alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Nina Hopton, Appellant, v Joseph Ponte et al., Respondents.

[51 NYS3d 577]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction dated June 23, 2014, which adopted the recommendation of an administrative law judge, made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Law Service § 75, finding that the petitioner violated Department of Correction rules, and terminated her tenured employment as a correction officer, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered April 7, 2015, which granted the respondents’ motion pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f) and 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the petition, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, alleging that the administrative law judge (hereinafter ALJ) did not have the authority and jurisdiction to conduct the subject disciplinary hearing. The respondents moved pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f) and 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the petition for failure to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court granted the motion, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appeals.

Civil Service Law § 75, which governs the procedure applicable to the disciplinary proceeding at issue, provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he hearing upon such charges shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred, or by a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose” (Civil Service Law § 75 [2]). “The failure to designate a hearing officer for a disciplinary hearing in writing, as required by Civil Service Law § 75 (2), is a jurisdictional defect that renders the hearing officer’s determination null and void” *(Matter of Stapleton v Ponte,*138 AD3d 751, 752 [2016]; *see*
      *740
      *Matter of Wiggins v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*60 NY2d 385, 387-388 [1983]).

Here, pursuant to a letter dated December 11, 2012, from the then Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction to the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, an ALJ was properly designated to conduct the petitioner’s disciplinary hearing and to make recommendations thereon *(see Matter of Stapleton v Ponte,*138 AD3d at 752; *Matter of Malone v Horn,*2008 NY Slip Op 30111 [U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]). Therefore, the allegations in the petition, even if accepted as true, failed to state a cause of action based on the ALJ’s purported lack of jurisdiction over the petitioner’s disciplinary hearing *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; 7804 [f]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents’ motion, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Rivera, J.P., Hall, Roman and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
**DoD Supply Discrepancy Reporting (SDR) Sub-Committee Meeting 11-1**

**April 28, 2011**

Agenda

**Updated:**Updated April 28, 2011

1
**DoD 4000.25-1-M**

*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP7.6. APPENDIX 7.6**

**UNIT OF ISSUE AND QUANTITY**

AP7.6.1.  The unit of issue (located in rp 23-24 of transactions) is a two-letter abbreviation of the types of units under which materiel is issued.  Unit of issue codes are contained in Cataloging Data and Transaction Standards (CDTS), Volume 10, Table 53.

AP7.6.2.  The quantity (located in rp 25-29 of transactions) is a numerical designation of the number of units applicable to the transaction.  If the quantity required exceeds 99,999,[footnoteRef:1] additional requisition(s) with new document number(s) shall be prepared and submitted for the remaining balance. [1:  For ammunition transactions only (FSG 13), enter an “M” in rp 29 to express in thousands any quantity exceeding 99,999.  Example: A quantity of 1,950.00 shall be expressed as 1950M (1950 in rp 25-28 and an “M” in rp 29).  The “M” modifier is an optional feature that can be applied intraS/A  and, by agreement, inter-S/A.] 

AP7.6.3.  Exception rule for ammunition and ammunition related items (federal supply group (FSG) 13 and federal supply classification (FSC) 1410, 1420, 1427, 1440, 5330, 5865, 6818 or 8140).  By trading partner agreement and by coordination with DLA Transaction Services, an exception rule is available for communicating larger quantities.  This rule is only applicable when the initiating system is Defense Logisitcs Management System compliant (and supports larger quantities) and the receiving system is using legacy MILSTRIP.  Under this rule, when the quantity exceeds 99,999, the DLA Transaction Services transaction conversion from DLMS to legacy format shall transmit the initial quantity using the standard configuration of using the qualifier “M” in rp 29 to represent thousands.  The residual quantity from the DLMS transaction shall be transmitted separately using the original document number and original/blank suffix code.  The legacy trading partner system shall be responsible for accumulating the quantities transmitted separately (rather than superseding or rejecting as duplicate transactions).[footnoteRef:2] [2:  Refer to ADC 441, Exception Rules to Accommodate Communication of Ammunition/Ammunition Related Quantities in Excess of Five Digits] 

1

APPENDIX 2.6

AP7.6-1

APPENDIX 7.6
No. 10-10688.

#### Norman Eugene Lamkin, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 844, 132 S. Ct. 159,

181 L. Ed. 2d 74,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6197,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, denied.
No. 10-10803.

#### Malden O. Battle, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 850, 132 S. Ct. 174,

181 L. Ed. 2d 85,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6193.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 637 F.3d 44.
Exhibit 31.2

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Lawrence Safarek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Niles Financial, Inc.;

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 statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
aspects the consolidated 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; and
> 
> c) disclosed in this report any changes 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 (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls over financial 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 significant role in the registrant's internal control over
> financial reporting

Date: November 12, 2004

/s/ Lawrence SafarekLawrence Safarek
Vice President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3125 

To reverse declining milk consumption in schools. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 5, 2019 

Mr. COURTNEY (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Ms. KUSTER of 

New Hampshire, Mr. WELCH, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. POCAN, Mr. KIND, 

Mr. BRINDISI, Mr. DELGADO, Mrs. CRAIG, Mr. COX of California, Ms. 

DELBENE, Mr. COSTA, Mr. VAN DREW, Mr. COLLINS of New York, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. KATKO, Mr. DAVID P. ROE of 

Tennessee, Mr. COMER, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mr. GROTHMAN, Ms. 

FINKENAUER, Mr. O’HALLERAN, Mr. SCHRADER, and Mr. DUFFY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To reverse declining milk consumption in schools. 

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 ‘‘School Milk Nutrition 

5 Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3125 IH

1 SEC. 2. FLUID MILK. 

2 Section 9(a)(2) of the Richard B. Russell National 

3 School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)) is amended by 

4 striking subparagraph (A) inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Lunches served by 

6 schools participating in the school lunch pro7 gram under this Act— 

8 ‘‘(i) shall offer students a variety of 

9 fluid milk. Such milk shall be consistent 

10 with the most recent Dietary Guidelines 

11 for Americans published under section 301 

12 of the National Nutrition Monitoring and 

13 Related Research Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 

14 5341); 

15 ‘‘(ii) may offer students flavored and 

16 unflavored fluid milk, including low-fat fla17 vored milk and lactose-free fluid milk; and 

18 ‘‘(iii) shall provide a substitute for 

19 fluid milk for students whose disability re20 stricts their diet, on receipt of a written 

21 statement from a licensed physician that 

22 identifies the disability that restricts the 

23 student’s diet and that specifies the sub24 stitute for fluid milk.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Dynamic Materials Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yvon Pierre Cariou,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i)                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

March 12,2010

 

 
|   | /s/ Yvon Pierre  Cariou                |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Yvon Pierre  Cariou                    |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|   | of  Dynamic Materials Corporation      |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Dynamic Materials Corporation and will be retained by DynamicMaterials Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1852]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
January 26, 1998.
    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, January 29, 1998, at 
10:00 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(i) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Johnson, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
January 29, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions.
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postposed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: January 21, 1998.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1852 Filed 1-21-98; 3:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
No. 10-7530.

#### Demond A. Wells, Petitioner v. Robert G. Jones, Warden.

562 U.S. 1186, 131 S. Ct. 1011,

178 L. Ed. 2d 839,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 901.

January 18, 2011.

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

*840Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 331.
#### Stephen J. Slacin et al., Appellants, v Ralph Aquafredda et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 341]

*625In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated December 11, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) so much of an order of the same court dated May 13, 2003, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated December 11, 2002, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 13, 2003, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 13, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants established that their two dogs lacked vicious propensities *(see Saboe v Splish Splash at Adventure Land,*272 AD2d 315 [2000]; *Lugo v Angle of Green,*268 AD2d 567 [2000]). Furthermore, the defendants established lack of knowledge of a propensity on the part of their two dogs to jump on strangers *(see Althoff v Lefebvre,*240 AD2d 604 [1997]; *cf Goldberg v LoRusso,*288 AD2d 257 [2001]) or to cause harm if left unrestrained *(see Ballard v Campbell,*304 AD2d 780 [2003]; *Hyde v Clute,*235 AD2d 909 [1997]; *Nilsen v Johnson,*191 AD2d 930 [1993]).

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to come forth with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants were negligent because they violated the dog control ordinance of the Town of Wappinger was improperly raised for the first time in opposition to the motion. Accordingly, the plaintiffs could not rely on this new theory to defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment *(see Araujo v Brooklyn Martial Arts Academy,*304 AD2d 779, 780 [2003]; *Gustavsson v County of Westchester,*264 AD2d 408 [1999]; *Alvarez v Lindsay Park Hous. Corp.,*175 AD2d 225 [1991]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Price, Petitioner,*

No. 92154-7.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 46066-1-II, July 28, 2015, 189 Wn. App. 1012. *Denied*January 6, 2016.
No. 10-7209.

#### Paul Lee Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1075, 131 S. Ct. 677,

178 L. Ed. 2d 503,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9377.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 231.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
OF THE COMPANY'S JUNE 30,1998 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                           <C>
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                             21,547
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      34,109
<ALLOWANCES>                        1,281
<INVENTORY>                        13,249
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   77,773
<PP&E>                            423,897
<DEPRECIATION>                    105,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    439,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              93,069
<BONDS>                           261,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                              720
<OTHER-SE>                         29,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      439,945
<SALES>                           364,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  364,336
<CGS>                             223,377
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     329,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    2,759
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 26,386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     5,274
<INCOME-TAX>                        2,017
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 3,014
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        3,014
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        4.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                        4.53
        






</TABLE>
No. 10-7283.

#### Lewis L. Boniface, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

562 U.S. 1150, 131 S. Ct. 931,

178 L. Ed. 2d 774,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 480.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 392 U.S. App. D.C. 117, 613 F.3d 282.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated February 17, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, schedules and internalcontrol over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Federal Realty Investment Trust on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the RegistrationStatements of Federal Realty Investment Trust on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-100819 effective 11/30/2005, File No. 333-84210 effective 04/26/2002, File No. 333-97945 effective 08/12/2002, File No. 333-63619 effective 11/18/2002,File No. 033-63687 effective 03/06/1998, File No. 033-63955 effective 11/03/1995, File No. 033-15264 effective 08/04/1987, File No. 333-142231 effective 01/10/2008, File No. 333-120498 effective 11/15/2004, FileNo. 333-124195 effective 04/20/2005, File No. 333-125467 effective 06/03/2005 and File No. 333-135159 effective 12/21/2007) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-60364 effective 05/07/2001, File No. 333-63617 effective09/17/1998, File No. 333-147080 effective 11/01/2007 and File No. 333-147081 effective 11/01/2007). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

McLean, Virginia 

February 17, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38182-38188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18829]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[FDA 225-98-800]


Memorandum of Understanding Between the Food and Drug 
Administration and the Indian Health Service

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of 
a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FDA and the Indian Health 
Service (IHS). The purpose of the MOU is to develop a more cohesive 
relationship to mutually address American Indian and Alaska Native 
issues within the context of each organization's jurisdiction.

DATES: The agreement became effective July 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary C. Wallace, Office of External 
Affairs (HFE-3), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4406.


[[Page 38183]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which 
states that all written agreements and MOU's between FDA and others 
shall be published in the Federal Register, the agency is publishing 
notice of this MOU.

    Dated: July 8, 1998.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
     

[[Page 38184]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15JY98.000



[[Page 38185]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15JY98.001



[[Page 38186]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15JY98.002



[[Page 38187]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15JY98.003



[[Page 38188]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15JY98.004



[FR Doc. 98-18829 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 23, 2012 

d0416 

Order 

 

April 23, 2012 

144280 

TERRY ELLISON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 144280 

 COA: 303908 

Saginaw CC: 11-011835-AW 

SAGINAW COUNTY PROSECUTING 

ATTORNEY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 7, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.