant’s failure to appear at a hearing. The appellant moved to vacate the order of protection entered upon her default, and the Family Court denied her motion.

“A party seeking to vacate an order of protection entered upon his or her default in appearing for a hearing on a family offense petition must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the petition” *(Matter of Nunez v Lopez,*103 AD3d 803, 804 [2013]; *see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Matter of Idieru v Jeanpierre,*122 AD3d 852, 852 [2014]; *Matter of Mongitore v Linz,*95 AD3d 1130, 1130 [2012]). “The determination of whether to relieve a party of an order entered upon his or her default is within the sound discretion of the Family Court” *(Matter of Nunez v Lopez,*103 AD3d at 804; *see Matter of Lee v Morgan,*67 AD3d 681, 682 [2009]).

*918The Family Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of protection entered upon her default in appearing at the hearing. The appellant showed no willfulness or intent to default, where she was minimally tardy to the hearing, and the tardiness might have been due, at least in part, to crowded conditions at the courthouse, she attended prior court appearances, she engaged in motion practice through her attorney, and she participated in multiple preparatory conferences with her attorney *(see Matter of Morales v Marma,*88 AD3d 722, 723 [2011]; *Simmons v Pantoja,*306 AD2d 399, 400 [2003]; *Matter of Santiago v Santiago,*275 AD2d 429, 430 [2000]; *see also Matter of Muhammadu v Barcia,*100 AD3d 904, 905 [2012]; *Matter of Dos Santos v Dos Santos,*76 AD3d 1013, 1015 [2010]). Also, the appellant moved to vacate the order of protection relatively soon after it was issued. Under the circumstances, the appellant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for her failure to appear at the hearing. Further, the appellant demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the petition.

Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from, grant the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of protection entered upon her default, and remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the family offense petition.

Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# Agency director on sexual assault: ‘Not in our DLA’

/ Published April 18, 2023
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Sexual assault is unacceptable and incompatible with Defense Logistics Agency values, DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic says in a new video highlighting Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month.

“Sexual assault hurts one but affects all. Therefore, we will continue working together to promote a culture in which sexual assault and harassment are not in our DLA,” she says, encouraging leaders to foster an atmosphere of support and trust that encourages employees to come forward when necessary.

The video also features DLA Human Resources Director Sharyn Saunders reminding employees that everyone – regardless of grade, rank or position – plays a part in prevention. She stresses that sexual assault is a crime.

“There are consequences for employees who commit sexual assault, both criminal and administrative, to include removal from federal service,” she says.

This month marks the 22nd anniversary of SAAPM, which is held to raise awareness and facilitate prevention of sexual harassment, sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence. The Defense Department’s theme this year is “Step forward. Prevent. Report. Advocate.”

According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, an American is assaulted every 68 seconds. Every nine minutes, that victim is a child. Only 25 of every 1,000 perpetrators end up in prison. 

DLA sexual assault response coordinators are DOD trained and credentialed subject matter experts assigned throughout the agency to coordinate appropriate, compassionate and responsive care for adult sexual assault victims 24/7. SARCs are available at the DLA SAPR Hotline at 800-841-0937.

Additional resources are available at the DLA SAPR resource website and DOD Safe Helpline at 877-995-5247.
#### In the Matter of Nermin Armanious, Respondent, v George Armanious, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 188]

Appeal by George Armanious from an order of protection of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alison M. Hamanjian, Ct. Att. Ref.), dated September 15, 2016. The order, upon a finding that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree, made after a hearing, directed the appellant, among other things, to stay away from the petitioner until and including September 15, 2017.

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

In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden of establishing, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition *(see*Family Ct Act § 832; *Matter of Jordan v Verni,*139 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2016]; *Matter of Thompson v Fawcett,*131 AD3d 620 [2015]; *Matter of Pochat v Pochat,*125 AD3d 660, 661 [2015]). The determination of whether a family offense was *675committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court, and that court’s determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see Matter of Crenshaw v Thorpe-Crenshaw,*146 AD3d 951, 952 [2017]; *Matter of Konstatine v Konstatine,*107 AD3d 994 [2013]).

Here, according due deference to the credibility determinations of the Family Court, a fair preponderance of the evidence adduced at the fact-finding hearing supported a finding that the appellant committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; *Matter of Frimer v Frimer,*143 AD3d 895, 896 [2016]; *Matter of Molina v Hart,*143 AD3d 723 [2016]; *Matter of Savas v Bruen,*139 AD3d 737, 738 [2016]). The court credited the testimony of the petitioner *(see Matter of Kiani v Kiani,*134 AD3d 1036, 1038 [2015]), and the court’s determination is supported by the record. Thus, there is no basis to disturb the court’s determination *{see id.*at 1038).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Connolly and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6676.

#### Gregory Alan Ferqueron, Petitioner v. Dennis Straub, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1057, 131 S. Ct. 657,

178 L. Ed. 2d 472,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9295.

November 29, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied, and petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
No. 10-5216.

#### Jerry Lee Douglas, Petitioner v. Zee Hyden.

562 U.S. 909, 131 S. Ct. 259,

178 L. Ed. 2d 172,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7375.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 31, 2014

No. 04-14-00222-CR

Jacob Cory GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR8528A

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellant’s brief is due January 16, 2015.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 10-6468.

#### Michael Malgoza, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 989, 131 S. Ct. 433,

178 L. Ed. 2d 336,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8188.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 874.
No. 10-5824.

#### Jerry Lynn Taylor, Petitioner v. James A. Yates, Warden.

562 U.S. 968, 131 S. Ct. 471,

178 L. Ed. 2d 299,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8057,

October 12, 2010.

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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00162-CV

ROBERT LARRY STEPHENS AS PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE AND HEIR OF THE 

ESTATE OF MARY VIRGINIA STEPHENS,

JAMES STEPHENS, AND KENNETH STEPHENS,

Appellants

v.

BYRUM RANCH LLC,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 71396

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Clerk of this Court notified the parties in an April 8, 2011 letter that the 

appellants’ brief was overdue in this cause and that the appeal may be dismissed if a 

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal was not filed within twenty-one 

days. No response has been received.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.
Stephens v. Byrum Ranch LLC Page 2

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 18, 2011

[CV06]
No. 10-7053.

#### James Earl Meridyth, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1052, 131 S. Ct. 620,

178 L. Ed. 2d 450,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8970.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 387 Fed. Appx. 869.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2420. PAUL WADE TAYLOR v. TERRY LEIGH TAYLOR.

In this divorce action, the trial court granted Terry Leigh Taylor’s motion to

enforce a settlement agreement and entered a final judgment and decree of divorce. 

Paul Wade Taylor then filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Appeals from “judgments or orders in divorce, alimony, and other domestic

relations cases” must be made by application for discretionary appeal. OCGA

§ 5-6-35 (a) (2). “[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is

jurisdictional.” Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991). 

Paul Wade Taylor’s failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedure deprives us

of jurisdiction over this direct appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

July 24, 2019

07/24/2019
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34604-34605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16917]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98-30; RM-9228]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Shenandoah, VA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Daryl A. Alligood, allots 
Channel 296A to Shenandoah, VA, as the community's first local aural 
transmission service. See 63 FR 13027, March 17, 1998. Channel 296A can 
be allotted to the community in compliance with the Commission's 
minimum distance separation requirements, at coordinates 38-30-00 NL; 
78-36-33 WL, which represents a site restriction of 2.1 kilometers (1.3 
miles) northeast to avoid a short-spacing to Station WCHG(FM), Channel 
296A, Hot Springs, Virginia. Since the reference coordinates for this 
allotment are located within the protected areas of the National Radio 
Astronomy Observatory ``Quiet Zone'' at Green Bank, West Virginia, the 
petitioner and any other applicants will be required to comply with the 
notification requirement of Section 73.1030(a) of the Commission's 
Rules. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective July 27, 1998. A filing window for Channel 296A at 
Shenandoah, VA, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of 
opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the 
Commission in a subsequent order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 98-30, adopted June 3, 1998, and 
released June 12, 1998. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 336.

Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Virginia, is 
amended by adding Shenandoah, Channel 296A.


[[Page 34605]]


Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-16917 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
No. 10-7234.

#### Steve Bowie-Myles, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1076, 131 S. Ct. 679,

178 L. Ed. 2d 504,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9200.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                  150
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                2,564
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                          0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>           4,913
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                2,720
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                  2,654
<LOANS>                              19,885
<ALLOWANCE>                             391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       30,164
<DEPOSITS>                           23,858
<SHORT-TERM>                          2,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     178
<LONG-TERM>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  2
<OTHER-SE>                            3,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>       30,164
<INTEREST-LOAN>                         407
<INTEREST-INVEST>                       129
<INTEREST-OTHER>                         32
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                        568
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      231
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      271
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   297
<LOAN-LOSSES>                             0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         131
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                             82
<EPS-BASIC>                             .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         3.81
<LOANS-NON>                             197
<LOANS-PAST>                              0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                          0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                          61
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                        391
<CHARGE-OFFS>                             0
<RECOVERIES>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                       391
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                    117
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                 274



</TABLE>
No. 10-6191.

#### Gary Lee Waddel, Petitioner v. Justin Jones, Warden.

562 U.S. 1012, 131 S. Ct. 523,

178 L. Ed. 2d 386,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8491.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 862.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Scottish Re Group Limited (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended  September 30, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Paul Goldean,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Paul Goldean
----------------
Paul Goldean
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 9, 2006

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to Scottish Re Group  Limited and will be retained by Scottish Re
Group Limited and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 29 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM SHERBURN, )

)

Petitioner-Appellant, )

)

v. ) No. 96-6236

) (D.C. No. CIV-95-1836-R)

RON WARD; ATTORNEY GENERAL ) (W.D. Oklahoma)

OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, )

)

Respondents-Appellees. )

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, LOGAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on petitioner William Sherburn’s application for a

certificate of appealability (formerly a certificate of probable cause). His right to appeal

the federal district court’s denial of habeas corpus relief is conditioned upon this court

granting a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The law, as recently amended,

instructs that we may issue such a certificate “only if the applicant has made a substantial
2

showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and we “indicate which specific issue or

issues satisfy [that] showing.” Id. § 2253(c)(2) and (3).

Petitioner asserted in his habeas corpus petition numerous grounds for relief from

his state court conviction for attempting to obtain merchandise by false pretenses for

which he received a twenty-year sentence. 

The Petitioner raise[d] the following eight grounds for relief: 

(1) Violation of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by allowing

him to be “paraded” before the jury in leg shackles; (2) Prosecutorial

misconduct; (3) Improper admission of evidence of prior convictions;

(4) Improper use of prior convictions which contained a name discrepancy;

(5) Error in refusing to permit him to attack the admission of his prior

convictions; (6) Error in admitting evidence of a crime with which he was

not properly charged; (7) Improperly charging him under a general statute;

(8) Error in submitting a flight instruction.

I R. doc. 26. After the magistrate judge recommended the petition be dismissed,

petitioner filed objections.

We have considered the arguments in petitioner’s brief and examined the record,

including the transcript of the trial. The magistrate judge and the district court correctly

analyzed the facts and law in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations of

February 28, 1996, and the district court’s memorandum opinion and order of June 26,

1996. We conclude that petitioner has failed to make the necessary showing to warrant

our issuance of a certificate of appealability. Therefore, we deny his application and

DISMISS the appeal.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.
3

Entered for the Court

James K. Logan

Circuit Judge
*July 6, 2017*

2017-Ohio-5733.]

2017-0880.

#### State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. State Bd. of Edn.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. Respondents shall file a response, if any, to relator’s emergency motion for an immediate preliminary injunction no later than 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 7, 2017.
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 23




                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 2-91309,
33-47832, 33-59562, and 33-50563) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 2-76847, 2-81536, 33-26099, 33-30821, 33-48165, 33-52067, 33-52989,
33-50563, and 33-54099) of Dresser Industries, Inc. of our report dated
November 30, 1995 appearing on page 31 of the Annual Report to Shareholders
which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP

Price Waterhouse LLP

Dallas, Texas
January 26, 1996