alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Marjorie Baker, Petitioner, v Cesar Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department *1005of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Memorandum: Petitioner and her minor child are recipients of public assistance. The local agency determined that it should reduce petitioner’s grant based upon petitioner’s failure to cooperate with the agency in seeking to establish the paternity of her child *(see,*Social Services Law § 349-b [1] [b]; 18 NYCRR 369.2 [b] [1] [iii]). The determination was based upon petitioner’s insistence that a certain man was the father of her child despite the fact that Family Court had dismissed a paternity petition relying on results of a blood test which positively excluded this man as the putative father. The determination was affirmed by respondent Perales in a decision after a fair hearing. On this record, we conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Jernigan v Perales,*109 AD2d 838; *Matter of Elliot v Bernstein,*67 AD2d 728). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Stone, J.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
# C_2021256EN.01000401.xml

| 30.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10335 — PAI/Gapave/Apave)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 256/04)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | PAI Partners SAS (‘PAI’, France); |
| --- | --- |

—

PAI Partners SAS (‘PAI’, France);

| — | Association Gapave (‘Gapave’, France); |
| --- | --- |

—

Association Gapave (‘Gapave’, France);

| — | Apave SA and Elansym SAS (‘Apave Group’, France), controlled by Gapave. |
| --- | --- |

—

Apave SA and Elansym SAS (‘Apave Group’, France), controlled by Gapave.

PAI and Gapave acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the Apave Group.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for PAI: a private equity firm, mainly active in Europe, whose main investment sectors are consumer goods, industrial goods, distribution, health and business services; |
| --- | --- |

—

for PAI: a private equity firm, mainly active in Europe, whose main investment sectors are consumer goods, industrial goods, distribution, health and business services;

| — | for Gapave: an association governed by the French Law of 1 July 1901 with sole control of the Apave Group; |
| --- | --- |

—

for Gapave: an association governed by the French Law of 1 July 1901 with sole control of the Apave Group;

| — | for the Apave Group; companies mainly active in France in the field of control of technical, human and environmental risks and in training related in particular to risk control. |
| --- | --- |

—

for the Apave Group; companies mainly active in France in the field of control of technical, human and environmental risks and in training related in particular to risk control.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission no later than ten days following the date on which this notification is published. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10335 — PAI/Gapave/Apave

Observations can be sent to the Commission by e-mail, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
#### DYE v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.

(Superior Court of Buffalo, General Term.

May 3, 1894.)

Appeal—Reversal.

A reversal on the sole ground that error was committed in the admission of evidence, and not on the merits, is equivalent to- á holding by the appellate court that the evidence was sufficient to authorize a recovery.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by John Dye against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company for personal injuries. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before TITUS, C. J., and HATCH and WHITE, JJ.

Rogers, Locke & Milburn, for appellant.

Smith & Weaver, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This action is for negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff was injured while coupling cars on the defendant’s road. The cause has once been before the court of appeals on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered on the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff (130 N. Y. 671, 29 N. E. 320), and was there reversed upon the sole ground that error was committed in the admission of evidence on the trial, and not upon the merits. As the case now stands, it is precisely as it was before the court of appeals, except the error complained of there is not in the case. As to the exceptions taken on the trial to the admission of evidence and to the charge, no point is made by the defendant’s counsel in his brief that any error was committed, nor is it suggested that the judgment should be reversed on that account, but it is insisted that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover upon the evidence. We think *690the court of appeals, in not reversing the case on the merits, must be understood as holding the evidence sufficient to authorize a recovery, and, as the main facts in the case are the same here as when it was before the court of appeals, the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 **

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|   | 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/                Daniel R. Baty      |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Daniel                R. Baty          |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer |
|   | November                7, 2006        |
Listen

# 2021 FOIA Annual Report

February 15, 2022

Report

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
# L_2009338EN.01007901.xml

| 19.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 338/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 338/79

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1263/2009

of 18 December 2009

on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2009 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 for poultrymeat

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for poultrymeat (3), and in particular Article 5(6) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2009 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2010 relate, for some quotas, to quantities exceeding those available. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2010 under Regulation (EC) No 1385/2007 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 December 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2009.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.

3

---

ANNEX

| Group No | Order No | Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.1.2010-31.3.2010
  (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 09.4410 | 0,485672 |
| 3 | 09.4412 | 0,51282 |
| 4 | 09.4420 | 0,676196 |
| 5 | 09.4421 | 7,194244 |
| 6 | 09.4422 | 0,701754 |

Group No

Order No

Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.1.2010-31.3.2010

(%)

1

09.4410

0,485672

3

09.4412

0,51282

4

09.4420

0,676196

5

09.4421

7,194244

6

09.4422

0,701754

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Page 7 of 18

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(a)


                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


Bank One, National Association              Banker's Trust Company
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126              Four Albany Street
Chicago, IL  60670                          New York, New York 10006
ATTN: Corporate Trust Administration        ATTN: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
Phone:  (312) 407-0192                            Structured Finance
Fax:    (312) 407-1708                      Phone:(212) 250-6501
                                            Fax:  (212) 250-6349

Key Bank USA, National Association          MBIA Insurance Corporation
800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor                 113 King Street
Cleveland, OH   44114                       Armonk, NY 10504
ATTN:  Senior Vice President                ATTN: Data Administration
       Key Education Resources              Phone:  (914) 765-3772
Phone: (216) 828-9342                       Fax:    (914) 765-3810
Fax:   (216) 828-9301

Pursuant to Section 4.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement among Key Bank USA,
National Association, as Seller, Master Servicer and Administrator, KeyCorp
Student Loan Trust 2000-A, and Bank One, National Association, as Eligible
Lender Trustee, dated as of June 1, 2000 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned
hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the Master Servicer from
inception of the Trust through December 31, 2000, and of its performance under
the Agreement has been made, and (ii) to the best of our knowledge, based on our
review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the
Agreement throughout such period.


                                           Key Bank USA, National Association,
                                             as Master Servicer


Date: March 29, 2001                       By:  /s/ Randall M Behm
                                              ---------------------------------
                                           Name:  Randall M Behm
                                           Title: Senior Vice President

                                           By:  /s/ Darlene H. Dimitrijevs
                                             ---------------------------------
                                           Name:  Darlene H. Dimitrijevs, CPA
                                            Title: Senior Vice President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

S.B.,

Respondent

v.

S.S.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 8 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2017, the Application for the Exercise of 

King’s Bench Power or Extraordinary Jurisdiction is DENIED.
First, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for

discouraging him from accepting the State's guilty plea offer. Appellant has failed to demonstrate deficiency. The reasonableness of counsel's actions are evaluated as of the time of the action, not through "the distorting effects of hindsight." 

### Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Counsel testified that he had based his recommendation to reject the plea offer on the evidence and appellant's own words, and that it was only after hearing appellant's testimony at trial, the full contents of which he "didn't see . . . coming," that he realized he should have counseled him to accept the plea offer. Further, appellant's case is distinguishable from 

### La/ler v. Cooper, in which the parties stipulated that counsel was deficient where counsel's advice was based upon a misunderstanding of the legal requirements to obtain a conviction. 566 U.S. „ 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012). Here, the parties did not stipulate that counsel was deficient, and there is no allegation that counsel misunderstood the applicable law. Accordingly, appellant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's advice, at the time it was given, was objectively unreasonable. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this
claim. Second, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his mental health through a psychological or psychiatric evaluation. Appellant has failed to demonstrate prejudice. Appellant failed to produce an expert witness or report at his evidentiary hearing to indicate what the results of an evaluation would have been. Accordingly, appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had counsel obtained a psychological or psychiatric

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

(0) 1947A eo

### evaluation. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in

denying this claim.

For the foregoing reasons, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Lizzie R. Hatcher Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 3

(0) I94Th
# C_2021254EN.01000501.xml

| 29.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/5

---

Special Report No 13/2021

EU efforts to fight money laundering in the banking sector are fragmented and implementation is insufficient

(2021/C 254/05)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 13/2021 ‘EU efforts to fight money laundering in the banking sector are fragmented and implementation is insufficient’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
#### SWIFT, Respondent, v. SWIFT, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

October 2, 1896.)

Action by Charles H. Swift against William S. Swift.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 384.
[868 NE2d 226, 836 NYS2d 544]

#### In the Matter of Rodney Elliott, Appellant, v Sheryl Butler, as Deputy Superintendent of Programs, Eastern Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Decided May 8, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Rodney Elliott,*appellant pro se.

*Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General,*Albany *(Kate H. Nepveu, Barbara D. Underwood*and *Daniel Smirlock*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order re*973versed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Albany County, for a traverse hearing. The parties’ submissions on the motion to dismiss raise issues of fact requiring a traverse hearing.

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Vivian
H. Liu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual
Report of NexMed, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of NexMed, Inc.




Date:
      March 12, 2009.
            By:
            /s/ Vivian H. LiuName:
      Vivian H. Liu
              Title:
      Chief Executive Officer
**Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted Pursuant to the No Fear Act:**

**Military (and below), Region 1 (Military) (and below), Region 2 (Military) (and below), Region 3 (Military) (and below), Region 4**

For 1st Quarter 2024 for period ending December 31, 2023

***Starting in FY2022, issues marked with:***

**** are reported under Other Terms / Conditions of Employment.***

***** are reported under Other Disciplinary Actions***

2/15/24, 9:04 AM	No Fear Report – DHS Prod EEO Case Management 3.4.0

2

https://etkeeo.tsa.dhs.gov/entellitrak/page.request.do?page=com.micropact.product.component.sitemenu.page.webcomponentloader&navitemid=63

**Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted Pursuant to the No Fear Act:**

# Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020 Addendum Military (and below)

**For 1st Quarter 2024 for period ending December 31, 2023**

# Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020 Addendum

**Civilian (and below)**

**For 1st Quarter 2024 for period ending December 31, 2023**

2

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.png

# image4.png

# image5.png

# image6.png

# image7.png
### SCPW-19-0000030
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

_________________________________________________________________ CRAIGE K. MAKEKAU, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE COLETTE Y. GARIBALDI, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai # i (ret.), Respondent Judge,
and
STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. NO. 16-1-0031; CR. NO. 04-1-1801)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ( B y : N a k a y a m a , A c t i n g C
. J
. , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J
. , a n d C i r c u i t J u d g e C a s t a g n e t t i , i n p l a c e o f R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J
. , r e c u s e d )



### Upon consideration of petitioner Craige K. Makekau’s letter dated January 2, 2019, which was filed as a petition for writ of mandamus on January 8, 2019, the State of Hawai # i’s answer to the petition for writ of mandamus, filed on February 22, 2019, the Honorable Shirley M. Kawamura’s answer to the petition for writ of mandamus, filed on March 4, 2019, the respective supporting documents, and the record, it appears that on March 4, 2019, in S.P.P. No. 16-1-0031, the circuit court entered an “Order Regarding Petition to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment or to Release Petitioner for [ sic ] Custody Filed Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-19-0000030 07-MAR-2019 02:15 PM

### December 7, 2016.” The relief requested by petitioner in this

original proceeding is moot. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, March 7, 2019. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Jeannette H. Castagnetti

2
#### James Voulo et al., Respondents, v Allcity Insurance Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action to recover damages for breach of a fire insurance policy, the defendant Allcity Insurance Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated April 30, 1986, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $23,000.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the amount awarded to the plaintiff to the principal sum of $10,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

This action was brought on a fire insurance policy, issued by the appellant to the plaintiffs, to recover the damages sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of fire in their house. The policy provided and the appellant set forth in its answer that the company should not be "liable for loss occurring (a) while the hazard is increased by any means within the control or knowledge of the insured”. The policy also provided that the company’s liability was limited to "the actual cash value of the property at the time of loss, but not exceeding the amount which it would cost to repair or replace the property with material of like kind and quality”. The jury’s determination that the appellant failed to prove a material increase in the risk of loss within the knowledge or control of the plaintiffs was not against the weight of the evidence.

There was no proof that the hazard was increased subsequent to the issuance of the subject insurance policy or that the plaintiffs’ storage of gasoline was not an ordinary use of their property. Therefore, that part of the verdict should not be set aside *(see, Nazito v Holton,*96 AD2d 550).

However, the only proof the plaintiffs submitted of the *83postfire value of the premises was the cost of repair and replacement, and therefore the plaintiffs’ proof was insufficient as a matter of law *(Gumps v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*114 AD2d 933; *Agostino v Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co.,*89 AD2d 573, *lv denied*57 NY2d 609). Therefore, the portion of the verdict which awarded $13,000 to the plaintiffs for fire damage to the building itself must be set aside, and the plaintiffs’ recovery limited to $10,000 for damages to the contents. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.