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

[941 NYS2d 862]

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Grosso, J.), dated September 23, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court also dated September 23, 2009, granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (a) to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the defendant was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial.

*913Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the defendant’s motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

On June 11, 2008, the defense counsel requested an adjournment of this matter for the purpose of viewing a videotape of the defendant’s arrest, and the Supreme Court granted the request. Therefore, the Supreme Court improperly charged the prosecution with the 56 days of prereadiness delay between June 25, 2008, and August 20, 2008, which resulted from the defendant’s adjournment request *(see*CPL 30.30 [4] [b]; *People v Kopciowski,*68 NY2d 615, 617 [1986]; *People v Robinson,*269 AD2d 410 [2000]; *People v Kanter,*173 AD2d 560, 561 [1991]; *People v LoPizzo,*151 AD2d 614 [1989]). When these 56 days are subtracted from the 202 days charged to the People by the Supreme Court, the People were ready for trial within the six-month period provided by CPL 30.30 (1) (a).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (a) to dismiss the indictment. Rivera, J.P, Leventhal, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Melvin Kimbrough, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 208]

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 respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While monitoring the inmate recreation yard, a correction officer observed petitioner pass a piece of paper to another inmate that the inmate then read to petitioner and three other inmates. The officer recovered the piece of paper and discovered that it contained gang-related references. As a result, petitioner was *1257charged in a misbehavior report with engaging in gang-related activities, participating in an unauthorized exchange and engaging in unauthorized organizational activities. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the first two charges, but not the last. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, resulting in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, together with the piece of paper recovered and the testimony of the correction officers called as witnesses at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Santana v*Fischer, 78 AD3d 1364, 1364 [2010]; *Matter of Umoja v Bezio,*64 AD3d 1066 [2009]). The contrary testimony of petitioner and his inmate witnesses presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Alicea v Fischer,*89 AD3d 1245, 1246 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 807 [2012]; *Matter of Reid v Fischer,*78 AD3d 1400, 1400 [2010]). Moreover, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that he was denied adequate employee assistance given that neither the documents nor the videotape petitioner requested existed *(see Matter of Mitchell v Bezio,*69 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2010]; *Matter of Harrison v Votraw,*56 AD3d 868 [2008]). Furthermore, insofar as the inmate petitioner wished his assistant to interview testified at the hearing, petitioner has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the assistant’s omission *(see Matter of Davis v Prack, 58*AD3d 977, 977 [2009]). Petitioner’s claim that the misbehavior report was deficient is also unavailing inasmuch as it contained sufficient details of the incident to enable petitioner to prepare an adequate defense *(see Matter of Ortiz v Fischer,*91 AD3d 1006, 1006 [2012]; *Matter of Umoja v Bezio,*64 AD3d at 1066). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.

Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Kavanagh, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1996
<CASH>                                         678,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    733,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,450,169
<PP&E>                                         191,238
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,655,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          538,926
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,284
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,873,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,655,194
<SALES>                                         83,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,196
<CGS>                                           43,187
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               231,495
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (220,687)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (220,687)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (220,687)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (220,687)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (220,687)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
        



</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0561 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0561

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions and on access to vehicle repair information, amending Directive 72/306/EEC and Directive .../.../EC (COM(2005)0683 - C6-0007/2006 - 2005/0282(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 317 E , 23/12/2006 P. 0440 - 0441 *

20061223

P6_TA(2006)0561

Type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions and access to vehicle repair information ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions and on access to vehicle repair information, amending Directive 72/306/EEC and Directive .../.../EC (COM(2005)0683 — C6-0007/2006 — 2005/0282(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0683) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0007/2006),

- having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposed legal basis,

- having regard to Rules 51 and 35 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0301/2006);

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to introduce proposals in a revised framework Directive on type approval to guarantee access to detailed vehicle repair information in order to stimulate competition within the vehicle repair industry. Further, calls on the Commission to bring forward any necessary proposals to avoid duplication or double regulation between this Regulation, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector [2] and the draft Directive on the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers.

3. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

[2] OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 30.

--------------------------------------------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VICTOR DALFONSE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 235 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
{SSBLS Main Documents/8381/001/00636111-1 }

TIME PERIOD TIME KEEPER # OF HOURS VALUE AT CURRENT RATE

2012 Keith Dubanevich 33.70 $16,344.50

2012 Nadine Gartner 21.20 $6,254.00

2012 Jason Dotts 6.30 $1,417.50

2012 Project Assistant 3.90 $585.00

2013 Keith Dubanevich 379.45 $184,033.25

2013 Joshua Ross 250.35 $93,881.25

2013 Nadine Gartner 270.20 $79,709.00

2013 Jason Dotts 142.50 $32,062.50

2013 Jacob Gill 18.15 $6,806.25

2013 Project Assistant 13.00 $1,950.00

1/1/14 – 8/8/14 Keith Dubanevich 155.05 $75,199.25

1/1/14 – 8/8/14 Joshua Ross 66.35 $24,881.25

1/1/14 – 8/8/14 Nadine Gartner 270.90 $79,915.50

1/1/14 – 8/8/14 Jason Dotts 64.80 $14,580.00

1/1/14 – 8/8/14 Project Assistant 5.50 $825.00

 

 Total Value through 8/8/14: $618,444.25

TIME PERIOD TIME KEEPER # OF HOURS VALUE AT CURRENT RATE

8/9/14 – 10/1/16 All Timekeepers 

(minus 6 

timekeepers 

written off)

2,275.30 $731,252.00

 

 Total Value 2012 – 10/1/16: $1,349,696.25 (+/- 45% prior to 8/9/14)

EXHIBIT A 

Page 1 of 2

Case 3:13-cv-00776-SI Document 189-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 1 of 2
{SSBLS Main Documents/8381/001/00636111-1 }

Out of Pocket Costs:

CATEGORY AMOUNT

Messenger Services, Deliveries, Postage $337.19

Mileage, Travel, Meals $348.58

Court Fees/Filing Fees $400.00

Research Fees $1,402.17

Photocopies $479.10

Depositions, Hearing Transcripts, Witness Fees $10,561.35

Expert Fees $64,366.06

Mediation Fees $3,800.00

Outside Vendors (E-Discovery) $5,200.14

Outside Legal $8,827.50

 

Total Costs Advanced: $95,722.09 

EXHIBIT A 

Page 2 of 2

Case 3:13-cv-00776-SI Document 189-1 Filed 03/13/17 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Utility Broadband Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 26, 2021, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Utility Broadband Alliance, Inc. 
(``UBBA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Ciena, Hanover, MD; Double Radius, Indian Trail, NC; 
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA; Hawaiian Electric, Honolulu, HI; SDG&E, San Diego, 
CA; and WESCO/Anixter, Pittsburgh, PA, have been added as parties to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and UBBA intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 4, 2021, UBBA filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 10, 
2021 (86 FR 30981).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-18044 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
; ; 

# ' '·

v '

.·, ..J/J 

### tL tc-w.i 

## c/**8~ ~** **~**



### :Jo..b.-**~** 

### JL**~ ~**  .d4 t!oc4**A~** 

# i**~**

### ~·~~h~~~dJ;;.J**~ ~~(oJL-A** **~Ja...4- 4t.t.~**  

### ... i**rl~ :tL~o..~u/** **~ -~** **~~ ~(D)k~~.** 

### ~**M.s§~ 7#.~**  ...**~**

### :1~**~ (~)~~~~~.**  

## M

O

. .,... J3iJJU-;4t

### ~ 

### .;;/J**~** (D)

### ~**~,d._** 'JS

## ~.kv._~ .k

## ~~**~ ~/L.** **~~1/~~**

### -~

### 7L~k~otL.**~ Jkr~~~** **~~ ~_./~~~L4~Q._~** 

### ~(D-J.k~~~4**f~**

### t.v.W~~**~- ~4u.t~~~~~** **-~~a**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

HL/Inventory

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

EDIN ORLANDO COTO, aka Edin Coto

Edgar Mejia,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-50169

D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00643-PA-1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Edin Coto appeals the 72-month sentence imposed following his jury

conviction of being an illegal alien found in the United States after deportation in

FILED

MAR 04 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
HL/Inventory

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Coto contends that the district court erred in

determining that his prior conviction for second degree robbery in violation of

Calif. Penal Code § 211 was a "crime of violence" supporting a 16-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). As Coto concedes, this

contention is foreclosed by United States v. Becerril-Lopez, 541 F.3d 881 (9th Cir.

2008).

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**
**INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S CONSENT**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement No. 333-42153 on Form S-8 ofCHS Inc. of our report dated June 16, 2003 (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the adoption of Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 142, *Goodwill and OtherIntangible Assets* in 2002) on the consolidated financialstatements of Ventura Foods, LLC and subsidiary, appearing inthe Annual Report on Form 10-K/A-2 of CHS Inc. for the yearended August 31, 2003.
 /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP    
Los Angeles, CaliforniaFebruary 12, 2004
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A1382. ROBINSON v. THE ESTATE OF WALTER JESTER et al. 

A14A1383. MAYES v. THE ESTATE OF WALTER JESTER et al.

In these renewal actions, Walter Robinson and Eric Mayes appeal from the trial

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. While the trial court

in its orders made reference to the records in the prior civil actions that were

voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, these records have not been included in the

records on appeal, and are necessary for proper consideration of the appeals. Cf.

Petkas v. Grizzard, 252 Ga. 104, 108 (312 SE2d 107) (1984) (“Because a ruling on

the effect of the prior case may be raised on appeal, the record or portion thereof

considered by the trial court should be designated to be included in the appeal if a

party wishes to enumerate error on the ruling.”). We therefore remand these cases to

the trial court so that the records in the prior actions are made a part of the records

here on appeal. Once the records are complete, the clerk of the superior court is

directed to return the cases to this court for redocketing.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/12/2014

August 12, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                       238
<INVENTORY>                                      5,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,504
<PP&E>                                          22,821
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,449
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,605
<SALES>                                         36,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,190
<CGS>                                           16,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (90)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  85
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,547
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,698
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,849
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,849
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of Blue Rhino Corporation
and its Subsidiaries and Consolidated Affiliate as of and for the three and nine
month periods ended April 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                       <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUL-31-1999    JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            FEB-01-1999    AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-30-1999    APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                            563            563
<SECURITIES>                                        0              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,224<F1>      8,224<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0              0
<INVENTORY>                                       162            162
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,265         11,265
<PP&E>                                         14,428<F1>     14,428<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 49,534         49,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,756          8,756
<BONDS>                                             0              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0              0
<PREFERRED>                                         0              0
<COMMON>                                            8              8
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,761         24,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   49,534         49,534
<SALES>                                        11,285         29,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,890         30,552
<CGS>                                           8,551         22,317
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,653         30,089
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  570            731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 24             91
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (357)          (359)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (357)          (359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0              0
<CHANGES>                                           0              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (357)          (359)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.05)         (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05)         (0.05)

<FN>
<F1> Receivables and PP&E are presented net of allowances and accrued
depreciation.</FN>


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Goodwin, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 901] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered August 13, 2009, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention regarding the Supreme Court’s *Sandoval*ruling *(see People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see People v Jean-Louis,*74 AD3d 1093 [2010]), and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). Dillon, J.P., Florio, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.