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

Memorandum: Defendant was arrested based on information given to a police officer by the victim of a larceny. This officer transmitted the victim’s information and defendant was arrested less than 10 minutes later by another officer receiving the dispatch. Defendant challenged his warrantless arrest and a suppression hearing was held. At the hearing the People produced only the victim, who testified as to the detailed description he gave of his assailant to a police officer; that the officer drove away, and the witness saw him reach for his police radio; that less than 10 minutes later, a different police officer brought defendant to the scene and the victim identified him as the man who tried to rob his car. The suppression court found that this testimony was sufficient to prove that there was probable cause for defendant’s arrest, and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. This was error.

When an arrest is made on the basis of a police radio broadcast, the sender’s knowledge is imputed to the receiver and the receiver is presumed to possess probable cause. Once the defendant challenges the police action, however, "the presumption of probable cause disappears and the knowledge of the sender may no longer be imputed to the officer” *(People v Landy,*59 NY2d 369, 375; *People v Lypka,*36 NY2d 210, 213-214). To sustain their burden, the People must establish that the sender actually possessed the requisite knowledge, and to accomplish this it is incumbent upon the People to produce the sending officer *(People v Havelka,*45 NY2d 636, 641). The People must prove "the content of the bulletin upon which the police acted, as opposed to its basis or source” *(People v Dodt,*61 NY2d 408, 416). In this case, although the People proved the basis for the dispatch through the victim’s testimony, they *1025wholly failed to prove the contents of the bulletin itself. Therefore, defendant’s motion should have been granted. Because the People were given a full and fair opportunity to present evidence of probable cause and failed, through their own neglect, to fulfill their burden, they are not entitled to another opportunity *(People v Payton,*51 NY2d 169, 177; *People v Ferguson,*115 AD2d 615).

Defendant is not entitled to a dismissal of the indictment. Although the victim’s testimony that he identified defendant at a showup and the physical evidence resulting from a search of defendant must be suppressed at the retrial, the People may still be able to prove a prima facie case with the victim’s in-court identification of defendant. The hearing court found that the victim had an adequate independent basis for his identification of defendant, and this finding has not been challenged on appeal. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Pine, J. — criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
[866 NE2d 448, 834 NYS2d 503]

#### Lottie Branham, Appellant, v Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Decided April 3, 2007

*932APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Dubow & Smith,*Bronx *(Michael Dubow*of counsel), for appellant.

*Congdon, Flaherty, O’Callaghan, Reid, Donlon, Travis & Fishlinger,*Uniondale *(Kathleen D. Foley*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The Appellate Division order should be affirmed with costs and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must on defendant’s motion for summary judgment *(see Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P.,*7 NY3d 96 [2006]), defendant Loews demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. In opposition, plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence that Loews had actual or constructive notice of the transient obstruction — a boy sitting in the aisle — or that the lighting in the theater was inadequate *(see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp.,*84 NY2d 967 [1994]; *Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836 [1986]; *see also Gilson v Metropolitan Opera,*5 NY3d 574 [2005]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.
<PAGE>

                     AMENDMENT NO. 2 (THE "AMENDMENT") TO
                         EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
        UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC. ("UNIVISION") AND HENRY CISNEROS,
              (AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED, THE "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT") 

                               January 1, 1999

To:  Mr. Henry Cisneros
     c/o Univision Communications Inc.

Dear Henry:

     Your Employment Agreement will expire on December 31, 2000 (the "Term"). 
Univision desires to extend the Term for an additional one year period.  You 
and we hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

     1.  TERM.  The Term is hereby extended for an additional one year 
period.  The Employment Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2001, unless 
earlier terminated in accordance with the terms set forth in the Employment 
Agreement.

     2.  SALARY.  Your annual Base Salary rate shall be: Six Hundred Thousand 
Dollars ($600,000) for calendar year 1999;  Six Hundred Thousand Dollars 
($600,000) for calendar year 2000; and Six Hundred Thousand Dollars 
($600,000) for calendar year 2001. 

     3.  OTHER.  Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and 
conditions set forth in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force 
and effect, and the parties hereby ratify and confirm the Employment 
Agreement, as amended hereby.

     4.  EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT.  Upon its execution by you and 
Univision, this Amendment shall become effective as of the date first written 
above.

     5.  EXCLUSIVITY.  During the Term, you shall not directly or indirectly 
enter into any discussions or negotiations with anyone other than Univision 
for the performance of services by  you after the expiration of the Term.  
You will negotiate in good faith exclusively with Univision if Univision 
elects to seek an extension or renewal of your Employment Agreement prior to 
the expiration of the Term.

     Please indicate your agreement to this Amendment to the Employment 
Agreement by signing in the space provided below.

                                       UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC.

                                       By: /s/ George W. Blank
                                          -----------------------
                                           George W. Blank
                                           Chief Financial Officer

I have read the preceding Amendment and agree to its terms and conditions:


/s/ Henry Cisneros
----------------------
Henry Cisneros
RIO GRANDE AT OTOWI BRIDGE, NMLatitude: 35.875Longitude: -106.142Elevation: 5501

RIO GRANDE AT OTOWI BRIDGE, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ute Creek Site Page...



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tres Ritos Site Page...



Tres Ritos

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Powderhorn Site Page...



Taos Powderhorn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Shuree Site Page...



Shuree

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Palo Site Page...



Palo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Garita Peak Site Page...



Garita Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rio Santa Barbara Site Page...



Rio Santa Barbara

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Pueblo Site Page...



Taos Pueblo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Alcalde Site Page...



Alcalde

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bateman Site Page...



Bateman

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chamita Site Page...



Chamita

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Culebra #2 Site Page...



Culebra #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gallegos Peak Site Page...



Gallegos Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hopewell Site Page...



Hopewell

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Costilla Site Page...



North Costilla

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quemazon Site Page...



Quemazon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red River Pass #2 Site Page...



Red River Pass #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Ck Site Page...



Whiskey Ck

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe
#### Albert LaPorta et al., Appellants, v Enten Corporation, Respondent.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Brown, J.), dated June 28, 1985, which denied their motion to set down the matter for an inquest and assessment of damages and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Albert LaPorta allegedly sustained injuries on or about February 23, 1983, in the course of his employment with Entenmann’s, Inc., for which he received workers’ compensation benefits. Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant Enten Corporation (hereinafter Enten). In an affirmation in support of a cross motion to dismiss, counsel for Enten maintained that on January 25, 1979, Enten was merged into Entenmann’s, Inc., and ceased to exist. Enten’s counsel annexed a copy of the certificate of merger filed with the Secretary of State reflecting this fact. The plaintiffs maintained that the subject premises was owned by Enten because the deed on file in the office of the County Clerk of Suffolk County indicated that the property was owned by Enten.

Business Corporation Law § 906 (b) (2) provides that upon the filing of a certificate of merger with the Secretary of State, "[a]ll the property, real and personal * * * shall vest in [the] surviving * * * corporation without further act or deed”. Thus, upon the filing of the certificate of merger, Enten ceased to be the owner of the subject property and cannot be held liable for injuries occurring thereupon, notwithstanding the fact that the deed containing the defendant’s name remained on file in the County Clerk’s office *(see, Fioranelli v News Bldg. Corp.,*102 Misc 2d 825). Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2018317DE.01005701.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.12.2018 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 317/57 |

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 552/2009 der Kommission vom 22. Juni 2009 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1907/2006 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Registrierung, Bewertung, Zulassung und Beschränkung chemischer Stoffe (REACH) hinsichtlich Anhang XVII

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 164 vom 26 Juni 2009](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_164_R_TOC)
)

Auf Seite 22, Anhang zur Änderung des Anhangs XVII der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1907/2006, Nummer 2 Tabelle laufende Nummer 40, Spalte 2 Absatz 3:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „3. | Abweichend davon gelten die Absätze 1 und 2 nicht für die in Artikel 8 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a der Richtlinie 75/324/EWG des Rates (\*\*) genannten Aerosolpackungen.“, |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „3. | Abweichend davon gelten die Absätze 1 und 2 nicht für die in Artikel 8 Absatz 1a der Richtlinie 75/324/EWG des Rates (\*\*) genannten Aerosolpackungen.“ |

---
#### Barbara ROMASHKO, etc., Plaintiff, v. AVCO CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

No. 82 C 7482.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

Jan. 6, 1983.

*392John W. McMurray, Stephen J. McMullen, Bradley, McMurray, Black & Snyder, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Michael J. Sehr, Haskell & Perrin, Chicago, Ill., for defendant Avco.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHADUR, District Judge.

Barbara Romashko (“Romashko”) initially filed this action against Avco Corporation (“Avco”) and a number of other defendants in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Avco removed the action to this Court, and Romashko has moved for remand to the state court on the ground “all defendants have not joined in [the] removal.” Romashko’s motion is granted, though she has mistaken the precise reason remand is appropriate.

Although the general rule is “all defendants must join in a removal petition in order to effect removal,” *Northern Illinois Gas Co. v. Airco Industrial Gases,*676 F.2d 270, 272 (7th Cir.1982), nominal, unknown or fraudulently joined defendants may be disregarded, 1A *Moore’s Federal Practice*¶ 0.168[3.-2], at 448-49 (1982). Nor need a nonserved nonresident defendant join in a removal petition. *Id.*at 452.

This Court does not however reach that level of inquiry, because Avco has failed at the threshold to satisfy a prerequisite that is a corollary to the just-stated rules. It is defendant’s burden under the removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1446(a)) to explain affirmatively the absence of codefendants in the petition for removal, and failure to set out such an explanation renders the removal petition defective. *Northern Illinois Gas,*676 F.2d at 273; *P.P. Farmers’ Elevator Co. v. Farmers Elevator Mutual Ins. Co.,*395 F.2d 546, 548 (7th Cir.1968); 1A *Moore’s Federal Practice*¶ 0.168[3.-4], at 458-59.

Avco did not explain the absence of its codefendants in its removal petition. This case must be and is remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County, for even though the action was potentially removable “the procedure used to effect removal was defective and plaintiff did not waive the defect.” *P.P. Farmers’ Elevator,*395 F.2d at 548.1

1

. It appears from an exhibit to Romashko’s motion that two of Avco’s codefendants (Vincennes University and James Wilson) are opposed to removal. In light of the current ruling, no inquiry need be made into the relationship between the time those'defendants were served with process and the time of Avco’s removal petition, or any other facts that could bear on whether Avco was indeed the only defendant required to join in the removal petition when it was filed.
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Santafecity Storage                    
csv

      Riogrande Storage                    
csv

      Reclamation Storage                    
csv

      Totalsjc Storage                    
csv

      Totalsjc Ave Sjc Release                    
csv

      Riogrande Ave Rg Release                    
csv

      Reclamation Ave Sjc Release                    
csv

      Santafecity Ave Sjc Release                    
csv

      Santafecity Accrual                    
csv

      Federalsanjuan Storage                    
csv

      Heron Storage                    
csv

      Heron Total Release                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Santafecity Storage                    
json

      Riogrande Storage                    
json

      Reclamation Storage                    
json

      Totalsjc Storage                    
json

      Totalsjc Ave Sjc Release                    
json

      Riogrande Ave Rg Release                    
json

      Reclamation Ave Sjc Release                    
json

      Santafecity Ave Sjc Release                    
json

      Santafecity Accrual                    
json

      Federalsanjuan Storage                    
json

      Heron Storage                    
json

      Heron Total Release                    
json
#### In the Matter of Dennis J. O’Grady, Appellant, v Alice Sachs et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Carl J. Mugglin, J.), entered on August 17, 1987, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Kassal, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES–OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert B. Ladd, President
and Chief Executive Officer of MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10–Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2016 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                         



|November 14, 2016 | By: | /s/ ROBERT B. LADD                          
|----------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                  |     | Robert B. Ladd                              
|                  |     | Interim Chief Financial Officer             
|                  |     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
MOUNT ELBERT FOREBAY, COLatitude: 39.061Longitude: -106.211Elevation: 9650

MOUNT ELBERT FOREBAY, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

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



Fremont Pass

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



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buckskin Joe Site Page...



Buckskin Joe
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19493]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID: 0648-XB411]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Spiny Dogfish 
Committee will hold a public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Friday, October 1, 2021; from 9:30 
a.m. to 1 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar. Webinar connection 
information will be available at: https://www.mafmc.org/council-events.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or 
on their website at www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is for the Spiny 
Dogfish Committee to provide recommendations regarding future 
specifications, including potential federal trip limit modifications.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should 
be directed to Shelley Spedden at (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior 
to any meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 3, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19493 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
# C_2021016EN.01000301.xml

| 15.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/3

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.40335 – Romanian gas interconnectors

(2021/C 16/03)

(1)

The draft decision under Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) is addressed to Societatea Naţională de Transport Gaze Naturale Transgaz S.A. (‘Transgaz’). It concerns allegations of anti-competitive behaviour under Article 102 TFEU consisting in the hindering by Transgaz of natural gas exports from Romania to other Member States.

(2)

On 30 May 2017, the Commission initiated proceedings with a view to adopting a decision under Chapter III of Regulation 1/2003.

(3)

On 10 September 2018, the Commission adopted and notified to Transgaz pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation 1/2003 a preliminary assessment which set out competition concerns under Article 102 TFEU (‘Preliminary Assessment’).

(4)

On 14 September 2018, Transgaz submitted proposed commitments (‘Initial Commitments’) to the Commission in response to the Preliminary Assessment.

(5)

On 25 September 2018, a notice was published in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) of Regulation 1/2003 (‘Market Test Notice’), summarising the case and the Initial Commitments and inviting interested third parties to give their observations on the Initial Commitments within one month.

(6)

Eleven respondents provided the Commission with their observations on the Initial Commitments, of which Transgaz was informed on 7 November 2018.

(7)

On 31 January 2020, Transgaz submitted an amended proposal for commitments (“Final Commitments”).

(8)

The draft decision makes the Final Commitments binding upon Transgaz until 31 December 2026 and concludes that there are no longer grounds for action in this case.

(9)

I have not received any request or complaint with respect to this case.

(10)

In the light of all the above, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected.

Brussels, 19 February 2020.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1) (‘Regulation 1/2003’).

2

---