alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

910 

TP 14-00128 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF BRENDA BERNIER, PETITIONER, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NIRAV R. SHAH, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RESPONDENT. 

 

NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES, INC., BUFFALO (DIANA M. STRAUBE OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Henry J.

Nowak, Jr., J.], entered January 22, 2014) to review a determination

of respondent. The determination denied petitioner’s request for a

modular wheelchair ramp. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously 

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

seeking to review respondent’s determination made after a fair hearing

denying her a modular wheelchair ramp. Respondent determined that the

ramp did not meet the definition of durable medical equipment (DME)

pursuant to 18 NYCRR 505.5 (a) (1). Contrary to petitioner’s

contention, respondent’s determination is supported by substantial

evidence (see generally Matter of Coffey v D’Elia, 61 NY2d 645, 648;

300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176,

179-180). In addition, “[a]n agency’s interpretation of its

regulations must be upheld unless the determination is irrational and

unreasonable” (Matter of Taher v Novello, 278 AD2d 809, 810, lv denied

96 NY2d 712 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Elcor

Health Servs. v Novello, 100 NY2d 273, 280; Matter of Gaines v New

York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 90 NY2d 545, 548-549),

and we conclude that respondent’s determination that ramps do not fit

within the definition of DME is rational. DME is equipment that is

“primarily and customarily used for medical purposes” and that is

“generally not useful to a person in the absence of an illness or

injury” (18 NYCRR 505.5 [a] [1] [ii], [iii]). We agree with

respondent that ramps may be useful to people, generally, even in the

absence of an illness or injury. We have considered petitioner’s 
-2- 910 

TP 14-00128 

remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# C_2020321EN.01004501.xml

| 29.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/45

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9929 – EDP/Viesgo)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 321/07)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Energias de Portugal S.A. (‘EDP’, Portugal), |
| --- | --- |

—

Energias de Portugal S.A. (‘EDP’, Portugal),

| — | Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas, S.L. (‘Viesgo’, Spain). |
| --- | --- |

—

Viesgo Infraestructuras Energéticas, S.L. (‘Viesgo’, Spain).

EDP acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation indirect sole control of the whole of Viesgo.The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for EDP: EDP is a vertically integrated utility company and the largest generator, distributor and supplier of electricity in Portugal, with significant operations in the electricity sector in Spain. EDP has a worldwide presence, mostly in Portugal, Spain, Brazil and US, being present in 19 countries in 4 continents. EDP is present throughout the electricity value chain and in the gas markets, |
| --- | --- |

—

for EDP: EDP is a vertically integrated utility company and the largest generator, distributor and supplier of electricity in Portugal, with significant operations in the electricity sector in Spain. EDP has a worldwide presence, mostly in Portugal, Spain, Brazil and US, being present in 19 countries in 4 continents. EDP is present throughout the electricity value chain and in the gas markets,

| — | for Viesgo: Viesgo’s main activities are the production of electricity from renewable sources in Spain and Portugal and the distribution of electricity in Spain. Viesgo is currently ultimately controlled by Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Europe Ltd. (“MIRAEL”, United Kingdom). |
| --- | --- |

—

for Viesgo: Viesgo’s main activities are the production of electricity from renewable sources in Spain and Portugal and the distribution of electricity in Spain. Viesgo is currently ultimately controlled by Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Europe Ltd. (“MIRAEL”, United Kingdom).

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9929 – EDP/Viesgo

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
## MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

B a lrim o r e 

## RESPONSE TO**CO~1MENTS** 

## for the P U BLIC HEARING and S U BMISSION HeDring held on May 11, 2007 jn Balljmore, Maryland jn relaljon 10: Pla n an d Ba se



### NO C O;"i:\IEl' TS WERE RE C EIVED ATTH£**H£ARI~G** 

### OR D URh "G THE P U BLI C C O ;'l IM£:'Io 'T P£RJOD
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Uranerz Energy Corporation, (the Company) does hereby
certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the
period ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) 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.



Date: June 27, 2011

/s/ Benjamin
LeboeBenjamin Leboe Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer

## 



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

---
Thomas RICHARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1136

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5871 

To tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2014 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income. 

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 ‘‘Dollar is a Dollar Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX CAP. 

6 Subsection (h), entitled ‘‘Maximum capital gains 

7 rate’’, of section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

8 is hereby repealed. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Asteroids

Filters

              - (-)science_science(7)
              - products_publications(69)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(16)
              - multimedia_image-141771(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(2)
              - multimedia_image-204460(4)
              - (-)multimedia_slideshow(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - multimedia_video-149194(4)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_other_news(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(4)
              - tennessee(1)

## By Year

              - 2024(1)

Project        September 30, 2016        ASTRA: ASTeroid Resource Assessment

Research        October 7, 2022        Planetary Defense

slideshow        July 20, 2023        Planetary Science at the USGS

Topic        July 31, 2019        Terrestrial Analog Sample Collections

science explorer topicPlanetary Mapping

Program        October 1, 2018        IAU - WGCCRE

Topic        April 22, 2019        Collection Highlights

Program        November 9, 2018        Workshops
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Medical International Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Karim Menassa, President, Chairman of the Board and Principal Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.                                                  





|\s\             Karim Menassa      
|-----------------------------------
|Karim Menassa                      
|President and Chairman of the Board



February 18, 2003

---
|   | Exhibit 32.1 |
|--------|--------------|

| 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. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Signatures                       |   | Title                           |   | Date          |
|----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|---------------|
|                             |   |                            |   |          |
| /s/ Teck Fong KongTeck Fong Kong |   | Chief Executive OfficerDirector |   | July 14, 2014 |

----
# C_2021362EN.01017301.xml

| 8.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 362/173 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 362/173

---

P9_TA(2020)0148

Conclusion of the EU-Jordan Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 June 2020 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part (14209/2019 — C9-0193/2019 — 2010/0180(NLE))

(Consent)

(2021/C 362/32)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (14209/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (14209/2019),

| — | having regard to the draft Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part (14366/2010); |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part (14366/2010);

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0193/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0193/2019),

| — | having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 105(1) and (4), and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0086/2020), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0086/2020),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7714
DUKE E. WOODLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARL R. PEED, Sheriff, Defendant - Appellee, and CITY OF FAIRFAX; ARCHIVES DIVISION, Fairfax County Jail, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-368-R) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duke E. Woodley, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Brandt, Robert S. Corish, SLENKER, BRANDT, JENNINGS & JOHNSTON, Merrifield, Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We deny Appellant's motion to file an amended complaint. 3 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed a notice of appeal from a magistrate judge's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. At the time Appellant filed the notice of appeal it was interlocutory, but this court now has jurisdiction over the appeal under the doctrine of cumulative finality because all of Appellant's claims have been dismissed. See Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992). Because Appellant failed to raise the issue concerning the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel in an informal brief, we decline to consider the issue further. Consequently, we affirm. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Maria Isabel GIRALDO and Juan Gonzalo Villa, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Juan L. Villa, Appellants, v. AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Appellee.

No. 1D16-392

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 18, 2018

Floyd Faglie of Staunton & Faglie, PL, Monticello; Celene H. Humphries and Maegen Peek Luka of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, for Appellants.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Elizabeth Teegen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; and Alexander R. Boler, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Per Curiam.

The Florida Supreme Court has directed us to remand this case to the administrative law judge with direction "to reduce AHCA's lien amount in this case to $13,881.79." *Giraldo v. AHCA* , 248 So.3d 53, 56 (Fla. 2018). We hereby do so.

Lewis, Rowe, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 259 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 558 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

OCTOBER 8, 2015 

Reported by Mr. JOHNSON, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 55 South Pioneer Boulevard in Springboro, 

Ohio, as the ‘‘Richard ‘Dick’ Chenault Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RICHARD ‘‘DICK’’ CHENAULT POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 55 South Pioneer Boulevard in 

7 Springboro, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘ Richard ‘Dick’ Chenault Post Office Building’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 558 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Richard ‘Dick’ 

5 Chenault Post Office Building’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 259 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 558 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostChenault Post Office Building’’. in Springboro, Ohio, as the ‘‘Richard ‘Dick’ al Service located at 55 South Pioneer Boulevard 

OCTOBER 8, 2015 

Reported without amendment 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Anthony Nell WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1992

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed October 2, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Rocco Joseph Carbone, III, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See**State v. Michel* , 43 Fla. L. Weekly S298 (Fla. July 12, 2018).

COHEN, C.J., LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: District of Columbia

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_publications(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - american samoa(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(5)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(7)
              - delaware(24)
              - district of columbia(56)
              - florida(1)
              - guam(1)
              - illinois(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(6)
              - maryland(50)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - new hampshire(6)
              - new jersey(8)
              - new york(9)
              - north carolina(1)
              - ohio(2)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(13)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(6)
              - south carolina(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(2)
              - vermont(5)
              - virginia(32)
              - (-)washington(3)
              - west virginia(12)
              - wisconsin(2)

## By Year

publication        June 21, 2012        Assessing fish predation on migrating juvenile steelhead and a retrospective comparison to steelhead survival through the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project, Columbia River, Washington, 2009-11

Project        January 2, 2008        Eastbank Aquifer near Rocky Reach Dam

Presentations and Events        September 22, 2022        PubTalk-09/2022 - You Can be Powered by ShakeAlert®️ - Earthquake Early Warning for All!
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1314

SABRINA RENEE BROWN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:17

- cv - 00042

- RAJ

- DEM )

Submitted : May 25, 2017 Decided: May 30, 2017

Before MOTZ , THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by un published per curiam opinion

.

Sabrina Renee Brown , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complai nt under 28 U .S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice for failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 47 (1949). Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Goode v. Cent. Va. Leg al Aid Soc’y, Inc. , 807 F.3d 619,
623

- 25, 628

- 30 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

– 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district c ourt with instructions to allow Brown to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would n ot aid the decisional process.

DI SMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
IN RE: Appeal of the DECISION OF the DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL

NO. 2018-INT-1489 NO. 2018-OB-1367

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 21, 2018

*902Granted for the sole purpose of transferring the matter to the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel for review by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. See Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(A).