alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert C. Austin, Appellant.

—Weiss, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Dwyer, Jr., J.), rendered October 30, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

On June 21, 1984, defendant waived indictment and entered a plea of guilty to a superior court information charging him with sexual abuse in the first degree in full satisfaction of three pending charges. Defendant moved to vacate the plea on October 25, 1984, contending that he did not realize its consequences and was innocent.’Prior to sentencing on October 30, 1984, County Court entertained defense counsel’s arguments on the motion to vacate and then denied the motion without a hearing. Defendant declined the opportunity accorded to respond. He was then sentenced in accord with the terms of the plea bargain to a five-year period of probation with six months in jail.

On this appeal, defendant maintains that County Court failed to adequately apprise him of his constitutional rights before accepting the plea and abused its discretion in refusing *836to vacate the plea without, at least, conducting a hearing on the matter. Neither contention has any merit. Our review of the plea allocution confirms that defendant reviewed the terms of the negotiated plea with his attorney, indicated that he was acting voluntarily, was advised by County Court that a plea was the equivalent of a conviction after a jury trial and admitted the conduct underlying the charge. Considering that defendant had numerous previous arrests and was thus familiar with the judicial setting, we find that he wag adequately apprised of his rights, which he knowingly and intelligently waived *(see, People v Pratt,*99 AD2d 909). That County Court did not specify the precise constitutional rights implicated certainly does not warrant a different conclusion *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 16-17; *People v Brush,*99 AD2d 564, 565, *lv denied*62 NY2d 805).

Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in County Court’s refusal to vacate the plea. Defendant failed to present any factual basis for his rather bald protestation of innocence, the delay for which he attributes to counsel. Moreover, since counsel was afforded ample opportunity to argue the motion, an evidentiary hearing was not required *(see, People v Stubbs,*110 AD2d 725, 727; *People v Kelsch,*96 AD2d 677, 678; *People v Jones,*95 AD2d 869, 870; *People v Eagan,*90 AD2d 909).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
# C_2020068EN.01007102.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/71

---

Order of the General Court of 23 December 2019 — Mersinis v ESMA

(Case T-163/19) (1)

(2020/C 68/80)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
H. Res. 8

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 7, 1997.

Resolved, That at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, January 20,

1997, the House shall proceed to the West Front of the Capitol for the purpose of attending the inaugural ceremonies of

the President and Vice President of the United States; and

that upon the conclusion of the ceremonies the House stands

adjourned until noon on Tuesday, January 21, 1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### JANET BORG TOMKOVICH, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

June 23, 1960.

*Mr. Louis F. Stein, Jr.,*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Budd, Lamer & Kent*for the respondents.

Denied.
Case: 1:03-cv-03164 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/01/03 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:114
Case: 1:03-cv-03164 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/01/03 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:115
Case: 1:03-cv-03164 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/01/03 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:116
Case: 1:03-cv-03164 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/01/03 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:117
Case: 1:03-cv-03164 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/01/03 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:118
Case: 1:03-cv-03164 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/01/03 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:119
Case: 1:03-cv-03164 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/01/03 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:120
Case: 1:03-cv-03164 Document #: 18 Filed: 12/01/03 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:121
# Official Journal L 97/2023

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 97 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 665 April 2023 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 97

English edition

Legislation

Volume 665 April 2023

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2023/734 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2023 amending Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union and repealing 11 legal acts in the field of national accounts (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2023/734 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2023 amending Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the European Union and repealing 11 legal acts in the field of national accounts (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Donald Lambert, Respondent, v Laurence E. Schreiber, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 902]—

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a contract for the sale of real property and for specific performance of that contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated May 26, 2011, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate a judgment of the same court entered April 25, 2007, upon his default in appearing or answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant previously moved pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) to vacate the judgment entered upon his default in this action, in which the plaintiff was awarded the principal sum of $844,700. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion, and, upon reargument, adhered to that determination. However, on appeal, this Court reversed, and denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment *(see Lambert v Schreiber,*69 AD3d 904 [2010]). Thereafter, the defendant again moved, this time pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3), to vacate the judgment. The defendant argued, inter alia, that the plaintiff had misrepresented *1283the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled, and that the default judgment should consequently be vacated upon the ground of misrepresentation and in the interest of justice. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

Although a court has the inherent discretionary power to vacate a default judgment *(see Rukeyser v Richardson,*43 AD3d 815 [2007]), under the circumstances of this case we decline to exercise that power. Nearly five years ago, when the defendant first moved to vacate the judgment entered upon his default, he had the opportunity to challenge the propriety of damages awarded on the basis of the plaintiffs alleged misrepresentations. Indeed, “[t]his ground was no less apparent at the time of the making of [the] defendant’s first motion than at the time of the making of his second motion” *(Bianco v Dougherty,*54 AD2d 681, 681 [1976]; *see Matter of Thrall v CNY Centro, Inc.,*89 AD3d 1449, 1450 [2011]; *Peck v Ernst Bros.,*86 AD2d 692 [1982]). Since the defendant failed to raise that ground as a basis for vacating the judgment on his prior motion, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s instant motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3) to vacate the judgment. Mastro, A.P.J., Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 USCSECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medallion Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge: 

(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 as ofthe dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. 

By: /s/ Alvin Murstein

Chairman and 

Chief Executive Officer 

Date: March 14, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         462,531
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,554,538
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,999,141
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,986,250
<LOANS>                                     86,219,384
<ALLOWANCE>                                    393,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,733,685
<DEPOSITS>                                  81,382,871
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            334,774
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,516,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              93,733,685
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,031,133
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               92,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               107,155
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,230,288
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,981,100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,041,765
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,188,523
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   97,397
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,678,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                459,853
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     303,503
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   303,503
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.29
<LOANS-NON>                                    656,419
<LOANS-PAST>                                   282,487
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               307,308
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   15,160
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,025
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              393,570
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           393,500
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             70
        

</TABLE>
#### Hector Luna, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

[942 NYS2d 865]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered March 21, 2011, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the action, unanimously re*414versed, on the law, without costs, and the complaint dismissed in its entirety. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The City defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The testimony of the police officers that plaintiff was positively identified by three witnesses based on a photo array, as well as the police records memorializing the identifications, established that plaintiffs arrest was supported by probable cause, and plaintiffs opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Mendoza v City of New York,*90 AD3d 453 [2011]; *Paredes v City of New York,*73 AD3d 465 [2010]). Plaintiffs remaining tort claims and claims pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 should also have been dismissed *(see Leftenant v City of New York,*70 AD3d 596, 597 [2010]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Renwick and Richter, JJ.
#### Sven E. SAMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-35718.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 6, 2011.*

Filed July 6, 2011.

*546Eitan Kassel Yanich, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Benjamin J. Groebner, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Brian Kipnis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office Of The U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GONZALEZ, Chief District Judge.**

*

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

**

 The Honorable Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief District Judge for the United States District Court, Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Sven E. Sampson (Sampson) challenges the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Sampson’s application for disability insurance benefits.

1. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the Veterans Administration’s (VA’s) disability rating and gave specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence for giving less weight to the VA’s disability rating. *See Berry v. Astrue,*622 F.3d 1228, 1236 (9th Cir.2010) (explaining that an ALJ may disagree with the VA’s disability determination when giving “persuasive, specific, [and] valid reasons” supported by the record).

2. The ALJ properly weighed the medical evidence and sufficiently explained her rejection of the treating physicians’ opinions. *See Vincent v. Heckler,*739 F.2d 1393, 1394-1395 (9th Cir.1984) (explaining that all evidence need not be discussed in the ALJ’s decision; the ALJ must simply “explain why significant probative evidence has been rejected”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

3. Because the ALJ properly rejected the treating physicians’ opinions, any error in rejecting the Global Assessment of *547Function (GAF) scores was harmless, since the scores alone would not establish disability. *See Tommasetti v. Astrue,*533 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir.2008) (discussing harmless error).

4. Stating specific and legitimate reasons to support her conclusion that the claimant’s testimony was not entirely credible, the ALJ sufficiently substantiated her adverse credibility determination. *See Tommasetti,*533 F.3d at 1039.

5. The ALJ properly determined Sampson’s residual functional capacity (RFC) from the medical expert’s testimony as corroborated by evidence from the medical records. Because the ALJ’s hypothetical to the Vocational Expert (VE) encompassed the RFC and the VE identified available jobs in the national and local economy, the ALJ’s finding of no disability was supported by substantial evidence. *See Stout v. Comm’r,*454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2006) (explaining that if the RFC allows the claimant to adjust to work existing in the economy he is not disabled).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
2014 10-K - EX 10.45




            Exhibit 10.45




Amendment Four to 
Manufacturing and Purchase Agreement Between 
Dot Hill Systems Corp. and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd.


This Amendment Four ("Amendment") is dated April 25, 2013 (the "Effective Date") and is an amendment to the Manufacturing and Purchase Agreement dated September 2008 (the "Agreement") between Dot Hill Systems Corp. and its subsidiaries ("Dot Hill") and Hon Hai Precision Industry Ltd, and its parents, subsidiaries and affiliate companies ("Foxconn").


Except as expressly set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given thereto in the Agreement. This Amendment shall become part of the Agreement and all applicable terms and conditions of the Agreement.


Whereas, Dot Hill and Foxconn wish to set forth details regarding Foxconn's social and environmental  responsibility obligations as described in Section 4.14 of the Agreement,


Wherefore, the Agreement shall be revised to add the following terms and conditions:


4.15    Compliance with the Electronic Industry Code of Conduct ("EICC")


4.15.1   SUPPLIER shall implement a management system to continuously review its EICC conformance and to address any non-conformances.


4.15.2   SUPPLIER grants to Dot Hill's customers the same rights that it grants to Dot Hill under Section 4.14(3)(a) through (d) with respect to compliance with the EICC including: the right to audit SUPPLIER; the right to meet with SUPPLIER to discuss compliance, and; the right to receive reports regarding compliance.


4.15.3   SUPPLIER shall resolve non-compliance with the EICC immediately or as soon as practicable and report resolutions to Dot Hill, which Dot Hill may share with its customers.


4.15.4   SUPPLIER shall conduct a self-audit from an E!CC-approved third party auditor, at SUPPLIER's expense, once every twenty-four (24) months.   Upon completion of each Validated Audit Process (as defined by the EICC), SUPPLIER shall provide a copy of the results to Dot Hill, which Dot Hill may share with its customers.


4.15.5   SUPPLIER shall subscribe to the EICC-ON Tool, to input EICC Self-Assessment Questionnaire ("SAQ") responses  at SUPPLIER's  expense.


Intending to be legally bound, the parties execute this Amendment to be effective as of the Effective Date stated above.

1






           Exhibit 10.45












	
			
	
DOT HILL
	 
	Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd.

	/s/ Dana Kammersgard
	 
	/s/ Jackson Shih

	Signature
	 
	Signature

	Name:  Dana Kammersgard
	 
	Name:  Jackson Shih

	Title:  PRES. & CEO
	 
	Title:  V.P.

	Date: 5-3-13
	 
	Date:  4/30/13











2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southwest Watershed Research Center: Tucson, AZ
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About SWRCSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Tucson, Arizona SWRC Docs





- Research Overview
- SWRC and Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed Booklet

Erosion and Sedimentationheadline bar 1 - Erosion and Sedimentation
               2 - Page 2
                  3 - Page 3  Alluvial channel on the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed
**Erosion and sedimentation research is conducted at the Southwest Watershed Research Center to:**
Determine upland and channel erosion and sedimentation processes and their impact on water quality, semiarid landscape evolution and the health and sustainability of rangeland ecosystems
Develop new technology to determine the rate of soil loss an ecosystem can endure and still remain economically and ecologically sustainable
Overland flow on the Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed Suggested publication: Lane, L. J., Hernandez, M., Nichols, M. H. Processes Controlling Sediment Yield from Watersheds as Functions of Spatial Scale. Journal of Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1997, pp. 355-369. Published 1997. [1]
                        2
                        3

                     Next >>


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov