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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), rendered September 7, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the prosecution’s motion to consolidate for a single trial two indictments charging three unrelated crimes *(see,*CPL 200.20 [2], [4], [5]). We find, however, that the trial court properly weighed the public interest in avoiding duplicative, lengthy and expensive trials against the defendant’s interest in being protected from an unfair advantage in favor of the People *(see, People v Lane,*56 NY2d 1, 8). The record indicates an overwhelming amount of evidence against the defendant on all three counts, including simultaneous confessions to all three crimes *(see, People v Hallingquest,*79 AD2d 1010; *see also, People v Mack,*111 AD2d 186, *lv denied*66 NY2d 616; *People v Stewart,*105 AD2d 858). Further, each crime was separately presented and proved, the defendant had ample opportunity to defend each count, and the task of considering and deciding three separate counts was not overly burdensome or confusing to the jury *(cf., People v Shapiro,*50 NY2d 747).

In addition, the defendant, who had five prior felony convictions, was properly adjudicated a persistent felony offender *(see,*Penal Law § 70.10). We find no merit to the contention that the sentence imposed was excessive. Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
# C_2021418EN.01000301.xml

| 15.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10375 – ARCELORMITTAL/CONDESA TUBOS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 418/03)

On 11 October 2021, 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) 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10375. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10375. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alphonso Rodgers, Appellant.

Memorandum: The evidence in the record is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict convicting defendant of rape and sodomy. The standard of reasonable resistance is applicable, not that of utmost resistance *(see,*L 1977, ch 692). Moreover, the error in the sentencing minutes is of no consequence since the minimum sentence is fixed by law at one third of the maximum (Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [a]; [4]). We find no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed by the court. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Wolfgang, J. — rape, first degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52543-52544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20353]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2021-4)]


Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.

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

[[Page 52544]]

SUMMARY: The Board approves the fourth quarter 2021 Rail Cost 
Adjustment Factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of 
American Railroads. The fourth quarter 2021 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.139. 
The fourth quarter 2021 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.473. The fourth quarter 
2021 RCAF-5 is 0.446.

DATES: Applicability Date: October 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. 
Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal 
Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Board's decision, which is available at www.stb.gov.

    Decided: September 15, 2021.

    By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Fuchs, Oberman, Primus, and 
Schultz.
Aretha Laws-Byrum,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2021-20353 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
*Order Entered September 22, 2006:*

#### *In re*Trudel,

No. 121995.

The motions for appointment of a receiver and for relief from orders are considered, and they are denied, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief. Petitioner Judicial Tenure Commission seeks the appointment of a receiver in its ongoing collection efforts against respondent former judge. *1203Petitioner requests a receivership over respondent’s real property but has not shown that all less intrusive means, such as a creditor’s examination, were ineffective. *Reed v Reed,*265 Mich App 131, 162 (2005). Indeed, petitioner has not exhausted other remedies to pursue payment by respondent. See *Petitpren v Taylor School Dist,*104 Mich App 283, 295 (1981). Our cases note that the appointment of a receiver is a “harsh proceeding, which should only be resorted to in extreme cases.” *People v Israelite House of David,*246 Mich 606, 618 (1929); *Michigan Minerals, Inc v Williams,*306 Mich 515, 525 (1943). The appointment of a receiver at this juncture would be premature.

Weaver, J.

(concurring). I concur in the order denying the motion for appointment of a receiver and for relief from orders. I write separately to note that my basis for denial of petitioner’s motion is that there is no constitutional authority to assess costs against a judge. Subsection 2 of Const 1963, art 6, § 30 provides that “the supreme court may censure, suspend with or without salary, retire or remove a judge . ...” As I stated in my concurrence in *In re Noecker,*472 Mich 1, 18-19 (2005), “Nothing in this constitutional provision gives this Court any authority to discipline the judge by assessing the judge the costs of the Judicial Tenure Commission proceedings against him or her.”
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL BRADY OWENS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 239 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSEPH JAMES RANKIN, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D21-2825

LT Case No. 2015-CF-002943

STATE OF FLORIDA,

 Appellee.

________________________________/ 

Decision filed April 12, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Osceola County, 

Keith A. Carsten, Judge. 

Joseph J. Rankin, Moore Haven, pro se. 

No Appearance for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

LAMBERT, C.J., HARRIS and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
7

documentation deemed relevant and necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and 

properly process the claim.28

 Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the 

incident; 

(b) That the removal costs were incurred as a result of these actions;

(c) That the actions taken were directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan.29

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.30

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that the majority of all costs 

incurred and submitted by Oregon DEQ. herein are compensable removal costs based on the 

supporting documentation provided. All costs approved for payment were verified as being 

invoiced at the appropriate Oregon DEQ’s published rates and all approved costs were supported 

by adequate documentation and were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP).31

After a complete review of all documentation and after contacting the FOSC who handed the 

jurisdictional lead to the SOSC for the handling of all response actions, the NPFC was able to 

obtain confirmation that the actions undertaken by the claimant and its subcontractors were 

determined to be consistent with the NCP.32 Upon adjudication of the costs, the NPFC has 

determined that the amount of compensable removal costs is $69,814.32 while $0.25 is deemed 

non-compensable for the following reasons: 33 

 

1. Oregon DEQ Project # S45700 Invoice contained a discrepancy of $0.25. NPFC denies 

this as an unidentified difference. 

Overall Denied Costs = $0.25 

V. CONCLUSION:

 

28 33 CFR 136.105. 29 Email from USEPA FOSC to NPFC Re Additional Information dated July 26, 2022 acknowledging the actions 

taken by Oregon DEQ were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the incident and all response 

actions performed were consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 30 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 31Oregon DEQ claim submission dated June 29, 2022 and additional information requested by NPFC on multiple 

dates and an email from USEPA FOSC to NPFC Re Additional Information dated July 26, 2022 acknowledging the 

actions taken by the Oregon DEQ as SOSC, contractors and subcontracors, were necessary to prevent, minimize, or 

mitigate the effects of the incident and were consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

32 July 26, 2022 email between the FOSC and NPFC confirming that all actions have been determined to be 

consistent with the NCP.

33 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of these costs.
# C_2021509EN.01000101.xml

| 17.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 509/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 509/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10528 – ADVENT / EURAZEO / PROTEL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 509/01)

On 9 December 2021, 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) 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10528. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10528. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### FOLEY v. FOLEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July, 1894.)

Action by Helen M. Foley against John R. Foley.

No opinion. Motion denied; but appellant must be ready at September session.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Fitzpatrick, Overton and Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

THOMAS J. CARROLL, JR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1089-96-4 JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF 

 JUNE 24, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY 

Thomas D. Horne, Judge 

 Jeffrey B. Rice for appellant. 

 Marla Graff Decker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his 

motion to suppress. He alleges that he was unlawfully stopped at 

a Virginia State Police traffic checking detail which lacked 

constitutionally adequate safeguards. Thus, he alleges, evidence 

of his intoxication was unlawfully obtained and should have been 

suppressed. 

 Appellant bears the burden of submitting a record sufficient 

for this Court's consideration of the issues presented. See

Smith v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 

(1993). While appellant included a transcript of the suppression 

hearing in the record on appeal, he failed to include a 

transcript of the trial or a written statement of facts 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

reflecting what occurred at trial. 

 This Court, in reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion 

to suppress, views the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the prevailing party, and reviews the "evidence adduced at both 

the trial and the suppression hearing." Greene v. Commonwealth, 

17 Va. App. 606, 608, 440 S.E.2d 138, 139 (1994). See Spivey v. 

Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 715, 721, 479 S.E.2d 543, 546 (1997). 

 This Court retains jurisdiction over a case in which 

portions of the record are not properly filed and may decide an 

issue where the missing portions are not indispensable. See

Williams v. Commonwealth, 7 Va. App. 516, 519, 375 S.E.2d 364, 

366 (1988) (en banc); Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99, 

341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). We hold that in this case, however, 

a transcript or written statement of facts of the trial is 

indispensable to a proper review of the trial court's denial of 

the suppression motion. Accordingly, this case is dismissed. 

 Dismissed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

vs.

SAMUEL JOSEPH LEMUEL THOMAS,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket Number: 2023-0282

Enforcement Activity ID: 7746897

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: September 21, 2023

By Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge: Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Appearances:

For the Coast Guard

CWO Anthony T. Galfo

USCG Sector Maryland-National Capital Region

For the Respondent

Samuel Joseph Lemuel Thomas, Pro Se
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On August 31, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a 

Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to the Administrative Law Judge for approval 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair, 

reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement 

is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall 

constitute full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

______________________________________

Hon. Walter J. Brudzinski

Chief Administrative Law Judge

United States Coast Guard

Date: September 21, 2023
#### James H. Isbell v. The State.

The 609th Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: “If the jury shall find any person guilty of murder, they shall also find by their verdict whether it is of the first or second degree; and if any person shall plead guilty to an indictment for murder, a jury shall be summoned to find of what degree of murder he is guilty, and, in either case, if they shall find the offense of murder to be of the second degree, they shall also find the punishment.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2268.) Where the indictment was in the general form, charging the offense of murder, and the verdict was, “We the jury find the defendant guilty,” it was not a response to this article, and should have been set aside.

Appeal from Lamar. The case was tried before Hon. Winston Banks, one of the district judges.

The defendant was indicted for murder in the usual form. The jury found the defendant guilty. As the case turned upon the sufficiency of the verdict, no further statement of the facts is necessary.

Ho briefs have been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Lindsay, J.

—The error committed in the trial of this ease in the district court is of such a nature that we are constrained to reverse it.

The indictment is for murder generally, without appropriate allegations fixing the degree of murder. It neither avers *139that it was committed by poison, starving, torture, or with express malice; nor does it allege that it was committed in the perpetration, or in the attempt at the perpetration, of arson, rape, robbery, or burglary. The verdict simply responds, “We the jury find the defendant guilty,” without determining whether guilty of murder of the first or second degree. Notwithstanding the charge in the indictment is the general charge of murder, with malice aforethought, yet the jury might, under such general averment, have properly found the accused guilty of murder in the first or second degree, according to what, in their judgment, the facts might seem to warrant. But the verdict as rendered may he a true response to the allegations in the indictment, and yet it does not settle what offense was actually committed by the accused, whether murder in the first or second degree, and the court could not with any certainty or propriety pronounce judgment upon such a finding. Article 2268, Paschal’s Digest, prescribes that the jury shall find by their verdict whether the murder is of the first or second degree. Their failure to do so may, perhaps, he ascribed to the remissness or oversight of the court in neglecting to so charge them.

The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, and a new trial awarded.

¡Reversed and remanded.
# C_2021074EN.01000501.xml

| 3.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/5

---

Update of the list of national services responsible for border controls as referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1)

(2021/C 74/04)

The publication of the list of national services responsible for border controls as referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (2) is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in conformity with Article 39 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a regular update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs.

FRANCE

Replacement of the information published in OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 17.

The national service responsible for border controls: Direction centrale de la police aux frontières, Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects, Gendarmerie de l’air;

List of previous publications

| | OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 17. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 17.

| | OJ C 77, 5.4.2007, p. 11. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 77, 5.4.2007, p. 11.

| | OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 1. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 1.

| | OJ C 164, 18.7.2007, p. 45. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 164, 18.7.2007, p. 45.

| | OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 21. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 21.

| | OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 15. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 331, 31.12.2008, p. 15.

| | OJ C 87, 1.4.2010, p. 15. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 87, 1.4.2010, p. 15.

| | OJ C 180, 21.6.2012, p. 2. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 180, 21.6.2012, p. 2.

| | OJ C 98, 5.4.2013, p. 2. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 98, 5.4.2013, p. 2.

| | OJ C 256, 5.9.2013, p. 14. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 256, 5.9.2013, p. 14.

| | OJ C 360, 10.12.2013, p. 17. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 360, 10.12.2013, p. 17.

| | OJ C 218, 7.7.2017, p. 19. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 218, 7.7.2017, p. 19.

| | OJ C 431, 15.12.2017, p. 8. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 431, 15.12.2017, p. 8.

| | OJ C 345, 27.9.2018, p. 4. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 345, 27.9.2018, p. 4.

| | OJ C 375, 17.10.2018, p. 5. |
| --- | --- |

OJ C 375, 17.10.2018, p. 5.

---

(1)  See the list of previous publications at the end of this update.

(2)  OJ L 77, 23.3.2016, p. 1.

---
#### Nancy M. Fried, Appellant, v George E. Treyz, Inc., Respondent.

Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,532,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  860,282
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,418,312
<PP&E>                                         237,176
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,722,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,038,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,950
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,654,589
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,722,378
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,009,544
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,100,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,780
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,909
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,109
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,109
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>