alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 10-6342.

#### Roger Steven McCarty, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1046, 131 S. Ct. 599,

178 L. Ed. 2d 438,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8928.

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 442.
No. 10-7448.

#### Mary S. Thuillard, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1153, 131 S. Ct. 942,

178 L. Ed. 2d 780,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 328.

January 10, 2011.

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

*781Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 650.
allegiant'· 

August 22, 2014 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building, Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Docket No. FAA-2014-0453; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-205-AD 

To Whom It May Concern; 

Allegiant Air requests the FAA revise the initial compliance time for the initial 

inspection required per para (g)(3) to note not to exceed 44,000 flight cycles, or 

88,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, in lieu of 30,700 flight cycles, or 

55,400 flight hours. Per the proposed rulemaking document, the FAA has 

identified a grace period for aircraft that have .. exceeded these intervals per para 

(g)(l). In addition the FAA notes in para (g)(2) not to exceed intervals of 45,000 

flight cycles, or 91, 000 flight hours. An equivalent level of safety would be 

maintained by the initial inspection intervals proposed by Allegiant for para 

(g)(3) as they are less than the "not to exceed" intervals in proposed para (g)(2.) 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Christopher House 

Manager, Governmental Affairs 

Allegiant Travel Company 

•• '0 .... . ' •••• G 

Travel is our deal~" 

- 8360 S. Durango Drive · Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 702.851.7300 ' 702.851.7301 allegiant.com
No. 10-7147.

#### John Gray, Petitioner v. Maryland.

562 U.S. 1146, 131 S. Ct. 921,

178 L. Ed. 2d 768,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 524.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Maryland, Baltimore City, denied.
No. 10-8005.

#### Joe Rangel, Petitioner v. Patricia R. Stansberry, Warden.

562 U.S. 1193, 131 S. Ct. 1033,

178 L. Ed. 2d 853,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 694.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 385 Fed. Appx. 291.
#### Infante v. Bank of America, N.A. 36

05/17/2016

902 MAL (2015)

36

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 130 A.3d 773
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1997
<CASH>                                      24,407,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               76,314,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,275,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 97,802,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           222,534,000
<PP&E>                                     580,981,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (145,855,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             813,853,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      136,719,000
<BONDS>                                    511,183,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       148,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  87,674,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               813,853,000
<SALES>                                    612,868,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           612,868,000
<CGS>                                      459,178,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              459,178,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   665
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          55,719,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (31,945,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (22,300,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,645,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,645,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.66)
        

</TABLE>
#### *State, Respondent, v. Manus, Petitioner,*

No. 91702-7.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45532-3-II, April 14, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1002. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Garcia, Appellant.

[61 NYS3d 880]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered on or about November 26, 2013, unanimously affirmed.

*523Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.8
                                                                    ------------



                                                                    July 2, 2002



Corey M. Horowitz
CMH Capital Management Corp
885 Third Avenue, Suite 2900
New York, NY  10022

Dear Corey:

     This letter will confirm that in accordance with action taken at the
meeting of the Board of Directors held on July 2, 2002, the Consulting
Agreement, dated June 29, 2001, between Network - 1 Security Solutions, Inc. and
CMH Capital Management Corp. (which was previously extended until June 11, 2002)
is hereby further extended until December 31, 2002 upon the same terms and
conditions as set forth in the Consulting Agreement, dated June 29, 2001
(excluding any equity issuance as set forth in paragraph 2 of the June 29, 2001
agreement). If the foregoing correctly confirms our understanding, kindly
execute this letter at the appropriate place provided below.


                                                        Very truly yours,

                                                        /s/ Richard Kosinski
                                                        ----------------------
                                                        Richard Kosinski,
                                                        President and Chief
                                                        Executive Officer

Agreed and Accepted:

CMH Capital Management Corp.


By: /s/ Corey M. Horowitz
    ----------------------------
    Corey M. Horowitz, President
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17575]



[[Page 36232]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 1962-000, CA]


Pacific Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Public Meeting to 
Discuss Processing Alternatives for the Application for Relicensing of 
the Rock Creek-Cresta Hydroelectric Project

June 26, 1998.
    Take notice that the Commission staff will hold a meeting with 
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), the applicant for the Rock 
Creek-Cresta Hydroelectric Project No. 1962, the U.S. Forest Service, 
and representatives of the intervenors in the relicensing proceeding 
for the project. The project is located on the North Fork Feather River 
in Plumas County, California. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 
14, 1998, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service's offices at 3310 El Camino Street, Suite 130, in Sacramento, 
California.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss alternatives for 
processing the application for relicensing of the Rock Creek-Cresta 
Project. All interested persons are invited to attend the meeting.
    For further information, please contact Dianne Rodman at (202) 219-
2830.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17575 Filed 7-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Date,Percent2016,5.62017,4.22018,3.42019,4.52020,6.5
#### In the Matter of Jahmil Walden, Respondent, v Gaylene Hoskins, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Gaylene Hoskins, Appellant, v Jahmil Walden, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[54 NYS3d 311]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Connie Gonzalez, J.), dated September 6, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, only awarded the mother “weekend overnight visits” with the subject child every other weekend.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In this custody proceeding, the parties agreed to an award of joint legal custody of the subject child, with sole physical custody to the father. However, the parties were unable to reach an agreement as to whether the mother was entitled to “weekend overnight visits” with the child every weekend, as she sought, or every other weekend. In an order dated September 6, 2016, the Family Court, among other things, awarded the mother “weekend overnight visits” with the child every other weekend. The mother appeals from so much of the *982order as limited her to “weekend overnight visits” every other weekend.

“The determination of visitation issues is entrusted to the sound discretion of the Family Court and will not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(Matter of Pagan v Gray,*148 AD3d 811, 812 [2017]). Here, the Family Court’s determination to limit the mother’s “weekend overnight visits” with the child to every other weekend was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, as the mother’s request for overnight visits every weekend would deprive the father of significant quality time with the child *(see Matter of Razdan v Mendoza-Pautrat,*137 AD3d 1149, 1150 [2016]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the mother “weekend overnight visits” with the child every other weekend.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE EMONS
TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,677,004
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,369,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                   158,800
<INVENTORY>                                    191,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,930,753
<PP&E>                                      31,548,588
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,888,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,673,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,274,312
<BONDS>                                     11,006,767
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     15,282
<COMMON>                                        60,398
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,558,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,673,277
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,445,037
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,970,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,051,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,487,622
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,430,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,917,622
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,917,622
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
        

</TABLE>
# C_2013147EN.01002001.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/20

---

Appeal brought on 25 February 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2012 in Case F-109/11, Lebedef v Commission

(Case T-117/13 P)

2013/C 147/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the CST of 12 December 2012 in Case F-109/11 Lebedef v Commission seeking the annulment of the appellant’s appraisal report for the period 1.1.2009 — 31.12.2009 and, more specifically, the part of the report drafted by EUROSTAT for the same period; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the CST of 12 December 2012 in Case F-109/11 Lebedef v Commission seeking the annulment of the appellant’s appraisal report for the period 1.1.2009 — 31.12.2009 and, more specifically, the part of the report drafted by EUROSTAT for the same period;

Lebedef

Commission

| — | uphold the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance;

| — | alternatively, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law, of which the first, second, third and six are essentially the same as or similar to those relied on in Case T-116/13 P Lebedef v Commission.

Lebedef

Commission

The fourth plea in law alleges an error of law in that, according to the appellant, the CST concluded that the report covering his activities in a professional or trade union organisation (OSP report) which should appear only as a document attached to the report concerning the appellant’s duties at the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) (paragraphs 68 to 70 of the order under appeal).

The fifth plea in law alleges an error of law in that the appellant claims that the CST held that the appellant wished to challenge his appraisal reports prior to 2009 and the Commission decision not to promote him (paragraphs 74 and 75 of the order under appeal).

---
# C_2013086EN.01002502.xml

| 23.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/25

---

Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Out of the Blue KG v OHIM — Mombauer (REFLEXX)

(Case T-48/13)

2013/C 86/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and I. George, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meinhard Mombauer (Cologne, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2012 in Case R 1656/2011-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2012 in Case R 1656/2011-4;

| — | Order OHIM to bear its own costs and those of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to bear its own costs and those of the applicant;

| — | Were Meinhard Mombauer to participate as intervener in the proceedings, order him to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Were Meinhard Mombauer to participate as intervener in the proceedings, order him to bear his own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Out of the blue KG

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘REFLEXX’ for goods in Class 9 — Application for Community trade mark No 7 239 511

Community trade mark concerned:

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

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘RELFECTS’, for goods in Class 9

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in Law: Infringement of Article 42(5) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in Law:

---
# Fair emphasizes emergency readiness at work, home

/ Published Oct. 3, 2016
Richmond, Va. , 
Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond, Virginia’s Security and Emergency Services Division held a Preparedness Fair closing out National Preparedness Month Sept. 28 during the lunch rush at the Defense Supply Center Richmond cafeteria.

The event goal was to ensure employees know the importance of preparing in advance for natural and man-made hazards, said Thomas Reinard, chief, Security and Emergency Services.  

“People often don’t think about preparedness until after the fact,” he said. “Emergency preparedness is planning for where you will go and how you will respond when disaster strikes. The goal is not to be paranoid, but be prepared by keeping a supply of food, water, medications, batteries and things that you’ll need if you lose power or water services.”

The police department was on hand to help employees register for notifications through the installation’s AtHoc system. AtHoc notifies registered users by email, text message or voice message when operations at the center have changed or of an upcoming situation employees should be aware. Reinard encourages every Defense Supply Center Richmond employee to register, so that they are informed when the installation is closed, opening late or if other information is shared. 

“Rgistering for AtHoc is one of many ways employees can improve awareness,” he said. “We often share information about changing weather conditions or events on the installation. Earlier this year, we had an active shooter exercise and many employees weren’t aware because they weren’t registered for AtHoc.” 

There is an icon on every computer’s desktop to register for the system. 

The police provided self-defense demonstrations and promoted the Rape Aggression Defense class that prepares women to fight back against attackers. 

Employees were encouraged to walk a line while wearing the Fatal Vision goggles simulating intoxication. The goggles provide the wearer the feeling of being intoxicated.Police officers demonstrated how explosive materials are detected using residue and a chemical reaction that lets them act quickly against accidents and attacks.

DSCR’s criminal intelligence officer provided an overview of the installation’s criminal intelligence program and explained the correlation between criminal/terrorism intelligence and force protection/access control measures.  An overview of active shooter awareness and response training was also provided along with demonstrations of protective equipment that will soon be available to installation employees.  

The fire department provided information about smoke alarms and fire detection and stressed the importance of having evacuation plans at home for everyone including pets. 

“Preparing for emergency situations is not just about surviving, but recovering,” Reinard said. “Pay attention to what is going on in your community at home and what is taking place in your work area and be prepared.”
#### In the Matter of Paul March, Appellant, v New York City Board/Department of Education, Respondent.

[69 NYS3d 49]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered October 5, 2016, granting respondent’s cross motion to dismiss the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an opinion and award terminating petitioner’s employment as a teacher, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly found that the award was not arbitrary and capricious, and was supported by the evidence. The Hearing Officer engaged in an analysis of the facts and circumstances, evaluated witness credibility, and arrived at a reasoned conclusion. Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated; he was provided with notice, an appropriate hearing, and the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses *(see Matter of Kingsley v Redevco Corp.,*61 NY2d 714 [1984]; *see also Matter of Chawki v New York City Dept., of Educ., Manhattan High Schools, Dist. 71,*39 AD3d 321, 323-324 [1st Dept 2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 810 [2007]), which he declined. The Hearing Officer’s decision to deny any adjournment of the hearing to accommodate respondent’s counsel was within the Hearing Officer’s discretion under the parties collective bargaining agreement.

Petitioner failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating bias or misconduct by the Hearing Officer. Moreover, there is no support for petitioner’s claims that the Hearing Officer conspired with respondent to deprive him of an opportunity to be heard, and issued a biased and unfair decision against him *556
      *{see Matter of Che Lin Tsao v Kelly,*28 AD3d 320 [1st Dept 2006]).

The penalty of termination does not shock our sense of fairness, as the record shows that respondent provided petitioner with assistance and numerous opportunities, over a lengthy period of time, to improve his skills. The Hearing Officer’s conclusion that petitioner was either unable or unwilling to adjust his teaching methods to comply with the suggestions and strategies provided to him is supported by the evidence *(see e.g. Matter of Benjamin v New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ.,*105 AD3d 677 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Sweeny, Gische, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.