alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Nycrest Corp., Doing Business as Handy Stop Food Shops, Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority, dated May 23, 1984, which, after a hearing, found that petitioner had violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1) and suspended its retail beer license for 10 days.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The State Liquor Authority’s determination that petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), in that it had sold beer to a minor, was supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. The record reveals that petitioner was not deprived of his due process rights and the testimony was not incredible as a matter of law. Moreover, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 231; *Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland,*282 NY 256; *Matter of Nycrest Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*96 AD2d 563). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 536 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that utilization of survivors’ 

and dependents’ educational assistance shall not be subject to the 48- 

month limitation on the aggregate amount of assistance utilizable under 

multiple veterans and related educational assistance programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2011 

Mr. WEBB introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that 

utilization of survivors’ and dependents’ educational assistance shall not be subject to the 48-month limitation 

on the aggregate amount of assistance utilizable under 

multiple veterans and related educational assistance programs. 

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


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 536 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF SURVIVORS’ AND DEPENDENTS’ 

2 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM 48-MONTH 

3 LIMITATION ON AGGREGATE NUMBER OF 

4 MONTHS OF ASSISTANCE UTILIZABLE UNDER 

5 MULTIPLE VETERANS AND RELATED EDU6 CATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

7 (a) EXEMPTION.—Section 3695(a)(4) of title 38, 

8 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘35,’’. 

9 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by sub10 section (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

11 of this Act, and shall not operate to revive any entitlement 

12 to assistance under chapter 35 of title 38, United States 

13 Code, or the provisions of law referred to in section 

14 3695(a) of such title, as in effect on the day before such 

15 date, that was terminated by reason of the operation of 

16 section 3695(a) of such title, as so in effect, before such 

17 date. 

18 (c) REVIVAL OF ENTITLEMENT REDUCED BY PRIOR

19 UTILIZATION OF CHAPTER 35 ASSISTANCE.—In the case 

20 of an individual whose period of entitlement to assistance 

21 under a provision of law referred to in section 3695(a) 

22 of title 38, United States Code (other than chapter 35 of 

23 such title), as in effect on the day before the date of the 

24 enactment of this Act, was reduced under such section 

25 3695(a), as so in effect, by reason of the utilization of 

26 entitlement to assistance under chapter 35 of such title 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 536 IS

1 before the date of the enactment of this Act, the period 

2 of entitlement to assistance of such individual under such 

3 provision shall be determined without regard to any enti4 tlement so utilized by the individual under chapter 35 of 

5 such title. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
#### Joshua Wayne SUTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEORGIA CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES, Bob Richardson, Mark Sharp, Clive Oliver, Officer Childs, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-11331

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 5, 2011.

McNeill Stokes, Attorney at Law, Atlanta, GA, Stephen M. Ozcomert, Stephen M. Ozcomert, P.C., Decatur, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew F. Boyer, Samuel Scott Olens, Office of the Attorney General, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In his complaint in this case, Joshua Sutton claimed that, while he was working as a prison inmate at a boot plant operated by Georgia Correctional Industries (“GCI”), he suffered hand injuries due to the conduct of three GCI employees, Mark Sharp, Cliff Oliver, and Officer Childs,1 and that such conduct constituted cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment (as applicable to the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). Sutton sought compensatory and punitive damages against GCI and the three men under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also sought compensatory damages under Georgia tort law for negligence.

GCI moved the district court to dismiss Sutton’s complaint on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity. The three men moved for dismissal on the ground that the complaint failed to allege a constitutional violation and that, if it did, they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court, in a comprehensive order dated March 10, 2011, granted all the motions; it dismissed GCI as immune from suit and the three men on the ground that *953the complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment violation. The court declined to entertain the negligence claim and dismissed it without prejudice.

Sutton now appeals. We find no merit in the appeal. For the reasons stated in the district court’s March 10 order, GCI was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that the complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against the men.

AFFIRMED.

1

. According to the complaint, as Sutton was operating a rubber mill, his glove and then *953his right hand were pulled into the mill's rollers. Sharp, Oliver, and Childs, were summoned to the scene by another inmate and rebooted the mill to dislodge Sutton’s hand from the rollers. Sutton lost three fingers and the feeling in his right hand as a result of the episode.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10752 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TED CALVIN BLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-104-1-Y

- - - - - - - - - - February 17, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ted Calvin Bland has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Bland has not filed a response to counsel’s motion. Counsel asserts that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Bland’s supervised release and that the court’s subsequent sentence was neither in violation of the law nor plainly unreasonable. Our independent review of counsel’s AndersNo. 99-10752 -2- brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5 th Cir. R. 42.2.
Order entered August 2 6 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00302
- CV
IN RE DAVID R. BARNES , RELATOR Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Cour t

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 11
- 11126



### O RDER WE REINSTATE this proceeding. On June 19, 2019, pursuant to rule 7.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we abated this case for the current judge of the 302 nd District Court, the H onorable Sandra Jackson, to reconsider temporary orders issued on December 21, 2018, by the predecessor judge in the 302 nd District Court. On August 16, 2019 relator filed a status letter enclosing Judge Jackson’s order affirming the December 21, 2018 te mporary orders. In light of our August 21, 2019 order, the sealed, supplemental reporter’s record, for this court’s in camera review is due September 3, 2019.
/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
**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

 

In connection with the Annual Report of AFV Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Suzanne Herring, Chief Financial 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/ Suzanne Herring                      			

Suzanne Herring |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   | October 11, 2006 |
|--------|------------------|
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

Postal ServiceTM.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:* July 1, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 25, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory       ( print page 35142)    Commission a *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 708 to Competitive Product List.* Documents are available at *www.prc.gov,* Docket Nos. MC2021-105, CP2021-107.

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2021-14024 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

     In connection with the quarterly report of Town Sports International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
Pyle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(Section Mark) 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

     (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (4) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.

                                                   /s/ RICHARD PYLE
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Town Sports International, Inc.
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          May 13, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPAQ
COMPUTER CORPORATION'S CONSOLDIATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                       211
<INVENTORY>                                      2,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,160
<PP&E>                                           6,318
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,259
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,724
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,001
<SALES>                                          7,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,513
<CGS>                                            6,111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    478
<INCOME-TAX>                                       153
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       325
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Dalton BELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30216.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

*772Filed June 7, 2011.

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Gregory Gruber, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USTA-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas Michael Kummerow, Washington Appellate Project, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

James Dalton Bell, Sheridan, OR, pro se.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

James Dalton Bell contends that the 24-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release violated his rights to due process and a jury trial. We dismiss.

We will not review the merits of Bell’s contentions because the “interlocutory notice of appeal” (“NOA”) does not mention the sentence, which was imposed six days after the NOA was filed, and no subsequent NOA was ever filed. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 3(c)(1)(B); 4(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14402]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-TA-1173 (Second Review)]


Potassium Phosphate Salts From China

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing duty order and 
antidumping duty order on potassium phosphate salts from China would be 
likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to U.S. 
industries producing dipotassium phosphate and tetrapotassium 
pyrophosphate within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on November 2, 2020 (85 FR 
69352, November 2, 2020) and determined on February 5, 2021 that it 
would conduct expedited reviews (86 FR 29288, June 1, 2021).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on June 30, 2021. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5208 (June 2021), 
entitled Potassium Phosphate Salts China: Inv. Nos. 701-TA-473 and 731-
TA-1173 (Second Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: June 30, 2021.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-14402 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### SIRE v. BROWNING.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Meyer L. Sire against Edward F. Browning. No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Memo. Per Curiam. Order filed. See, also, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1151; supra.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35307-35308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the

[[Page 35308]]

provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; HIV Vaccine Research and Design 
(HIVRAD) Program (P01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: July 29, 2021.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G11A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: J. Bruce Sundstrom, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, National Institute of Allergy 
and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers 
Lane, Room 3G11A, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5045, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f2c2a313b2c2b2d3032351f31363e363b7131363771383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="780b0d161c0b0c0a17151238161119111c56161110561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 28, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14173 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Department of Public Parks of the City of New York to Acquire Title to Certain Lands under Chapter 522 of the Laws of 1884. George Keller, Appellant.

(Argued. June 17, 1890;

decided June 24, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made November 15, 1889, which denied a motion for an order that the report of the commissioners in the above proceedings be sent back to said commissioners for correction, and to pass upon and determine the damages suffered by the appellant.

*Ernest Hall*for appellant.

*Frcmklm Ba/rtlett*for respondent.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14426]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 86 FR 34080, June 
28, 2021.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Thursday, July 1, 
2021 at 2 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 
1, 2021 at 2 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

    Dated: July 1, 2021.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14426 Filed 7-1-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P