alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Sebastian Ventimiglia, Petitioner, v New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 699]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing *1328a direct order after he failed to disclose to a correction officer the name of the individual who changed the information on his package room folder to enable him to receive a larger monthly allotment of food. He was found guilty of this charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the testimony of its author, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Green v Bradt,*79 AD3d 1566, 1567 [2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 709 [2011]; *Matter of Wahhab v Fischer,*77 AD3d 996, 997 [2010]). Petitioner’s assertion that he did not know the identity of the individual in question presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Vaello v Connolly,*84 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011], *appeal dismissed*17 NY3d 854 [2011]; *Matter of Morusma v Fischer,*74 AD3d 1675, 1675 [2010]). His claim of hearing officer bias is not preserved for our review given his admitted failure to raise it in his administrative appeal *(see Matter of Ifill v Fischer,*72 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2010]; *Matter of Quinones v Fischer,*55 AD3d 1200, 1200-1201 [2008]).

Rose, J.P, Lahtinen, Spain, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
----

**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**

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  August                10, 2007 | /s/                HARRY J. WHITE, JR. |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                             | Harry                J. White, Jr.     |   |
|                                             | Chief                Financial Officer |   |

----
Case: 1:02-cv-01971 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/02 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:02-cv-01971 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/02 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:2
Case: 1:02-cv-01971 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/02 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3
Case: 1:02-cv-01971 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/02 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:4
Case: 1:02-cv-01971 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/02 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:5
Case: 1:02-cv-01971 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/02 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:6
Case: 1:02-cv-01971 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/18/02 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:7
#### In the Matter of John F. Rakstis, Doing Business as Schell’s Red Cross Pharmacy, Petitioner, v David Axelrod, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, Respondent.

—Casey, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Montgomery County) to review a determination of respondent which imposed fines upon petitioner for violations of Public Health Law article 33.

Petitioner, a licensed pharmacist, was served with a notice of hearing and statement of charges alleging violations of Public Health Law article 33, entitled the Controlled Substances Act (the Act), and the regulations promulgated thereunder. After a hearing, respondent determined that petitioner had violated the Act, and substantial fines were imposed. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding and respondent moved to dismiss, claiming that the proceeding was untimely.

Title VII of the Act (Public Health Law § 3380 *et seq.)*contains substantive and procedural provisions concerning offenses, violations and enforcement of the Act. Public Health Law § 3394 (1) provides that all orders or determinations "hereunder” shall be subject to review in an article 78 proceeding. The statute further provides that "Application for such review must be made within sixty days after service of the order or determination upon the person whose license, certificate, right or privilege is affected thereby” (Public Health Law § 3394 [2]). Petitioner concedes that he did not comply with the 60-day time limit, but contends that the *908ordinary four-month Statute of Limitations of CPLR 217 applies since the determination did not affect his license. We reject this contention and dismiss the proceeding.

This is not a case where the administrative proceeding is governed procedurally by another statute *(cf. Matter of Di Marsico v Whalen,*68 AD2d 971, *affd*49 NY2d 822). Rather, both the substantive and procedural rules of the Act are applicable. Public Health Law § 3391 (1) authorizes the commencement of an administrative proceeding to revoke a license or certificate of approval. The statute specifically authorizes respondent to impose a fine in lieu of revocation (Public Health Law § 3391 [4]). It is clear, therefore, that an administrative proceeding which results in the imposition of a fine should be treated procedurally the same as one which results in revocation. Although the determination under review did not affect petitioner’s license, it clearly affected his rights. Accordingly, the 60-day time limit of Public Health Law § 3394 (2) applies and, thus, this proceeding is untimely.

Petition dismissed, without costs. Main, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS
        PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of IBSG International, Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Geoffrey Birch,
        Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and
 (2)  The
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and result of operations of the
        Company.










Date:
                August 8, 2005
            By:
            /s/ Geoffrey
              BirchGeoffrey
              BirchPrincipal
              Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      139
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4
<INVENTORY>                                        133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   301
<PP&E>                                             377
<DEPRECIATION>                                     188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              130
<BONDS>                                            139
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         316
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       638
<SALES>                                            717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   717
<CGS>                                              483
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     94
<INCOME-TAX>                                        35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 59
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        59
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.57 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.53 <F1>
<FN>
<F1>
IN NOVEMBER 1997, BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. ANNOUNCED THAT ITS BOARD OF
DIRECTORS APPROVED A SPLIT IN THE OUTSTANDING SHARES OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL,
INC.'S COMMON STOCK ON A TWO-FOR-ONE BASIS.  THE SPLIT WAS EFFECTED ON
DECEMBER 8, 1997.  PREVIOUSLY FILED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULES HAVE NOT BEEN
RESTATED.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
II

Calendar No. 616

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1175

To reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Citizen

Advisory Commission for 10 additional years.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 15, 1997

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. TORRICELLI) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources

SEPTEMBER 25, 1998

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

A BILL

To reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation

Area Citizen Advisory Commission for 10 additional years.

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DELAWARE WATER

4 GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA CITIZEN

5 ADVISORY COMMISSION.

6 Section 5 of Public Law 101–573 (16 U.S.C. 460o

7 note) is amended by striking ‘‘10’’ and inserting ‘‘20’’.
Calendar No. 616

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1175

A BILL

To reauthorize the Delaware Water Gap National

10 additional years.Recreation Area Citizen Advisory Commission for

SEPTEMBER 25, 1998

Reported without amendment
#### Pamela B. Tishman, Respondent, v Marc Bogatin, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 516]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, *622J.), entered October 14, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, upon plaintiffs motion, directed defendant to pay 40% of the cost of the parties’ older child’s college education, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly rejected defendant’s contention that a so-called SUNY cap should be imposed on his obligation to contribute to the costs of the child’s college education — that is, that his contribution should be based on the cost of an education at a college in the State University of New York system, because plaintiff failed to show that the child’s needs cannot be met adequately at a SUNY college. Whether to impose a SUNY cap is determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the parties’ means and the child’s educational needs *(see e.g. Powers v Wilson,*56 AD3d 642 [2008]; *Matter of Holliday v Holliday,*35 AD3d 468 [2006]; *see also Berliner v Berliner,*33 AD3d 745, 748 [2006], *lv denied*10 NY3d 702 [2008]). A rule that, absent unusual circumstances, a parent’s obligation is limited to the maximum SUNY tuition would be inconsistent with Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (c) (7), which provides that a court may award educational expenses where it determines, “having regard for the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and in the best interests of the child, and as justice requires,” that the education sought to be paid for is appropriate *(see Chan v Chan,*267 AD2d 413, 414 [1999]).

The record supports the court’s direction that defendant pay 40% of the costs of the parties’ older child’s education at a private college. The child attended an elite public high school, his reasons for preferring the private college over SUNY schools were sound, both parties attended private college and private law school, and both parties have the resources to pay the tuition at the private college where the child is enrolled (Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]; *see Otero v Otero,*222 AD2d 328, 329 [1995]; *see also Rosado v Hughes,*23 AD3d 318 [2005]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      14,005,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              222,615,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                24,533,000
<INVENTORY>                                 82,708,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           117,416,000
<PP&E>                                      49,588,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,098,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             355,988,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,878,000
<BONDS>                                     75,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       133,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 146,642,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               355,988,000
<SALES>                                     42,572,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            49,624,000
<CGS>                                        5,769,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,324,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             4,133,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,282,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,885,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,036,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,849,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,849,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2667

_____________________________

JESSE BRANNEN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Union County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

February 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jesse Brannen, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Umang Gupta, Chief Executive Officer of Keynote Systems, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2005 (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 10, 2005



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Umang Gupta                                                  
|Umang Gupta Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Keynote Systems, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 3.37
                          AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS

                         Adopted as of November 1, 1996

                             ARTICLE I SHAREHOLDERS

         Section 1. Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the shareholders shall
be held in the month of June in each year or at such other time as shall be
fixed by the Board of Directors, for the purpose of electing directors and for
the transaction of such other business as may come before the meeting.

         Section 2. Notice of Meeting. Written notice stating the place, day and
hour of the meeting and, in case of a special meeting, the purpose or purposes
for which the meeting is called, shall, unless otherwise prescribed by statute,
be delivered not less than ten (10) nor more than sixty (60) days before the
date of the meeting, either personally or by mail, or at the direction of the
president, or the secretary, or the officer or other persons calling the
meeting.

                          ARTICLE II BOARD OF DIRECTORS

         Section 1. Number, Tenure and Qualifications. The number of directors
of the corporation shall be not less than one (1) nor more than four (4) as
established by the Board of Directors from time to time. Each director shall
hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders and until his
successor shall have been elected and qualified. Directors need not be residents
of the state of incorporation of the corporation or shareholders of the
corporation.

         Section 2. Regular and Special Meetings. The Board of Directors may
call regular and special meetings.

                              ARTICLE III OFFICERS

         Section 1. Number. The officers of the corporation shall be a
president, vice president, a secretary and a treasurer, all of whom shall be
elected or appointed by the Board of Directors. Such other officers and
assistant officers as may be deemed necessary may be elected or appointed by the
Board of Directors. Any two or more offices may be held by the same person.

         Section 2. Election and Term of Office. The officers of the corporation
shall be elected annually by the Board of Directors. Each officer shall hold
office until his successor shall have been elected and shall have qualified or
until his death or until he shall resign or shall have been removed in the
manner hereinafter provided.

                             ARTICLE IV FISCAL YEAR

         The fiscal year of the corporation shall begin on the 1st day of
January and end on the 31st day of December in each year.
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.
 Federal Communications Commission [FR ID 42210]
 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
 ACTION: Notice; correction.
 SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a document in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         of August 6, 2021, announcing a meeting on Thursday, August 5, 2021. The agenda has since changed.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riordan, the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction In the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     of August 6, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-16868, on page 43237, delete the following agenda items in the chart: 5
MEDIA
*Title:*
                             Revisions to Political Programming and Record-Keeping Rules (MB Docket No. 21-293).*Summary:*
                             The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to update outmoded political programming rules.6
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
*Title:*
                             Review of the Commission's Part 95 Personal Radio Services Rules (WT Docket No. 10-119).*Summary:*
                             The Commission will consider a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration that would grant three petitions for reconsideration of the Commission's May 2017 Part 95 Personal Radio Services Rules Report and Order.
 Dated: August 4, 2021. Marlene Dortch, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2021-17107 Filed 9-2-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P