alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[865 NE2d 1239, 834 NYS2d 73]

#### In the Matter of Anthony Rutkunas, Respondent-Appellant, v Joseph Stout et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Decided March 27, 2007

*898APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Charlene M. Indelicato, County Attorney,*White Plains *(Linda M. Trentacoste*of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

*James M. Rose,*White Plains, for respondent-appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to appellants-respondents, by dismissing the petition in its entirety and, as so modified, affirmed.

Petitioner’s conduct jeopardized the health and safety of his coworkers and of the public patrons of the facility at which he worked. Accordingly, “ ‘we cannot conclude that the penalty of dismissal imposed . . . shocks the judicial conscience’ ” as a matter of law *(Matter of Will v Frontier Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ.,*97 NY2d 690, 691 [2002], quoting *Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 39-40 [2001]; *see also Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale &*
      *899
      *Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]). The Appellate Division has no discretionary authority or interest of justice jurisdiction in this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the penalty imposed by respondent Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation, and Conservation (see *Matter of Kelly,*96 NY2d at 38). Moreover, petitioner failed to show that the Hearing Officer’s recommendation was the result of any bias (see *Matter of Warder v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y.,*53 NY2d 186, 197 [1981]).

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), judgment modified, etc.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Sabo, Respondent, v James Racette, as Superintendent of Adirondack Correctional Facility, Appellant.

— Main, J.

An inmate at Adirondack Correctional Facility, petitioner was charged with violating two of the facility’s disciplinary rules, namely, lying *(see,*7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [8] [iii]) and possession of excessive tobacco *(see,*7 NYCRR 270.1 [b] [14] [xi]). The misbehavior report charges that petitioner, a legal assistant in the facility’s law library, requested a correction officer to call another inmate to the library, ostensibly with regard to legal matters. When the inmate arrived, petitioner allegedly passed three cartons of cigarettes to the inmate. At the disciplinary hearing, petitioner denied having requested the correction officer to call the inmate and requested that a telephone log be introduced into evidence. The request was denied. Petitioner was found guilty of the charges and subsequently challenged this finding in the instant proceeding. Special Term found that the Hearing Officer’s refusal to consider the telephone log was improper, ordered expungement from petitioner’s record of references to the hearing, and *921directed that petitioner be restored to his legal assistant position, to his former housing unit and to monetary benefits which would have accrued to him.

On this appeal, respondent does not challenge Special Term’s finding that the exclusion of the telephone log was improper. However, he does contend that a new hearing, not expungement, was the proper remedy. We agree. Expungement is an appropriate remedy where a new hearing cannot be conducted in accordance with due process *(cf. Matter of Shipman v Coughlin,*98 AD2d 823, 824). Here, however, the error can be corrected in a new hearing, and such a hearing can be conducted in accordance with due process. New hearings have been deemed appropriate in similar cases, such as those in which a Hearing Officer improperly denied a prisoner’s request for a witness *(see, e.g., Matter of Coleman v Coombe,*65 NY2d 777; *Matter of Mason v LeFevre,*115 AD2d 922). Accordingly, a new hearing should be held in this matter.

Special Term also ordered petitioner’s reinstatement to his previous job and housing assignments, and payment of monetary benefits which would have accrued to him. This was error. Petitioner has not established a statutory, constitutional or precedential right to his prison job or to specific housing *(see, Matter of Cooper v Smith,*63 NY2d 615, 616; *Matter of Johnson v Smith,*112 AD2d 50, 51, *affd*66 NY2d 697). Further, monetary benefits such as those sought here are not recoverable in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, but must be sought through an action in the Court of Claims *(see, id.).*

Judgment modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as ordered expungement of petitioner’s record, restoration to former job and housing and restoration of monetary benefits; matter remitted to the Department of Correctional Services for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith; and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
<CAPTION>
                                                              Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                                                September 30,                  September 30,
                                                             --------------------         ---------------------
                                                             1997            1996          1997           1996
                                                            ------         ------         ------         ------
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>   
Primary:
    Weighted average number of common shares
      outstanding .......................................   20,900         19,836         20,441         19,368

    Common equivalent shares of restricted stock
      subject to repurchase .............................      184            338            232            421

    Common equivalent shares assuming conversion
       of stock options .................................    1,185          1,546          1,295          1,566
                                                           -------        -------        -------        -------
    Shares used in computing per share amounts ..........   22,269         21,720         21,968         21,355
                                                           =======        =======        =======        =======
    Net income ..........................................  $   293        $ 3,169        $ 3,264        $ 5,299
                                                           =======        =======        =======        =======
    Net income per share (1) ............................  $  0.01        $  0.15        $  0.15        $  0.25
                                                           =======        =======        =======        =======
<FN>
(1)  There is no difference between primary and fully diluted net income per share.
</FN>
</TABLE>

                                       19
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    .Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Early Clinical Trials Targeting Aging Mechanisms.
    Date: October 27, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Birgit Neuhuber, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 
National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway 
Building, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-480-1266 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#442a21312c31262136042a2d2a20376a2a2d2c6a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d03081805180f081f2d030403091e43030405430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Program Project.
    Date: October 29, 2021.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Dario Dieguez, Jr, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 
National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301.827.3101, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#660207140f0948020f030113031c26080f0e48010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="066267746f6928626f636173637c46686f6e28616970">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 14, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-20184 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
----

|   | 1. | The      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |    /s/  Raymond      R. Brandstrom |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Raymond      R. Brandstrom                                  |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer                                |
|   | May      09, 2008                                           |

----
#### In re MUNGER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 30, 1896.)

In the matter of the application of George W. Munger and another "to lay out a highway in the towns of Wappinger and Fish-kill, and to assess the damages therefor.

No opinion. Order resettled and signed. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 882.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Sinclair, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Reilly, J.), rendered March 12,1981, convicting him of three counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and the issues raised in the defendant’s *pro se*supplemental brief, and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

October 26, 2012

p1023

Order 

October 26, 2012

145668

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145668

COA: 303727 

Jackson CC: 10-005752-FC 

AMANDA SUE BALL,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,066,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  348,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,777
<INVENTORY>                                    835,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,269,325
<PP&E>                                         380,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                 205,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,482,580
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          481,179
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,410,005
<OTHER-SE>                                   (157,500)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,482,580
<SALES>                                        380,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               380,113
<CGS>                                          289,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,761,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,593,612)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,593,612)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,593,612)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.46)


</TABLE>
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2266 

To extend the low-interest refinancing provisions under the Local Development 

Business Loan Program of the Small Business Administration, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2015 

Ms. JUDY CHU of California (for herself, Ms. HAHN, Ms. MENG, Mr. PAYNE, 

Ms. CLARKE of New York, Ms. ADAMS, Mr. TAKAI, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Mr. 

MOULTON, Mr. BERA, and Ms. TSONGAS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To extend the low-interest refinancing provisions under the 

Local Development Business Loan Program of the Small 

Business Administration, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commercial Real Es5 tate and Economic Development Act of 2015’’ or the 

6 ‘‘CREED Act of 2015’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2266 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF LOW-INTEREST REFINANCING 

2 UNDER THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS 

3 LOAN PROGRAM. 

4 (a) REPEAL AND RESTORATION.—Subsection (b) of 

5 section 1122 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (15 

6 U.S.C. 696 note) is repealed, and the provision of law 

7 struck by such subsection, and any regulations promul8 gated pursuant to such sections, as were in effect on Sep9 tember 26, 2012, are restored and revived. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Effective 5 years after the 

11 date of enactment of this Act, section 502(7) of the Small 

12 Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696(7)) is 

13 amended by striking subparagraph (C). 

14 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

15 The amendments made by section 2 may not be con16 strued as an authorization of appropriations for the pur17 pose of carrying out such amendments or the loan pro18 gram established under section 502 of the Small Business 

19 Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 696). 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021048EN.01000301.xml

| 11.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9234 — Harris Corporation/L3 Technologies)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 48/03)

On 21 June 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9234. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9234. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
I]NITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Address of Administrative Law Judge Docketing Centeri

ALJ Docketing Center

U.S. Custom House

40 South Gay Street, Room 414

Baltimore, MD 2 I 2024022

Email: alidocketcente(iz usce.mil

Phone: (410) 962-5100

Toll Free: (866) 61?-7524 [6IA-SKCG]

F ax: (410) 962-17 46

Toll Free Fax: (877') 243-3453 ICGE-FILEI

COMPLAINANT:

I]NITED STATES COAST GUARI)

RESPONDENT: Samuel Robert Pecota DOCKET NUMBER 202.]-0 I67

WITHDRAWAL FROMDOCKET CG ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY NUMBER

7 622654

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on May l, 2023,

seeking an Outright Suspension ofRespondent's Merchant Mariner Credential.

On May 31, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal from docket as

The Coast Guard now withdraws the Complaint due to mitigating evidence that has since been

reviewed. The Coast Guard will be assessing a possible Letter of Warning in lieu of Suspension

and Revocation Proceedings.

The Coast Guard reserves the right to file a new Complaint in this matter. This matter is

removed from the docket and closed without prejudice effective this date.

Done and Dated June 8, 2023, at

Baltimore, MD

Lauren M. Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law

Judge
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00097-CV

Associated Press, Appellant

v.

David Paulin, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN301148, HONORABLE PAUL DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The Associated Press has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its appeal, asserting

that it no longer wishes to pursue this appeal because the parties have settled their differences.

We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

 

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: May 6, 2004
2
# C_2021244EN.01001901.xml

| 22.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/19

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma apply

(2021/C 244/08)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

The legal basis for this processing operation are Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP (2), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1000 (3) , and Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 (4), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/998 (5).

The controller of this processing operation is the Department RELEX.1.C in the Directorate-General for External Relations – RELEX of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC), that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Decision 2013/184/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2021/1000 , and Regulation (EU) No 401/2013, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/998.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 401/2013.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the exercise of the rights of the data subjects such as the right of access, as well as the rights to rectification or to object will be answered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75.

(3)  OJ L 219 I, 21.6.2021, p. 57.

(4)  OJ L 121, 3.5.2013, p. 1.

(5)  OJ L 219 I, 21.6.2021, p. 45.

---