alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Bernabe Encarnacion, Appellant, v Anthony J. Annucci, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[55 NYS3d 516]

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hard, J.), entered May 17, 2016 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with lying following an investigation into petitioner’s accusation that he was physically and sexually assaulted by correction facility staff. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of that charge and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding raising various procedural issues. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Petitioner’s assertion that the notice of charges was not translated into Spanish, his native language, is not preserved for our review inasmuch as this was not raised at *1582the hearing *(see Matter of Valdez v Fischer,*74 AD3d 1596, 1597 [2010]). In any event, petitioner acknowledged at the hearing that he received, reviewed and understood the information contained in the misbehavior report and, as this Court has already determined with respect to this petitioner, he is proficient in the English language *(see Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*19 AD3d 906, 906-907 [2005]; *Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*17 AD3d 749, 749 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 705 [2005]; *Matter of Encarnacion v Goord,*286 AD2d 828, 829-830 [2001], *appeal dismissed and lv denied*97 NY2d 653 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 606 [2001]). To the extent that petitioner contends that he received inadequate employee assistance due to the employee assistant’s failure to provide him with requested documentation or witness statements, any alleged deficiencies were addressed by the Hearing Officer, who provided petitioner with any relevant and existing documentation and called those relevant witnesses who agreed to testify *(see Matter of Jones v Fischer,*138 AD3d 1294, 1295 [2016]). We are also unpersuaded by petitioner’s general assertion that he was improperly denied the right to call witnesses. A review of the record demonstrates that certain inmate witnesses refused to testify and executed witness refusal forms, and other requested witnesses were denied by the Hearing Officer based upon the irrevelant or redundant nature of their testimony. Finally, petitioner’s challenge to the timeliness of the hearing is without merit as the record reflects that the hearing was commenced in accordance with a valid extension request *(see Matter of Wilson v Annucci,*138 AD3d 1335, 1335 [2016]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions are not properly preserved for our review.

Garry, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
No. 10-556.

#### Suresh Badrinauth, Petitioner v. MetLife Corporation, et al.

562 U.S. 1110, 131 S. Ct. 834,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9747,

178 L. Ed. 2d 559,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 320.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16757]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service
[T.D. 98-57]


Revocation of Marine Chemist Service Inc. Customs Gauger Approval 
and Laboratory Accreditations

AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Revocation of Customs Gauger Approval and Laboratory 
Accreditations.

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

SUMMARY: Marine Chemist Service, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia, a 
Customs approved gauger and accredited laboratory under Section 151.13 
of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 151.13), has requested that the U.S. 
Customs Service revoke its gauger approval and laboratory 
accreditations. Accordingly, pursuant to 151.13(f) of the Customs 
Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Customs commercial gauger 
approval and laboratory accrediations of Marine Chemist Service, Inc. 
has been revoked without prejudice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Parker, Science Officer, 
Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 5.5-B, Washington, DC 20229 at (202) 927-
1060.

    Dated: June 11, 1998.
George D. Heavey,
Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 98-16757 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24(a)


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned officer and director of both Eagle-Picher Holdings, Inc. and
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. and as director of Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC,
hereby consents to and appoints Andries Ruijssenaars and David G. Krall, and
each of them, as his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with all power
of substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the 1999 fiscal year of
both Eagle-Picher Holdings, Inc. and Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., corporations
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and the State of
Ohio respectively, and Eagle-Picher Technologies, LLC, a limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and any
and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and
all documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the same as fully to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or either of them, or their or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has hereunto set his hand on this 23rd day
of February, 2000.



/s/ Joel P. Wyler
----------------------------------
Joel P. Wyler
Director and Chairman of the Board
#### People v Gaston

1st Dept: 146 AD3d 412 (NY)

denied 3/31/17 (Fahey, J.)
No. 10-6031.

#### Felton L. Matthews, Jr., Petitioner v. E. K. McDaniel, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1106, 131 S. Ct. 848,

178 L. Ed. 2d 553,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9704.

December 13, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
No. 10-6019.

#### Clayton C. Martin, Jr., Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 510,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8490,

178 L. Ed. 2d 377,

November 1, 2010.

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

*378Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 255.
No. 10-6902.

#### James L. Green, Petitioner v. Cynthia Nelson, Warden.

562 U.S. 1113, 131 S. Ct. 827,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9685.

178 L. Ed. 2d 564,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 595 F.3d 1245.
No. 10-6273.

#### Joshua Todd Woolridge, Petitioner v. F. Gonzales, Warden.

562 U.S. 1031, 131 S. Ct. 569,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8712.

178 L. Ed. 2d 417,

November 8, 2010.

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



Exhibit 32.2 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of R.H. Donnelley Inc.
for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers
knowledge: (1) (The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of R.H. Donnelley Corporation as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. /s/ David C. Swanson
David C. Swanson
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Steven M. Blondy
Steven M. Blondy
SVP and Chief Financial Officer
March 12, 2004
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
No. 10-446.

#### Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

562 U.S. 1082, 131 S. Ct. 663,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9199.

178 L. Ed. 2d 513,

November 29, 2010.

Motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 612 F.3d 204.
EXHIBIT 31.01CERTIFICATIONSI, C. Stanley Bailey, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Superior Bancorp;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 9, 2006     By: /s/ C. Stanley Bailey         C. Stanley Bailey
No. 10-7168.

#### Jose Francisco Rivas-Chavarria, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1075, 131 S. Ct. 675,

178 L. Ed. 2d 502,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9177.

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. 685.
No. 10-6910.

#### Michael Farrow, Petitioner v. Tracy Johns, Warden.

562 U.S. 1036, 131 S. Ct. 585,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8710,

178 L. Ed. 2d 426,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 308.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF UBID, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          20,780
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,590
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,800
<PP&E>                                           1,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,541
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,272
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,541
<SALES>                                         79,907
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,907
<CGS>                                           72,962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,962
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,873
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,514)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,514)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,514)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.93)


</TABLE>
# C_2014175EN.01004002.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2014 — Olive Line International v OHIM (OLIVE LINE)

(Case T-209/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark OLIVE LINE - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 175/54

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (Case R 1447/2012-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign OLIVE LINE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Olive Line International, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Olive Line International, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013

1

---
No. 10-5841.

#### Jamal T. Norris, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 939, 131 S. Ct. 351,

178 L. Ed. 2d 227,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7509.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT KIMBERLY ANN STRUTHERS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3585 ) BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; PHILIP SCOTT ) STRUTHERS; CITRUS STEEPLECHASE ) HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; ) LESTER MALLET; MELVIN JEFFERSON; ) BRENDA JEFFERSON; BRANDAN ) MATIVI; GROW FINANCIAL FEDERAL ) CREDIT UNION f/k/a MacDill Federal ) Credit Union; HIBU, INC. f/k/a Yellow Book ) Sales and Distribution Company, Inc.; and ) UNKNOWN TENANT #1 n/k/a Jason ) Naegel, ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed October 19, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Martha J. Cook, Judge. Jared M. Krukar and Dineen Pashoukos Wasylik of DPW Legal, Tampa, for Appellant. Jennifer Lima-Smith of Gilbert Garcia Group, P.A., Tampa; and Mary J. Walter of Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, Miami, for Appellee Bank of America, N.A.- 2 -

No appearance for remaining Appellees.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. BLACK, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
No. 10-5494.

#### Johnnie Lewis Norton, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 925, 131 S. Ct. 308,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7616.

178 L. Ed. 2d 200,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-11256.

#### Rosemary Dillon, Petitioner v. San Francisco Veterans Administration, Fort Miley Hospital.

562 U.S. 1087, 131 S. Ct. 692,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9282.

178 L. Ed. 2d 522,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 870, 131 S. Ct. 169, 178 L. Ed. 2d 100, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6922.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2633 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to submit 

a report on the Office of Rural Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2019 

Mr. COX of California (for himself, Ms. FINKENAUER, and Mrs. RADEWAGEN) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Small Business 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to submit a report on the Office of Rural Affairs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Study of Office of 

5 Rural Affairs, within the Small Business Administration’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT ON THE OFFICE OF RURAL AFFAIRS. 

7 Not later than 6 months after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small Business 

9 Administration shall submit to Congress a report ana10 lyzing the cost and potential benefits of creating a sucVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:41 May 22, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2633.IH H2633

lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2633 IH

1 cessor office to the Office of Rural Affairs, in accordance 

2 with the requirements under section 26 of the Small Busi3 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 653). Such report shall include— 

4 (1) the dates on which the prior Office of Rural 

5 Affairs was created and dismantled; 

6 (2) the rationale justifying the decision to dis7 mantle the Office; 

8 (3) a list of the year’s funds that were appro9 priated to the Office; and 

10 (4) the cost and potential benefits to estab11 lishing an Associate Administrator for a successor 

12 office to the Office of Rural Affairs. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2766 

To nullify certain memorandum of the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal 

Revenue Service regarding the application of the excise tax on heavy 

trucks and trailers to certain chassis renovations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2019 

Mr. MOOLENAAR introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To nullify certain memorandum of the Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service regarding the application of the excise tax on heavy trucks and trailers to 

certain chassis renovations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF EXCISE TAX ON HEAVY 

4 TRUCK AND TRAILERS TO CERTAIN CHASSIS 

5 RENOVATIONS. 

6 The memorandum of the Office of the Chief Counsel 

7 of the Internal Revenue Service issued on October 31, 

8 2013, relating to the application of the excise tax on heavy 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2766 IH

1 trucks and trailers to certain chassis renovations 

2 (POSTN–131956–13) shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlton Matthan, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 480]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from judgments of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered December 10, 2014, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgments so appealed from be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
Exhibit 99.2



                            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 Annuity & Life Holdings,
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Scott E. Willkomm, President 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:

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

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

/s/ Scott E. Willkom
------------------------------

Scott E. Willkomm
President
November 6, 2002