alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Betty Kolnacki, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 103121.)

Submitted April 16, 2007;

decided June 5, 2007

Motion for reargument denied *[see*8 NY3d 277].

Judges Pigott and Jones taking no part.
#### In the Matter of David Lewin, Respondent, v Carmen Lewin, Appellant.

The parties to this contempt proceeding had been separated since October 1984 and a divorce action was pending at the time of the hearing in the Family Court.

We find no merit to the appellant’s contention that she had no notice or actual knowledge of the contents of the February 28 order of protection. The order recited that it was made on consent of all the parties, and the appellant was a party.

Likewise, we find no merit to her claim that the absence of a warning in the summons concerning possible arrest and incarceration, pursuant to Family Court Act § 846 (b), constituted a jurisdictional defect. "By contesting the contempt application on the merits and failing to object in a timely manner to the omission of the [required] notice and warning * * * [the appellant] waived the protections afforded by the *731statute” *(Matter of Rappaport,*58 NY2d 725, 726). Moreover, the appellant failed to raise any issue concerning service of process at the hearing and cannot do so for the first time on appeal (CPLR 3211 [e]).

Turning to the merits, we find all violations of the order of protection subsequent to the stillbirth of the appellant’s third child on June 7, 1985 were not willful. Moreover, several of the violations prior to that date appear to have been provoked by the petitioner’s treatment of his wife as an economic prisoner. He cannot use an order of protection as a shield when he unilaterally chooses to put his wife in the ignominious position of living her daily life without cash and having to go to the supermarket with "gift certificates”. We also find that his arrival accompanied by a woman when he came to pick up his children constituted an unnecessary provocation given his knowledge of his wife’s jealous propensities and pregnant state. We find the remaining violations were willful. However, they were insufficient to warrant a five-day jail sentence, particularly in light of the appellant’s emotional state due to her then-recent loss. Accordingly, we substitute our discretion for that of the Family Court and impose a suspended sentence.

This decision should not be interpreted as granting the appellant the right to continue to willfully violate the order of protection with impunity. Future willful violations may well warrant more severe sanctions on the part of the court. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40082 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LUIS JAVIER ASTELLO-VILLASANA,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16 -CR- 657 -1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Javier Astello

Villasana 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). Astello-Villasana ha s 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

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40082 Document: 00514114468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2017No. 17

- 40082

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-40082 Document: 00514114468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2017
# Patent

## Title
Reduction giving 3-cephem compounds

## Abstract

The present invention relates to intermediates for the preparation of prostaglandin C.sub.2 compound, for which the essential material constituting disclosure therefor is incorporated by reference here from U.S. Pat. No. 3,993,686.

## Background
## Claims

1. An optically active compound of the formula: ##STR1## or a racemic compound of that formula and the mirror image thereof, wherein E is ##STR2## in which R.sub.2 is hydrogen or lower alkyl of 1 to 4 carbon atoms, inclusive, and R.sub.1 is ##STR3## IN WHICH R.sub.3 and R.sub.4 are each hydrogen, fluoro or lower-alkyl of 1 to 4 carbon atoms, inclusive, with the proviso that R.sub.3 is fluoro only when R.sub.4 is hydrogen or fluoro; --C.sub.n H.sub.2n -- is straight chain alkylene of 1 to 5 carbon atoms, inclusive; --C.sub.m H.sub.2m -- is a valance bond or alkylene of 1 to 9 carbon atoms, inclusive, with 1 to 6 carbon atoms, inclusive, between --CH.sub.2 -- and the ring; and T is lower-alkyl of 1 to 4 carbon atoms, inclusive, fluoro, chloro, trifluoro-, methyl, or --OR.sub.2, in which R.sub.2 is hydrogen or lower-alkyl of 1 to 4 carbon atoms, inclusive, and s is 0 to 3, inclusive, with the proviso that not more than two T's are other than alkyl.

2. An optically active compound according to claim 1, wherein E is ##STR4##

3. A compound according to claim 2, wherein R.sub.1 is ##STR5## in which --C.sub.n H.sub.2n -- is trimethylene.

4. A compound according to claim 3, wherein R.sub.3 and R.sub.4 are each hydrogen.

5. A compound according to claim 3, wherein R.sub.3 is hydrogen and R.sub.4 is fluoro.

6. A compound according to claim 3, wherein R.sub.3 is hydrogen and R.sub.4 is methyl.

7. A compound according to claim 3 wherein R.sub.3 and R.sub.4 are each methyl.

8. A compound according to claim 2, wherein R.sub.1 is ##STR6## in which --C.sub.m H.sub.2m -- is methylene.

9. A compound according to claim 8 wherein s is 0.

10. An optically active compound according to claim 1, wherein E is ##STR7## in which R.sub.2 is methyl or ethyl.

11. A compound according to claim 10, wherein R.sub.1 is ##STR8## in which --C.sub.n H.sub.2n -- is trimethylene.

12. A compound according to claim 11, wherein R.sub.3 and R.sub.4 are each hydrogen.

13. A compound according to claim 11, wherein R.sub.3 is hydrogen and R.sub.4 is fluoro.

14. A compound according to claim 11, wherein R.sub.3 is hydrogen and R.sub.4 is methyl.

15. A compound according to claim 11, wherein R.sub.3 and R.sub.4 are each methyl.

16. A compound according to claim 10, wherein R.sub.1 is ##STR9## in which --C.sub.m H.sub.2m -- is methylene.

17. A compound according to claim 16, wherein s is 0.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8, No. 333-16633) pertaining to the Gargoyles, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive
Compensation Plan of our report dated January 24, 1997, with respect to the
financial statements and schedule of Gargoyles, Inc. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Seattle, Washington
March 21, 1997
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                           ARBOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION
                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED             NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                            DECEMBER 31,                   DECEMBER 31,
                                                        1996           1995             1996          1995  
                                                     -----------    ----------       ----------    ---------
    <S>                                              <C>            <C>              <C>           <C>
    Net income  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        $     1,503    $      813       $    4,114    $   1,476
                                                     ===========    ==========       ==========    =========
    Average shares outstanding  . . . . . . .             11,022         7,486           10,960        4,277
    Options   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                691         1,042              755        1,130
    Warrants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 --            14               --           29
    Convertible preferred stock   . . . . . .                 --         2,347               --        4,674
                                                     -----------    ----------       ----------    ---------
      Total common stock and common
         stock equivalents  . . . . . . . . .             11,713        10,889           11,715       10,110
                                                     ===========    ==========       ==========    =========
    Net income per share  . . . . . . . . . .        $       .13    $      .07       $      .35    $     .15
                                                     ===========    ==========       ==========    =========
</TABLE>

















                                       21
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Faustino Rosario, Appellant.

Several days after a burglary during which the complainant and another witness saw the defendant in the complainant’s ransacked apartment, the defendant was spotted by the complainant. He was then apprehended by a police officer, and after the complainant identified him in a showup at the scene, the defendant was placed under arrest. Immediately, the complainant began “rattling off things” concerning certain jewelry which had been stolen, and the defendant blurted out that he would pay for any jewelry that was missing. The defendant was then given his *Miranda*warnings. Under these circumstances, the hearing court’s finding that the defendant’s statement was spontaneous was correct. The police officer’s conduct could not reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant, and it did not trigger the statement *(see, People v Rivers,*56 NY2d 476; *People v Lynes,*49 NY2d 286).

During trial the People introduced into evidence a tire iron allegedly possessed by the defendant while he was in the complainant’s apartment and which was taken from him by a witness to the crime. The defendant objected to the introduction of the tire iron into evidence and moved for a mistrial after its admission on the ground that the People had not previously disclosed its existence to the defense, even though the People had agreed to voluntarily comply with CPL 240.20, and had been aware of its existence at least by the beginning of trial. While the People may have breached their continuing duty of disclosure under CPL 240.60, the drastic sanction of preclusion or a mistrial was inappropriate since the defendant *684did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the introduction of the tire iron into evidence, and could not claim surprise because the tire iron was obtained from him by one of the eyewitnesses *(see, People v Kehn,*109 AD2d 912; *People v Wiese,*97 AD2d 903). In any event, in view of the overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt, the error, if any, was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230).

Finally, the defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender *(see, People v Anderson,*100 AD2d 937; *People v O’Brien,*56 NY2d 1009). Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
# L_2010252EN.01014501.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 252/145 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 252/145

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 5 May 2010

on the closure of the accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2008

(2010/519/EU)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2008,

having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the final annual accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2008, together with the Centre’s replies (1),

having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 16 February 2010 (5827/2010 — C7-0061/2010),

having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (2), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 851/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 establishing a European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (3), and in particular Article 23 thereof,

having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (4), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0104/2010),

| 1. | Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for the financial year 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this Decision to the Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The President

Jerzy BUZEK

The Secretary-General

Klaus WELLE

---

(1)  
  OJ C 304, 15.12.2009, p. 112.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

4

---
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Murray R. Gold

*Victor M. Ferrante*and, of the New York bar, *William M. Kunstler,*in support of the motion.

Submitted February 25

decided March 7, 1975

The defendant’s “Motion to Expedite Review of Bail by Waiving Finding and Proceeding on the Transcript” in the appeal from the Superior Court for the judicial district of Waterbury is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19483]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit 
comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to 
the Secretary by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e0b38583928594819299a0868d83ce878f96"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="590a3c3a2b3c2d382b20193f343a773e362f">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, Federal 
Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Comments will be most 
helpful to the Commission if received within 12 days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of agreement are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c080e1d18191d121d10050f150f3c1a111f521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f28680939697939c939e8b819b81b2949f91dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 012474-002.
    Agreement Name: ONE/ELJSA Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Ocean Network Express Pte. Ltd.; and Evergreen Line Joint 
Service Agreement.
    Filing Party: Joshua Stein; Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The amendment would revise the agreement to reduce the 
total amount of space that will be provided by ONE to ELJSA and change 
the service that such space will be provided on to the FP1 service. The 
amendment would also revise the agreement to replace references to NYK 
with ONE and delete provisions of the agreement relating to the now 
complete transition to ONE. The parties request expedited review.
    Proposed Effective Date: 10/16/2021.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/1972.

    Dated: September 3, 2021.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-19483 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Rosita Mapoy, Respondent, v James Johnson, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries to a pedestrian arising out of an automobile *455collision, the defendant James Johnson appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.), dated August 20, 1985, as denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against him.

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

The appellant failed to submit adequate proof to sustain his burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Brown v Visan Fuel Oil Co.,*114 AD2d 396; *Savage v Delacruz,*100 AD2d 707).

Under these circumstances, we do not reach the issue of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposing papers *(see, Brown v Visan Fuel Oil Co., supra).*Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
#### Mitchell *v.*The State.

Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court.

Tried before tbe ITon. Wn. S. Anderson.

Jno. E. Mitchell, for appellant.

Chas. G. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State.

Tbe appellant was indicted, tried and convicted for burglary, and sentenced to tbe penitentiary for five years.

The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion by

McClellan, C. J.
ID OUTCOME FROM TWG Comments/Concerns 

PA #6 Okay to defer Mary B – this is probably wise 

to defer according to what 

Helen said about PEPs 

Exp Flows #4 Defer until Jeff provides more 

information 

Bill Davis – concerns with 

wanting the work done. 

C3 Integ. Activities Okay to defer 

E4 – Admin & gmt. Deferring the recreation PEP 

Yes = 10 

No = 5 

Abstaining = 2 

Okay to defer the 

socioeconomic PEP 

F6, Tech Support Svcs. Okay to defer Jeff- Only if we can’t get the 

sensor or permit 

HBC #8 Okay to defer but they will attempt 

to do in 04 or early in 05 with 

assistance from BOR 

Lisa – concerned about 

anything to do with HBC. Is 

there a way not to defer? 

Jeff – we will do as soon as 

possible in FY05. 

Randy P – it’s not just 

GCMRC that needs the 

expertise to do RFP. We 

could have people in Denver 

develop the RFP and send to 

GCMRC for review. 

HBC #15 Okay to defer 

HBC #17 Okay to defer
#### CLOTHIER, Respondent, v. ALDRICH et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Elmer E. Clothier, an infant, by guardian ad litem, against Isaac A. Aldrich and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
WILLIAMS FORK RESERVOIRLatitude: 40.035Longitude: -106.205Elevation: None

WILLIAMS FORK RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Fork Camp Site Page...



Middle Fork Camp

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Loveland Basin Site Page...



Loveland Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Jones Pass Site Page...



Jones Pass
Page 1 – DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE 

INVESTIGATION OF FBI USE OF FORCE AND COVER-UP IN THE 

FINICUM SHOOTING

HOEVET OLSON HOWES, PC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1000 S.W. BROADWAY, #1500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97205

(503) 228-0497

Per C. Olson, OSB #933863

HOEVET OLSON HOWES, PC 

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1500

Portland, Oregon 97205

Telephone: (503) 228-0497

Facsimile: (503) 228-7112

Email: per@hoevetlaw.com

Of Attorneys for Defendant 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID LEE FRY,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-CR-00051-13-BR

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE 

INVESTIGATION OF FBI USE OF 

FORCE AND COVER-UP IN THE 

FINICUM SHOOTING

Certificate of Conferral: Counsel for David Fry hereby certifies that he has 

conferred with AUSA Ethan Knight about this motion and the relief sought. The 

government opposes this motion.

Defendant David Fry, through his attorney Per C. Olson, and on behalf of all 

defendants, moves this Court to compel production of reports developed in the 

investigation by the United States Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, 

and by the Tri-County Major Incident Team, into members of the FBI Hostage Rescue 

Team present at the shooting death of LeVoy Finicum on January 26, 2016.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 700 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 – DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE 

INVESTIGATION OF FBI USE OF FORCE AND COVER-UP IN THE 

FINICUM SHOOTING

HOEVET OLSON HOWES, PC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1000 S.W. BROADWAY, #1500

PORTLAND, OREGON 97205

(503) 228-0497

This motion is based on Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures, the 

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the 

Confrontation and Compulsory Process Clauses of the Sixth Amendment.

This motion is supported by the Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion 

to Compel Production of the Investigation of FBI Use of Force and Cover-up in the 

Finicum Shooting, filed today. Defendant also relies upon and incorporates the 

discussion of legal authorities and argument in co-defendant Jon Ritzheimer’s Motion to 

Compel Production of Information Regarding Law Enforcement’s Use and Display of 

Force, filed today. (Document 697 & 698).

DATED this 14th day of June, 2016.

HOEVET OLSON HOWES, PC

 /s Per C. Olson

Per C. Olson, OSB 933863

Attorney for Defendant David Fry

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 700 Filed 06/14/16 Page 2 of 2