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

— Harris, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Lomanto, J.), rendered July 24, 1984, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

The issue on appeal is whether defendant’s plea of guilty should be set aside on the ground that it was not voluntarily and intelligently entered into by him. Defendant asserts that the terms of the plea bargain were not made clear to him and that he was under duress at the time he pleaded guilty. Defendant’s plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree was made in full satisfaction of the numerous charges pending against him.

It is well established that a defendant must have knowledge and understanding of the consequences of his plea and that a plea may be vacated if it was coerced or the defendant’s knowledge of the consequences was not adequately explored *(Matter of Chaipis v State Liq. Auth.,*44 NY2d 57, 63-64; *see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 17). Defendant asserts that at the time he agreed to the plea arrangement it was not clear whether the charges pending against him in Schenectady County were covered by the plea. However, in response to defendant’s inquiry about the Schenectady County charges, County Court clarified any doubts by unequivocally responding "yes> they are dropped”. Further, defendant has not alleged that he has been prosecuted on those charges and, thus, even assuming there was an ambiguity, defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced by it.

Defendant’s argument that he was coerced to accept the plea is apparently based on his contention that County Court set his bail excessively high which prevented him from visiting his terminally ill mother. This argument is belied by the fact that the record is devoid of any evidence indicating that the court was aware of the condition of defendant’s mother prior to the time defendant accepted the plea agreement. Indeed, there is every indication that defendant had made *863tentative arrangements to meet bail by the time his plea was entered. He could have thus refrained from entering his guilty plea and proceeded with a bail application. Upon review of the record, and particularly the plea colloquy, it is evident that defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement (see, *People v Price,*105 AD2d 557, 559).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# C_2009308EN.01000301.xml

| 18.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5686 — Vitol Holding/Petroplus Refining Antwerp/Petroplus Refining Antwerp Bitumen)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 308/03

On 9 December 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5686. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5686. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1646 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1646

 To repeal a provision of law preventing donation by the Secretary of 
  the Navy of the two remaining Iowa-class battleships listed on the 
            Naval Vessel Register and related requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1998

     Mr. Lautenberg (for himself, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Bumpers) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal a provision of law preventing donation by the Secretary of 
  the Navy of the two remaining Iowa-class battleships listed on the 
            Naval Vessel Register and related requirements.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Historic Battleship Preservation 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR CONTINUED LISTING OF TWO IOWA-CLASS 
              BATTLESHIPS ON THE NAVAL VESSEL REGISTER.

    Section 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 421) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10491

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FELIPE PINON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-87-1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Felipe Pinon has moved for leave to 

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Pinon has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10491 Document: 00514040128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
No. 16-10491

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-10491 Document: 00514040128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
#### In the Matter of William Walker, Petitioner, v Norman R. Bezio, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 905]

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

Petitioner missed his library call out and was found in his cell. As a result, he was charged in a misbehavior report with violating facility movement regulations. Following a tier II disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of the charge and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report provides substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Williams v Fischer,*92 AD3d 1053, 1054 [2012]; *Matter of Joseph v LaClair,*89 AD3d 1298 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 809 [2012]). Although petitioner maintained that he never received the call out at issue, this presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Povoski v Fischer,*93 AD3d 963 [2012]; *Matter of Joseph v LaClair,*89 AD3d at 1298). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have not been preserved for our review due to his failure to raise them either at the hearing or in his administrative appeal.

Peters, P.J., Mercure, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
EXHIBIT 10.2


 


AMENDMENT TO ORLEANS HOMEBUILDERS, INC.

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


 


Effective as of December 4, 2008 or such other date or dates as
specified herein


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of
Orleans Homebuilders, Inc. (the “Company”) has determined that it is
appropriate to amend the Orleans Homebuilders, Inc. Supplemental Executive
Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) in order to clarify the manner in which years of
participation are to be calculated for certain purposes and to modify the
manner in which certain benefit accruals are determined; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company has the right, pursuant to Section 10
of the Plan, to amend the Plan, subject to certain limitations not applicable
here;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as
follows:


 


1.                                      A new Section 2.26
is hereby added to the Plan (and Sections 2.26 and 2.27 of the Plan are hereby
redesignated as Sections 2.27 and 2.28, respectively) in order to clarify the
vesting provisions of the Plan as originally intended, to read:


 


“2.26                     “Year of Participation,” as
that phrase is used in the Plan, whether or not capitalized, means each year of
actual participation in the Plan, measured in all cases by taking into accounts
only those periods during which the Participant was designated as a
Participant, which cannot, therefore, commence prior to September 1, 2005,
the Effective Date of the Plan, an shall be interpreted so that the earliest
date as of which a Participant can be credited with five (5) Years of
Participation shall be September 1, 2010.”


 


2.                                      In all other
respects, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


 


 


	
   

  	
  ORLEANS HOMEBUILDERS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ MICHAEL T. VESEY
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1819 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exception for 

certain public-private research arrangements from the business use test 

for purposes of determining private activity bonds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2015 

Mr. LIPINSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an exception for certain public-private research arrangements from the business use test for purposes of determining private activity bonds. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO BUSINESS USE TEST FOR CER4 TAIN PUBLIC-PRIVATE RESEARCH ARRANGE5 MENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 141(b) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following new paragraph: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1819 IH

1 ‘‘(10) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN RESEARCH AR2 RANGEMENTS.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) shall 

4 not apply to an issue if the proceeds of such 

5 issue are to be used under an arrangement re6 lating to basic research at a facility— 

7 ‘‘(i) owned by a governmental unit or 

8 a 501(c)(3) organization, and 

9 ‘‘(ii) the governmental unit or a 

10 501(c)(3) organization enters into a bona 

11 fide, arm’s-length contractual arrangement 

12 with a person other than a governmental 

13 unit or a 501(c)(3) organization regarding 

14 the terms for sharing the economic benefits 

15 of any products resulting from basic re16 search, including arrangements in which 

17 those economic terms (such as exclusive or 

18 non-exclusive licenses of intellectual prop19 erty and licensing fees or royalty rates) are 

20 determined in advance at the time the par21 ties enter into the contractual arrange22 ment. 

23 ‘‘(B) BASIC RESEARCH.—For purposes of 

24 subparagraph (A), the term ‘basic research’ 

25 means any original investigation for the adVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:22 Apr 21, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1819.IH H1819

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1819 IH

1 vancement of scientific knowledge not having a 

2 specific commercial objective.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) shall apply to research agreements entered 

5 into after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Curtis Brown, Appellant.

The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress the self-incriminatory statements he made to the law enforcement authorities. The proof adduced at the hearing established, under the totality of the circumstances, that the defendant made the statements voluntarily after he knowingly and intelligently waived his *Miranda*rights *(see, People v Anderson,*42 NY2d 35; *People v Woods,*89 AD2d 1022). Further, the identification of the defendant at the hospital was not an independent procedure, but rather was a prompt confirmation of the prior spontaneous identification made by the complainant at the scene to the arresting officer and, as such, was not impermissibly suggestive *(see, People v Higgs,*111 AD2d 410).

Finally, we perceive no merit to the defendant’s claim that his sentence was unduly harsh and excessive, and therefore we will not substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.
Overview of Reclamatio

FY 15-17 Budget

Katrina Grantz Bureau of Reclamation Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program Technical Work Group June 14, 2016 
GCDAMP Triennial Budget Proc

Fiscal Years 2015-2017 

Sec. Designee Anne Castle May 7, 2014 memo

– Develop a three year budget and work plan for the 

for fiscal years 2015-2017 

– Revise and update the biennial budget developme

timeline and process to a triennial process 

– Organize the FY2015-17 TWP around: 

• The four DFCs: Colorado River Ecosystem, Cultura

Resources, Recreation, and Hydropower 

• TWG recommendations • A need to be responsive to the outcomes of the GC

EIS 

2 
Where are we in the TWP Proce

FY 14 • Heavy lifting, the 

FY15-17 TWP - good news, its done! 

FY 15 • Easy times, revie

and approve FY year of the TWP 

FY 16 • Some work to do, do 

we need to changeanything? 

FY 17 • Heavy lifting, dev

the FY 18-20 TW

3 
GCDAMP Budget FY 15-17

GCDAMP Budget Power Revenues 

FY 15 = $10,755,000 (1.7% CPI) (budgeted 

Reclamation = $2,083,000 (-$27,000GCMRC = $8,672,000 (-$110,00

FY 16 = $10,755,000 (0% CPI) 

Reclamation = $2,083,000 GCMRC = $8,672,000 

FY 17 = $10,755,000 (assuming 0% CPI)

Reclamation = $2,083,000GCMRC = $8,672,000 

4 
5 

GCDAMP Budget FY 15-17

Native Fish Conservation Contingency 

“The goal of this budget item is to ensure thfunds are available for nonnative fish controevent this conservation action is needed for endangered humpback chub.” 

FY 15 = $ 824,079 FY 16 = $1,065,000FY 17 = $1,595,000

7
Page 1

Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group

June 21, 2012

Water Year 2013 Hydrograph TWG Motion

Motion requested: TWG recommends to the AMWG to recommend to the Secretary of the 

Interior his approval of the DOI-DOE Proposed Hydrograph for Water Year 2013 as follows:

 Monthly Release Volumes will be adjusted each month based on the most current forecast 

of the annual release required by the 2007 Interim Guidelines. 

 Monthly Release Volumes are anticipated to vary within the targets identified for each 

month as set forth below. This monthly operational flexibility will be used for existing power 

production operations under the Modified Low Fluctuating Flow (MLFF) alternative 

selected by the 1996 ROD and contained in the 1995 FEIS. The targeted operation will also 

be adjusted as necessary to accommodate a targeted release volume for the month of August 

2013 based on the schedule below: 

January: August 2012 Volume target set to greater of 800 kaf or 10% remaining 

annual release volume. 

February: August 2012 Volume target set to greater of 800 kaf or 10% remaining 

annual release volume. 

March: August 2012 Volume target set to greater of 800 kaf or 12% remaining 

annual release volume. 

April: August 2012 Volume target set to greater of 800 kaf or 15% remaining 

annual release volume. 

May: August 2012 Volume target set to greater of 800 kaf or 20% remaining 

annual release volume. 

June: August 2012 Volume target set to greater of 800 kaf or 25% remaining 

annual release volume. 

July: August 2012 Volume target set to greater of 800 kaf or 40% remaining 

annual release volume. 

August: Release volume established as 100% of remaining annual release volume 

(release could be less than 800 kaf in some cases). 

Remaining Annual Release Volume - will be computed as the projected WY2013 annual 

release volume pursuant to the Interim Guidelines less volume already released in 

WY2013 less the September 2013 release target volume (below). 

The 2013 September Release Target Volume - will be adjusted with the forecast to:

600 kaf/month for annual releases at or below 9.0 maf 

700 kaf/month for annual release above 9.0 maf up to 10.0 maf

 800 kaf/month for annual release above 10.0 maf up to 11.0 maf

900 kaf/month for annual release above 11.0 maf up to 12.0 maf

Up to powerplant capacity for high equalization releases
Water Year 2013 Hydrograph, continued

Page 2

 Monthly release volumes will be modified each month in consultation with Western Area 

Power Administration. 

 Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation will continue to apply best professional judgment in 

conducting actual operations and in response to changing conditions throughout the water 

year. Such efforts will continue to be undertaken in coordination with the DOI/DOE 

agencies to consider changing conditions and adjust projected operations in a manner 

consistent with the objectives of these parameters as stated above and pursuant to the Law 

of the River.
Kathryn Tassinari, OSB # 80115 

Mark A. Manning, OSB # 00311 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. 

474 Willamette Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

kathrynt50@comcast.net 

Of Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DANA L. MERRITT, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER, 

Social Security Administration 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

-----~D~e~t~en~d~a~n~t-~ __ ) 

Case No. 6: l 6-cv-00244-CL 

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY 

FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA & COSTS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 1920 

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $4,559.20 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and costs of $400.00, for the filing fee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1920. 

Payment of this award shall be paid via check made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's 

attorneys at Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C .. 474 Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 

97401. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, the award shall be made payable to Plaintiff's attorneys, 

Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C., if the Commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt 

to the government through the federal treasury offset program. There are no expenses to be paid 

herein. 

6' 

Dated this __ U~-- day of January 2018. ··' 

PRESENTED BY: 

s/ Kathryn Tassinari 

Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P .C. 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

~r,,.··· 

.~/ 

~// 

,,,·-·'·"' / 

~~ 

~·
#### BRUSH v. BLOT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 30, 1896.)

1. Appeal—Dismissal.

The failure of appellant to procure the case to be settled and signed by the judge is not ground for dismissal, as appellant may appeal on the judgment • roll alone,, and would be entitled to a reversal if any error appears on that record.

*2.*Same—Practice—Correcting Records.

Time may be granted appellant to correct the record so as to show that the case has been settled and signed by the court.

Appeal from trial term, Westchester county.

Action by Edward F. Brush against Arthur F. Blot. From a judgment for plaintiff, entered on a verdict, defendant appeals.

Affirmed conditionally.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.

Frank L. Young, for appellant.

Roger M. Sherman, for respondent.

CULLEN, J.

Rule 35, General Rules of Practice, requires the appellant’s attorney to procure the case as settled to be signed by the judge; otherwise, the case is to be deemed abandoned. The *762record before us does not show that the case was ever settled or signed by the trial judge. As the respondent raises the objection, we are of opinion that the case cannot be considered on this appeal. But we think that the appeal cannot be dismissed for this reason, as intimated in Rothschild v. Railroad Co., 9 App. Div. 406, 41 N. Y. Supp. 293, for the appellant may appeal on the judgment roll alone, and, if any fatal error appears on that record, he would be entitled to a reversal of the judgment appealed from. No error appears on the face of the judgment roll before us, and it follows that,- should we now decide this appeal, the judgment must be affirmed. But it is plain from the brief and argument that the appellant relies solely on errors claimed to have been committed on the trial, and it may be that the case has been settled and signed, and the only defect is the failure of the record to show such fact. We think, therefore, that the appellant should have an opportunity to correct his error.

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs, unless within 30 days the appellant causes the case to be signed and settled; or, if such has been done, he cause the record to be amended so as to show the fact, and he pay the respondent $10 costs and disbursements of this appeal, in which case the cause may be reargued or submitted. All concur.