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

[47 NYS3d 909]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Efman, J.), rendered April 17, 2015, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal *(see People v Sanders,*25 NY3d 337, 341-342 [2015]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution *(see People v Carle,*121 AD3d 1011 [2014]; *People v Devodier,*102 AD3d 884 [2013]; *People v Crews,*92 AD3d 795, 795-796 [2012]).

Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Sgroi, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
Connecticut Regional Haze

State Implementation Plan November 2009



### ATTACHMENT X

BART Equivalency Demonstration for Sources in Connecticut

(including modeling results)Attachment X

- CT NWS and MM5 Modeling Results

- SO2/NOx Actual/Potential Emissions fr om NOx Budget Progr am/BART-eligible

sources

- Map of SO2 Actual Emissions

- Map of NOx Actual Emissions
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         EDO CORPORATION'S SUBSIDIARIES

                               ACTIVE SUBSIDARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         STATE OR COUNTRY OF              NAMES UNDER WHICH
                                           INCORPORATION OR                SUBSIDIARY DOES
              SUBSIDIARY                     ORGANIZATION                     BUSINESS
              ----------                 -------------------   --------------------------------------
<S>                                      <C>                   <C>
CAS Inc.                                 Alabama

Darlington Inc.                          Delaware              Darlington of Virginia, Inc.

EDO Artisan Inc.                         New Jersey

EDO Communications and Countermeasures   California
Systems Inc.

EVI Technology, LLC                      Delaware              EDO EVI

EDO MBM Technology Limited               United Kingdom

EDO MTech Inc.                           Pennsylvania          EDO MTech

EDO Professional Services Inc.           Virginia

EDO Reconnaissance and Surveillance      Delaware
Systems, Inc.

EDO Rugged Systems Limited               United Kingdom

EDO (UK) Limited                         United Kingdom

EDO Western Corporation                  Utah                  EDO Electro-Ceramic Products

Fiber Innovations, Inc.                  Massachusetts

Impact Science & Technology Inc.         New Hampshire
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<S>                                      <C>                   <C>
NexGen Communications LLC                Virginia

Specialty Plastics, Inc.                 Louisiana             EDO Specialty Plastics
</TABLE>
### CIT Y O F NORT H TONAWAND A 

# ^eeoftAe ^Mamp . ) C ROBER T G . ORT T G- < ..j j a 

### 0 r o C D -HO:''--- -

'"•j^-'- i 

### -;£;o- - f-n-^. m 

## 5!>- 3 o9S S • J O Jul y28 , 201 1 Offic e o fAviatio n Analysi s 8' ^ Floor , Roo m W86-31 0 120 0 Ne wJerseyAve. , S E Washington , D

C 2059 0 Re ; Niagara Count yCente rfo rEconomi cDevelopmen t Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m Gran t Applicatio n T o Who m I t Ma yConcern : O n behal fo fth e Company/Person , I a m v*/ritin g i n stron g suppor t o fth e Niagar a Count yCente r fo rEconomi cDevelopmen t (NCCED) applicatio n t o th e US Departmen t o fTransportatio n Smal l Communit yAi rServic e Developmen t Progra m (SCASDP) . Th e NCCE D propose s t o reques t fund s designe d t o provid e financia l assistanc e t o hel p enhanc e ai rservic e operation s an d marketin g o fth e Niagar a Fall s Internationa l Airpor t (NFIA) . Th e NFI Ai s a n attractiv e alternativ e t o currentl ycongeste d majo rNort h America n Internationa l airports . Wit h it s 10,82 5 ft . mai n runway , 24-hou roperatio n (n o curfews) , 2 4 hr . operation s services , excellen t acces s t o inspectio n agencies , an d pric e competitiv e landin g fees , th e NFI Ai s ideall ysuite d an d strategicall ylocate d t o accommodat e variou s type s o faviatio n operation s suite d fo rbusines s an d leisur e use . Th e clos e proximit yo fth e airpor t t o th e Canada/US A border , it s locatio n jus t of fa majo rhighway , an d it s centra l locatio n t o th e Canad a an d US A populatio n base , offe rgrea t economi cadvantages . Significan t development s an d investmen t has bee n mad e a t th e airport . Thi s ha s create d privat e investmen t throughou t th e communit yan d has secure d additiona l transportatio n need s an d opportunities . Gran t fundin g fro m th e SCASD P i s neede d t o ensur e tha t thes e ne w development s continu e t o grow .

Cit y Hall , 21 6 Payn e Avenue , Nort hTonawanda , NY 1412 0 • 716-695-854 0 • 716-695-8541 (Fax ) robertort@northtonawanda.or gTh e loca l stakeholde rcommunit ycanno t completel yfun d thei rmarketin g airpor t initiative s an d

provid e incentive s t o entic e additiona l airlin e carriers . Federa l assistanc e i s neede d t o complet e thi s importan t task . ASCASD P awar d wil l hel p expan d th e airport' s existence , brin g greate rinvolvemen t t o th e communit ywhil e enhancin g economi ccompetiveness . I a m confiden t tha t th e NCCE D gran t reques t wil l greatl yimprov e qualit yo flif e throughou t Wester n Ne wYor k

an d ac t a

s a mode l initiativ e tha t coul d assis t futur e airline s t o inves t throughou t ou rcommunit ytha t benefit s stakeholder s an d touris t t o ou rregion . I as k tha t thi s gran t applicatio n b e give n verycarefu l consideration . Than k yo u fo ryou rtim e an d attentio n t o thi s matter . Faithfull yYours , Robert G . Ort t Mayo r Cit yo fNort h Tonawand a
No. 10-6762.

#### Percy Lafayette Green, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1019, 131 S. Ct. 546,

178 L. Ed. 2d 401,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8370.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 375.
Calendar No. 508

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2185

[Report No. 103–302]

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to transpurposes. Old U.S. Mint in San Francisco, and for other fer to the Administrator of General Services the

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Reported without amendment
II

Calendar No. 508

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2185

[Report No. 103–302]

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer to the Administrator

of General Services the Old U.S. Mint in San Francisco, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 14 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Reported by Mr. BAUCUS, without amendment

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer to

the Administrator of General Services the Old U.S. Mint

in San Francisco, 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. TRANSFER OF U.S. MINT, SAN FRANCISCO.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, not later than 1 year after the date of enact-
2

•S 2185 RS

1 ment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall

2 transfer to the Administrator of General Services, without

3 consideration, the property referred to as the ‘‘Old U.S.

4 Mint’’, located at Fifth and Mission Streets, San Fran5 cisco, California, together with any improvements, struc6 tures, and fixtures located on the property.

7 (b) OBTAINING OF OTHER SPACE.—Notwithstanding

8 any other provision of law, using authority and funds

9 available under section 5134 of title 31, United States

10 Code, the Secretary of the Treasury may obtain by lease

11 or purchase other space for the operations of the United

12 States Mint carried out, prior to the date of transfer under

13 subsection (a), at the Old U.S. Mint.

14 (c) SPACE AND SERVICES CHARGES.—

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—In accordance with section

16 210(j) of the Federal Property and Administrative

17 Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(j)), the Admin18 istrator of General Services shall charge persons who

19 are furnished space and services in connection with

20 the property transferred under subsection (a) for the

21 space and services.

22 (2) DEPOSIT OF CHARGES COLLECTED.—Not23 withstanding any other provision of law, the Admin24 istrator of General Services shall deposit in the Fed-
3

•S 2185 RS

1 eral Buildings Fund established by section 210(f) of

2 such Act the amounts collected under paragraph (1).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antwan Prince, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 438]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered May 14, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*941“The People may not rely on prior bad acts as evidence of a defendant’s propensity to commit the crimes charged” *(People v Frankline,*27 NY3d 1113, 1115 [2016], citing *People v Molineux,*168 NY 264 [1901]). When such evidence, however, is directly relevant to some material issue other than the defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged, it may be admissible only if the proponent of the evidence can identify such a material issue and the probative value of the evidence outweighs its potential prejudice to the defendant *(see People v Morris,*21 NY3d 588, 594 [2013]; *People v Cass,*18 NY3d 553, 560 [2012]; *People v Sheehan,*105 AD3d 873, 875 [2013]). Weighing the evidence’s probative value against its potential prejudice to the defendant is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion *(see People v Morris,*21 NY3d at 595; *People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]). “If the evidence is actually of slight value when compared to the possible prejudice to the accused, it should not be admitted, even though it might technically relate to some fact to be proven” *(People v Allweiss,*48 NY2d 40, 47 [1979]).

Here, the defendant was found in an apartment, which was not his home or place of business, in possession of a loaded and operable revolver for which he did not have a license or a permit. A witness’s testimony as to the illegal nature of the activity allegedly occurring in the apartment had only slight probative value, if any, which, in any event, was outweighed by the possible prejudice to the defendant. As such, the Supreme Court should not have ruled that testimony admissible *(see People v Ventimiglia,*52 NY2d 350, 360 [1981]; *People v Allweiss,*48 NY2d at 47; *People v Tucker,*102 AD2d 535, 537-538 [1984]). Nevertheless, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial. The testimony at issue, a brief and isolated remark upon which the People did not rely either in their opening statement or summation, was not so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial *(see People v Martinez,*148 AD3d 826, 827 [2017]; *People v Abdul-Aleem,*133 AD3d 867, 868 [2015]). Moreover, any other error in this regard was harmless, inasmuch as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and no significant probability that any error contributed to the defendant’s conviction *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; *People v Martinez,*148 AD3d at 826), particularly in light of the fact that the court twice explicitly instructed the jury on the limited use it could make of the testimony *(see People v Tosca,*98 NY2d 660, 661 [2002]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Leventhal, J.P., LaSalle, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6501.

#### In re Ramon Dominguez, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1043, 131 S. Ct. 608,

178 L. Ed. 2d 455,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8997,

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
EXHIBIT 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Form S-3 (File No. 333-02071) and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-45963, 33- 49311, 33-55079, 333-57175, 333-70921, 333-67523, 333-61138, 333-39842, 333-101395, 333-115370, 333-122650 and 333-125851) of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. of our report dated March 6, 2006 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.





|                              
|------------------------------
|                              
|                              
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|New York, New York            
|March 6, 2006
2017-0633.

#### State ex rel. Staats v. Canton.

In Mandamus. On respondents’ motions to dismiss. Motions granted. Cause dismissed. On relator’s motion to disregard and strike respondent’s response. Motion denied as moot.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REGISTRANT'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>1000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      143
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                               784
<ALLOWANCES>                                  7
<INVENTORY>                                 189
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1184
<PP&E>                                    15780
<DEPRECIATION>                             4450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            15379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1815
<BONDS>                                    1175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                    267
<OTHER-SE>                                 6796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              15379
<SALES>                                    4760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           4760
<CGS>                                      4093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              7311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           1076
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (4242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (4242)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           (2603)
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              (6845)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.28)


</TABLE>
# DLA discusses opportunities, options with information technology vendors  

/ Published May 18, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, DLA Information OperationsDefense Information Systems Agency
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jeffrey A. Ludrof, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Erie Family
Life Insurance Company for the year ended December 31, 2003;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not 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 by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, 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 and I are responsible
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 to be 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
is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness 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 on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
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 recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors:  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 20, 2004 /s/ Jeffrey A. LudrofJeffrey A. Ludrof, President & CEO
 63
# USMC commandant sees DLA support of Marines during Philly visit

/ Published Nov. 7, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 

The Marine Corps’ highest-ranking officer visited the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Nov. 2 to learn more about the organization and how it supports America’s Marines.

Army Brig. Gen. Charles Hamilton, DLA Troop Support commander, led Gen. Robert B. Neller, commandant of the Marine Corps, on a tour of some of the organization’s supply chains.

“It was a special day here at DLA Troop Support to have General Neller take time out of his schedule to visit with us,” Hamilton said. “Our team provides outstanding support to the Marines every day, and I am happy that the commandant got a chance to see the work we are doing.”

Throughout the morning, Neller received briefings from the Clothing and Textiles and Construction and Equipment supply chains, where he was able to see items DLA Troop Support procures for the Marine Corps.

Neller was especially interested in extreme cold weather gear, the 3 Season Sleep System and combat boots provided by C&T, and C&E’s special operational equipment program. 

Neller sampled one of the Marine Corps’ new unitized group rations menus during the Subsistence supply chain briefing. It consisted of shrimp creole, steamed rice, seasoned peas, chilled pears, dessert and juice. 

“This is very good,” Neller said of the shrimp creole. 

A recent Subsistence contract will provide Luna Bars for recruits at Parris Island, South Carolina. Neller was pleased to hear that, mentioning the importance of healthy eating for new recruits.

“I am definitely a fan of recruits having a healthy snack,” he said.

Neller also visited DLA Troop Support’s flag room and the DLA Product Test Center.
Order entered April 26, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00466-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.W.C., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-08-21693-Z

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis

Appellant’s April 8, 2013 motion for rehearing is DENIED.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2013207EN.01004401.xml

| 20.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/44

---

Action brought on 20 May 2013 — Polo/Lauren/OHIM — FreshSide (Representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet)

(Case T-265/13)

2013/C 207/74

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Davies, Solicitor, J. Hill, Barrister and R. Black, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FreshSide Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s decision of 1 March 2013 in Case R 15/2012-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s decision of 1 March 2013 in Case R 15/2012-2;

| — | Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing a representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 8 766 917

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing a representation of a polo player on a horse for goods in classes 9, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 25

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---