alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6040.

#### Sarin Thoeur, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 512,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8509.

178 L. Ed. 2d 379,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
#### Com. v. Stiefel43

03/08/2016

464 WAL (2015)

43

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 101
### July 6 , 

### 2015

Christopher La Berge
1 1442 Bristle Oaks Terrace Austin, TX 78750

Dear Mr. Christopher La Berge :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It expla ins why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request
We entered your April 9, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 2015

- 0960 ), but we are unab le to process your request any further. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption wo uld no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do
If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed e ffective date of the exemption.

### 2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely

, /s/ Brenda Robeson Program Analyst , Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure

# C h r i s t o p h e r L a B e r g e

- E x e m p t i o n / R u l e m a k i n g

T h i s O t h e r d o c u m e n t w a s i s s u e d b y t h e F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( F A A )

F o r r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n
, O p e n D o c k e t F o l d e r



### C o n t e n t

I m f i l l i n g a S e c t i o n 3 3 3 e x e m p t i o n t o f l y m y d r o n e f o r m y p h o t o g r a p h y c o m p a n y

. C o m m e n t N o w !

I D : F A A

­ 2 0 1 5

­ 0 9 6 0

­ 0 0 0 1



### D o c u m e n t I n f o r m a t i o n

D a t e P o s t e d : A p r 9

, 2 0 1 5

S h o w M o r e D e t a i l s



### S u b m i t t e r I n f o r m a t i o n

S u b m i t t e r N a m e : C h r i s t o p h e r L a B e r g e

M a i l i n g A d d r e s s : 1 1 4 4 2 B r i s t l e O a k s T e r r a c e

C i t y : A u s t i n

C o u n t r y : U n i t e d S t a t e s

S t a t e o r P r o v i n c e : T X

Z I P / P o s t a l C o d e : 7 8 7 5 0



### C o m m e n t s



# 0

D o c k e t I n f o r m a t i o n

T h i s d o c u m e n t i s c o n t

a i n e d i n F A A

­ 2 0 1 5

­ 0 9 6 0

R e l a t e d D o c k e t s : N o n e

R e l a t e d R I N s : 

### C o m m e n t s R e c e i v e d *
#### Anna Pezhman, Appellant, v Chanel et al., Respondents.

[67 NYS3d 618]

*418Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlom'o Hagler, J.), entered November 22, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The allegedly defamatory statements of defendant law firm and its attorneys were made in the course of the firm’s representation of defendant Chanel in a prior action and are therefore protected by the absolute privilege attaching to statements made in the course of, and relating to, judicial proceedings *(see Sexter & Warmflash, P.C. v Margrabe,*38 AD3d 163, 171 [1st Dept 2007], *abrogated on other grounds Front, Inc. v Khalil,*24 NY3d 713 [2015]). Because the challenged statements were “pertinent” to the proceeding in which they were made *(see Sexter,*38 AD3d at 173), they are absolutely privileged. Nor is this a case like *Halperin v Salvan*(117 AD2d 544, 548 [1st Dept 1986]), in which “the underlying lawsuit was a sham action brought solely to defame the defendant” *(Flomenhaft v Finkelstein,*127 AD3d 634, 638 [1st Dept 2015], citing *e.g. Casa de Meadows Inc. [Cayman Is.] v Zaman,*76 AD3d 917, 920 [1st Dept 2010]; *Sexter,*38 AD3d at 172 and n 5).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Maz-zarelli, Andrias, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
No. 09-11336.

#### Suzanne Margaret Basso, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

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

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9283.

178 L. Ed. 2d 522,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 874, 131 S. Ct. 181, 178 L. Ed. 2d 108, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6679.
# C_2014135EN.01003301.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Lardini v OHIM (Affixing of a flower to a collar)

(Case T-131/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting in the affixing of a flower to a collar - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 135/41

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lardini Srl (Filottrano, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 (Case R 2578/2011-1), concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a sign consisting in the affixing of a flower to a collar.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Lardini Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Lardini Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Charlie Thomas, Jr, Individually and on Behalf of Hamlin Park Community & Taxpayers’ Association, Inc., Appellant, v James A. Murphy, Jr, et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 917]

— Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Siwek, J.), dated July 9, 2002, which adopted the report of the Referee determining the officers of Hamlin Park Community & Taxpayers’ Association, Inc.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order of Supreme Court confirming the report of the Referee. Petitioner failed to comply with CPLR 4403 by moving to reject the report of the Referee within 15 days after the filing of the report and thus waived his present contentions *(see Sroka v Sroka,*255 AD2d 897 [1998]). Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.
# DLA J3 visits Aviation: Strengthening partnerships, enhancing readiness

/ Published May 10, 2024
RICHMOND, Va., 
Navy Rear Adm. Joseph Noble, the director of Defense Logistics Agency Logistics Operations and Regional Combat Support commander, met with DLA Aviation leaders on Defense Supply Center Richmond during his May 1 capstone visit to Noble’s time with DLA ahead of his departure slated for this summer.

“It’s important that we come together because things are constantly changing,” Noble said. 

The purpose of the visit was twofold: to celebrate Aviation’s successes and to gain valuable insights into the challenges the organization faces from day-to-day. Noble met with Aviation top leadership along with personnel from various organizations around the installation. Discussions centered around the critical role Aviation plays in supporting military aviation readiness. 

The visit provided a platform to recognize the exceptional work of the Aviation team. Noble acknowledged several star performers, presenting them with coins. 

Beyond celebrating accomplishments, the visit consisted of discussions which explored the current operational landscape, allowing Noble to gain a deeper understanding of the hurdles the Aviation team needs to overcome. This knowledge can be instrumental in ensuring a smooth transition for the incoming J3 while Aviation pushes forward in trying to fulfill its vital mission. 

“So often, we up at the headquarters think we know what all the problems are impacting the different subordinate commands that make up DLA,” Noble said. “Oftentimes, you find out that your assumptions differ drastically from the reality when you get out and about and talk to people.” 

Noble’s visit to Aviation signifies his commitment to ensuring a seamless handover as he prepares to depart his position.
#### In the Matter of Olivia Susan C. Concord Family Services, Inc., Respondent; Gwendolyn P.C., Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 798]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Staton, J.), dated April 1, 2002, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings at which the mother made admissions of permanent neglect, terminated her *442parental rights and. transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to the petitioner and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court’s determination that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest is supported by a preponderance of the evidence *(see Matter of Tenisha Tishonda T.,*302 AD2d 534 [2003]; *Matter of Booker Tony F.,*232 AD2d 413 [1996]). Although the mother successfully completed parenting classes and a drug rehabilitation program, such rehabilitative efforts were insufficient to warrant a suspended judgment, given the absence of any real relationship between herself and the child, and the close bond that the child has developed with the foster family who has cared for the child since she was six months old *(see Matter of Marie J.,*307 AD2d 265 [2003]; *Matter of Precious Sarah B.,*269 AD2d 393 [2000]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### People v Gaston

1st Dept: 135 AD3d 575 (NY)

denied 8/15/16 (Rivera, J.)
#### People v James (Julian)

1st Dept: 140 AD3d 592 (Bronx)

denied 8/23/16 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
#### IN THE MATTER OF GILMORE C. ROBISON.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary No. 738)

(410 SE2d 421)

Decided December 4, 1991.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Viola S. Drew,*
      *738
      *Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar. of Georgia.

*737Per curiam.

The State Bar of Georgia seeks the disbarment of Gilmore C. Robison for violating Standards 4, 22, 44, and 68 of State Bar Rule 4-102 (d). Robison was a member of the State Bar from 1984 to 1990, when his membership was terminated for failure to pay his license fees. He is still subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar because he has not been disbarred.

A person injured in an automobile accident retained Robison on a contingency fee basis to represent her in a personal injury action. The special master concluded that Robison misrepresented to his client that he had filed a lawsuit on her behalf, withdrew from representing her without taking reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to her, abandoned her personal injury action, and failed to respond to her complaint or the investigative panel in violation of Standards 4, 22, 44, and 68. The Review Panel of the State Disciplinary Board adopted the special master’s report and recommended the disbarment of Robison due to his conduct and aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances are Robison’s failure to keep the State Bar informed of his current address, pay his license fees for two years, and respond to this disciplinary proceeding.

Having reviewed the record, we adopt the recommendation of the review panel and order that Gilmore C. Robison be disbarred from the practice of law in this State.

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 10-565.

#### Jeffrey P. L. Tibbetts, Petitioner v. James Dittes, et al.

562 U.S. 1124,131 S. Ct. 835,

178 L. Ed. 2d 579,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9786,

December 13, 2010.

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

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

Same case below, 303 Fed. Appx. 935.
No. 09-11572.

#### Lavang See, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 1061, 131 S. Ct. 638,

178 L. Ed. 2d 478,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9284.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District, denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1694]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1176-000]


Long Island Lighting Company; Notice of Filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 22, 1997, Long Island Lighting Company 
(LILCO), filed an Electric Power Service Agreement between LILCO and 
North American Energy Conservation, Inc., entered into on December 9, 
1997.
    The Electric Power Service Agreement listed above was entered into 
under LILCO's Power Sales Umbrella Tariff. On November 3, 1997, LILCO 
proposed modifications to the Power Sales Umbrella Tariff in Docket No. 
OA98-5-000. Upon the Commission's approval of LILCO's proposed 
modifications, North American Energy Conservation, Inc., will take 
service subject to the Modified Power Sales Umbrella Tariff.
    LILCO requests waiver of the Commission's sixty (60) day notice 
requirements and an effective date of December 9, 1997, for the 
Electric Power Service Agreement listed above because in accordance 
with the policy announced in Prior Notice and Filing Requirements Under 
Part II of the Federal Power Act, 64 FERC Sec. 61,139, clarified and 
reh'g granted in part and denied in part, 65 FERC Sec. 61,081 (1993), 
service will be provided under an umbrella tariff and the Electric 
Power Service Agreement is being filed either prior to or within thirty 
(30) days of the commencement of service. LILCO has served copies of 
this filing on the customer which is a party to the Electric Power 
Service Agreement and on the New York State Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 8888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before February 2, 1998. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1694 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1333 KA 12-01723**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DERICK W. BARKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered April 2, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of strangulation in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of strangulation in the second degree (Penal Law § 121.12). Defendant’s contention that County Court erred in refusing to make the presentence report (PSR) available to him before sentencing is without merit inasmuch as defendant did not request the PSR before sentencing ( see generally CPL 390.50 [2] [a]). Defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to make the PSR available to him in connection with this appeal is likewise without merit. Indeed, the submissions before us reflect that defendant received and reviewed the PSR in a timely fashion in connection with this appeal. Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: January 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit      10.2(c)**

**ECHELON        CORPORATION**

**NONQUALIFIED        STOCK OPTION GRANT AGREEMENT**

|  **Maximum Number of                  Shares**            |               |                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  **Purchasable with this                  Option**:  |  [NUMBER]     |   **Exercise                  Price per Share****:    **US                  $______ |
|                                                           |               |                                                                                                              |
|  **Vesting Commencement                  Date**:          |   [DATE] |                                                                                                              |
|                                                           |               |                                                                                                              |
|  **Scheduled Vesting                  Dates:**            |               |  **Number of                  Shares**                                                                       |
|  [DATE]                                              |               | [NUMBER]                                                                                                          |
|  [DATE]                                                   |               | [NUMBER]                                                                                                          |
|  [DATE]                                                   |               | [NUMBER]                                                                                                          |
|  [DATE]                                                   |               | [NUMBER]                                                                                                          |

**Expiration          Date:**
** **

*IMPORTANT:*

|  OPTIONEE:                          |   |  ECHELON CORPORATION |
|------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                                     |   |                      |
|                                     |   |                 |
|  Signature                          |   |  By                  |
|                                     |   |                      |
|                                     |   |                      |
|  Print Name                         |   |   Title         |
|                                     |   |                      |
|  Residence                  Address |   |                      |
|                                     |   |                      |
|                                     |   |                      |

----
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 271 

Making appropriations for Federal employees working during the Government 

shutdown beginning on or about December 22, 2018, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2019 

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama (for himself and Mr. POSEY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

Making appropriations for Federal employees working during 

the Government shutdown beginning on or about December 22, 2018, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Work Without Pay 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF SALARIES OF EXCEPTED GOVERN7 MENT EMPLOYEES. 

8 There are appropriated, out of any money in the 

9 Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as are 

10 necessary to pay, during the period of a lapse in discreVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:43 Jan 09, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H271.IH H271

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 271 IH

1 tionary appropriations beginning on or about December 

2 22, 2018, the salaries and expenses of any officer or em3 ployee of the Federal Government who is excepted from 

4 the furlough resulting from such lapse. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
906 CERTIFICATION


EXHIBIT 32.1


Date: February 11, 2004


          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 on Form 10-QSB of GiveMePower Corp.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), William V.
Walton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
Company.

                                          /s/ William V. Walton
                                             -------------------
                                             William V. Walton
                                             President/CEO
<PAGE>
##### 



(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
    
    
    
    /s/ Steven M. BlondyDavid C. Swanson
    
    
    
    Steven M. BlondyChairman and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 13, 2007
    
    
    
    March 13, 2007