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

[768 NYS2d 468]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J., at suppression hearing; John Stackhouse, J., at speedy trial motion, jury trial and sentence), rendered March 20, 2000, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s speedy trial motion. After a thorough hearing, the court properly determined that the period of 155 days during which the purchasing undercover officer was unavailable due to a family crisis and its tragic conclusion was excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (g) as a delay “occasioned by exceptional circumstances.” The evidence established that the People could not have made the officer available at an earlier date *(see People v Pressley,*115 AD2d 228 [1985]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining speedy trial arguments.

Defendant’s motion to suppress identification evidence was properly denied. There was a proper confirmatory identification by the undercover officer immediately after the drug transaction (s*ee People v Wharton,*74 NY2d 921 [1989]).

Since defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim rests primarily on matters outside the record, it would require a CPL 440.10 motion *(People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). To the extent that the existing record permits review, it establishes that defendant received effective assistance *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Lerner, JJ.
# C_2014031EN.01002102.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/21

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-2/13) (1)

1

(Civil service - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Language in which the decision rejecting a complaint was written - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Signed copy of the application sent by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - That copy and the original signed application received subsequently not the same - Action lodged out of time - Manifestly inadmissible)

2014/C 31/37

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request to apply to the salary received by him from May 2001 until the end of his mission in Angola the correction coefficient referred to in Articles 12 and 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013, p. 30.

1

---
No. 09-8375.

#### Peter J. Schultz, Petitioner v. Francis Halpin, et al.

562 U.S. 1086, 131 S. Ct. 688,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9292.

178 L. Ed. 2d 518,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 841, 131 S. Ct. 64, 178 L. Ed. 2d 48, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5767.
# C_2014431EN.01004702.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Robert van de Water v Parliament

(Case F-86/13) (1)

1

((Civil service - Rights and obligations of officials - Declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service - Article 16 of the Staff Regulations - Compatibility with the legitimate interests of the institution - Prohibition))

(2014/C 431/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Robert van de Water (Grimbergen, Belgium) (represented by: P. Bentley QC, barrister, and R. Bäuerle, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Chemaï and M. Dean, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

The application to annul the decision prohibiting the applicant from taking up an appointment as an adviser to the Prime Minister of Ukraine for a period of two years as from the date of termination of his functions with the European Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Mr van de Water is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr van de Water is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 336, 16/11/2013, p. 31.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Gardner, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 745]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J), rendered July 31, 2001, as amended April 2, 2003, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts) and resisting arrest, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crimes of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and resisting arrest. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84 [1903]; *People v Sinatra,*205 AD2d 647 [1994]; *People v Williams,*148 AD2d 479 [1989]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). 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]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Anna Zaydenverg, Appellant, v Arcady Zaydenverg, Respondent.

[56 NYS3d 531]

*872Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Maria Arias, J.), dated April 18, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the father’s motion which sought an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding him counsel fees in the sum of $3,212.50.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties are the parents of one child. They previously entered into a stipulation of settlement concerning, inter alia, custody and visitation with respect to the child. Following a court-ordered suspension of the father’s visitation and subsequent reinstatement thereof, the father was to have additional visitation time to make up for the visits he missed. However, the mother thereafter refused to allow the father to have the same number of make-up visits as he missed during the period of suspension. The father moved to be allowed to make up the visits and, as relevant here, sought an award of counsel fees incurred in making the motion. The Family Court granted that branch of the motion which sought an award of counsel fees to the extent of awarding him $3,212.50 in counsel fees. The mother appeals.

An award of counsel fees in a proceeding under the Family Court Act is entrusted to the sound discretion of the Family Court (see *Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v Yang,*104 AD3d 852 [2013]; *Matter of Tuglu v Crowley,*96 AD3d 862, 863 [2012]). Under the circumstances of this case, including the court’s determination based upon its interaction with the parties and its participation in the proceedings herein that the mother caused the father to incur unnecessary legal fees, the court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the father counsel fees *(see Matter of Tuglu v Crowley,*96 AD3d at 863). Moreover, the court properly awarded the father counsel fees without a hearing. The mother failed to request a hearing with regard to the amount of counsel fees or raise any objections to the submission of the issue on papers, and the papers were sufficient to permit a proper determination of the issue *(see Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v Yang,*104 AJD3d 852 [2013]; *Bengard v Bengard,*5 AD3d 340 [2004]).

Balkin, J.P., Sgroi, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33443-33444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

June 12, 1998.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before July 6, 1998 to 
be assured of consideration.

SPECIAL REQUEST: In order to conduct the focus group interviews 
described below at the beginning July 1998, the Department of the 
Treasury is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
review and approve this information collection by June 19, 1998. To 
obtain a copy of this study, please contact the Internal Revenue 
Service Clearance Officer at the address listed below.

[[Page 33444]]

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: M:SP:V 98-010-G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Proposed Incentives, Rewards and Customer Service Products 
Focus Group Interviews (Electronic Tax Administration (ETA)).
    Description: The purpose of the focus group interviews will be to 
gather opinions and ideas from tax practitioners, Certified Public 
Accountants, enrolled agents, and attorneys about some incentives or 
customer service products. These focus groups interviews (one each day) 
will be held at each of the four IRS 1998 Nationwide Tax Forums 
sponsored by the Electronic Tax Administration Office. The forums will 
be held as follows: Philadelphia: July 8-9; Las Vegas: August 5-6; St. 
Louis: August 19-20; and New Orleans: September 2-3.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 80 (10 participants times 8 
groups).
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent:

Screening--5 minutes.
Focus Group Interview Sessions--2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Other (conducted at 4 forums).
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 180 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-16229 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 

June 15, 2021

Order 

Clerk

June 15, 2021

162855(65)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

SC: 162855

v COA: 353537

Mackinac CC: 19-008346-AR, 

 19-008347-AR

WALTER JOSEPH CASWELL, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for the temporary admission of out-ofstate attorney Mason D. Morisset to appear and practice in this case under MCR 8.126(A) 

is GRANTED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2685 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2685

     To amend the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 to authorize 
   appropriations for fiscal years 2020 through 2025, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2019

 Mr. Van Drew introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 to authorize 
   appropriations for fiscal years 2020 through 2025, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wild Bird Conservation 
Reauthorization Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT.

    Section 116 of the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 
4915) is amended by striking ``each of the fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 
1995'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2020 through 2025''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1726]



[[Page 3723]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Records of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(FEIS) on the Disposal and Reuse of the Savanna Army Depot Activity, 
Savanna, Illinois

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announced its Record of Decision 
(ROD) on the FEIS for the disposal and reuse of the 13,062 acres 
comprising the Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, Illinois, in 
accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, 
Public Law 101-510, as amended.
    Under the Act, the Secretary of the Army has been delegated the 
authority to dispose of excess real property and facilities located at 
a military installation being closed or realigned. The National 
Environmental Policy Act requires the Army to prepare its analysis of 
the environmental impacts of disposal. The EIS also analyzes the 
secondary environmental impacts of disposal--the reuse of the property. 
The ROD and the FEIS satisfy the requirements of NEPA.
    The Army has selected the encumbered disposal alternative. 
Encumbered disposal requires the transfer of the property to others 
with use restrictions imposed by the Army. The ROD concludes that 
surplus property will be conveyed subject to restrictions, identified 
in the FEIS, that pertain to the following: unexploded ordnance, 
wetlands, historical resources, threatened and endangered species, 
utilities easements, easements and rights-of-way, access easements, 
reversionary interests, overflow easements, remedial activities, and 
lead-based paint. The Army will impose deed restrictions or other 
requirements to ensure safety and protection of human health and the 
environment.
    The Army has taken all practicable measures to avoid or minimize 
adverse environmental impacts associated with its preferred alternative 
of encumbered property disposal. The Army will continue to work with 
individual future owners to avoid, reduce, or compensate for adverse 
impacts that might occur as a result of disposal. Mitigation measures 
for reuse activities are identified in the FEIS.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the ROD may be obtained by writing to Ms. Shirley 
Barnett, at the U.S. Army Materiel Command, ATTN: AMCSO, 5001 
Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-0001 or by calling (703) 617-
8172. Copies of the Final EIS may be obtained by writing to Mr. Glen 
Coffee at the Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, ATTN: CESAM-PD-E, 
109 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36628-0001, or by facsimile at (334) 
690-2721.

    Dated: January 20, 1998.
Raymond J. Fatz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health), OASA, (I,L&E).
[FR Doc. 98-1726 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
No. 10-206.

#### David S. Gould, Sheriff, Cayuga County, New York, et al., Petitioners v. Cayuga Indian Nation of New York.

562 U.S. 953, 131 S. Ct. 353,

178 L. Ed. 2d 251,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7668.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.

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

Same case below, 14 N.Y.3d 614, 904 N.Y.S.2d 312, 930 N.E.2d 233.
#### Denise Mendrykowski, Appellant, v New York Telephone Company, Doing Business as Bell Atlantic-New York, Respondent.

[768 NYS2d 874]

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Marshall, J), entered December 5, 2002, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries that she sustained when the bicycle she was riding struck defendant’s parked truck. Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that the truck was improperly parked, we conclude as a matter of law that the location of the truck “merely furnished the condition or occasion for the occurrence of the event” and was not one of its causes *(Sheehan v City of New York,*40 NY2d 496, 503 [1976]; *see also Long v Cleary,*273 AD2d 799, 800-801 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 763 [2000]; *see generally Price v Hampson,*142 AD2d 974, 975 [1988]). Plaintiffs speculation that the proximity of the truck to the fire hydrant or the absence of cones to warn of its presence caused the accident is insufficient to raise an issue of fact *(see Pank v Village of Canajoharie,*275 AD2d 508, 509 [2000]; *Long,*273 AD2d at 800). Because plaintiffs unsworn statement constitutes a statement against interest, the court properly relied on that statement in determining that plaintiff was not looking where she was going at the time of her accident *(see Ferrara v Poranski,*88 AD2d 904 [1982]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
No. 09-11145.

#### Ralph Howard Blakely, Petitioner v. Herb Snively, et al.

562 U.S. 864, 131 S. Ct. 147,

178 L. Ed. 2d 88,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6621,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 637.
#### Walton, Matter of, v Colvin

4th Dept: 144 AD3d 1560

denied
***Exhibit 31.2***

 

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Gregory C. Walker, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Magma DesignAutomation, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 9, 2005
ROLAND S. MAINOR,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4408

Opinion filed November 3, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Roland S. Mainor, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.