alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of City of Newburgh, Petitioner, v Arthur Y. Webb, as Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability, Respondent.

— Mikoll, J.

Petitioner seeks review of a determination of respondent which approved, after a hearing, the establishment of a community residence for mentally retarded adults at South and Wilson Streets in the City of Newburgh, Orange County. Petitioner contends that respondent’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence and that the failure of petitioner to initiate review proceedings under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (ECL 8-0109 [4]) prior to making a decision on site selection requires annulment of the determination. We disagree. The determination should be confirmed and the petition dismissed.

In the approval of a site over the objections of a municipality, respondent is required to consider the need for the facility in the municipality and the existing concentration of similar *372facilities in that municipality or in the area in proximity to the site selected. He shall sustain the objection if he finds "that the nature and character of the area in which the facility is to be based would be substantially altered as a result of establishment of the facility” (Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c] [5]).

Petitioner argues that there was a failure to show that there is a need for the facility within the city and that it is not enough to show the need for such a facility in Orange County. This argument lacks merit. The record demonstrates a need for the facility in the city as well as the county. Moreover, the city is included in the county and, therefore, to show a need in the county necessarily establishes the required need for the facility in the city.

Petitioner contends that placement of the facility in the city will result in an overconcentration in the city. However, this contention is not supported by the record. Family care homes are not "community residences” and are not to be considered as "similar facilities” within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5) *(see, Matter of Village of Newark v Introne,*84 AD2d 936, 937; *Matter of City of Schenectady v Coughlin,*74 AD2d 985, 986).

Petitioner offered insufficient evidence that the establishment of the facility on the proposed site would substantially alter the nature and character of the area. There is adequate evidence in the record to support respondent’s conclusion that the nature and character of the area will not be substantially altered *(see, Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Westbury v Prevost,*96 AD2d 1100, *lv denied*62 NY2d 602; *Grasmere Homeowners Assn. v Introne,*84 AD2d 778, 779).

Finally, we agree with respondent’s contention that site approval under SEQRA is not a precondition to site selection and approval under Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34. Consequently, petitioner’s objection on such ground at this point is premature.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral Partner.By:/s/ Donna UrbainName:Donna UrbainTitle:Principal Financial Officer with respect to Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.Date:March 19, 2008
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
 Fargo, North Dakota
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Corey  Malko
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        IT Specialist
                        Phone: (701) 367-2450
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
(18 Misc. Rep. 359.)

#### GOMBOSSY v. KATZ.

(City Court of New York,

General Term.

October 30, 1896.)

• Payment of Rouged Note—Recovery.

The maker of a negotiable note, paying the amount thereof under the mistake that the note surrendered by the payee, to whom the payment was made, was genuine, whereas it was in fact a forgery, may recover the amount of the payment.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Max Gombossy against Theo. Katz. From an interlocutory judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before VAN WYCK, C. J., and FITZSIMONS and SCHTJCHMAN, JJ.

Henry M. Goldfogle, for appellant.

Herb. J. Hindes, for respondent.

VAN WYCK, C. J.

The ground'of defendant’s demurrer was that facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action were not stated in the complaint, which alleged that plaintiff had executed and delivered four of his certain promissory notes in the aggregate sum of $740 to defendant for value; that thereafter he paid the sum of $755.40, principal and interest of such notes, to defendant, who simultaneously handed to plaintiff four promissory notes purporting to be, and which plaintiff believed to be, his genuine four above-mentioned notes, but which were in fact four notes to which his (plaintiff’s) signatures as maker and payee indorser were forged; that he demanded a return of this $755.40 from defendant, no part of which has been paid, and prays for judgment for said sum, with interest thereon from the day upon which he so paid it to defendant. The plaintiff’s genuine notes originally delivered to defendant were negotiable instruments, and a bona fide purchaser of them from defendant before maturity and for value could sue plaintiff, and recover the full face value thereof, notwithstanding that plaintiff had already paid defendant, believing that he was fully paying and receiving these original notes. The plaintiff’s action is to recover money paid under mistake. Money paid under mistake of fact may be recovered, however negligent the party may have been in making the mistake, unless the payment has caused a change in the position of the other party that would be unjust to require him to refund. Payments on forged paper are based upon the ground of being made by mistake, and the party may recover back the amóunt. Edw. Neg. Inst. § 276. This defendant is the alleged fraudulent utterer of the forged paper, and is called upon to answer, denying this allegation of forgery, or fully explaining the illegality of his alleged transactions in the matter.

The interlocutory judgment overruling defendant’s demurrer is affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to answer within six days upon payment of the costs as fixed by the judgment below, and of the costs of this affirmance. All concur.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42002

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

BARRY WAYNE PATE ,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 648

Filed: August 6, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified sentence s of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years , for o ne count of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen

, and ten years

, with a minimum period of confinement of four years

, for one count of sexual abuse of a child under sixteen

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Chief, Appellate Unit, Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Barry Wayne Pate pled guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen,

Idaho Code § 18

- 1508 , and one count of sexual abuse of a child under sixteen, I

. C

. § 18

- 1506

. The district court sentenced Pate to consecutive unified sentences of ten years with five years

determinate on the lewd conduct charge, and ten years with four years determinate on the sexual

abuse of a child charge

. Pate appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by

imposing excessive sentences

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and2 need not be repeat ed here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When rev iewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abus ed its discretion.

Therefore, Pate ’s judgment of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
Case: 1:03-cr-00320 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 03/27/03 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1
Case: 1:03-cr-00320 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 03/27/03 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2
Case: 1:03-cr-00320 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 03/27/03 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3
Case: 1:03-cr-00320 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 03/27/03 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         7436952
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       158556058
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               5220000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   61010880
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        60705609
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           6101880
<LOANS>                                      116244188
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (1041367)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               199335199
<DEPOSITS>                                   177834985
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1006430
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       5843165
<OTHER-SE>                                    14650619
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               199335199
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2436585
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               865734
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                107605
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3409924
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1620191
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1789733
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    70000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1358623
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 667868
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      667868
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    503868
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.28
<LOANS-NON>                                      51123
<LOANS-PAST>                                   1182518
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1011935
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    41744
<RECOVERIES>                                      1177
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1041367
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1041367
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        




</TABLE>
KENNETH L. SPARKMAN, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICf COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICf OF OREGON 

CASE# 14-CV-1500-MC 

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant. ) ______________ ) 

THIS MATIER having come before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the matter and 

the Court being fully advised of the premises; 

. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the matter herein shall be dismissed and closed. 

Respectfully submitted this~r7'--'-- day of _V1_V1._6...._r_c:.--_L __ _, 2015 

'-----

Han. Judge Michael J. McShane 

Presiding Judge 

Case 1:14-cv-01500-MC Document 11 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2      Section 906 - CFO Certification

                            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 Patriot Bank Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James G. Blume, 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 in
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ JAMES G. BLUME
--------------------------
James G. Blume
Chief Financial Officer
August 11, 2003

                                       32
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47738-47740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18333]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Actions

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more 
applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: See Supplementary Information section for effective date(s).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Bradley Smith, Acting Director, 
tel.: 202-622-2480; Associate Director for Global Targeting, tel.: 202-
622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 202-622-2480; 
Assistant Director for Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202-622-4855; or the 
Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202-
622-2490.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and 
additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available 
on OFAC's website (www.treasury.gov/ofac).

Notice of OFAC Action

    On March 2, 2021, OFAC determined that the property and interests 
in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are 
blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.

Individuals

BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 47739]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AU21.016


[[Page 47740]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AU21.017


    Dated: March 2, 2021.
Bradley T. Smith,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of 
the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2021-18333 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C
#### In the Matter of Michael Owen He’ron, Appellant, v Office of the District Attorney, Bronx County, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 466]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking, inter alia, to compel respondent to provide the records of criminal convictions and/or pending charges against one George Santos, a purported witness at petitioner’s 1980 murder trial, which petitioner sought through a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent satisfied the requirements of Public Officers Law § 89 (3) by certifying that a diligent search had been conducted and the documents could not be located in respondent’s files *(see Matter of Rattley v New York City Police Dept.,*96 NY2d 873 [2001]; *Matter of Alicea v New York City Police Dept.,*287 AD2d 286 [2001]). An agency is not required to create records in order to comply with a FOIL request (Public Officers Law § 89 [3]; *see Matter of Data Tree, LLC v Romaine,*9 NY3d 454, 464 [2007]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Roman JJ.
#### UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY of AMERICA *v.*Frances EDWARDS

04-468

205 S.W.3d 126

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 10, 2005

*151*Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A.,*by: *David Donovan,*for appellant.

*Tony L. Wilcox;*and *On, Scholtens, Willhite & Averitt PLC,*by: *Tony L. Wilcox,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Unum) appeals the decision of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying a motion for directed verdict in Unum’s favor on a tort claim for bad faith, refusing to bifurcate or continue the trial, allowing certain testimony, and awarding penalty and attorney’s fees on a disability claim to Ms. Frances Edwards.

We do not reach the merits of Unum’s case because of its failure to comply with our addendum requirements. *See*Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1 and 4-2 (2004). We may raise issues of deficiencies *sua sponte.*Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2004). The addendum did not contain the numerous pleadings including, but not limited to: Unum’s motion and brief for partial summary judgment; Edwards’s response to Unum’s motion and brief for partial summary judgment; Unum’s reply to Edwards’s response to motion for partial summary judgment; and, Edwards’s supplement to her response to Unum’s motion for partial summary judgment. Again, we emphasize that these pleadings are merely some examples and are not exhaustive of the deficiencies.

It is a practical impossibility for seven justices to examine a single record filed with this court, and we will not do so. *City of Dover v. City of Russellville,*351 Ark. 557, 95 S.W.3d 808 (2003). Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that the addendum *shall*include true and legible photocopies of, among other things, the relevant pleadings, documents, and exhibits that are essential to an understanding of the case and the court’s jurisdiction on appeal. In the absence of the pleadings and motions on which the trial court based its decision, it is impossible for the court to make an informed decision on the merits of this case.

Here, Unum has provided a flagrantly deficient addendum. Because the brief fails to include the relevant documents and pleadings, this court finds it to be deficient such that we cannot reach the merits of the case. Unum has fifteen days from the date *152of this opinion to file a substituted addendum to conform to Rule 4-2 (a) (8). *See*In re: Modification of the Abstracting System — Amendments to Supreme Court Rule 2-3, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4, 345 Ark. Appx. 626 (2001) (per curiam); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2004). If Unum fails to file a complying addendum within the prescribed time, the judgment may be affirmed for noncompliance with the Rule. *Id.*After service of the substituted brief on the appellee, the appellee shall have an opportunity to file a responsive brief in the time prescribed by the Supreme Court Clerk, or to rely upon the appellee’s brief that was previously filed in this appeal. *See*Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3); *Moon v. Holloway,*353 Ark. 520, 110 S.W.3d 250 (2003).